Speaker 1: Hey, are you welcome to Stuff to Blow your Mind?
Speaker 1: My name is Robert.
Speaker 2: Lamb and I'm Joe McCormick, and it's Saturday, so we
Speaker 2: are bringing you an episode from the vault. This one
Speaker 2: originally published on July fourteenth, twenty twenty two, and it's
Speaker 2: part two of our series on the Skybridge.
Speaker 3: I hope you enjoy.
Speaker 4: Welcome to Stuff to Blow your Mind, a production of iHeartRadio.
Speaker 1: Hey you welcome to Stuff to Blow your Mind. My
Speaker 1: name is Robert.
Speaker 2: Lamb and I'm Joe McCormick, and we're back with part
Speaker 2: two of our talk about sky bridges or skyways. If
Speaker 2: you haven't heard part one yet, maybe you should go
Speaker 2: check that one out first, but as a brief refresher,
Speaker 2: a skybridge or a skyway is an architectural feature that
Speaker 2: you can think of as kind of a hallway in
Speaker 2: the sky, or an enclosed bridge linking two buildings by
Speaker 2: the upper floors. In the last episode, we talked about
Speaker 2: some modern examples of skybridges and some interesting ones from history,
Speaker 2: such as the Bridge of Size in Venice, Italy's enclosed
Speaker 2: passageway that may look romantic from the outside but has
Speaker 2: mostly historical associations with torture and prisons. But in the
Speaker 2: let's see, But in today's episode, I think we're going
Speaker 2: to be talking more about what skybridges mean, how they're interpreted,
Speaker 2: and how they might be used in the future.
Speaker 1: That's right. So, first of all, I do want to
Speaker 1: refer back to some examples, just briefly that we discussed
Speaker 1: the you know, just the idea of say, the powerful
Speaker 1: Metichi family in Italy using these enclosed spaces and occasional
Speaker 1: things that we would definitely categorize as a skybridge to
Speaker 1: move from one place to the other without interacting with
Speaker 1: enemies or commoners, et cetera. We also looked at some
Speaker 1: examples of royalty in China engaging in similar practices, using
Speaker 1: these as sort of privileged passage ways for royal members
Speaker 1: of society.
Speaker 2: Oh so, what was the Chinese ruler who went about
Speaker 2: in these halls so that devils would not see where
Speaker 2: he walked and he could only embrace good people?
Speaker 1: It said, yes, yes, that would have been in Bertin
Speaker 1: shi Wang. Yeah, so that he could quote act mysteriously
Speaker 1: to avoid devils and meanwhile embrace virtuous individuals. And one
Speaker 1: thing that we mentioned was that, yeah, Okay, this is
Speaker 1: one thing within a historical context, but generally speaking, I
Speaker 1: think a lot of us wouldn't want to overtly invoke
Speaker 1: that kind of idea. So in there we get to
Speaker 1: some of these sort of controversy and back and forth
Speaker 1: over just the nature of the skybridge, not only what
Speaker 1: it physically does, but also like what is it, what
Speaker 1: does it do in terms of society and urban planning,
Speaker 1: and just the larger nature of the city that goes
Speaker 1: beyond just mere structures and moving people around. And so
Speaker 1: I want to come back to the architect John Portman Junior.
Speaker 1: John Portman Junior lived nineteen twenty four through twenty seventeen
Speaker 1: American neo futurist architect and real estate developer. We mentioned
Speaker 1: some of the examples of his work here in Atlanta, Georgia.
Speaker 1: He's known for popularizing the atrium, but also in using
Speaker 1: a lot of sky bridges. Now, as we mentioned, of course,
Speaker 1: there are a number of practical reasons to have sky
Speaker 1: bridges in a structure, moving people around so they don't
Speaker 1: have to engage in say hostile environment, hot temperatures, freezing rain,
Speaker 1: that sort of thing. Also, you're going to have situations
Speaker 1: where you want to share resources within two different towers,
Speaker 1: so connect those towers at a higher floor. That way,
Speaker 1: people don't have to go all the way back down
Speaker 1: and then back up again, perhaps crossing a street, or
Speaker 1: you know, checking in and out of security along the way,
Speaker 1: that sort of thing. But in the case of Portman's
Speaker 1: Peachtree Center skybridges, there's apparently been controversy over the years
Speaker 1: over the use of such walkways. So this area emerged
Speaker 1: during the nineteen seventies, and while some of it is dated,
Speaker 1: some of it is still quite impressive. I have to
Speaker 1: say the Marta train station at Peachtree Center is probably
Speaker 1: the coolest looking one in the system. It has these
Speaker 1: rock walls as well as this kind of still I
Speaker 1: would say futuristic looking like shiny metal surfaces.
Speaker 2: I don't know if he designed the Marta station in question,
Speaker 2: but there was one Marta station at least that was
Speaker 2: used as a setting for a cut scene in John
Speaker 2: Carpenter's Escape from New York. I think because it, you know,
Speaker 2: the sort of the blocky concrete fixtures, and it just
Speaker 2: looked futuristic enough.
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, certainly at the time that was was that
Speaker 1: five point station. I can't recall off hid but certainly.
Speaker 3: You're right on that sounds like, yeah, yeah.
Speaker 1: That also is a huge enclosed space that is impressive
Speaker 1: in its own way.
Speaker 3: To walk through.
Speaker 1: But at any rate, yeah, this is all part of
Speaker 1: the varying stages of revitalization efforts in downtown Atlanta, and
Speaker 1: during this time and especially the decades to follow, Peachtree
Speaker 1: Center was, in the eyes of its critics, this thing
Speaker 1: that by its very structure, sought to cut out street
Speaker 1: level Atlanta in its entirety, and not only people but businesses.
Speaker 1: So rather than optimistically futuristic, the critics would say, well,
Speaker 1: this is actually more wellsy and a world of privilege
Speaker 1: above cut off from the realities of the street below.
Speaker 1: There was one account that I was looking at of
Speaker 1: looking through various old news stories, and I saw one
Speaker 1: about I believe it was a janitor strike that was
Speaker 1: taking place, and this particular author had mentioned people avoiding
Speaker 1: the protesters by making use of the sky bridges, which
Speaker 1: seems like a stark example of the sort of you know,
Speaker 1: the sort of privileged walkway that in ways I think
Speaker 1: can be compared to some of these older models that
Speaker 1: we were discussing now. The nineteen seventies. We're also not
Speaker 1: a period during which green downtowns were prioritized to certainly
Speaker 1: not in Atlanta. So you know, one can can factor
Speaker 1: that into the kind of weirdly spaceship like architectural approach
Speaker 1: that one sees in some of these buildings. Were discussing
Speaker 1: so giant open atriums in buildings joined to each other
Speaker 1: by enclosed tunnels and bridges cut off from an outside,
Speaker 1: where you have a languishing downtown and also just everything's
Speaker 1: just a sweltering, gray heat island. This is actually one
Speaker 1: of the reasons that Trees Atlanta was founded in nineteen
Speaker 1: eighty five to begin the quote greening of downtown.
