为什么美国不能像亚洲和欧洲一些地方那样建造看起来很酷的高层建筑?
Why can''t the US build really cool looking high-rise buildings like Asia and some parts of Europe do?
译文简介
让我首先指出，不是“不能”，是美国“不”建造“很酷”的高层建筑。
正文翻译
Why can't the US build really cool looking high-rise buildings like Asia and some parts of Europe do?
为什么美国不能像亚洲和欧洲一些地方那样建造看起来很酷的高层建筑?
为什么美国不能像亚洲和欧洲一些地方那样建造看起来很酷的高层建筑?
评论翻译
很赞 ( 0 )
收藏
There are several factors at play here. Let me first point out, it is not "can't". It is the US "is not" building "cool" highrise buildings.
I am sure you mean like these:
Firstly,.. STYLE.
The general American taste in Architecture is pretty conservative and not very adventurous. Americans still favour kitchen cabinetry in natural wood over high gloss laminate. It is the opposite in most of the rest of the world. A luxury house in the US will have wood floors. It would be marble or granite in most of Asia and Europe. Americans love their rectilinear, glass-clad highrises. The aesthetics is achieved by the varying of materials across surfaces rather than by ambitious configurations of the building's envelope. Many Americans admire the breathtaking, sometimes crazy-looking, modern buildings overseas. But, would they want those in their city centers? Probably not.
Then there are.. THE CODES.
这里有几个因素在起作用。让我首先指出，不是“不能”，是美国“不”建造“很酷”的高层建筑。
我相信你的意思是这样的:
首先是，风格
一般美国人对建筑的品味是相当保守的，不太冒险。美国人仍然喜欢用天然木材而不是高光泽的层压板制作厨房橱柜。在世界其他大部分地区，情况恰恰相反。美国的豪华住宅会铺设木地板。在亚洲和欧洲的大部分地区是大理石或花岗岩。
美国人喜欢直线的、玻璃幕墙的高楼大厦。美学是通过不同表面材料的变化实现的，而不是通过建筑围护结构的宏伟配置。许多美国人欣赏海外那些令人惊叹的、有时看起来有些疯狂的现代建筑。但是，他们会想要那些在市中心的房子吗?可能不会。
The US has the most restrictive building codes on earth. One European Architect once told me that by the time you adhere to all the codes in a US jurisdiction, half the design is done for you. When you are doing a highrise, these regulatory hurdles are even bigger. They include guidance on the size and shape of the shadow your building will cast to how it will funnel the wind.
Capitalism.. THE ECONOMICS OF PROFIT
In Asia especially, there are many statement projects. Not so much in the US. Investors want to see the calculations that ASSURE it will clearly be profitable. One exception is the World Trade Center rebuild. A statement clearly had to be made here, for obvious reasons. In Asia, however, there has been a running battle for the tallest building in the would with the UAE, China and Malaysia as front runners. Some corporations and rulers there often set out to build the most beautiful structures they can.
So, America is pragmatic and very accepting of the simple when it comes to Architecture. You may be just one of the minority who are not satisfied with what they are seeing.
然后是法规
美国拥有世界上最严格的建筑法规。一位欧洲建筑师曾经告诉我，当你遵守美国司法管辖区的所有规范时，一半的设计已经给你预定好了。当你建造高楼大厦时，这些监管障碍就更大了。它们包括关于你的建筑将投下的阴影的大小和形状，以及建筑与建筑之间的气流问题。
资本主义……就是赚钱的经济学
特别是在亚洲，有许多用于“自我宣扬”的项目。但在美国就不是这样了。投资者希望看到的计算结果是，它显然将大幅盈利。世界贸易中心的重建是个例外。出于显而易见的原因，显然必须在这里作一番宣扬。
然而，在亚洲，争夺世界最高建筑的竞争一直在进行，阿联酋、中国和马来西亚是领先者。那里的一些企业和管理者常常开始建造他们所能建造的最美丽的建筑。
因此，在建筑方面，美国是务实的，简洁的接受度很高。你可能只是少数对他们所看到的不满意的人之一。
The codes depend on what were talking about. With modern high rises absolutely, but if a building is historical in Europe, holy cow you put the wrong type of paint on and the local councils are gonna sue you into the ground. The issue there is that every other building is historical.
