Rotterdam has a very good skyline and city planning, but its towers are very short.

That´s true for the moment! BTW 100-120m. i would not call that very short.

At the moment we have one 150er, but over 5 years we 187, 158, 154, 3 150ers and a bunch of 100-150ers! if everything going well. And there a lot more coming! :cheers:

But Rotterdam really needs a +200m, than it should super! They stick too close to 150m.

Rotterdam has a very good skyline and city planning, but its towers are very short.

London and Istanbul resemble each other very much. Apart from being two former imperial capital cities, they also have many "skyline(s)" instead of a single skyline.

Moscow has very tall skyscrapers, but "skylinewise" it has very bad planning (the same case with Ankara.)

Frankfurt has very tall and very stylish buildings, but it's a small city with few towers (the same case with Warsaw and Naples.)
Good points @Asimov! But you have forgotten about Paris. La Defense is one cluster but with number of highrises comparable to all clusters in Istambul or in London together.
Frankfurt's cluster is simply amaizing and the highest one in Europe.
Compasion of Warsaw and Naples skyscrapers it's a stupid idea.
Probably in the close future London, Istanbul and Moscow will beat Paris and Frankfurt but now IMO Frankfurt and Paris are the winners.

^ That's right!

I dont think istanbul will be greater than Frankfurt nor Paris. Next thing is that Istanbuls scrapers look awful (no style at all just "woodden boxes") But London will look awesome in the future and no doubts about that.

question for that vilnious guy

u said that tallest in city is 129 meters, but i see u say building is actually 116 met, from ground up, and then observation deck was added to make it taller

shouldnt building count as 116 and not 129 m

indeed the individual designs on istanbul skyscrapers arent very good. a city to have a good skyline also needs stunning landmark buildings like london has with swiss re but it also has height with canary wharf. frankfurt has stunning landmarks too and height but la defense and istanbul dont. la defense has one thing only - density. istanbul is lacking density, height and style.

La Defense has the best planning of them all in my opinion. It lacks a landmark? What about that cube? If that ain't a landmark I eat my socks! I agree with you on the rest though.

indeed the individual designs on istanbul skyscrapers arent very good. a city to have a good skyline also needs stunning landmark buildings like london has with swiss re but it also has height with canary wharf. frankfurt has stunning landmarks too and height but la defense and istanbul dont. la defense has one thing only - density. istanbul is lacking density, height and style.

Swiss Re is neither a landmark nor something original (direct copy of a Pino Silvestre perfume bottle :D)

Now THIS is what a MEGA CITY should look (looks :D) like. ;)

European side:

http://wowturkey.com/tr19/Kazandibi_marmgen3mm.jpg

Other parts of the European side:

http://wowturkey.com/tr19/Kazandibi_MeReK_IMGP4801mm1.jpg

Asian side:

http://wowturkey.com/tr19/Kazandibi_214603.jpg

The suspension bridges in between:

http://wowturkey.com/tr19/Kazandibi_memocan_bogaz01mm7.jpg

http://wowturkey.com/tr19/Kazandibi_Anil_fsm_leventm1.jpg

Sorry guys, but most European "cities" can only be the "boroughs" of Istanbul (city area: 1991 km2, metro area: 5712 km2) ;)

la grande arche is a landmark in one sense, but its not a landmark skyscraper which is what im talking about. its not really visible on the skyline except from a few angles. it is a landmark building though, as is lloyds of london. neither makes much of an impact on the skyline but both are great buildings if you follow.

Gothicform, what the hell are u talking about when u say that the Grande Arche in La Defense doesn't make much of an impact on the skyline ???!!!

This is because of this building that La Defense is so iconic so if it doesn't make an impact on the skyline then I think we have to redefine the word "skyline" ! Plus The Grand Arch is not a little arc like the London's Marble arch ! It's 110 meters high !

Maybe a picture will make you understand what we are talking about !!!
And Loyds of London is sure great, but it doesn't have the same efffect on London's skyline as much as La Grande Arche in La Defense !

