Skyscrapers around the world

[Uumke 0]

well, in europe, you don't see really sky craper cities.

Mainly because there is a height limit, due to old, historical building.

and if there are skycraper districts, they're mostly out of the city centre. (La Defense, Paris).

Of course, there are always some exceptions.

[ILL Tonkso 1,239]

Nope, no skyscrapers here...

Or here.....

Or here....

Or here....

Or here.....

You get the point

London DOES have skyscrapers.

[Duke87 1,070]

My point is, London does not have a central, commanding skyline the way New York, Chicago, or those asian cities do. Yes, there are skyscrapers, but they're dotted all over the place, without there being any considerable collections of them in one spot.

And I only count existing buildings in statistics. London isn't a skyscraper city, but it is starting to become one.

It won't achieve true skscraper city class until it gets itself a supertall (1000+ feet), though.

[ILL Tonkso 1,239]

Like the London Bridge Tower?

[dOwntOwnbUzz 0]

Tonkso drop the whole London deal, they do not have large downtown even remotely close to the past few cities we have been discussing, it's like... peanuts

compared to New York, LA, Chicago, Hong Kong... you get the point

but nobody seems to really care besides you, so drop the deal and talk about large skyscrapers, in large skylines

[Equilibria 16]

OK, first of all, comparing Hong Kong's skyline to LA's is the definition of Peanuts.

Secondly, LA has one building taller than the Shard, and the topic of this thread is skyscrapers around the world, not skylines. If we are to ignore London's buildings because the city lacks a difinitive central skyscraper hub of supertall buildings, then we must also disregard:

Signature Tower, Nashville, TN:

Trump and CityGate Towers, Ramat Gan, Israel:

Q1, Gold Coast, Australia:

Landmark Tower, Yokohama, Japan:

All of these are in cities without massively tall downtowns, and all are above 300m save the Israeli ones, which are the tallest in that country at 288m.

In a thread about skyscrapers all around the world, the size of the downtown shouldn't matter.

[lrfox 2]

Equilibria... good points. i tried to say that in my most recent post, but aparently it was lost in translation. as someone said, many cities especially in europe, have towers scattered about away from the central core or business district of the cities. London has large clusters of skyscrapers, it's a huge city, but the center of the city isn't going to be leveled so they can have a central skyline. No one in their right mind would level hundreds of years of history to have some tall buildings so these arguments are ridiculous.

btw... i like south station tower in your Icon. another one of my favorite proposed buildings

[ILL Tonkso 1,239]

dOwntOwnbUzz: A lot of people care, London IS a skyscraper city and DOES have central cores of Skyscrapers, just look at Canary Wharf and the Square Mile. It DOES have large skyscrapers and large skylines, remember London coverds twice the land area of New York, its 33% larger in size than Houston its a HUGE city.

Now, this thread is called 'Skyscrapers arouind the World' which means this thread is open to ANY skyscraper on the planet. So i can post all i want about Londons, Birminghams, Manchesters, Leeds', Liverpools skyscrapers all i want.

Itfox: Very good point indeed.

[confused04 14]

NYC : 321 sq. miles

Houston: 602 sq. miles

Greater London: 609 sq miles

I'm not sure what "Greater London" entails and since suburbanization is far stronger in the United States than in Europe, its hard to define which cities are indeed larger physically, and periodically you will run into even saying which cities are larger by population. Where a city "ends" is hard to define. Also, using CSA might not work as divisions usually follow county lines (which could easily make an area looking physcially larger than it really is). Point being...eh.

[ILL Tonkso 1,239]

Ah, i got the Houston Figure wrong my apology, but London is 610 sq miles (according to a recent BBC documentry)

But while were here,

Holloway Circus, Birmingham

Orion Building (on the left)

Some of the nice new tall buildings in Birmingham England

[st louis dude 6]

Only in the last ten years has England had any real skyscrapers,before that
it has been all lower rise concrete buildings,due to height restrictions.

[Uumke 0]

well, I can imagine those height restrictions.

Imagine, that next to a historical building, that is hundreds of years old, and took a century to build ( without any cranes etc.),

a big skycraper is going to be built in like 3 years.

[SystemUK 0]

Originally posted by: st louis dude

Only in the last ten years has England had any real skyscrapers,before that

it has been all lower rise concrete buildings,due to height restrictions.

quote>

 

There is not often a hight restriction unless it is near an airport or (in very few cases) a significant historical building within a certain distance.

There has never been much of a call for skyscrapers all over the UK cities like in other countries like the USA. There was a lot of tower block buildings sprung up all over the UK after WW2 which shows again that there were few hieght restrictions. It is only recently that the UK has started to build up as we don't need to show of like some US cities like to.