Speaker 3: Oh, I didn't know that.
Speaker 2: I don't know exactly how far this far back this
Speaker 2: reputation goes, but at least today Atlanta is known as
Speaker 2: a city that has an unusual amount of trees and
Speaker 2: in its urban center.
Speaker 1: Yeah, well, as far as downtown Atlanta goes, especially, a
Speaker 1: lot of that is we can think Trees Atlanta for
Speaker 1: so all that's very very local to us. But I
Speaker 1: think these are all great examples of some of the
Speaker 1: you know, the discussions that take place over the use
Speaker 1: of the skybridge and next direction we'd like to go in, though,
Speaker 1: is taking a step back and talking about for the
Speaker 1: most part, taking a step back, but a lot of
Speaker 1: this is also still contemporary as well. But talking about
Speaker 1: futurism and the skybridge, the ideas that end up being
Speaker 1: wrapped up in concepts that have skybridges in them, you know,
Speaker 1: what we're actually trying to achieve, And what are some
Speaker 1: of the visions, sort of the loftier ideas that are
Speaker 1: caught up in all of this, And indeed, what are
Speaker 1: some of the really pivotal forward facing ideas that we
Speaker 1: can point to in the early twentieth century.
Speaker 2: So when I was thinking about the social meaning of skybridges,
Speaker 2: especially in science fiction, it's interesting I have a general
Speaker 2: sense that skybridges are often used in fictional architecture to
Speaker 2: emphasize exactly this kind of theme you were just talking about.
Speaker 2: It was sort of people living in elevated tubes of
Speaker 2: privilege that disconnect them from the realities below. And one
Speaker 2: specific example is that I had a pretty distinct memory
Speaker 2: of the movie Metropolis, the nineteen twenty seven Fritz Long movie,
Speaker 2: sort of German expressionist science fiction masterpiece, and my idea
Speaker 2: at least in my head was that this movie was
Speaker 2: full of skybridges. But when I did a Google search,
Speaker 2: I didn't find a lot of examples. The main thing
Speaker 2: I actually found in screenshots appeared to be rail lines
Speaker 2: connecting the tops of buildings, and I found what looks like,
Speaker 2: I don't know, it looks like hand drawn illustrations based
Speaker 2: on the movie that do appear to have like connected
Speaker 2: enclosed hallways, But I'm not sure how accurate my memory
Speaker 2: that the city in Metropolis is full of skybridges is. Nevertheless,
Speaker 2: for some reason, I had that impression there certainly are
Speaker 2: these these elevated rail lines going between skyscraper tops and
Speaker 2: Metropolis is A is a great dystopian sci fi film,
Speaker 2: one of the major themes of which is economic injustice.
Speaker 2: It presents a sort of class bifurcated society where you have,
Speaker 2: you know, idle rich people sort of frittering away their
Speaker 2: days up in the tops of great tall buildings, apparently
Speaker 2: rarely or never having to go down into the streets.
Speaker 2: And meanwhile, the workers and the factories who make this
Speaker 2: techno utopia possible are confined to physically lower spaces, even
Speaker 2: subterranean tunnels and caverns, and eventually there is a revolt
Speaker 2: in the film. But the theme is certainly there. But
Speaker 2: though maybe it doesn't have as many skybridges as I
Speaker 2: actually remember. I don't know, maybe they're just not coming
Speaker 2: through in the screen, you know, grabs that people have
Speaker 2: put up on the internet.
Speaker 1: I think there are definitely skybridges in Metropolis. I know
Speaker 1: that some of the sources I was looking at they
Speaker 1: referenced specifically early twentieth century science fiction cinematography. And when
Speaker 1: you're talking about that, you're talking about Metropolis. I mean,
Speaker 1: Metropolis is the example of a futuristic cinema from especially
Speaker 1: the twenties part excellence. You know, this is it, this
Speaker 1: is the big one.
Speaker 2: And I did want to note that this vision of
Speaker 2: tall buildings occupied by the rich at the top while
Speaker 2: the workers live down on the ground. This interestingly, it
Speaker 2: squares with some reality, such as the idea of like
Speaker 2: I don't know, you know, the penthouse apartment. But also
Speaker 2: the class associations are often inverted. Like I was reading
Speaker 2: some actual research papers about the psychological and social impact
Speaker 2: of living in tall buildings, which I'll get into in
Speaker 2: a minute, and these studies often cited the exact opposite
Speaker 2: that there are widespread assumptions of high rise living being
Speaker 2: associated with lack.
Speaker 3: Of economic means.
Speaker 2: But as much is, architecture is often a metaphor for
Speaker 2: economic realities. I think also lots of sci fi has
Speaker 2: visions of future urban spaces where the tops of tall
Speaker 2: buildings are connected, and doesn't necessarily have that meaning. It's
Speaker 2: not always a class critique, I think sometimes instead it's
Speaker 2: supposed to be taken as a sign of a complex
Speaker 2: or complicated society, that there are avenues connecting things back
Speaker 2: and forth, like the like the arteries of a circulatory system,
Speaker 2: that it's a complex not of associations, resembling a kind
Speaker 2: of like the vines in a jungle in physical form.
Speaker 2: And of course, in fact, there's sort of a literal
Speaker 2: analogy to the biological architecture of a rainforest, because on
Speaker 2: a rainfores in a rainforest, you know, you have sort
Speaker 2: of one level of life going on at the forest floor,
Speaker 2: which of course is all connected by the continuous surface,
Speaker 2: but then you have the tree canopy level where the
Speaker 2: lateral connection of the ground level is replicated up above.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 2: Yeah, And so I think even in sci fi movies
Speaker 2: without an economic critique. There we see all these hallways
Speaker 2: going back and forth between the skyscrapers, and it just
Speaker 2: makes us feel like, wow, it's so complex and there's
Speaker 2: so much going on, and it would be you know,
Speaker 2: it would be hard for me to even understand how
Speaker 2: the you know, the many layers of this society.