La Grande Arche is a true magnet, I'm not sure that lots of tourist go to the City just to see the Lloyds, swiss Re maybe but Lloyds I wonder...

http://ladefense.free.fr/1/14.jpg

Now THIS is what a MEGA CITY should look (looks :D) like. ;)

European side:

http://wowturkey.com/tr19/Kazandibi_marmgen3mm.jpg

Other parts of the European side:

http://wowturkey.com/tr19/Kazandibi_MeReK_IMGP4801mm1.jpg

Asian side:

http://wowturkey.com/tr19/Kazandibi_214603.jpg

The suspension bridges in between:

http://wowturkey.com/tr19/Kazandibi_memocan_bogaz01mm7.jpg

http://wowturkey.com/tr19/Kazandibi_Anil_fsm_leventm1.jpg

la grande arch is only visible from ground level along the axis that passes through it. it is not visible from every angle and thus is not a landmark building. it should be visible on the north/south and east/west axis. if la grande arch is then how come i cant find any pictures of it? everything on google is either from the base of it, or from the effiel tower. you can see the wall of skyscrapers on both sides blocking it off. 110m is nothing if there's a wall of 150m buildings in the way as the picture youve posted clearly shows. its more or less the same height as 5 canada square and like 5 canada square its only visible from certain angles. both buildings do not make an impact on the skyline, but rather the urban planning makes an impact on the skyline by arranging the surrounding buildings so that from certain angles these buildings are visible. from closer to ground level yuo get an idea of just how short it is, move another half a mile to the left and it disappears completely, just like lloyds! -
http://www.jura.ch/ajb/site/Paris/la%20defense.jpg
to give you an example here's 5 canada square infront of citigroup, 105m, change your view and its no longer visible because its surrounded by taller buildings because canary wharf like la defense has been designed so it is visible from certain angles but not others -
http://skyscrapernews.com/gallery/canary_wharf11-01.jpg
anyone can view any building from a certain angle and claim it has an impact on the skyline, just get to the correct angle but an impact does not make a landmark. or from this angle hq5 isnt visible at all and its over 150m tall because like la defense it has been designed to be visible on only certain angles. its on the egde of the estate so what is it? a landmark?

Well from what I've read in your post, u seem to go very technical to prove to whoever wanna hear u that whatever building is not a landmark !

So according to you a landmark has to be seen from east, west, north and south to be a landmark ???

Well you'd better give me the name of the dictionnary where you've seen this definition of a landmark !

Cause I fear that if they decide to build skyscrapers around the Taj Mahal or the Statue of Liberty they won't be landmarks anymore, according to YOUR dictionnary !!! Or you would say that the Flat Iron building or the Guggheneim NYC are no landmarks cuz they are surrounded by taller buildings and u don't see them when u look at NYC skyline ! Stop talking crap please !

Anyway I'm out, if you wanna think that La grande Arche doesn't make the La defense' skyline or is not a landmark, go ahead ! I haven't come to this thread to argue with blind people !

(and i don't really see why you keep talking me about code buildings (5 canada, HQ5, citygroup...) which does not say anything to a non-londoner ! It's not as if I see these buildings everyday or that they are world famous...)

thats exactly right.
a landmark is defined in the dictionary as a 'conspicuous object' - its hardly that if it isnt visible. incidentally la grande arche isnt world famous either, youd be surprised about how few people even know it exists until they go up the effiel tower.

Well from what I've read in your post, u seem to go very technical to prove to whoever wanna hear u that whatever building is not a landmark !

So according to you a landmark has to be seen from east, west, north and south to be a landmark ???

Well you'd better give me the name of the dictionnary where you've seen this definition of a landmark !

Cause I fear that if they decide to build skyscrapers around the Taj Mahal or the Statue of Liberty they won't be landmarks anymore, according to YOUR dictionnary !!! Or you would say that the Flat Iron building or the Guggheneim NYC are no landmarks cuz they are surrounded by taller buildings and u don't see them when u look at NYC skyline ! Stop talking crap please !

Anyway I'm out, if you wanna think that La grande Arche doesn't make the La defense' skyline or is not a landmark, go ahead ! I haven't come to this thread to argue with blind people !

(and i don't really see why you keep talking me about code buildings (5 canada, HQ5, citygroup...) which does not say anything to a non-londoner ! It's not as if I see these buildings everyday or that they are world famous...)



excellent! bravo :yes:

Í don't like istanbul, becouse of ASIMOV...

:bash:

thats exactly right.
a landmark is defined in the dictionary as a 'conspicuous object' - its hardly that if it isnt visible. incidentally la grande arche isnt world famous either, youd be surprised about how few people even know it exists until they go up the effiel tower.