法规取决于具体说的是什么。
现代化的高楼大厦，很明显，但如果一栋建筑是欧洲的历史建筑，天哪，你涂错了漆，地方议会就会把你告到地底下。
而问题是，这里的历史建筑无处不在。
原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
Concerning codes, I refer to laws guiding new construction. In different countries they vary inline with how the society views life safety standards, material durability, public wellness and to a degree " visual acceptance". Each jurisdiction sets thresholds for one's design being assessed as having passed in varying categories. So, a more restrictive code keeps you from doing more. For example, it might limit the number of turns in an egress corridor to an escape staircase. It might say that an escape corridor must not have curvature. It might even say the maximum size of a building's shadow in winter must not exceed a certain square footage to control ground level temperatures, maximising sunlight. All these limit what you can do in designing a building.
关于规范，我指的是指导新建筑的法律。在不同的国家，它们的差异与社会如何看待生命安全标准、材料耐久性、公共健康以及某种程度上的“视觉接受度”有关。
每个司法管辖区都设置了一个设计的门槛，以通过不同类别的评估。因此，更严格的规范会阻止你做更多的事情。
例如，它可能会限制出口走廊到逃生楼梯的转弯次数。它可能会说，逃生走廊必须没有曲率。它甚至可能会说，在冬天，建筑阴影的最大尺寸不能超过一定的平方英尺，以控制地面温度，最大限度地利用阳光。所有这些都限制了你在设计建筑时所能做的事情。
You did say that, didn't you. My apologies.
你已经说过这事了，我的错。
There are codes like this in the US for historic buildings as well. You just don’t hear about it as much because, well, there aren’t nearly as many historic buildings.
美国对历史建筑也有这样的规范。你只是不怎么听说它，因为，嗯，没有那么多历史建筑。
Actually many of these places are no different from the US. They will go through a phase of building super-high prestige architectural construction projects. The most famous such buildings were the Empire State Building, the pre-9/11 World Trade Center, and the Sears tower from NYC and Chicago.
Then Kuala Lumpur builds the Petronas tower and gets itself the title of the highest building in the world. It did not spur a building boom in KL where there were many great tall buildings - the Petronas was the first and last of its kind. Similarly for Taipei 101 in Taipei. There will always be buildings in the 2–300 m high range, but those taller than that will always be rare in any city.
In the era of hypercapitalism in China, which is going to end soon, a lot of fantastically tall buildings were built. But moving forward, China has basically ordered a halt to many of these such projects. (This could change in the future: China is an autocracy which does what it wants.) China limits construction of 'super high-rise buildings'
实际上，这些地方和美国没有什么不同。他们在经历一个能带来超高声望的、建筑的建设项目阶段。其中最著名的建筑是帝国大厦、9/11前的世贸中心，以及纽约和芝加哥的西尔斯大厦。
然后，吉隆坡建造了双子塔，并获得了世界上最高建筑的称号。它并没有刺激吉隆坡的建筑热潮，那里有许多高大的建筑，但双子塔是第一个也是最后一个。
台北101也是如此。2-300米高的建筑总是有的，但比这更高的建筑在任何城市都是罕见的。
在中国即将结束的超级资本主义时代，人们建造了许多非常高的建筑。但从长远来看，中国基本上已经下令停止许多此类项目。链接：《中国限制建造“超高层建筑”》
Many major Asian cities will be full of skyscrapers because they’re always short of land, but this era of mega skyscrapers will soon be over.
很多这样的地方最后都变成了纽约和芝加哥。他们会很乐意建造一些挑战“世界上最高建筑”极限的建筑，然后他们就会感到厌倦，然后继续上路。除了阿联酋可能还喜欢这种狗屁。
我还不得不提到曼哈顿的“铅笔摩天大楼”。在那里，一些非常有钱的人会在非常高的公寓楼里拥有专属公寓，它们是可以俯瞰曼哈顿的一个美丽视角，但谁知道它们未来能否得到良好的维护呢。
许多亚洲大城市将会到处都是摩天大楼，因为它们总是缺乏土地，但这个超级摩天大楼的时代很快就会结束。
WTC is a great example of a statement project. The City literally pays companies to “relocate” there because of the eerie connotations (do you really want to be reminded of 9/11 every day as you head to work?).
Hundreds of millions of dollars in tax inducements to get people to use the space doesn’t really live up to Wall Street’s cutthroat capitalist reputation…
世贸中心就是自我宣扬的绝佳例子。纽约付钱让公司“搬迁”到那里，因为那里有一种怪异的内涵(你真的想在每天上班的路上被提醒9/11吗?)
