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.
Not everything that is old is nice. While I'm generally for protecting heritage, I think in the case of London there wasn't all that much there anyway.
Not everything that is old is nice. While I'm generally for protecting heritage, I think in the case of London there wasn't all that much there anyway. I mean Canary Wharf for instance was a pretty decrepit place.
Canary Wharf was a derelict site before construction started - nothing was lost to make way for it. It was a major regeneration project, which most people will view as a good thing. If it involved tearing down attractive old buildings, people would view it as a bad thing.
It doesn't matter - they are skyscrapers regardless of how tall the Sears Tower is. It's like saying the Empire State Building isn't a skyscraper because it is tiny compared to the Burj Khalifa. Seriously - nobody in their right mind would deny that Madrid's tallest building is a skyscraper.
The problem is that there is no official definition of skyscraper. This 12 meter tall building is also called a skyscraper. I think the definition of 'supertall' at 300 meters height is fair. To me that is a scyscraper, those building in Paris and Madrid are just tall buildings. You are free to call those, including the 12 meter one 'scyscrapers'.
Quote:
Does it really matter, though, that Europe lacks the very tall buildings found elsewhere? Do we need 100-storey skyscrapers? Do we want such monstrosities ruining our beautiful cities?
Not everywhere, but there are areas with a huge shortage of space for housing like London, the Randstad in the Netherlands or Munich. They would make sense there to use the available space more efficiently.
I think we have an aversion against high buildings because in the UK and the Netherlands these 50's and 60's concrete flats with low income housing are just ugly disasters drawing the wrong kind of people. There are problems with those buildings even here today. But if build well, they are just beautiful like the Empire State building or the Sears tower.
In addition, somehow we always lack the funding for such prestige projects, in contrary to the US, Asia and the Middle East. It is great the British have build the Shard which at least somewhat matches up.
Not everything that is old is nice. While I'm generally for protecting heritage, I think in the case of London there wasn't all that much there anyway. I mean Canary Wharf for instance was a pretty decrepit place.
When I say ''old buildings'' I mean buildings like these;
If you mean those buildings above me than I don't understand why they need to be demolished to be replaced by skyscrapers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by drro
The problem is that there is no official definition of skyscraper. This 12 meter tall building is also called a skyscraper. I think the definition of 'supertall' at 300 meters height is fair. To me that is a scyscraper, those building in Paris and Madrid are just tall buildings. You are free to call those, including the 12 meter one 'scyscrapers'.
Quote:
There is no official definition or height above which a building may be classified as a skyscraper.
The first skyscraper type buildings were not tall at all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by drro
Not everywhere, but there are areas with a huge shortage of space for housing like London, the Randstad in the Netherlands or Munich. They would make sense there to use the available space more efficiently.
It does make sense to build up but City government they just want to preserve the actual buildings but the view of the buildings too or the skyline..
Quote:
Originally Posted by drro
I think we have an aversion against high buildings because in the UK and the Netherlands these 50's and 60's concrete flats with low income housing are just ugly disasters drawing the wrong kind of people. There are problems with those buildings even here today. But if build well, they are just beautiful like the Empire State building or the Sears tower.
In addition, somehow we always lack the funding for such prestige projects, in contrary to the US, Asia and the Middle East. It is great the British have build the Shard which at least somewhat matches up.
Last edited by Rozenn; 01-06-2014 at 06:11 AM..
Reason: Copyright
Fair enough, you might say the Channel Tunnel was a somewhat unnecessary European prestige project that costed 15 billion euro's when ships and low cost airlines are a perfectly viable alternative. A few nice skyscapers could have been build for that kind of money.
The definition of a skyscraper is a building of at least 150m /500ft. There are plenty of skyscrapers in Europe (mostly in London, Moscow, Paris and Frankfurt).
The problem is that there is no official definition of skyscraper. This 12 meter tall building is also called a skyscraper. I think the definition of 'supertall' at 300 meters height is fair. To me that is a scyscraper, those building in Paris and Madrid are just tall buildings. You are free to call those, including the 12 meter one 'scyscrapers'.
So only 300m+ buildings are skyscrapers? There are 6 skyscrapers in NYC then. There were only 2 before 2007. Same in Hong Kong or Chicago, only 6 such buildings. 300 m / 1000' + is, like you said, the definition of a supertall. Any supertall is a skyscraper. All skyscrapers aren't supertalls. Like said above, a lot draw the limit at 150 m / 500'.
This building is well below the 300 m mark but I think the overwhelming majority would agree that it's a skyscraper. It's only 17 m taller than Madrid's Cristal and Caja Madrid towers: https://maps.google.fr/maps?q=Spruce...0.75,,0,-51.98
The definition of a skyscraper is a building of at least 150m /500ft. There are plenty of skyscrapers in Europe (mostly in London, Moscow, Paris and Frankfurt).
So only 300m+ buildings are skyscrapers? There are 6 skyscrapers in NYC then. There were only 2 before 2007.
That's right. A building needs a certain height to literally 'scrape the clouds'. The only building I have seen doing that is the Sears Tower, which is far above 300m, btw. That is what I call a skyscraper.
FAR more beautiful than any 'skyscraper' I've ever seen.
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.