You call Swiss RE and Lloyds a landmark then? :)

gothic form I never said that la Grande Arche was more "world famous" than lloyds or your other buildings !

I was just asking why u post a skyline picture mentionning code buildings as if everyone would know automatically what building you are talking about : as your HQ5 is not world famous, I clearly couldn't see which one is it on the picture (this was a statement i made apart from the topic of the discussion anyway...).

I was not trying to say that this building is more known than this other...but since you boarded this train, i will have to say that a landmark does not have to be "world famous" to be a landmark neither anyway !

Mont Rushmore, the Space Needle Tower (Seattle), the CN tower are far less reknowned in the world than , say the Eiffel tower : you still can't say they are not landmarks !

As it is clear that you are wrong and confused in your statements I really don't see why you would not just stop and admit that your definition of landmark is silly !

thank u HD :)

swiss re a landmark - yeah. lloyds of london - no. the space needle is a landmark, the cn tower is a landmark and so on, you completely misunderstand me, im comparing lloyds of london to la grande arch because they are both similar buildings of similar height and only visible from certain angles.
a landmark like i said is conspicuous, it doesnt have to be famous. youre right that the effiel tower is the landmark of paris as is la tour montparnasse. a landmark is an object with a strong visual presence. it cannot have a strong visual presence if it is not visible! the statue of liberty is only 184ft tall, its only a landmark because its surrounded by water, if you build around it it is no longer a landmark, a landmark depends on the context in which it is placed. for instance, once upon a time the woolworths building in new york was a landmark, now its barely visible. chrysler and the empire state building have remained landmarks because planning is arranged around in them in such a way as to maintain their visibility from all sides. if these planning rules didnt exist they would have ceased to be landmarks just like the woolworths building.
please reread what i said. you cant see hq5 because its obscured, from that angle, just like la defense has la grande arch obscured from many angles. do you think at 160m its not a landmark???

Sorry to have to disagree with you again BUT a landmark is not only said about a building that is well seen from afar: this seems to be your only criteria, and you are wrong !

A landmark building is also one which is iconic enough to be associated quickly with a place or a city !

The guggheneim museum , for instance in bilbao, will always be a landmark for Bilbao , even if a forest of skyscrapers are built around it ! This is just the same for the NYC Guggeneim !

Anyway there is no specific rule that describes a landmark, there are various definitions, and as obviously you have only taken the one which serves your statement the best , here are all 4 definitions of a "landmark" taken from Merriam-Webster online dictionnary:

1 : an object (as a stone or tree) that marks the boundary of land
2 a : a conspicuous object on land that marks a locality b : an anatomical structure used as a point of orientation in locating other structures
3 : an event or development that marks a turning point or a stage
4 : a structure (as a building) of unusual historical and usually aesthetic interest; especially : one that is officially designated and set aside for preservation


So as you see definitions #2a and #4 fit perfectly my statement...and nowhere they say that it has to be seen from east, west, north, and south...so instead of makinf up definitions which are your owns, try to understand what people are talking about before saying "NO" whenever someone is saying "YES".

and here is my link:http://www.m-w.com

but a landmark on the skyline is what im talking about and what this who discussion is about - european skylines!

thats exactly right.
a landmark is defined in the dictionary as a 'conspicuous object' - its hardly that if it isnt visible. incidentally la grande arche isnt world famous either, youd be surprised about how few people even know it exists until they go up the effiel tower.


La defense has much more than density, just check the Tour EDF, Elf and of the Société Générale and even the Coeur Defense. They are goddam cools skyscrapers and after seeing those you can't say that La Defense only has density. Even the buildings UC or in project like the CBX, Exaltis or T1 are very cool and even more than Swissre.

And considering the Grande Arche as a landmark or no, it doesn't change it's a very cool building and only because of it, La Defense has more than density.

yes. la defense has cool skyscrapers :) they just arent very visible from other places because they are part of a glass wall, whereas canary wharf has one canada square which stands out. i personally think la defense is great except too much concrete at street level.

Actually I think la grande arche fits totally in the "skyline landmark" category, is it probably the most distinctive building in La Defense and literally millions of people see it from Paris. It's also more likely to be remembered than 1cs. i think the London building that compares the most to the Arch in London is probably swiss re.

Lloyds is a different thing, more like the Pompidou center (imo).

^^^ Amen !

Sorry Gothicpoo, but there's something that I didn't understand.