上亿美元的税收优惠敦促人们使用这个空间，是的它与华尔街残酷的资本主义名声格格不入……
Absolutely. You know, making a statement with Architecture is usually expensive. In this case, the new NYC WTC, the cost is more than financial. It is a very emotional affair, no matter which way you go. The goal is for you to "never forget", but see that we recovered well. This is a window into how Architecture can be a tool to move us.
太对了。你知道，用建筑来作一番宣扬通常是很昂贵的。在这种情况下，新的纽约世贸中心，成本不仅仅是经济上的。无论你走哪条路，这都是一件非常情绪化的事情。
我们的目标是让你“永远不会忘记”，但要看到我们恢复得很好。这是一个窗口，让我们了解建筑如何成为推动我们前进的工具。
“We’ll pay you just to make a statement of how badass we are. Damn your mental health or other consequences.” is pretty cut throat, though.
“我们付钱给你，就是为了证明我们有多牛逼。去特妈的精神健康或其他后果。“这句话很残忍。
True, very true.
太对了。
Also, many of these fancy buildings are designed and built by American design and construction firms, either partially or entirely.
此外，许多这些华丽的建筑都是由美国的设计和建筑公司设计和建造的，或部分或全部。
That’s because they are 50–100 years behind the US who when they figured out it was a simple function of money, lost interest in some stupid tallest building race. Much better to experiment with other peoples money as many of the tallest buildings are still designed by US firms. But what’s the point when after you’ve built the tallest as in the Burj Khalifa, the sewage still has to be trucked out. American are smart. Similarly the so called space race, 50 years ahead of everyone else.
那是因为他们落后美国50-100年，而当美国他们发现这是金钱的简单功能时，就对什么愚蠢的最高建筑竞赛失去了兴趣。最好是用别人的钱来试验，因为许多最高的建筑仍然是由美国公司设计的。
但当你建造了最高的哈利法塔之后，污水还需要用卡车运走，这又有什么意义呢?美国人很聪明。同样的，所谓的太空竞赛，领先别人50年。
So, murica is a “space race” now! Look at all those uneducated trumpists who use bleach to prevent virus infection. so much for stable geniuses!
By the way, US space programme was stolen from nazis and every innovation made in the US was made by immigrants from all over the world on H-1B visas. What do you say about that?
所以，美国现在是一个“太空竞赛”!
看看那些没有受过教育的特朗普支持者，用漂白剂来防止病毒感染。稳定的天才就是这样!
顺便说一下，美国的太空计划是从纳粹那里偷来的，美国的每一项创新都是由持H-1B签证的世界各地移民创造的。你怎么看?
Is there any particular reason that codes are so restrictive in the US? My ex-girlfriend had a masters in urban planning and I remember she went on about how our building codes really stifle livable, sustainable cities. She was super opposed to them, at least being as restrictive as they are
美国的法规如此严格，有什么特别的原因吗?我前女友有城市规划硕士学位，我记得她一直跟我说我们的建筑规范是如何扼杀宜居、可持续发展的城市的。
她非常反对这些法规，这种态度至少和它们一样严格/强烈。
Every country chooses an approach to regulation. Usually, this is seen across many spheres of life in the society. The US chose to err on the side of caution. And, believe me, err it does, continually. Everyday, we hear of a new product or therapy that is approved in Europe but not yet in the US. People travel to Europe or even Canada to get life-saving medications long before they get US approval. Ceiling recessed lights in America have to have metal cans for fire-safety. Not so in the rest of the world. There have been single bowl washer-dryers in Europe, Asia and everywhere else since around 2000. They only recently got approved in the US. What can I say? The US plays it safe, even if the danger is sometimes only imagined.
每个国家都会选择一种监管方式。通常，这在社会生活的许多领域都可以看到。美国选择了慎之又慎。而且，相信我，它在不断地犯错。
每天，我们都会听说一种新产品或疗法在欧洲获得批准，但在美国还没有。在获得美国批准之前，人们会去欧洲甚至加拿大购买救命药物。
在美国，天花板上的嵌入式灯必须有“金属罐“以保证防火安全。但在世界其他地方并非如此。自2000年左右以来，欧洲、亚洲和世界各地都出现了单碗洗衣-烘干机。而它们最近才在美国获得批准。我能说什么呢?美国行事谨慎，即使危险有时只是想象出来的。
Once a nation has proven themselves on merit there is little reason to fight such pointless competitions. The US used to do the same roughly a century ago, but then we grew up.
一旦一个国家证明了自己的实力，就没有什么理由去参加这种毫无意义的竞争了。大约一个世纪前，美国也这样做过，但后来我们成长了。
原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
I’ve stayed in the Marina Bay Sands in Singapore, pictured in the article, and it is an architecturally impressive building, without a doubt. It’s also quite livable, as luxury resort hotels go, with a lot of conveniences, and I enjoyed my week-long stay immensely (winning at the attached casino didn’t hurt). But would I want something like that in downtown Tampa? Probably not. It’s simply too big, too out-there, and doesn’t fit with the rest of the buildings. So for me at least, I agree that I prefer to be surrounded by relatively conservative buildings.
我住过新加坡的滨海湾金沙酒店(Marina Bay Sands)，毫无疑问，它的建筑风格令人印象深刻。就豪华度假酒店而言，这里也非常宜居，有很多便利设施，我在这里住了一周，非常享受(在附属赌场赢球也没有什么损失)。
但我想在坦帕市（佛罗里达州西部港市）中心有这样的建筑吗?可能不会。它太大了，太突出了，和其他建筑不协调。所以至少对我来说，我同意我更喜欢被相对保守的建筑包围。
Good stuff, Jeffrey. Somehow I believe the part about the Marina Bay Sands being a luxurious experience. Something about the look of it tells one there was attention to detail. I think your taste in the style of building you would like in your city is pretty much in-line with most of America. So, those who would like more buildings like the CCTV HQ, Marina Bay Sands or even the Burj Al Arab are in the minority.
很棒。不知怎么的，我相信滨海湾金沙是一种奢侈的体验。从它的外观可以看出它对细节的重视。
我认为你对你所在城市的建筑风格的品味和美国大多数人的想法是一致的。所以，那些想要更多像中央电视台总部、滨海湾金沙酒店甚至迪拜帆船酒店这样的建筑的人是少数。
原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
I just saw a video that said China is now restricting developers on how high the skyscraper can be built, which begin last year. They’re trying to focus more on quality and functionality rather than vanity. I think it’s a great move forward.
我刚刚看到一个视频，说中国从去年开始限制开发商建造摩天大楼的高度。他们试图更多地关注质量和功能，而不是虚荣。我认为这是一个伟大的进步。
Yes. I heard that too. The "cool" highrises do not have to be super tall. The 2 examples above are very far from competing for the tallest building in the world. I only discussed that little contest to highlight the mindset that drives exuberant Architecture.
是的，我也听说了。“很酷”的高楼不一定要超高。上面的两个例子与争夺世界上最高的建筑相差甚远。
我讨论这个小竞赛只是为了强调驱动建筑热潮的心态。
Skyscrapers were invented in the United States during the late 1800s in Chicago and New York City. With all of the groundbreaking skyscrapers that were built in the United States during the 20th Century (Empire State Building, Chrysler Building, Woolworth Building, Sears Tower, John Hancock Center, Transamerica Pyramid, World Trade Center, etc) no nation can come close to out placing the United States’ history when it comes to skyscrapers.
摩天大楼于19世纪末在美国的芝加哥和纽约市出现。美国在20世纪建造了许多开创性的摩天大楼(帝国大厦、克莱斯勒大厦、伍尔沃斯大厦、西尔斯大厦、约翰·汉考克中心、泛美金字塔、世界贸易中心等)
说到摩天大楼，没有哪个国家能与美国的历史相提并论。
nice fancy skyscrapers are also extremely expensive to maintain, and require specific conditions to stay profitable.
They have to be built in places with lots of economic activity, but more important there must be a severe shortage in land. No point relocating to an expensive office building in Manhattan when you can set up shop in, let’s say, New Jersey. Cities and America, China and elsewhere have plenty of additional land to develop in, spreading out economic activity and living density.
I’m from HK and my home still actively builds fancy skyscrapers for both commercial and residential uses. They’re for the most part always very lucrative projects too - the HK space constraints are too extreme (it gets more ridiculous when you take into account that only about 1/5 of our 1100 km squared of land is developable, while yet we still have a population of 7.5 mil.) This means economic activity is highly concentrated as firms or residents have nowhere else to go.
