Frank Lloyd Wright's mile high skyscraper proposal (2021)
Frank Lloyd Wright’s unrealized proposal for a mile‑high skyscraper prompts a broader look at the limits and logic of extreme vertical building, from structural feasibility and elevator technology to foundations and fire codes. Commenters contrast such fantasies with contemporary megaprojects like Saudi Arabia’s The Line and the Jeddah Tower, questioning their economic sense, security, labor ethics, and urban livability. The thread also branches into debates over skyscrapers versus mid‑rise density, car‑centric design, “towers in the park” planning failures, and how well-known architects balanced vision with basic practicality.
Wright’s “Big Pointy Objects” and Precedents
- Commenters place the Mile High tower in Wright’s “big spire” phase, linking it to other unbuilt projects and to realized elements like the Marin Civic Center spire and a similar structure in Scottsdale.
- Some argue it’s less about pointiness and more about Wright’s “tall tree” conception of high-rises, citing Price Tower as his real prototype.
Comparison to Contemporary Megaprojects
- Wright’s tower is compared to current or recent record-tall efforts like Burj Khalifa and Jeddah Tower; several note that modern projects are approaching similar scales.
- The Saudi “Line” project is widely criticized as unrealistic, security-vulnerable, and morally compromised by likely reliance on exploited labor and oil wealth.
- One commenter argues Wright’s tower has a better chance of realization than The Line, especially given regional conflict risks.
Skyscrapers, Parking, and Mobility
- The “100 helicopter parking” detail sparks a long debate on whether high-rises should provide car parking at all.
- One side insists dense towers without parking are impractical and ignore people’s desire to own cars and leave the city easily.
- The opposing side argues that true metropolises are defined by low car ownership and heavy use of transit, walking, cycling, and car rental; they see parking-heavy towers as vanity projects misaligned with urban economics.
- There’s disagreement over how common non-car lifestyles are outside a few global cities, with US vs. European and Asian examples invoked.
Density, Children, and “Towers in the Park”
- Christopher Alexander’s attack on skyscrapers is both mocked and defended; critics call his views outdated and anti-data, defenders say he captured human needs beyond efficiency.
- Multiple commenters stress there are many forms of “dense” besides skyscrapers, pointing to mid-rise, European-style urbanism and “Vancouverism.”
- “Towers in the park” are described as largely failed: too much dead green space, not enough activity, and higher perceived crime; others push back, asking for stronger evidence and pointing to East Asian and Soviet examples where similar forms exist.
- Several explain the mechanism: isolated towers create desolate “negative space” rather than vibrant parks, unlike focal parks such as Central Park framed by streets and mixed buildings.
Engineering, Drawings, and Wright’s Practicality
- One thread notes the real height limit today is elevator core efficiency, not structural materials; multi-car or cable-less systems may change this.
- Some distrust Wright’s understanding of reinforced concrete and cite leaking roofs and underbuilt structures, questioning the feasibility of him executing a mile-high design.
- Others reflect on pre-CAD hand drafting, the value of sketching for form-finding, and Wright’s distinctive lettering and typography.