Are you really comparing this:

http://ladefense.free.fr/1/14.jpg

with this:

http://skyscrapernews.com/gallery/canary_wharf11-01.jpg

:lol:

Whoeaahahaha. London looks like nothing. And I think you see the skyline of Paris from allot of places in the city.

Asimov, I remember you comparing Istanbul's skyline to NY and San Francisco. :hilarious

no im not comparing the two.
but since you mention it, to put the pictures in perspective the tallest building in canary wharf is almost 50m taller than the tallest in la defense. see west india quay on the left u/c. thats taller than la grande arche, doesnt look it does it. its a bit unfair to compare just about the entire stock of paris skyscrapers with a small portion of london. even then, la defense only has two more 150m tall buildings than canary wharf.
to put it in more into perspective... i for one cannot wait for the next six months as they are finally going to shut up the likes of asimov.
http://www.skyscrapernews.com/canarywharf.paris.jpg

good correction :okay:

It's still a little off cause of the "distance" but it's more accurate.

Well... It is a good correction, you're right gothicform!

and why does asimoPOO always say names with POO behind it? My brother does that too, but he is 3 years old....

Asimov's not much older. ;)

LeChapoo sound fun.

@Gothicform

I don't see why London having more skyscraper than Paris would shut it up to Asimov, he's Turks not French so far I know.

but paris also has more skyscrapers than istanbul if you get my drift :)

This is the list, and anyone else who begs to differ should wake up to themselves:

I have calculated cluster density by multipling the numbers of floors for each building within a 5 km radius PLUS bonus points for buildings over 100m.

1st Frankfurt (wins hands down)

Next 3 (No order, too close to call)
Paris, London, Istanbul

Next 5 (No order, too close to call)
Naples, Warsaw, Rotterdam, Vienna, Moscow

Next 5 (No order, too close to call)
Madrid, Milan, Amsterdam, Berlin, Essen

Next 5 (No order, too close to call)
Barcelona, Birmingham, Manchester, Genova, Vilnius

The rest…cant think of anymore. But feel free to bring them to my attention with images. Thanks :)

You're talking about denstiy and you take a 5km radius ?
Both Paris and London and probably Istanbul are much denser than Frankfurt. Frankfurt has style and height, but it definitly doesn't have density, not yet anyway.

i wouldnt say frankfurt totally lacks density. the overall skyline is surely widespread, but the banking district alone became pretty dense in the meanwhile:

http://www.oranga.com/pics2/s200403277199b.jpg

you can find 10 100m+ skyscrapers in about a half square kilometer there

Yeah, Frankfurt is present winner!

i've drawn some little comparison, hope the owners of the pictures dont mind:
http://www.uploadimages.net/images/68743112.jpg

note that we are seeing paris' whole skyline, while its only a part of frankfurt's and london's one

Sorry Gothicpoo, but there's something that I didn't understand. Are you really comparing this (ie La Defense) with this (Canary Wharf) :lol:Yup - and Canary Wharf absolutely canes La Defense. I cannot understand why everyone here raves about La Defense. It's fucking ugly. It's full of decaying 70s buildings, abysmal litter-strewn concrete public spaces, and terrible steet level architecture (check out that green building with white dots on it - yuk!!). These are harsh words but no other description will do! In my opinion there is no contest - Canary Wharf is in a completely different class. I was back in Paris again recently and dragged myself reluctantly to La Defense one more time to see if my perception of the place had become warped by lack of continuous experience (I used to live in Paris and have visited countless times). But no - La Defense is as hideous as ever just as Paris itself is as stunningly beautiful as ever.Whoeaahahaha. London looks like nothing. And I think you see the skyline of Paris from allot of places in the city.Yet another La Defense worshipper.... :| When you say "I think" it sounds like you have never to Paris or London. Canary Wharf is as visible as La Defense. La Defense can be seen down the Champs Elysees but Canary Wharf can be seen along the river. Not surprisingly Canary Wharf is more visible across London as a whole because it's taller.

I do not want to judge these skylines now, but I made some pictures when I visited Benidorm and Madrid and Barcelona too.

http://www.zone.ee/obstaclefoto/Hispaania%202004/hispaania.html

@Monkey
:okay:
U sound as harsh as me on La Défense ;)

But CW is still much smaller and it may takes 10-15 years to catch up at current trends.
surface : La Défense hands down
Height : CW hands down
Accessibility: La Défense Hands down
retail surface : La Défense
Retail quality (shops) : CW
Tower Design : CW/LD both are average quality with some nice bits but also drab towers
Lobby design : CW hands down
Street level design : CW HANDS DOWN by a long way
Setting : CW
Urban image : CW, more up-market than La Defense.