Speaker 1: Yeah, because it's interesting to sort of crack this, not
Speaker 1: because one thing. And I'll come back to some sources
Speaker 1: that touch on this in a debt. If you think
Speaker 1: of like the upper pinhouse of a of a of
Speaker 1: a very tall building, a skyscraper, what have you, the
Speaker 1: thing is like that is a dead end. That is
Speaker 1: the point at which you generally have no choice but
Speaker 1: to turn around and come back down. And you know,
Speaker 1: you can say, oh, well maybe there's a helicopter port
Speaker 1: up there. Okay, well there's that. And certainly you can
Speaker 1: extend this by pointing out that while some of the
Speaker 1: futuristic visions of cities and where we're going where or
Speaker 1: have been planning, they also often involve say a whole
Speaker 1: bunch of flying cars moving around or other flying flying vehicles,
Speaker 1: flying machines that are serving as a way to connect
Speaker 1: these isolated islands in the sky. The classic examples of
Speaker 1: that would be like Blade Runner.
Speaker 2: Now, I think you could assume that maybe with Blade Runner,
Speaker 2: like you look at some architectural features and say, there's
Speaker 2: implied critique here, there's some kind of implied critique about
Speaker 2: the society we're being shown. But there are other cases
Speaker 2: where I don't know if there is. It's just sort
Speaker 2: of like inherited science fiction texture. Like in the Star
Speaker 2: Wars prequels. You see that exacting traffic going back and
Speaker 2: forth at many levels. There's like you know, like the
Speaker 2: layers of a cake, the different crisscrossing streams of flying cars.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Yeah, I mean there's definitely an underworld to Coroissant
Speaker 1: as well. But yeah, there are other films like I
Speaker 1: don't know, The Fifth Element, for example, has a lot
Speaker 1: of cool flying cars and that that feels might be
Speaker 1: more like just sci fi texture. But to come back
Speaker 1: to this idea like Coraissant with an underworld and all
Speaker 1: all this, I can't help but think, of course, of
Speaker 1: Dante's Inferno and all of this, and think again of
Speaker 1: the of the skyscraper as mountain in Dante's Divine Comedy.
Speaker 1: We of course have the complexities of the of the
Speaker 1: underworld of Inferno, we have the mount of Purgatory that
Speaker 1: extends upward and reaches the point of Paradise. Because because
Speaker 1: then in the third Book, of course, we have the
Speaker 1: heavenly realm and the heavenly realm. I guess we might
Speaker 1: we might well compare to some of these visions of
Speaker 1: the the the upper parts of skyscrapers being connected together.
Speaker 1: We don't want isolation and loneliness in our heavens. We
Speaker 1: want elaborate complexity.
Speaker 2: Ah, this may be a more apt analogy even than
Speaker 2: you intended, because you remember, like how often in the
Speaker 2: Paradiso Dante just talks about how like I couldn't describe
Speaker 2: what I was seeing.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it's just And certainly when you look at illustrations,
Speaker 1: it's you know, you can have a pretty firm map
Speaker 1: of of of the Inferno, pretty firm map of the
Speaker 1: amount of purgatory. But yeah, Paradise, it's just this swirling
Speaker 1: circles and interconnected wheels. Of course, any of these cinematic
Speaker 1: examples we're looking at, yeah, they harken back to Metropolis.
Speaker 1: Metropolis is the granddaddy of them all, and Metropolis is
Speaker 1: one of those movies that just stands the test of time,
Speaker 1: certainly worth taking a look at again. But while it
Speaker 1: is one of the most popular, enduring and certainly sci
Speaker 1: fi influential visions of skybridges and this interconnected skyscraper world,
Speaker 1: that film, too, was continuing trends of futurism, which apparently
Speaker 1: can be traced back to American folk artist Erastus Salisbury Field,
Speaker 1: who lived eighteen oh five through nineteen hundred, so didn't
Speaker 1: even live to see Metropolis, but he did this wonderfully
Speaker 1: intriguing work titled Historical Monument of the American Republic, eighteen
Speaker 1: sixty seven through eighteen eighty eight being the dates on
Speaker 1: this piece, And definitely look this up. You can find
Speaker 1: images of this online and Joe, I've included an image
Speaker 1: of this for you here.
Speaker 2: Oh okay, So I think this vision of the future
Speaker 2: is that everyone will get to live in their own
Speaker 2: Tower of Babbel.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it is. It is very h brugal esque. I
Speaker 1: would say these don't instantly read as skyscrapers to the
Speaker 1: modern eye, but I mean there are certainly architectural features
Speaker 1: here that you will see on modern tall buildings. But yeah,
Speaker 1: this is this looks like a fantastic realm.
Speaker 2: So, whereas in a more mundane age you have the
Speaker 2: jealous competition with your neighbor for who can have the
Speaker 2: prettier lawn or the fancier I don't know, satellite TV antenna,
Speaker 2: in this case, you're competing to see who can kill
Speaker 2: God first.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and if they're going to pull it off, they're
Speaker 1: going to do it from these what look to be
Speaker 1: like penthouse temples, kind of Gozarian in their structure, that
Speaker 1: are all connected by bridges and have just oodles of
Speaker 1: statues at the top. I assume those are statues and
Speaker 1: this is and they literally appear to be clouds swirling
Speaker 1: around them.
Speaker 3: I mean it's a cool drawing.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Yeah. So this was created for the Philadelphia Centennial
Speaker 1: Exhibition in eighteen seventy six and Wooden Sephariic, the authors
Speaker 1: that I have referenced in the first episode. They say
Speaker 1: that this image influenced a number of other artists, including
Speaker 1: Charles R. Lamb and Vernon hoe Bailey, who created the
Speaker 1: nineteen o eight Streets High in the Air illustrations. These
Speaker 1: are also worth checking out, and Joe I have included
Speaker 1: two examples of these for you.
Speaker 3: Now.
Speaker 2: These are not necessarily skybridges or skyways in the more
Speaker 2: narrow sense that we were talking about earlier, of basically
Speaker 2: an enclosed hallway that's got stuff all around. But these
Speaker 2: are still interesting because they are ideas of the bridge
Speaker 2: connecting skyscrapers buildings at height having a second level or
Speaker 2: maybe multiple levels of lateral connection. But here they're just
Speaker 2: open streets. I mean that's interesting too.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and you see a train moving through one of them,
Speaker 1: like a great worm burrowing through this behemoth. Yeah. These
Speaker 1: are impressive images that also have you know, maybe it's
Speaker 1: the coloration, or at least the versions I have here,
Speaker 1: Like one is definitely like a charcoal looking black and white,
Speaker 1: and the other has this kind of washed out like
Speaker 1: orange and brown tint to it. It makes it feel
Speaker 1: kind of apocalyptic in some ways, but still this Yeah,
Speaker 1: this was roughly twenty years before we'd see such images
Speaker 1: in cinema. Another key twentieth century figure in all of
Speaker 1: this was editor and publisher Moses King, who commissioned many
Speaker 1: such images for King's Views of New York. This was
Speaker 1: a book that came out, and I've included a cover
Speaker 1: from this publication for you, Joe, and as you can
Speaker 1: see this one's just crazy with it. They're just bridges
Speaker 1: connecting all of these skyscrapers, skyscrapers that look more contemporary
Speaker 1: for this time period. But then also flying machines galore.
