the way we live

mile high v2.0


coming just days on the heels of the hyder consulting announcement that they are working on a mile high skyscrapper comes the announcement that populararchitecture is also working on a mile high tower of their own. if built, the populararchitecture tower would be located in london. unlike the hyder structure, populararchitecture has released renderings that show the immense scale of such a building, a scale that as i accurately hypothesized before, is completely out of touch with everything human. according to inhabitat, the tower would rise some 500 stories and, “would contain schools and hospitals to shops and pubs, and everything else under the sun.”


additionally, this structure is to be environmentally friendly, though any skeptic would be quick to point out the sheer absurd abundance of materials, resources, and energy required to build and maintain such a structure. though it is true, such a design emphasizes efficiency in the way we live and minimizes our literal footprint on the earth’s surface as a function of living vertically as opposed to horizontally. personally, i don’t see any way either of these towers get the go-ahead anytime in the near future. regardless, i should hope at the least these proposal generate discourse about the way we live and how we should be living. are towers of this size necessary? despite being green, what are their environmental impacts? how do incredible dense footprints such as this affect the vibrancy of the neighborhoods surrounding them? surely though possible, the designers don’t actually intend the residence never leave the structure? while certainly fascinating ideas, i for one prefer not to see these built for fear of shattering delicate urban fabrics and destroying the delicate scalar balance of human existence.

1 March 2008 - Posted by | architecture, green, modern, society, technology, urban planning


  1. I would love to see a graphic comparing the scale of the building to the acreage of land required to build and sustain it. The mines, oil wells, fields, and forests that would be consumed by such a building would probably prove the size of its basement is a gross miscalculation of its actual footprint.

    Comment by Laura | 2 March 2008 | Reply

  2. i don’t even want to imagine the daily resources required to operate a facility such as this. you’re right though, the acreage of land required to build and sustain such a structure would be mind blowing and probably far from sustainable even after accounting for a denser and more efficient living arrangement as a function of building vertically.

    Comment by Geoff | 5 March 2008 | Reply

  3. Taiwan’s designers from the East
    Hope that the friendship with you to establish friendly
    My interior design website

    Comment by Peiyouliao | 8 November 2010 | Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: