2 ms·
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
by 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 agoThere 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.