Speaker 2: Oh, your city's full of biplanes, well minds full of triplanes.
Speaker 1: Yep, yep. I see some airships. Pretty fantastic looking. So
Speaker 1: this is what would and Sophariic have to say in
Speaker 1: their paper, and that paper again if anyone wants to
Speaker 1: check that out, it is Skybridge is a history and
Speaker 1: a view to the near future, they write. Quote. The
Speaker 1: early Skybridge sky city portrayals came about as a direct
Speaker 1: response to very real urban issues which were pressing at
Speaker 1: the time. Primary of these urban issues was the impact
Speaker 1: that both tall buildings and increased vehicular traffic were having
Speaker 1: on the ground floor urban condition. Tall buildings were increasingly
Speaker 1: growing in height and overcrowding the street, and the conflict
Speaker 1: between pedestrian and the hicular traffic was increasing. The recurring
Speaker 1: themes in all the early futuristic visions evolved as a
Speaker 1: response to these problems, both the stepped back tiered skyscraper
Speaker 1: and the multi level circulation system. The stepped back skyscraper
Speaker 1: was seen as a way to preserve light and air
Speaker 1: on congested, over developed New York streets, and the multi
Speaker 1: level circulation system a practical organizational tool to handle the
Speaker 1: vast number of new vehicles and people flooding into the city.
Speaker 2: So to come in to rob, I don't think you
Speaker 2: explained this one yet, but the idea of the stepped
Speaker 2: back tiered skyscraper results also interesting. So you're imagining something well, actually,
Speaker 2: this might explain the idea of the why the towers
Speaker 2: in that drawing look like the tower of Babbel from Breugel,
Speaker 2: you know that, like it's terraced I don't know what
Speaker 2: you call it, stadium seating levels. You know they go
Speaker 2: back each level, and this, I guess would let more
Speaker 2: light into the city.
Speaker 1: Right, I mean this will also factor into a few
Speaker 1: other design issues that and engineering issues that were definitely
Speaker 1: present in buildings of that time period. And sometimes it
Speaker 1: was like the code of the city that if you
Speaker 1: built it, you had to have upper levels step back
Speaker 1: from the street a certain amount.
Speaker 3: Interesting.
Speaker 1: Now, another name to mention here American architect, illustrator and
Speaker 1: poet Hugh Ferris, no connection to Gail Ferris, junior of
Speaker 1: Ferris Wheel fame. Their last names are spelled differently, but
Speaker 1: Hugh Ferris another big name who created some images for
Speaker 1: nineteen twenty nine's The Metropolis of Tomorrow and Joe. If
Speaker 1: you look at these, just beautiful art deco black and
Speaker 1: white illustrations. These are pretty fabulous, Like this is Gotham City.
Speaker 2: They make me think of the Oscar Statue for some reason.
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, I.
Speaker 2: Couldn't say why, but they are very pretty.
Speaker 1: Yeah, So I guess I just want to drive home that. Yeah,
Speaker 1: this craving for skybridges and interconnected skyscrapers like this, it's
Speaker 1: kind of this mix of this attempt to solve practical
Speaker 1: problems while also clearly to you know, to create beautiful
Speaker 1: architecture to bring dreams into physical reality. And I imagine
Speaker 1: there's a bit of push and pull between those those aspirations.
Speaker 2: Well, yeah, and I think you you know, we've talked
Speaker 2: about some of the dystopian associations of skybridges in science fiction,
Speaker 2: but they certainly don't have to have those, And in
Speaker 2: some ways you could look at interconnecting higher levels of
Speaker 2: buildings as a very positive social outcome, especially given that
Speaker 2: it just looks like, the reality is urban population density
Speaker 2: is probably going to continue to increase. You know, there
Speaker 2: are strong urbanization trends worldwide. People are more often just
Speaker 2: moving further into city centers. In twenty fifteen, fifty four
Speaker 2: percent of the world's population lived in cities. The World
Speaker 2: Health Organization estimates that by twenty fifty that number will
Speaker 2: probably climb to about sixty six percent. It's hard to
Speaker 2: know for sure, but if you know, trends continue, so
Speaker 2: people are continually crowding more and more into cities. Population
Speaker 2: density is increasing, and where we're going to fit all
Speaker 2: those people. There is no way to generate additional surface area,
Speaker 2: So the main direction you have to go would be
Speaker 2: up or down. So I guess you could dig into tunnels,
Speaker 2: but you know, natural light is nice, so you want
Speaker 2: to go up.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Yeah, And to your point, like access is also
Speaker 1: a big point that's not necessarily going to be as
Speaker 1: baked into the architectural design, you know, just to take
Speaker 1: it in a different direction. It's like the difference between
Speaker 1: a fully public park and a and a membership based
Speaker 1: golf course in a city. Yes, like one of the
Speaker 1: they're both big green spaces, but they're totally different in
Speaker 1: how they connect with the city and the people of.
Speaker 2: The city exactly. So you can imagine a city full
Speaker 2: of tall buildings that are connected at upper levels, just
Speaker 2: providing new kind of public spaces in the In the
Speaker 2: better version of this future, where you know, it's like
Speaker 2: the streets below, there's new things to see and do
Speaker 2: up there, new places to live and sites to visit.
Speaker 2: And so when you look at these sci fi visions
Speaker 2: of a future where tall buildings are often connected by
Speaker 2: skybridges and other lateral thoroughfares, again creating a kind of
Speaker 2: like the canopy level of the trees and a rainforest,
Speaker 2: it implies a society where one can travel from building
Speaker 2: to building at the top level without ever having to
Speaker 2: go down to the bottom, exit the building, and use
Speaker 2: the surface level streets. And I guess what that means
Speaker 2: about if you're trying to imagine the life people would
Speaker 2: live in that environment, it's just a life where there
Speaker 2: are fewer reasons to exit the high rise environment. So today,
Speaker 2: if you live in a tall building, you probably need
Speaker 2: to exit that building to do most things, to see
Speaker 2: family and friends, to go to work, to go shopping,
Speaker 2: and so forth. But what if all of those things
Speaker 2: were also in the tops of nearby buildings, and you
Speaker 2: could travel across skybridges from one to the other. That's
Speaker 2: clearly a future that some people have in mind, and
Speaker 2: it's not impossible to imagine something like this, But if
Speaker 2: you are imagining that as the future, it's worth asking
Speaker 2: how would this situation affect.
