Building heights and critical problems of plot-ratios - FAMU SOA Home

Leon Krier: "Building heights and critical problems of plot-ratios".file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\Administrator\My%20Documents\read\Krier-Bui...Page 1 of 41/22/2003Building heights and critical problems ofplot-ratiosby LÉON KRIERTwo sections in ARCHITECTURE: CHOICE OR FATE, Andreas PapadakisPublisher, Windsor, England, 1998, pages 156-161.BUILDING HEIGHTSThe most beautiful and pleasant cities which survive in the world today have all beenconceived with buildings of between two and five floors.There is no ecologically defensible justification for the erection of utilitarian skyscrapers;they are built for speculation, short-term gain or out of pretentiousness.Figure 1. Limited building height. Maximum realization of rentable floors impliesminimum ceiling height, generating a uniform skyline.Paradoxically, the imposition of a universal height limit for buildings of between two andfive floors does not exclude very tall buildings or monumental buildings. St. Paul'sCathedral in London is a skyscraper on one level. The Eiffel Tower has only three floors.The Capitol in Washington, Nôtre-Dame de Paris, the Forbidden City in Beijing and eventhe Seven Wonders of the World respected these limits. The universal limitation of buildingheights to between two and five stories would both protect historic centers threatened withoverdevelopment and at the same time encourage the redevelopment of the suburbs. Insteadof inflating the cost of buildings in the center, such a limitation would contribute to anincrease in property values in those areas that remain arbitrarily undervalued.

Leon Krier: "Building heights and critical problems of plot-ratios".file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\Administrator\My%20Documents\read\Krier-Bui...Page 2 of 41/22/2003Figure 2. Limited number of floors. No height limit implies maximum variation ofbuilding's ceiling height, generating a varied skyline.Thus, building heights should not be limited metrically (such regulations are alwaysarbitrary and lead to a stultifying uniformity) but by the number of floors -- between twoand five, depending on the character of the village or city, the nature, status and use of thebuilding, the width of roads and squares, and the prestige of the site. It should be observed,moreover, that building-technology, servicing and conception change radically (separationof structure and wall construction, lifts, expensive services, fire protection, etc.) forbuildings of more than five floors. In addition, a limit on the number of floors permits anevident and natural differentiation between public and private uses, between symbolic andutilitarian character, and between monumental and domestic architecture.Figure 3. Low buildings and high ceilings.

Leon Krier: "Building heights and critical problems of plot-ratios".file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\Administrator\My%20Documents\read\Krier-Bui...Page 3 of 41/22/2003Figure 4. High buildings and low ceilings.CRITICAL PROBLEMS OF PLOT-RATIOS.Historic cities rarely surpass a plot ratio of 2:1 (ratio of floor area to plot area). This densityis easily achieved by buildings not exceeding three to five floors, allowing well lit andhumanely proportioned private gardens and public spaces. Since the nineteenth century wehave observed with each new revision of land-use plans a regular, irreversible increase inplot-ratios (in the City of London, for instance, the coefficient regularly exceeds 6:1). Thisexcessive density leads to the functional and general congestion of historic centers. Streetsbecome gloomy, noisy corridors and private gardens shrink to dank service yards. Theresult is the degradation of the concept of the traditional city itself, justifying the exodus tothe suburbs.

Leon Krier: "Building heights and critical problems of plot-ratios".file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\Administrator\My%20Documents\read\Krier-Bui...Page 4 of 41/22/2003Figure 5. Conservation versus overdevelopment.If authorities allow developers to exceed the critical point of five floors, the value ofbuilding plots rises astronomically, which in turn creates more pressure for higher andhigher densities. It is a vicious circle which, in the long term, leads to an insidious"Manhattanism" and represents the financial overexploitation of the land of the city whoseunavoidable structural bankruptcy must in the end be paid for by public funds. Conservationareas are, by definition, those areas that have achieved optimum density both in form andappearance. It is complete nonsense to increase plot-ratios in these sectors. Such decisionsensure that the real estate value of a listed building becomes indefensible in face of thepotential added value of denser redevelopment. Consequently, increases in plot-ratiosregularly defeat even the staunchest conservation policies.Krier Webpage * Selected Publications * Buildings and Projects