5 ms·

Equating skyscrapers only with supertalls (200m+) is pretty misleading. For example, both Sydney and Singapore are currently experiencing massive skyscraper bo

Equating skyscrapers only with supertalls (200m+) is pretty misleading. For example, both Sydney and Singapore are currently experiencing massive skyscraper booms, but they don't appear on the charts because they're "only" in the 150m range. Also, the "cities" are poorly defined. Tangerang is a suburb of Jakarta and should be counted as such, while Mandaluyong is in Manila. I suspect the same applies to a number of those Chinese cities.

astrodust 10y ago
It is odd picking that metric. Those are exceptionally tall buildings. For example, somehow one of the largest cities in the world, São Paulo, didn't even make the list despite having an outrageous number of tall buildings: http://static.panoramio.com/photos/original/2169111.jpg http://static.panoramio.com/photos/original/2169111.jpg Where's Tokyo? Hong Kong? I'm confused why these were omitted.
- sho 10y ago
  > Where's Tokyo? Hong Kong? The graphs are for new completions, which almost by definition favours developing countries. Evidently Tokyo and HK didn't complete any 200m+ buildings in 2015. And while São Paulo has a very impressive concentration of tall buildings, it has zero above 200m. I agree about 200m+ buildings being a strange metric, though. For all intents and purposes there's little difference, from an urban dynamics perspective, between 150m and 200m construction.
  - astrodust 10y ago
    There are many cities where building a 200m+ building is impractical, ridiculous, or totally out of character, yet these cities are highly dense, and by any definition, "great" cities. I'm really confused as to why they'd pick this particular metric. Later on in the article they talk about density patterns which is a much better predictor of health.
chordatum 10y ago
150 meters = 45 floors @ 10 feet / story I guess that's a large building to enter and experience as a human space, but how does it affect the skyline? If the horizon crests at ~25 miles at sea level here on earth, what's the distance from which it can be seen. I think that's a relevant measure for the effect of a building on its surrounding community.
- pcr0 10y ago
  In Hong Kong, most apartment buildings built in the last 15 years are about that height or taller. New commercial buildings are often double that. Though your measure of effect on the surrounding community wouldn't really apply here as the buildings aren't that tall when compared to surrounding mountains.
  - chordatum 10y ago
    I agree. That particular horizon figure is the only one I know off the top of my head, due to reading up on naval ballistics. Hence the remark about sea level. Anything else requires some napkin math about the circumfrence of the earth and radial offsets for non-sea-level terrain, combine with a bit of triangulation, to estimate skyline impact. Then, heaped on top is the effects of local topography contours and relative relationships with other human structures.
sho 10y ago
> Tangerang is a suburb of Jakarta No it's not? It's true that the cities are basically connected by urban sprawl, but administratively it's definitely a separate entity. A case could be made that it's part of Greater Jakarta but that's a pandora's box of definitions and interpretations...
- jpatokal 10y ago
  Tangerang is the "ta" in Jabodetabek, which for all practical purposes is a single massive conglomeration. https://goo.gl/maps/CAHXuiCDtQw https://goo.gl/maps/CAHXuiCDtQw

astrodust 10y ago

It is odd picking that metric. Those are exceptionally tall buildings. For example, somehow one of the largest cities in the world, São Paulo, didn't even make the list despite having an outrageous number of tall buildings: http://static.panoramio.com/photos/original/2169111.jpg http://static.panoramio.com/photos/original/2169111.jpg Where's Tokyo? Hong Kong? I'm confused why these were omitted.

sho 10y ago
> Where's Tokyo? Hong Kong? The graphs are for new completions, which almost by definition favours developing countries. Evidently Tokyo and HK didn't complete any 200m+ buildings in 2015. And while São Paulo has a very impressive concentration of tall buildings, it has zero above 200m. I agree about 200m+ buildings being a strange metric, though. For all intents and purposes there's little difference, from an urban dynamics perspective, between 150m and 200m construction.
- astrodust 10y ago
  There are many cities where building a 200m+ building is impractical, ridiculous, or totally out of character, yet these cities are highly dense, and by any definition, "great" cities. I'm really confused as to why they'd pick this particular metric. Later on in the article they talk about density patterns which is a much better predictor of health.

chordatum 10y ago

150 meters = 45 floors @ 10 feet / story I guess that's a large building to enter and experience as a human space, but how does it affect the skyline? If the horizon crests at ~25 miles at sea level here on earth, what's the distance from which it can be seen. I think that's a relevant measure for the effect of a building on its surrounding community.

pcr0 10y ago
In Hong Kong, most apartment buildings built in the last 15 years are about that height or taller. New commercial buildings are often double that. Though your measure of effect on the surrounding community wouldn't really apply here as the buildings aren't that tall when compared to surrounding mountains.
- chordatum 10y ago
  I agree. That particular horizon figure is the only one I know off the top of my head, due to reading up on naval ballistics. Hence the remark about sea level. Anything else requires some napkin math about the circumfrence of the earth and radial offsets for non-sea-level terrain, combine with a bit of triangulation, to estimate skyline impact. Then, heaped on top is the effects of local topography contours and relative relationships with other human structures.

sho 10y ago

> Tangerang is a suburb of Jakarta No it's not? It's true that the cities are basically connected by urban sprawl, but administratively it's definitely a separate entity. A case could be made that it's part of Greater Jakarta but that's a pandora's box of definitions and interpretations...

jpatokal 10y ago
Tangerang is the "ta" in Jabodetabek, which for all practical purposes is a single massive conglomeration. https://goo.gl/maps/CAHXuiCDtQw https://goo.gl/maps/CAHXuiCDtQw