Speaker 3: Our minds and our culture. You know, you can.
Speaker 2: Such a radical restructuring of the you know, the location
Speaker 2: and architecture of our lives. That's probably not totally neutral.
Speaker 2: So has anybody looked into the question of what being
Speaker 2: in a high rise all the time does to people?
Speaker 2: Are there psychological effects of spending more of your time
Speaker 2: in the upper floors? And it turns out yes, there
Speaker 2: actually is a good bit of research on this subject.
Speaker 2: So I came across a review of the existing body
Speaker 2: of literature on this from twenty twenty one by a
Speaker 2: couple of scholars affiliated with Cornell University. So this paper
Speaker 2: is by Salah Culentari and Mardel Shepley. It was published
Speaker 2: in the journal Housing Studies again twenty twenty one, and
Speaker 2: it's called Psychological and Social Impacts of high Rise Buildings,
Speaker 2: A review of the post occupancy evaluation literature. So this
Speaker 2: paper looks specifically at what are called post occupancy evaluation studies,
Speaker 2: which are the quote evaluation of buildings in a systemic
Speaker 2: and rigorous manner after they have been built and occupied.
Speaker 2: This systemic evaluation measures and monitors the performance of a
Speaker 2: built environment using data gathered from behavioral, technical, and functional observation.
Speaker 3: So this is.
Speaker 2: What's happening in buildings after people have moved in and
Speaker 2: lived there now. Unfortunately, this is another one of those
Speaker 2: social science areas where there are lots of different studies,
Speaker 2: but they aren't always perfectly easy to compare to each
Speaker 2: other because they're not always measuring exactly the same thing,
Speaker 2: or maybe limited in scope, or have results that conflict
Speaker 2: with one another. But a few trends do seem to
Speaker 2: emerge from this literature. The top line I would say
Speaker 2: is that spending your life up in a tall building
Speaker 2: is associated with some fairly consistent negative consequences for life
Speaker 2: and health, especially for lower income occupants, but that these
Speaker 2: negative effects can probably be mitigated or even erased by
Speaker 2: better design of high rise living spaces. So what are
Speaker 2: some of the negative effects that have been repeatedly found
Speaker 2: to be associated with high rise living. I want to
Speaker 2: mention a couple of these in more detail and then
Speaker 2: give some summary comments. In terms of the ones I'm
Speaker 2: going to mention in more detail, one of them appears
Speaker 2: to be loneliness and social isolation. So since the nineteen seventies,
Speaker 2: researchers have found that people living in high rises are
Speaker 2: likely to experience more feelings of loneliness and less social
Speaker 2: and community engagement.
Speaker 3: Why would this be well?
Speaker 2: The authors of this review right quote Ronald two thousand
Speaker 2: and seven indicated a relative deficiency in social engagement in
Speaker 2: a broad comparative study of European high rise housing and
Speaker 2: attributed this isolation to designs that quote support individualization and anonymity.
Speaker 2: A study conducted in Singapore reported minimal neighborly relations and
Speaker 2: concluded that high rise living quote does not readily build community.
Speaker 2: So at least, what some of these studies seem to
Speaker 2: conclude is that there's something about the way we are
Speaker 2: building high rise building, the high rise residential buildings that
Speaker 2: sort of discourages people from forming community relationships with their
Speaker 2: neighbors and encourages a kind of isolated way of living
Speaker 2: that sort of makes you feel like you need to
Speaker 2: retreat into an anonymous space.
Speaker 1: Oh, once again, I'm reminded of the lyrics of Warren
Speaker 1: Zevon from Splendid Isolation. I want to live on the
Speaker 1: upper east side and never go down in the streets.
Speaker 2: Oh yeah, I didn't even think of that, but yeah.
Speaker 2: And so the authors of this review that they look
Speaker 2: at a number of studies from different places all around
Speaker 2: the world Scotland, Hong Kong, India, which all found that
Speaker 2: high rise living was more associated with things like loneliness,
Speaker 2: anti social behavior, decrease trust in neighbors, and stuff like that. However,
Speaker 2: and this seems to be important, I think the researchers
Speaker 2: note that it may not actually be the fact that
Speaker 2: you were high up off the ground that causes this,
Speaker 2: Like it might not actually be the elevation. It may
Speaker 2: be more the more kind of side effect resulting from
Speaker 2: trends in the design of high rise buildings. In other words,
Speaker 2: it may just happen to be that high rise buildings
Speaker 2: are designed in ways that discourage social interaction and community
Speaker 2: and that breed loneliness and isolation. But that would be
Speaker 2: the case no matter what floor you lived on.
Speaker 1: So it's not a case of well, if God wanted
Speaker 1: us to live in the skies, he would have given
Speaker 1: us wings. It's more of a situation where, well, we
Speaker 1: human beings are not wired to live in this kind
Speaker 1: of isolation generally speaking, like, we are social creatures who
Speaker 1: need to have some level of community around us.
Speaker 2: Yes, And also that there's some indication that maybe the
Speaker 2: designs of high rise residential buildings, when they do force
Speaker 2: interaction between residents, it tends to be negative interactions, like
Speaker 2: the author's cite a study of high rise residential buildings
Speaker 2: in Paris which found that people attributed their poor relationships
Speaker 2: to quote, overcrowded conditions in their high rises, which they
Speaker 2: viewed as prompting irritability and conflict. So it's possible that
Speaker 2: differently designed spaces for high rise life would not produce
Speaker 2: these negative effects at all. And then I thought this
Speaker 2: was really interesting. To further complicate things, there are some
Speaker 2: studies that don't find this association, or even find the
Speaker 2: exact opposite, with people living in high rises having fairly
Speaker 2: strong community bonds, especially when building designs include things like
Speaker 2: central courtyard areas like common spaces where people can gather,
Speaker 2: or when residents had pre existing external social connections meaning
Speaker 2: that like, they know each other in some capacity other
Speaker 2: than just being neighbors in the building. Maybe they work together,
Speaker 2: or they knew each other before they moved in. To
Speaker 2: read from the authors here quote. In many of these
Speaker 2: latter studies, various sociological factors in the overall environmental design,
Speaker 2: rather than high rise buildings per se, appear to be
Speaker 2: more relevant to the health of social interactions. It's also
Speaker 2: notable that all of the included studies that found positive
Speaker 2: community relationships in high rise contexts were conducted in East
Speaker 2: or Southeast Asia, such as Singapore, Taiwan, or Hong Kong,
Speaker 2: while the majority of studies that found negative community impacts
Speaker 2: were carried out in the US and Europe. And so,
Speaker 2: I don't know what would be the cause of these
Speaker 2: cultural differences in the impact of high rise buildings. I
Speaker 2: don't know if it's a result of different trends in
Speaker 2: architecture in these places or cultural differences, but those divergent
Speaker 2: outcomes are interesting.
Speaker 1: This is a fascinating Yeah. It reminds me. I've been
Speaker 1: watching this show on Apple TV titled Home, which is
Speaker 1: about different specifically about different home designs that have been
Speaker 1: constructed that you know that explore new ideas or explore
Speaker 1: old ideas, and in the show they do get into
Speaker 1: some of some of the cultural aspects. It makes me
Speaker 1: wonder like if multi generational households are a part of
Speaker 1: this equation, because you definitely see I mean in general,
Speaker 1: I think you see this trend away from that with
Speaker 1: modern city based living, but perhaps less so in like
Speaker 1: East Asian models versus European and US models. But I'm
Speaker 1: not sure.
Speaker 2: Well, so that's the idea of loneliness and isolation and
Speaker 2: promoting anti social living. But another thing is that many
Speaker 2: studies have found a fairly consistent link between high rise
Speaker 2: living and several negative mental health outcomes, though in this case,
Speaker 2: again it's difficult to isolate the high rise itself is
Speaker 2: the causative factor rather than attendance, social and cultural issues
Speaker 2: that often go along with high high rise living places
Speaker 2: where this has been studied. So if it is actually
Speaker 2: living in the high rise building that causes negative mental
Speaker 2: health outcomes, how would that work well? One explanation would
Speaker 2: be that this is caused by reducing exposure to nature,
Speaker 2: reducing exposure to vegetation in green space. If you are
Speaker 2: up in the high rise and there's not much greenery
Speaker 2: around you in the rooms, in the hallways that you occupy,
Speaker 2: and being up there, you're just less likely to get
Speaker 2: out into nature at the ground level. That probably will
Speaker 2: have some negative consequences for mental health. And this seems
Speaker 2: to be backed up by at least a couple of
Speaker 2: studies showing that adding more natural elements to high rises.
Speaker 2: So maybe if you include access, like you ease access
Speaker 2: to green space from the upper floors of the high rise,
Speaker 2: or you include green space within those places, that that
Speaker 2: reduces some of these problems. And finally, the author cites
Speaker 2: some probably important findings about the potential effect of high
Speaker 2: rise living space, specifically on childhood growth and development. So
Speaker 2: they write, quote, A number of studies conducted during the
Speaker 2: nineteen seventies found increased behavioral problems, physical health issues, and
Speaker 2: decreased motor and academic skills among children living in high
Speaker 2: rise buildings. They say that these findings have been confirmed
Speaker 2: in later studies several times, and then they write quote,
Speaker 2: As is the case with other demographic populations, however, the
Speaker 2: current research is demonstrated that these outcomes are strongly mediated
Speaker 2: by income level and other socioeconomic variables. Children from wealthier
Speaker 2: families who live in high rises are much more likely
Speaker 2: to have access to vibrant play spaces and to experience
Speaker 2: a greater sense of safety and involvement in the surrounding neighborhood,
Speaker 2: which makes it unsurprising that they exhibit few of the
Speaker 2: developmental issues that are widely reported for their less privileged peers,
Speaker 2: and that last point about a sort of economic determinism
Speaker 2: in the outcomes for child development can actually be extracted
Speaker 2: to the findings of this research more broadly. So the
Speaker 2: authors write in their discussion sect that you know, one
Speaker 2: of the most significant trends observed here is that quote
Speaker 2: the high rise environment appears to intensify existing socioeconomic divisions.
Speaker 2: So there seems to be a kind of Matthew principle
Speaker 2: at work, right, Like the rich get richer and the
Speaker 2: poor get poorer. So when you study wealthy people, it
Speaker 2: seems that the ones living in high rise environments tend
Speaker 2: to report outcomes that are just as good or even
Speaker 2: better than equivalent equivalently wealthy people in other built environments,
Speaker 2: whereas for lower income people, living in a high rise
Speaker 2: is correlated with a lot of negative outcomes when compared
Speaker 2: to other types of buildings and this seemingly paradoxical result
Speaker 2: could have. It could have a number of causes, so
Speaker 2: it's hard to pin it down to one thing, but
Speaker 2: to the extent that the built environments themselves are at
Speaker 2: least one of those causes. A lot of these unequal
Speaker 2: outcomes could probably be alleviated by better, more humane building
Speaker 2: design in affordable residential high rises, and so some of
Speaker 2: the better designs would probably you know, couldn't be limited
Speaker 2: to this, but would probably include things like the incorporation
Speaker 2: of these vibrant shared spaces right essentially courtyards, lobbies, gathering
Speaker 2: places which have safe, open spaces for children to play
Speaker 2: and explore and for people to gather. Also, on top
Speaker 2: of that lots of natural light and greenery. These factors
Speaker 2: seem really important for people's psychological well being. You need
Speaker 2: to be able to see the sun, there need to
Speaker 2: be plants around. And then they also call out things
Speaker 2: like better wayfinding and layout design, though I think they
Speaker 2: mentioned this more in the context of like commercial buildings,
Speaker 2: though that matters too. You know, they say the floors
Speaker 2: of tall buildings can sometimes be hard to navigate in
Speaker 2: ways that cause a kind of stress and confusion that
Speaker 2: really builds up on you over time.
Speaker 1: Yeah, like that feeling of exiting the elevator and not
Speaker 1: really knowing like which way you're supposed to go in, Yeah,
Speaker 1: and the case sort of getting lost in the hallways. Yeah.
Speaker 2: So to bring all this back to the idea of
Speaker 2: building this sci fi fantasy city, sort of the concrete canopy,
Speaker 2: if we were to try to build cities that had
Speaker 2: life that existed in a more consistent way and the
Speaker 2: upper levels of buildings, I do think that's doable, but
Speaker 2: it sounds like you need to be very careful how
Speaker 2: you designed in that city. You'd want to design it
Speaker 2: in a way that doesn't make people miserable and cause
Speaker 2: these negative downstream outcomes for their well being and mental health. Again,
Speaker 2: this is not exhaustive of the things you need to do,
Speaker 2: but it seems clear that like a very important thing
Speaker 2: would be putting plenty of things like parks up there.
