This is David's blog post written on my account because he never received the invitation email to post on the blog. Anyway, here's his post:
Andrew Carnegie is considered the father of modern steel and its industrial uses. At the time iron was used to make bridges and 1/4 bridges collapsed in America at that time. After seeing the world was in need of stronger materials to stretch across the Mississippi and make a bridge for the transcontinental railroad, Carnegie used a new technique by Henry Bessimer to create more steel at much faster speeds with greater quality. This took a 2 week process to create one bar of steel down to 15 minutes. Shortly thereafter Carnegie steel created the high rise changes that occurred in Chicago. The effect of this on today's modern societies is steel reinforced high rises.
If you go look at Paris and most of the major cities in Europe they have sections that are largely built before the modern industrial era, most of the cities are three stories high due to mass steal not being available yet. What do you think the impact would have been on the European culture had mass steel production allowed taller buildings to be made earlier? Do you think that high rise cities like Hong Kong which have grown up largely after mass steel production became available are more impressive and culturally beautiful or do you think that the stone buildings of Europe exude greater beauty or power?
-David Christensen
 |
| Prague |
 |
| Hong Kong |
11 comments:
If mass steel production was available earlier I think the European cities would look completely different. Instead of the charming and quaint buildings you see in Paris, London, Madrid, etc. I think we'd see more cities like New York, Hong Kong, Chicago, etc. For me, cities with high rises exude power and wealth. But, every time I've been to New York the buildings tower over me and I feel trapped. However when I lived in London, I never felt that way. I think the structure and architecture of European cities are more impressive and beautiful. They feel more inviting and less like an overwhelming big city.
It's hard to imagine what Europe would be like if steel production would have been available earlier. I for one am really glad this didn't happen because there are so many awesome buildings. There is a definite sense of power in high rise buildings. Their size is impressive, and they often house the offices of very successful people/companies. I like both the older and newer styles of architecture, and it is cool that there can be a mix of both within a city like London or Paris.
I think that both types of buildings are beautiful in their own way. For me you cannot pick one or the other as more powerful or beautiful when they are just different. The high rise cities show power in their height and sleek lines while the stone buildings show power in their solidness and mass. As for the impact on European culture that steel construction would have had it is hard to imagine the consequences. Stone seems much more deeply rooted than anything made from steel. Europe has such deep history that stone seems to fit them. Maybe if they had done more steel construction they wouldn't seem to be so stable and possess that inherent power they do. If you don't think about it then it'd seem that America's sense of power comes from what they can do and build and become while Europe's comes from their history. The architecture they have seems to hold with that feeling and help define it.
I agree a lot with what Natalie said. I think that the quaint European cities would not be quaint and would be more like the Industrial cities of today. I think that a lot of history and art and beauty would have been lost if they started building the kind of buildings we have today in Europe back then. I think it would have been interesting to see how they would have grown and accommodated growing businesses and a white collar world. Today we see these massive sky scrapers full of offices, where they have had to build up because they needed all the room they could get. New York couldn't build out so it built up. Would our big (but obviously lower) cities be places in the midwest where there would have been room to grow out? For right now, I think that the old historical buildings in Europe are more beautiful than what we are building now, but that is because I see all the history behind them and the work to accomplish it. Some day, people will see the buildings we are building now as historic and full of a whole new kind of art because by then the world will have moved onto something else even bigger than what we have now.
I think that older European cities would have looked more like Hong Kong if they had the steel technology back then. However, I think now they cherish that look and therefore would likely not change it even if they could. I served my mission in Portugal and even the new buildings there are patterned after the old brick and mortar design from the past. They refuse to use wood and have no need for steel.
I prefer to see advancements in technology and so big cities with tall skyscrapers is what I like better. I like the character of old European buildings, but I don't like new buildings that try and mimic that same character.
Dan Johns...
To answer the question, I do think that the architecture of most of Europe would be much different if they had greater access to industrial steel at the time of their greatest growth; however, I also think that if that had been the case, it would have taken away much of what we appreciate and admire about European cities, towns, and villages. Europe certainly would not be the same, from an aesthetic or cosmetic perspective - which I think would take away from their beauty and appeal. I like Europe the way it is, and I hope it stays that way. I am sure that had technology been different, it would resemble some of today's more "modern" cities with towering skyscrapers for both housing as well as business use.
In European cities that have been heavily effected by the many wars that have been fought there (Berlin and Warsaw) there is a very interesting juxtaposition between the old stone building that exude beauty and charm and the new gigantic steel structures that dominate the skyline. To me it is interesting that places like Berlin you can literally view the changing of time because of the variety of building styles that have changed over time.
The Buildings of Europe exude greater beauty because of the style and also the history behind it.I believe some of the new buildings are cool and great in the moment but then after something new comes out they just look ridiculous. The Europe to this day has some of the great architecture. Europe if they had the tools they might have use steel to built and who knows if it would be the same.
I'm sure there would have been a difference if concrete was allowed back then for Europe. However, I believe that architecture of Europe is still way more amazing than high sky scrappers. I've been to New York City and I've traveled through Europe, and Europe to me is way more architecturally enticing.
I studied abroad in Europe. The cities that have original European architecture are the most beautiful. I visited a lot of places, but was never able to make it to Prague. To me, Prague looks like one of the most gorgeous cities in Europe. I wish there were more cities like it. I enjoy getting out of huge cities with sky scrapers, and think that it sets a different tone and way of life.
I think the difference in the buildings in Hong Kong versus in Europe makes up what the culture is like in the countries. I think Europe would look a lot different if mass steel production allowed taller buildings at an earlier time but neither is more impressive than the other, it just depends on taste and where one comes from.
Post a Comment