[montrouge 2]

One of most hated skyscrapers in the world

Tour Montparnasse    Paris  210 m

Building over 150m  u/c

Tour T1  185m    2008

rendering

Tour Granite   184 m 2008

rendering

[Mulefisk 15]

montrouge:I don't get what's so wrong with it. I think it adds a nice exclamation point to the otherwise flat skyline. Kinda like the Eiffiel tower. (Although I will agree that tour montarnapasse is nowhere near as nice)

[lrfox 2]

Well, the US has lots of height restrictions too...  Boston has issues cuz it's downtown is soooo close to the airport....

...as you can see in the back of this picture.

L.A.... only lifted it's height restrictions in the 50s. and a lot of places do it for historical reasons too. 

I'd hardly say the U.S. "shows off" with it's towers. look at some of the proposals on the previous page. that sqiuggly building in St. Petersburg, Burg Dubai, Petronas Twins, Tapai 101, the list goes on. thos buildings are rather showy, and are sort of show offs. the only one i can think of in the US is the Chrysler Building, which a spire was added to the design at the last minute to make it the tallest building. not to mention the spire on the chrysler (although beautiful) is incredibly showey.  the shocker for that one is the Empire State Building came right after, and was simple, beautiful, and practical at the same time. the spire was designed as a dock for zepplins but turned into a radio tower as the winds were too high for zepplins. it was not intended to show off.

The tallest buildings in the US for the longest time (WTC, NY) were practical large rectangles. CERTAINLY not show boating buildings in anyway. 

People need to lay off London anyway. google image search London Skyscraper or Skyline and take a look or go to Emporis if you don't believe there are towers there. they have a great mix of towers of all sorts of styles. they're just not in a bunch. every country is different, accept a different countries skyscrapers for what they are.  IMO, London is one of the top 5 skyscraper cities on the Planet, and will be even moreso when the new ones are built. 

*edit* montrogue- Montparnasse doesn't look terrible to people from the outside, but why is it so hated in Paris? I would guess that it's because of the eiffel tower, but that's probably an ignorant assumption. Maybe something to do w/ the dark color or the fact that it's sort of alone. this has always interested me as to why it's so hated.

[montrouge 2]

Originally posted by: Mulefisk montrouge:I don't get what's so wrong with it. I think it adds a nice exclamation point to the otherwise flat skyline. Kinda like the Eiffiel tower. (Although I will agree that tour montarnapasse is nowhere near as nice)quote>

 

I like the Montparnasse tower

It is the more close skyscraper to my home.

Less than  1 kilometers

Paris has a height limit   37m

But this limit can be exceeded.

The last time was in 1996 for the national library of France  (fours  80m high rises buildings)

Housing and Offices High rises  buildings  might be build in Paris.

This law is only for Paris  

Suburbs have no height restrictions.

[Almighty Nienaber 3]

well omaha, Nebraska, USA is not the biggest city but heres the sky line

the bigest building is One Natinol Bank
the Second biggest is the Woodmen Tower 

[spacenuteskimo 0]

     I have to say for some of these cities, such as Chicago, the new buildings will look ugly among the other ones.  For example in Chicago, the Sears Tower, and the John Han***** Center are very imposing because they are the same color and built in a similar design.  If that new one goes in, the skyline would probably look very odd...

     However in cities like Dubai, which are only 30 years old and the buildings are already like that, it can look pretty good.

     Oh, and I have a question for you Americans out there.  For us up here in Canada, our skylines are all pretty much uniform in height, but we just have a lot of them.  How come in the US, there seems to always be a sort of "signature tower", one that towers above the rest (Library Tower, Empire State Building etc...  I don't have time to look for them all...)?

     Matthew

[MaybeMemories06 0]

Las Vegas has a really long skyline. Its not one of the taller ones, even though we have the tallest observation tower in North America. (And the tallest building west of the Mississippi river) The rest of our buildings are just really expansive. Part of that is because of height restrictions on the southern end of the valley, and the other part of that is that since Las Vegas wasn't incorporated as a city until 1905, and wasn't really a city until well into the 50's, cars were already a major success and the city never needed to develop an urban core like most other cities have. We just spread. Recently, we are getting more high-rise residential towers, but are still lacking in the office towers. Anyway...enough blabbering. heres a pic:

On an unrelated subject: Anyone know a good image hosting & indexing site? I hate that I can't see what I have previously posted on Imageshack in case I need to go back to it and link it again.

[dOwntOwnbUzz 0]

ok who ever said anything about comparing Hong Kong to LA???  i certainly didn't, i may have compared London to LA**peanuts** or maybe Hong Kong to London... but LA is a large area, it also is scattered like London

if you were to take all the skylines in LA: century city, westwood, glendale, and the downtown district in LA, and combine them into one>>> you'd have about a Chicago and a half

not meaning to bring the controversey back into the topic, and this is a skyscraper topic and not a skyline topic... just clearing that up

glendale | westwood | century city | district LA

[lrfox 2]

MAybeMemories: When you say talles observation tower i'm assuming you mean the stratosphere. I always thought the CN was taller (you did say North America). Is it because the CN is considered a TV tower that the Stratosphere can be considered taller? or did you mean the US?. I know the Strat is certainly taller than the Space Needle. That's an intersting statement. I believe you, cuz i'm sure it is actually classified as that, but i'm curious as to how it gains that distinction.