Speaker 2: And I think this is partially the spirit of an
Speaker 2: architectural movement I've read about called Streets in the Sky,
Speaker 2: where I think the idea is sort of to create
Speaker 2: high rises in which there are lots of public areas
Speaker 2: that are more like the streets on the not like
Speaker 2: private hallways, but open spaces connecting desirable destinations that cause
Speaker 2: that have plenty of foot traffic, and of course foot
Speaker 2: traffic is associated with all kinds of positive outcomes in
Speaker 2: residential areas, you know, resultant improvements in public safety, and
Speaker 2: just a positive vibe that comes along with people, you know,
Speaker 2: wanting to hang out and go from place to place.
Speaker 2: I think attempts to design buildings like this may may
Speaker 2: have had some limited success so far, but you could
Speaker 2: imagine it working better if it was more widely adopted,
Speaker 2: if you had more contiguous buildings connected each with destinations
Speaker 2: for shopping in public spaces, especially lots of greenery and
Speaker 2: natural light, places that people would want to go and
Speaker 2: be walking around in all the time.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and I guess one of the big challenges here, obviously,
Speaker 1: is that one skybridge is not going to fix it. Like,
Speaker 1: we're not talking about a throw up of skybridge. I'll
Speaker 1: throw up two skybridges and we'll fix things. No, you
Speaker 1: really are talking about a whole different approach to treating
Speaker 1: these these towers, these skyscrapers, and they're uh, not only
Speaker 1: you know what's available at the upper levels, but also
Speaker 1: the street level as well, you know. I mean there
Speaker 1: are plenty of existing apartment towers in cities like Chicago
Speaker 1: that that were designed with the idea of, yeah, you
Speaker 1: don't have to leave this tower, like here are your shops,
Speaker 1: here's your here's where you park your car, and it's
Speaker 1: all in the various layers of the design, and so,
Speaker 1: you know, it's it's almost like a teardown approach. You
Speaker 1: would need a new type of building, a new type
Speaker 1: of architecture to create the city. And and so there
Speaker 1: have been some really interesting designs that have emerged over
Speaker 1: the years. One of which that I've been fascinated by
Speaker 1: in the past is a Russian concept that emerged called
Speaker 1: the the Vulcan bugle. Okay, this is This can be
Speaker 1: translated as cloud hangers, sky hangers, or guy hooks, and
Speaker 1: these were the brainchild of a Russian architect by the
Speaker 1: name of l. Lisitski who lived eighteen ninety through nineteen
Speaker 1: forty one. I encourage everyone out there to look up
Speaker 1: some images of these. These are what are sometimes described
Speaker 1: as horizontal skyscrapers. They were never built, but the basic
Speaker 1: concept here. The idea was that there would be eight
Speaker 1: basically three story L shaped buildings in Moscow position fifty
Speaker 1: meters above the street on three pylons. So yeah, imagine
Speaker 1: one of those. Imagine a tetris block that is two
Speaker 1: or three up and then it has a little L part.
Speaker 1: Now imagine turning that horizontally, turning it on its side,
Speaker 1: and then sticking that up in the air on a
Speaker 1: massive pylon.
Speaker 2: I think it's very cool design. Though you can imagine
Speaker 2: being nervous walking under one of these.
Speaker 1: Yes, yeah, you know, but I guess you'd get used
Speaker 1: to it, you know, the same way we get used
Speaker 1: to the concept of skyscrapers in the in the air
Speaker 1: above us. But yeah, it's it's basically the idea here.
Speaker 1: It's a wide, horizontal living space elevated with a very
Speaker 1: narrow footprint on the street. So again, go back to
Speaker 1: what we were talking about earlier, like some of the
Speaker 1: reasons that people were looking at skybridges, part of it
Speaker 1: was congestion, vehicular and pedestrian congestion below. They're like, well,
Speaker 1: we got to if you can reduce the footprint, then
Speaker 1: then that's great, and then if you can connect things
Speaker 1: above even better. So one of the central ideas though
Speaker 1: on top of this was that Lesiski didn't think that
Speaker 1: vertical living was natural for human beings. He argued that
Speaker 1: we needed horizontal spaces, and this sort of design, while
Speaker 1: certainly still requiring vertical movement, you'd still have to take
Speaker 1: stairs or elevators up, it would maximize the horizontal environmental experience.
Speaker 2: I mean, none of the empirical researchers I was reading
Speaker 2: put it in exactly those terms, but in a vague
Speaker 2: way that seems to square pretty strongly with the research
Speaker 2: I was just looking at that, you know, like that
Speaker 2: these what do they call these vibrant shared spaces, Like
Speaker 2: having these big, open, horizontal spaces seems to be very
Speaker 2: helpful in creating a more humane living environment.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Yeah. On top of this, there was the idea
Speaker 1: that these pylons would extend into the ground, connecting to
Speaker 1: a subway system. And then he also even factored in
Speaker 1: the idea, Okay, if you have multiple of these these
Speaker 1: these skyhangers cloud hangers in a given part of the city,
Speaker 1: it might be confusing. They all look the same. No,
Speaker 1: he's saying, well, color code them. That way you have
Speaker 1: you're able to instantly tell where you are in reference
Speaker 1: to another. So it's not just a bunch of sort
Speaker 1: of alien gray buildings all emerging from the same area.
Speaker 1: No one is say orange, one is red, one.
Speaker 3: Is et cetera.
Speaker 1: Also, these would be positioned at intersections where traffic and
Speaker 1: congestion was that it's worse freeing up room. Yeah, so
Speaker 1: these are these are fascinating to look at some of
Speaker 1: the images of what could have been here. And while
Speaker 1: there are modern buildings with fantastic cantilever designs that that
Speaker 1: bring these images to mind, no Vocan bugles were ever
Speaker 1: actually built, certainly not in Russia, and largely it seems
Speaker 1: to be just two ahead of its time, partially as
Speaker 1: a concept perhaps, but also just I think engineering wise,
Speaker 1: Lisitski seemed to think, well, just we weren't ready to
Speaker 1: build these yet.
Speaker 2: You know, as I'm looking at these pictures, though, a
Speaker 2: consequence was emerging in my mind. We've been talking about more,
Speaker 2: more positive, more equitable, more humane ways to design cities
Speaker 2: that are connected at the upper levels.
Speaker 3: But I was just.
Speaker 2: Thinking about how, to some degree, some of the benefits
Speaker 2: of of horizontal space are kind of zero s right,
Speaker 2: because if you were to end up creating a city
Speaker 2: that's totally covered in these horizontal spaces. At higher levels,
Speaker 2: you'd essentially be cutting off the ground level from sunlight.
