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.
And prices are also skyrocketing. I see no point in that development, frankly.
I prefer slow gradual growth or sound stagnation.
If you want to see low growth and economic stagnation, go to the eu, continental Europe is full of countries and cities with no growth and stagnation.
If you want to see success and economic expansion, look to the UK and London, they are booming and showing Europe how to succeed and reach economic prosperity
If you want to see low growth and economic stagnation, go to the eu, continental Europe is full of countries and cities with no growth and stagnation.
If you want to see success and economic expansion, look to the UK and London, they are booming and showing Europe how to succeed and reach economic prosperity
I don't share that view at all. And I think experts don't do so, either, because London rarely shows in the top 10 of various best city rankings. Economic growth is associated with lots of problems, which is also why NYC doesn't show up in such rankings, unlike slow cities such as Munich or Stockholm.
Brasilia has a population of about 2 million people, yet there are extremely few skyscrapers for a city with a population that big.
I have seen many cities with a significantly smaller population than Brasilia that have way more skyscrapers than them.
Yes, in Brazil there are no towers higher than 50 floors or so, and they are almost all in SP and to a lesser extent Rio. Almost all of them are residential, anyway, which might be one reason why there are no taller towers.
A suburb of Paris is still Paris... Get it right...
Does the same theory apply to DC? DC has no skyscrapers by law. You have to go across the river and into another state to build them. So I wouldn't consider the buildings in Rosslyn, VA to be part of DC, even though Rosslyn is considered a suburb in the DC metro area. DC is distinctly different from Virginia.
If you want to see low growth and economic stagnation, go to the eu, continental Europe is full of countries and cities with no growth and stagnation.
If you want to see success and economic expansion, look to the UK and London, they are booming and showing Europe how to succeed and reach economic prosperity
There is an article on London's skyscraper boom on Spiegel.de today:
London is booming, but nowhere else in the UK is. Places like Rotterdam and The Hague have seem way more skyscraper developments than any regional UK city. London is the exception, not the rule. Paris seems to have a few skyscrapers in La Defense U/C as well.
Anyway.. London's economic boom is probably not very beneficial to the average Londoner either. They are having to contend with rising prices on top of already extortionate living costs. The cost of property in London is unbelievable - even as recently as 1995, London was relatively affordable. Plus, London has the highest poverty levels in the UK. Over 40% of children in Westminster live in poverty, over 50% in Tower Hamlets (which includes Canary Wharf - lots of shiny new skyscrapers). Even the UK's richest borough - Kensington and Chelsea- has above-average child poverty levels, and this is a place where Russian billionaires and Arabian oil tycoons love to buy property, leaving them empty, meaning London has even less available property, meaning prices rise even more, because demand is increasing.. you get the drift.
I bet most people would be shocked to discover that Notting Hill - one of the UK's most desirable and expensive districts - has serious poverty - not far from million-pound homes.
Still, if I could live comfortably in London, I'd pick it over almost anywhere else. To be blunt, London makes Stockholm and comparable cities look like sleepy boring villages, and I'm at the stage in my life where I value cultural attractions and entertainment above everything else, even if it means compromising on living standards. London offers what few cities in the world can - along with Paris and New York.
Plus, Stockholm and the like have almost London prices but they offer far less. Seems ridiculous IMO - almost as ridiculous as Geneva being one of the most expensive cities in the world, even though it's tiny.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Caladium
Does the same theory apply to DC? DC has no skyscrapers by law. You have to go across the river and into another state to build them. So I wouldn't consider the buildings in Rosslyn, VA to be part of DC, even though Rosslyn is considered a suburb in the DC metro area. DC is distinctly different from Virginia.
Note that there are skyscrapers even inside of the City of Paris (excluding the suburbs), several other will be added in few years (one is already in construction and the construction of others some will soon begin).
The tallest building of DC would not be in the top 20 of the tallest high-rise inside the City of Paris (excluding monuments like the Eiffel tower), the tallest building in Rosslyn would not be the tallest inside the City of Paris.
Yes, I think having to cross both a state line and a fairly wide river tend to make a distinction. Not to mention that there was a period in history where the two sides of the river belonged to different sides during the civil war. In Paris it's just a city boundary that's crossed, right? So it makes sense that it would all sort of blend together.
London is booming, but nowhere else in the UK is. Places like Rotterdam and The Hague have seem way more skyscraper developments than any regional UK city. London is the exception, not the rule. Paris seems to have a few skyscrapers in La Defense U/C as well.
Anyway.. London's economic boom is probably not very beneficial to the average Londoner either. They are having to contend with rising prices on top of already extortionate living costs. The cost of property in London is unbelievable - even as recently as 1995, London was relatively affordable. Plus, London has the highest poverty levels in the UK. Over 40% of children in Westminster live in poverty, over 50% in Tower Hamlets (which includes Canary Wharf - lots of shiny new skyscrapers). Even the UK's richest borough - Kensington and Chelsea- has above-average child poverty levels, and this is a place where Russian billionaires and Arabian oil tycoons love to buy property, leaving them empty, meaning London has even less available property, meaning prices rise even more, because demand is increasing.. you get the drift.
I bet most people would be shocked to discover that Notting Hill - one of the UK's most desirable and expensive districts - has serious poverty - not far from million-pound homes.
Still, if I could live comfortably in London, I'd pick it over almost anywhere else. To be blunt, London makes Stockholm and comparable cities look like sleepy boring villages, and I'm at the stage in my life where I value cultural attractions and entertainment above everything else, even if it means compromising on living standards. London offers what few cities in the world can - along with Paris and New York.
Plus, Stockholm and the like have almost London prices but they offer far less. Seems ridiculous IMO - almost as ridiculous as Geneva being one of the most expensive cities in the world, even though it's tiny.
There is only one tower under construction in paris la defense, and it is almost complete.
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.
