I think there will be a 200-story skyscraper someday. However, it will require a developer who will not think in conventional terms and for whom economic restraints won't apply.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
I'm very optimistic about the future. I'm just not optimistic about the skyscraper as a building typology that is suited for the future.
When it becomes economically possible, building will become montage.
I am sure that as a woman I can do a very good skyscraper.
There's almost 70 billion in square feet under construction in high rises in commercial, residential and light manufacturing. And we estimate about 30 billion square feet, and that's with a 'B,' is commercial, that we would just consider office space. To put that in perspective, that's a 5x5-foot cubicle for every man, woman and child in China.
I don't see that any buildings should be excluded from the term architecture, as long as they are done properly.
If we allow more development, it will bring housing affordability.
And then, build a bustling wonderful city of the 21st century, with a restoration of a spectacular skyline, which Manhattan, of course, needs. So, that is really the design as a whole.
Architecture is restricted to such a limited vocabulary. A building is either a high-rise or a perimeter block or a town house.
Maybe, just maybe, we shall at last come to care for the most important, most challenging, surely the most satisfying of all architectural creations: building cities for people to live in.
Doing a house is so much harder than doing a skyscraper.