Speaker 2: You know, like you get some diagonal sunlight, but there
Speaker 2: are some limits on what you could put up above
Speaker 2: without negatively impacting the quality of life below. And then
Speaker 2: you get back into that possible vision of bifurcation with
Speaker 2: negative consequences at the ground.
Speaker 1: Yeah, like, oops, I accidentally created a shell and created
Speaker 1: a new underworld.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I thought of that, because this goes beyond just
Speaker 2: sort of like like hallways connecting tall buildings that might have,
Speaker 2: you know, horizontal spaces that are vertically aligned with their
Speaker 2: footprint on the ground. But this is like reaching out
Speaker 2: over empty space. So if you imagine lots of buildings
Speaker 2: like that, they just start to kind of become a like.
Speaker 3: A roof for the city.
Speaker 1: Yeah. And certainly when you look at look at these
Speaker 1: these concepts, they don't or certainly the original they don't
Speaker 1: really create this sense that the like a vibrant street
Speaker 1: level community was very much part of the aim here.
Speaker 1: Now looking into the future, would in Sepharik point out
Speaker 1: that one of the lingering failures of tall buildings is
Speaker 1: just that lack of integration into the urban fabric. So
Speaker 1: obviously there are a lot of cool sky bridges, but
Speaker 1: most buildings are not connected in this way. They're connected
Speaker 1: to the city at ground level, and there's a broad
Speaker 1: spectrum of what it might be like at ground level,
Speaker 1: from having like a vibrant community and shops to it
Speaker 1: just being you know, desolation in some cases. And so
Speaker 1: the goal of many tall buildings, it seems, has very
Speaker 1: much been not to fit in with the world beneath,
Speaker 1: but to stand out from it, and so they present
Speaker 1: an idea that may feel equal parts fantastic and reasonable,
Speaker 1: and perhaps today as it has been for decades quote
Speaker 1: if cities concentrate perhaps ten or one hundred times more
Speaker 1: people at a given location through building tall. There is
Speaker 1: also a need to replicate the facilities that exist at
Speaker 1: the ground plane up in the sky, including the parks
Speaker 1: and the sidewalks, the schools and the hospitals and other
Speaker 1: public civic functions. The ground plane should be considered as
Speaker 1: a duplicable layer of the city which needs to be replicated,
Speaker 1: at least in part at strategic horizons within and between
Speaker 1: buildings in the sky, not as a replacement of the
Speaker 1: ground plane, but as an addition to it. Every tall
Speaker 1: building would then need to be considered as a vital
Speaker 1: element in an overall three dimensional urban framework, rather than
Speaker 1: as a standalone icon superimposed on a two dimensional urban plan.
Speaker 3: I think that's very well put.
Speaker 1: Yeah, this idea that again you're not replacing the street,
Speaker 1: but you were augmenting it, you were replicating it would
Speaker 1: have still have a vibrant street level a community, but
Speaker 1: you would have this this sky level community as well.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 1: So yeah, I think it's some fascinating, fascinating ideas here.
Speaker 1: I would obviously love to hear from tower dwellers out there,
Speaker 1: and former tower dwellers and perhaps future tower dwellers who
Speaker 1: are listening to this show, because I, for one, I've
Speaker 1: never lived in a tall building. I've I don't think
Speaker 1: I've really worked in a tall building. I mean our
Speaker 1: most recent well, I mean our most recent studios, our
Speaker 1: most recent office building was what what fourth floor of
Speaker 1: a building?
Speaker 2: Well, the most recently the one we used to record
Speaker 2: in a tall building.
Speaker 1: I mean, but that was what what floor were we on?
Speaker 3: A like four fifteen fourteen?
Speaker 1: Really think?
Speaker 3: So?
Speaker 1: Yeah, it had a nice balcony. I remember that, that one,
Speaker 1: that one, but I guess one of the things about
Speaker 1: that building is that we had for most of the
Speaker 1: run there, we had the entire floor and a balcony,
Speaker 1: so we did have a lot of horizontal space, so
Speaker 1: maybe that was part of it. We didn't feel as
Speaker 1: locked in.
Speaker 2: Also, though that original office had some cubicles, wasn't wasn't
Speaker 2: full open office yet.
Speaker 1: Oh yeah, I did love those cubicles. They were stylish
Speaker 1: cubicles too. They weren't your They weren't like what you
Speaker 1: would see on the office or something. They were more
Speaker 1: like what you would see on Severn's you know. They
Speaker 1: were fun cubicles.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 1: But anyway, like I said, we'd love to hear from
Speaker 1: everyone out there in different parts of the world. What
Speaker 1: is it, What is it like living in the tall building?
Speaker 1: Does any of this match up with what we've been
Speaker 1: discussing in these episodes, or oh again, your favorite skywalks?
Speaker 1: Tell me about your skywalks. What are your favorites is?
Speaker 1: What has it been like to traverse some of the
Speaker 1: notable skywalks out there in our world. In the meantime,
Speaker 1: if you would like to check out other episodes of
Speaker 1: Stuff to Blow Your Mind, head on over to the
Speaker 1: Stuff to Blow Your Mind Podcast feed get that. Wherever
Speaker 1: you get your podcasts, you'll find core episodes on Tuesdays
Speaker 1: and Thursdays. You'll find short form artifacts or monster facts
Speaker 1: on Wednesdays, listener mail on Mondays, and on Fridays we
Speaker 1: do weird el Cinema. That's our time to set aside
Speaker 1: most serious concerns and just talk about a weird film.
Speaker 1: I'll also add this, if you want to be a
Speaker 1: part of the Discord channel or group, Discord whatever, Discord
Speaker 1: world for this show, email us and we'll send you
Speaker 1: a link to join that. I wanted to share that
Speaker 1: some of the users there are doing a book club.
Speaker 1: It looks like they are planning to read Umberto Echoes
Speaker 1: the name of the Rose, So if you want to
Speaker 1: get in on that again, email the show. Joe will
Speaker 1: give you the email address in a second and I'll
Speaker 1: make sure that we get the invite to the Discord
Speaker 1: to you.
Speaker 2: Huge thanks as always to our excellent audio producer Seth
Speaker 2: Nicholas Johnson.
Speaker 3: If you would like to get in touch with.
Speaker 2: Us with feedback on this episode or any other, to
Speaker 2: suggest topic for the future, or just to say hello,
Speaker 2: you can email us at contact at stuff to Blow
Speaker 2: your Mind dot com.
Speaker 4: H Stuff to Blow Your Mind is production of iHeartRadio.
Speaker 4: For more podcasts from my heart Radio, visit the iHeartRadio app,
Speaker 4: Apple Podcasts, or wherever you're listening to your favorite shows.