10-15 years? maybe if you just count canary wharf but if you include the neighbouring woodwharf and millenium quarter and columbus tower which arent actually part of canary wharf but adjacent to it then it catches up around 2005-2006. with columbus (237m) and wood wharf 1 (140m) starting over the next 12 months plus further construction in the millenium quarter where we're anticipating the 135m and 131m tall millharbour towers are going to be starting soon, and hilton should be starting their 100m tall hotel tower very soon too as more and more of discovery dock is finished, plus reuters wharf (105m) and the completion of the 102m tall tower in new providence wharf....
rudi that pic youve cropped shows canary wharf only, all the neighbouring 60-115m buildings that are right next to it whether its harbour exchange or 1 west india quay youve cropped off!

As far as employment is concerned, the Isle of Dogs (including CW) has half as many jobs as La Défense. Dont know about the residential pop.

hmm... i remember working this out somewhere.
la defense has 160,000 jobs and 30,000 residents.
the isle of dogs had a population of 21,000 200 years ago! 55,000 by the end of the century. my guess is the population is already higher than la defense.
approx 90,000 people work in canary wharf itself.

I think people are right, from miles away, it's obvious that you can see HSBC wayyyyyyy better than Total, because it's wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy taller, even tho HSBC is right at the thames level and the ground at total's step is 15m higher than at axa's step close to the seine , it still doesn't matter, becuase of the huge height difference.

hmm... i remember working this out somewhere.
la defense has 160,000 jobs and 30,000 residents.
the isle of dogs had a population of 21,000 200 years ago! 55,000 by the end of the century. my guess is the population is already higher than la defense.
approx 90,000 people work in canary wharf itself.


90000 ppl work in CW ? are u sure of that ? I though it was more like 60000, raising to 70000 for the entire Isle of Dogs.


@Phil
and yes HSBC, Citigroup and 1CS are wayyyyyyyyyyyyy more iconic than any LD skycrapers (l'Arch exepted).

@Manuel :
I wasn't talking to you and I wasn't talking about iconicity and you're wrong .

I think people are right, from miles away, it's obvious that you can see HSBC wayyyyyyy better than Total, because it's wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy taller, even tho HSBC is right at the thames level and the ground at total's step is 15m higher than at axa's step close to the seine , it still doesn't matter, becuase of the huge height difference.No HSBC is 210m from Thames level. 1 Canada Square is 245m from Thames level. Paris also has fewer open spaces from where you can appreciate a long view. Also much of Paris is ~15m above the Seine so Total's elevation is negated.

90,000 is the figure from tower hamlets council for the working population of the canary wharf estate.

@Monkey, I knew the heights from the thames level. I didn't say total was 15 meters above the seine, but 15 meters above Axa, which is itself about 15 meters above the seine. But anyway, your open space arguments is valid, after all even Eiffel can't be seen from everywhere in the city . Also thinking about it, the size argument is valid too , considereing London city proper is about 15 times bigger than Paris city proper, it's easier to find places where you can see CW in London since LD is several km on the west of Paris. But well, from the west suburbs there's tons of places where you can see LD.
Anyway, sorry for being sarcastic earlier, someone just really annoyed me ;)

@Monkey, I knew the heights from the thames level. I didn't say total was 15 meters above the seine, but 15 meters above Axa, which is itself about 15 meters above the seine. But anyway, your open space arguments is valid, after all even Eiffel can't be seen from everywhere in the city . Also thinking about it, the size argument is valid too , considereing London city proper is about 15 times bigger than Paris city proper, it's easier to find places where you can see CW in London since LD is several km on the west of Paris. But well, from the west suburbs there's tons of places where you can see LD.
Anyway, sorry for being sarcastic earlier, someone just really annoyed me ;)

you are biased Phil and chauvinistic ;)

And you are even more biased than me Manuel, and I don't like you ;)

See how the wink make it as hypocritical as you ? ;)

ok, one more ;)

I do like you though ;)

Qui aime bien chatie bien c'est ça ? a la bonne heure alors, mais laisse moi disons quelques semaines. ;)

Anyway, I agree with you on several things, like the lobby, it's obvious they're far better in CW, i just didn't agree with monkey that the height difference made a big difference to see LD and CW from far away, that's why i mentioned the ground's height.