Spacenut: I never thought the US and Canada were that much different in their skylines... Many of the Larger Canadian cities have signature towers too. I would say the Sears goes well w/ the John Han***** and Ion Center in Chicago, and really doesn't stand out too much, the Empire State is the tallest in NYC, but doesn't REALLY tower over the rest by too much, Library in LA does, but mostly because of the fact that LA is a relatively new player in the skyscraper game, it'll be interesting to watch in the future.

Every city has a tallest building and in the US it's no different. Most cities have compliments to their tallest that are similar. Chicago has the Hanc-o-c-k and the Ion as 1000+ footers to compliment the Sears, NYC has the Chrysler for the ESB, San Francisco has the Bank of America Building to go w/ the Transamerica building, etc... most US skylines are balanced just like the Canadian ones. Toronto has Scotia Bank to compliment First Canadian place (the CN isn't an office tower) in one of the world's prettiest skylines. but most of america's are balanced. driving through boston nothing shocks you as signature, the han***** towere and prudential compliment each other, same w/ atlanta, there's a good balance, same w/ houston, same w/ dallas, same w/ denver, and so on. Two US cities that strike me as having standout buildings among the rest (aside from the aformentioned LA) are Seattle w/ the Bank of America Building and Clevelend w/ key tower (Nashville's Sig. tower will stand out a lot too).

I rambled. i know you were just stating an opinion, but i think Both the US and Canada have balanced skylines (for the most part)...

wanna talk about unbalanced? Kuala Lumpur- w/ the Petronas... soooo unbalanced, Same w/ Tapai and Tapai 101. nothing to rival it. i think they certainly have their signature stand out structures.

[Asimov 0]

Something I just found at skyscrapercity, another european supertall, the new Gazprom-Tower in St.Petersburg, Russia, 396 m, 77 floors.

I think this one would fit better in the CBD in Moscow along the Russia Tower and his companions, but it anyway looks nice.

Regarding that LA vs London-topic:

That doesn't make much sense at all, american and european citys are completly different in structure, history, the people have a completly different mentality, they're simply not comparable. The only city's which are are remotely comparable to London are Paris and Moscow and out of those my favorit is by far London. And I'm really forward to the London Bridge Tower, one of my favourite buildings in this new skyscraper-generation.

[SimFox 803]

Asimov: yeah, most conservative structure had won.... pity really And I agree with you it would be more in place in Moscow among its peers in size and scale. But in St. Petersburg it will stick to the sky as a giant corn. For such a stand-alone sort of thing something more imaginative would have been much better.

[Asimov 0]

Source:

http://skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?p=10595488#post10595488

just, resized it.

It's now at 310 m / 86 floors. Wouldn't be of much interest given the the fact how many taller skyscrapers are under construction, but if you consider the fact that this isn't even half of the final height, it's quite impressive.

[lrfox 2]

That's not half the height? i know they're being secretive about the project and not releasing a final height, but that tower looks more than 1/2 done. look how narrow it is at the top... structurally it doesn't look like it can handle another 310 meters. i don't doubt it'll be huge, but another 310? i dunno. it'll have to have one HELL of a spire to double in height. just from how it looks, anyone have any other pictures that could make me feel otherwise?

... or better yet, any factual knowlegde that trumps the assumption i just made by looking at a picture lol (i know someone's got it)

[Asimov 0]

The official statement about the hight was always: Higher than 700 m. So it would have to bee at least 350 m or higher to say that it's halfway done. A detailed diagram of the structure: http://img294.imageshack.us/img294/1667/burjdubaielevationaw2.jpg

And BTW, I didn't realize that that picture is already 3 weeks old, since then it's been growing another 15 m, now at 325.

[Giligone 10]

Originally posted by: lrfox That's not half the height? i know they're being secretive about the project and not releasing a final height, but that tower looks more than 1/2 done. look how narrow it is at the top... structurally it doesn't look like it can handle another 310 meters. i don't doubt it'll be huge, but another 310? i dunno. it'll have to have one HELL of a spire to double in height. just from how it looks, anyone have any other pictures that could make me feel otherwise?

... or better yet, any factual knowlegde that trumps the assumption i just made by looking at a picture lol (i know someone's got it)quote>

As you can see on this pic level 87 is right around 1/2 the height

[lrfox 2]

Ok... thanks a bunch guys. it was just tough for me to see in the first pic. btw... that last diagram is pretty sweet. 700m is huge.

[anubis89 108]

wow, that gazprom building looks amazing! But behind the ural there is a big difference compared to the european part, especially in the rural areas and i hate that!