漂亮的摩天大楼的维护费用也非常昂贵，并且需要特定的条件才能保持盈利。
它们必须建在经济活动频繁的地方，但更重要的是，土地必须严重短缺。
如果你可以在新泽西开店，那就没有必要搬到曼哈顿昂贵的办公楼里。美国、中国和其他地方的城市有大量的额外土地可以开发，分散了经济活动和生活密度。
我来自香港，我的家乡仍然在积极建造商业和住宅用途的高级摩天大楼。它们大多都是利润丰厚的项目——香港的空间限制太极端了（当你考虑到我们1100平方公里的土地中只有1/5是可开发的，而我们仍然有750万人口时，这就更荒谬了）
这意味着经济活动高度集中，因为企业或居民无处可去。
Going upwards in Architecture is chiefly driven by space constraints. Sometimes, though, the developer has options nearby, but insists on the particular location. Many many corporations and residential developers have the option of New Jersey or even the office parks in upstate NY, but gamble on the profits of Manhattan. We are not necessarally focusing on super-tall highrises. There are also averagely-tall, beautiful ones. Many tall buildings are very expressive and intricate in form, yet are not more expensive than some plain buildings. The Apple HQ in California is an example. It cost about $5 billion. It is a plain-looking buiding. Many “fancy” highrises cost far far less to build. I make an educated guess that a beautiful, visually-expressive building can be constructed in a major world city as a highrise, offering the same floor area as the Apple HQ at only a fraction of $5 billion.
在建筑中向上走主要是受空间限制的驱使。不过，有时开发商在附近也有选择，但坚持要选在特定的位置。许多公司和住宅开发商可以选择在新泽西甚至纽约州北部的办公园区，但他们赌的是曼哈顿的利润。我们不一定要关注超高层建筑。也有中等高度的。
许多高层建筑具有很强的表现力和复杂的形式，但并不比一些普通建筑更昂贵。加州的苹果总部就是一个例子。耗资约50亿美元。这是一栋不起眼的建筑。许多“花哨”的高楼建造成本远低于此。我做过一个有根据的猜测，一个美丽的，有视觉表现力的建筑可以在一座主要的世界城市作为高层建筑，提供与苹果总部相同的建筑面积，只需要50亿美元的一小部分。
Building codes are written in blood. Every time there is loss of life the codes get tighter. The US is a big country and has built a lot of high rises. So the codes have been tightened many times.
建筑法规是用鲜血书写的。
每次有生命死亡，规则就变得更严格。美国是一个大国，建造了很多高楼大厦。所以法规已经被收紧了很多次。
I agree. But, there are a lot of provisions added to head-off “perceived”, possible dangers.
我同意。但是，为了防止“感知到的”、可能的危险，还增加了许多条款。
· Mar 18
Don’t forget Saudi Arabia! The Jeddah Tower is planned to be capped at over a kilometer tall.
Also, you have no explanation for Europe specifically.
别忘了沙特阿拉伯!吉达塔的最高高度计划超过1000米。
另外，楼主没有特别解释欧洲的情况。
Well, Europe is a middle ground in a direct comparison between Asia (Middle East inclusive) and the US in radical, high-rise Architecture. The factor of "style" means that in instances where corporations in the US have huge budgets for buildings, they generally do something simple-looking, since that is the prevailing, aesthetic preference in the society (see the new Apple HQ). Not so is Europe. On lower budgets, firms in Istanbul, Frankfurt, Madrid, Moscow, Paris and London would do a building more eye-catching, because these are locations where preferences (just look at fashion) embrace things being a bit flashy, just like Asia. Also, some locations in Europe have really "big governments" (like Russia and Turkey) another factor that leads to exuberant, tall Architecture. Then there is the issue of wealth from a natural resource that does not require vigorous controls of overheads for profit. There is oil and gas from Russia. Moscow has severally been voted the most beautiful European skyline recently. See the image below.
在直接比较亚洲(包括中东)和美国的激进的高层建筑时，欧洲处于中间地带。
“风格”的因素意味着，在美国，如果公司在建筑上有巨额预算，他们通常会做一些看起来简单的东西，因为这是社会上流行的审美偏好(见苹果新总部)。
欧洲并非如此。以较低的预算，伊斯坦布尔、法兰克福、马德里、莫斯科、巴黎和伦敦的公司会设计出更引人注目的建筑，因为这些地方的偏好(只看时尚)接受有点浮华的东西，就像亚洲一样。
此外，欧洲的一些地方有真正的“大政府”(如俄罗斯和土耳其)，这也是导致繁荣、高大建筑的另一个因素。还有一个问题是，自然资源带来的财富不需要为了盈利而严格控制管理费用。比如来自俄罗斯的石油和天然气。莫斯科最近几次被评为欧洲最美丽的天际线。参见下图。
图