TOP 5 Skyscraper in Europe city!

1960 ( +500 mt )

1° Moskva 946 mt (264 mt + 240 mt + 198 mt + 176 mt + 176 mt)
2° MILANO 539 mt

1970 ( +500 mt )

1° Moskva 946 mt
2° London 606 mt
3° Paris 601 mt *(include a skyscraper 42 floor stime 150 mt)
4° Bruxelles 576 mt
5° MILANO 549 mt
6° Madrid 522 mt

1980 ( TOP 10 )

1° Moskva 946 mt
2° Paris 890 mt *(include a skyscraper 42 floors stime 150 mt)
3° Frankfurt 757 mt
4° Warszawa 670 mt
5° London 641 mt
6° Koln 637 mt
7° Bruxelles 596 mt
8° Madrid 581 mt
9° Berlin 550 mt
10° MILANO 549 mt

1990 ( TOP 10 )

1° Moskva 946 mt
2° Paris 927 mt
3° Frankfurt 892 mt
4° Warszawa 723 mt
5° London 701 mt
6° Madrid 645 mt
7° Koln 637 mt
8° Bruxelles 634 mt
9° MILANO 557 mt
10° Berlin 554 mt

2000 ( TOP 10 )

1° Frankfurt 1110 mt
2° Moskva 946 mt
3° Paris 935 mt
4° Warszawa 884 mt
5° London 813 mt
6° Madrid 646 mt
7° Koln 637 mt
8° Wien 635 mt
9° Bruxelles 634 mt
10° NAPOLI 611 mt

2004 ( TOP 10 )

1° Frankfurt 1110 mt
2° Moskva 1054 mt
3° London 998 mt
4° Paris 935 mt
5° Warszawa 909 mt
6° Wien 747 mt
7° Benidorm 677 mt
8° Koln 676 mt
9° Barcelona 671 mt
10° Rotterdam 661 mt

@Palladin, Triumph Palace (264m) is new building. It is began to construction in 2001 and will finished this year (it is already topped out). As I understand - you puted sum of height of skyscrapers over 150m, right?
So for Moscow.

1960, 1970, 1980, 1990
946 (240+198+176+172+160)

2000
1097 (240+198+176+172+160+151)

2004
2020!!! (264+240+198+176+176+172+168+167+154+154+151)

u/c in Moscow, with finishing in 2005 and late
2152 + 460 = 2612 (345+270+250+245+236+230+196+190+190) + (300+160 construction of this approval begin in this year)

total = 2020+2612=4632 of built and u/c

coth, can you add up the combined heights of the 30 tallest buildings in moscow to roof in meters that are complete or under construction so i can compare it to my other totals. id like to see where moscow comes out in total.

Coth - 4632m (ie an average of 926.4m for each tower!!!!) for the 5 tallest in Moscow - cause thats what I think Palladin was talking about!


2004 - total 5 combined heights
London - 998
Frankfurt - 1110
Moscow - 1054

2010 - total 5 combined heights
Moscow - 1827
London - 1224
Frankfurt - 1204


Known 200m+ built, u/c, approved, proposed
London - 11
Frankfurt - 8
Moscow - 8

Sorry coth

Moscow 1960-2000 946 mt (240+198+176+172+160)

Moscow 2004 1054 mt (264+240+198+176+176)

Moscow 2007 1369 mt (345+270+264+250+240)

aha, ok. but in 2007 it will be
345+300+270+264+250=1494
you lost parcel 12

in 2010 may be everything, but in present projects
648+345+300+270+264=1827

Known 200m+ built, u/c, approved, proposed
London - 11
Frankfurt - 8
Moscow - 8
:bash: again you lose half of projects from Moscow
It is 15, not 8
Russia Tower. 648m approved
Complex Federation A 345m u/c
Parcel 12. 300m approved
1 City Hall and City Duma. 275m approved
2 City Hall and City Duma. 275m approved
3 City Hall and City Duma. 275m approved
4 City Hall and City Duma. 275m approved
One Capital City. 270m u/c
Triumph Palace. 264m u/c
Naberezhnaya Tower A. 250m u/c
Complex Federation B. 245m u/c
Moscow State University. 240m built
Building in Sokolniki. 236m u/c
Two Capital City. 230m u/c
Dmitrov highway, 15-16. 230m approved

not sure about Continental but must be around 200m u/c

No - I'm just stating from emporis.com an offical source. I could state other "unknown" towers in London that are proposals but not "totally seen the day of light", eg the Fairfields towers.......
Russia Tower - 648m
Federation Complex Tower - 345m
Plot 12, Moscow City - 300m
1 Capital City - 270m
Triumph Palace - 264m
Naberezhnaya Tower A - 250m
Moscow State University - 240m
2 Capital City - 230m

