Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Hong Kong is built out, I don't think its skyline will get any much larger than it already is at this point. The city nation is headed into a world of standstills now. There is no need for more supply of buildings there and the demand will never increase in an already built out nation. Hong Kong is done building.
Shenzen is the city on the come up in China. It's skyline will have the most changes.
Shanghai on the other hand isn't going after super talls as much as its going after infill of high rises and average height towers. Once the Shanghai Tower is complete there wont be anymore super tall buildings going up there for a long time.
Dubai still needs to find tenants for the towers it has now. It's going to take them decades to fill those up and there isn't enough demand for that huge supply. If they're still building then they're stupid.
Personally, Seattle has the best skyline in America. It has a solid variety of buildings, is nice and dense and looks great.
I don't get why people get all worked up over such a subjective question. Just because a skyline has the most number of buildings, or the most number of tall towers does not mean it's the best to everyone.
I dont even think building totals in Shanghai are accurate, and there are hundreds or even thousands more not accounted for. This is in regards to sites like Emporis.
Personally, Seattle has the best skyline in America. It has a solid variety of buildings, is nice and dense and looks great.
I don't get why people get all worked up over such a subjective question. Just because a skyline has the most number of buildings, or the most number of tall towers does not mean it's the best to everyone.
I dont even think building totals in Shanghai are accurate, and there are hundreds or even thousands more not accounted for. This is in regards to sites like Emporis.
This is ridiculous.
Building totals, maybe not.
Building counts in Shanghai are accurate for high rises and skyscrapers, those buildings in your picture are ordinary 8 story residential buildings all over the city.
I wouldn't count them as highrises or skyscrapers. More like fillers, midrises, and lowrises. I don't consider any of those three skyline material.
Right now Shenzen, Chongqing, Mumbai, and Guangzhou are the worlds sleeping giants. They're the ones most ripe for big skyline transformations.
Again, the Chicago Spire was scrapped, because of money.
Youd never see that proposal these days in NYC, which was my point.
You're half-right, actually. The Chicago Spire would never be seriously proposed in NYC, because it was a fantasy proposal by an Irish carpenter! It wasn't an actual plan.
Most cities, like NYC, or HK, would laugh at the developer and tell him to take a hike. Only serious developers need apply in NYC or HK. These aren't places for amateurs.
The Chicago Spire wasn't a serious proposal. Saying it was scrapped because of money is quite obvious. It's like my proposal for the world's biggest yo-yo was scrapped because of money. I have none!
Quote:
Originally Posted by resuelppA
All of these supertall proposals youre seeing are years old projects, so dont act as if NYC is still churning out plans for them.
NYC has 1000ft proposals all over the place, being announced all the time. If anything, the pace of development is accelerating.
There's a new proposal for the old Brookdale campus just this week; there's an Extell proposal for Times Square from two weeks ago. Recent enough for you?
Chicago has some of the highest vacancies of any U.S. city; it won't be getting new towers for decades. NYC has a massive building shortage, and huge demand from global oligarchs. They will be getting towers from now until the forseeable future.
Right now Shenzen, Chongqing, Mumbai, and Guangzhou are the worlds sleeping giants. They're the ones most ripe for big skyline transformations.
Exactly. And Tianjin, Wuxi, and Suzhou, particuarly Tianjin.
The more established Chinese cities are planning less nowadays. They're already filled with towers, and don't need to build to show the world anything.
You're half-right, actually. The Chicago Spire would never be seriously proposed in NYC, because it was a fantasy proposal by an Irish carpenter! It wasn't an actual plan.
Most cities, like NYC, or HK, would laugh at the developer and tell him to take a hike. Only serious developers need apply in NYC or HK. These aren't places for amateurs.
The Chicago Spire wasn't a serious proposal. Saying it was scrapped because of money is quite obvious. It's like my proposal for the world's biggest yo-yo was scrapped because of money. I have none!
NYC has 1000ft proposals all over the place, being announced all the time. If anything, the pace of development is accelerating.
There's a new proposal for the old Brookdale campus just this week; there's an Extell proposal for Times Square from two weeks ago. Recent enough for you?
Chicago has some of the highest vacancies of any U.S. city; it won't be getting new towers for decades. NYC has a massive building shortage, and huge demand from global oligarchs. They will be getting towers from now until the forseeable future.
False.
The City Council approved the building in 2007, so to say it was a fantasy proposal is a bit disingenuous. Calatrava is a reknowned architect. Is 80 South Street not "fantasy" enough?
Naw, you dont say?
Did you hear that NYC is built on an island? Crazy talk.
Chicago City Council approved the building in 2007.
That's my point. You don't get it, do you?
If a carpenter announced the world's tallest building in HK or NYC, it would never even get to the City Council. They wouldn't take the proposal seriously.
In Chicago, the city is sometimes desperate for attention (Second City Syndrome, not unique to Chicago, however), so they latch on to any proposal, no matter how outlandish.
If you're a more established city, you don't need to waste time with outlandish proposals or wacky ideas. You ask the developer what he brings to the table, and then make him build an argument why the city should approve the proposal.
You're half-right, actually. The Chicago Spire would never be seriously proposed in NYC, because it was a fantasy proposal by an Irish carpenter! It wasn't an actual plan.
Most cities, like NYC, or HK, would laugh at the developer and tell him to take a hike. Only serious developers need apply in NYC or HK. These aren't places for amateurs.
The Chicago Spire wasn't a serious proposal. Saying it was scrapped because of money is quite obvious. It's like my proposal for the world's biggest yo-yo was scrapped because of money. I have none!
Actually construction started briefly on the spire back in like 2008.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