You can take pride that Moscow leads in the 300m+ department but from the official sources - they say differently....

Its no new york, but i love Canary wharf in London!
http://www.henleydragons.com/vsite/vimagesite/images/jpg/0,11410,997-0-39452-0-custom96370,00.jpg
http://www.skyscrapernews.com/canary_wharf8-01.jpg
http://tube.tfl.gov.uk/content/metro/03/0312/29/dl1_large.jpg
http://www.skyscrapernews.com/canary_wharf_night2-01.jpg

The best in Europe

1. I 6th time tell you we mixed mean of word.
2. I 4th time tell you Moscow have 5mln of illigals and I gave you link where officials says it.
3. Not only me what time tellong you - LIST BUILDING ON EMPORIS, BEFORE YOU WILL SEE BUILDINGS WITHOUT SPECIFIED HEIGHT!

Then by 2008 Canary wharf will be the best!
http://www.skyscrapernews.com/wharf_golden2.jpg

Canary Wharf isn't anything near as impressive as La Defense. La Defense might be boring and have some extreme urban failures but it is for the moment the most impressive area of Europe for me (as far as I've seen). All the skyscrapers around you. I think the impression of Canary Wharf in the future is less impressive as La Defense at the moment. And yes there are things going on and coming in La Defense.


Now on a different matter, I still think Rotterdam's skyline is better than Warsaw's. Some pics to show Rotterdam's skyline just fits. Oh and I don't agree what lots people say about the bad designs, I really like most of them.

http://www.techimage.net/getimg.php?img=DSCN04771.JPG

http://www.techimage.net/getimg.php?img=DSCN04741.JPG

http://www.techimage.net/getimg.php?img=DSCN04641.JPG
^ pics by Delta
http://www.oranga.com/pics/p200407029992-1900b.jpg

^ pic by Hoogbouw 010.

More coming up as there was a Holland Hoogbouw Forum meeting :D (which I couldn't get to)

Now on a different matter, I still think Rotterdam's skyline is better than Warsaw's. Some pics to show Rotterdam's skyline just fits.
From a smaller distance maybe Rotterdam's skyline looks better because it's more dense and it has more highrises, but from a bigger distance Warsaw's skyline looks better because it's taller. In Rotterdam you could hardly find any skyscraper. In Warsaw we have a few skyscrapers.
Statistics (SSP)
Warsaw 150+ m: 4
100+ m: 12
60+ m: 24
Rotterdam 150+ m: 1
100+ m: 10
60+ m: 55
http://www.autolider.pl/warszawa/Zdjecia/panorama15.jpg
http://www.sky.s64.pl/home/Wwa2/wbn201.jpg
http://www.plfoto.com/zdjecia/351465.jpg
http://www.autolider.pl/warszawa/Zdjecia/panorama20.jpg

Oh and I don't agree what lots people say about the bad designs, I really like most of them.
When it comes to design everybody has his own view. I prefer these two towres to the entire Rotterdam's skyline :tongue2::
http://www.autolider.pl/warszawa/Zdjecia/centrum51.jpg

Here:
http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/ci/bu/sk/li/?id=100839&bt=2&ht=2&sro=41 FROM 60TH PLACE
AND HERE WITH SPECIFIED ESTIMATED HEIGHTS
http://skyscraperpage.com/cities/?cityID=14&type=all

Petr, here are some pictures from larger distances then, which aren't less impressive, because there are more highrises. The statistics you posted say enough don't they?

http://www.skyscrapercity.info/images/buildings/363.jpg

http://www.skyscrapercity.info/images/buildings/360.jpg

http://www.autolider.pl/warszawa/Zdjecia/panorama15.jpg

^ hmm...

@Super sniper statistics show what I can see from a 30 km distance. When I'm comming to Warsaw I know I'm comming to a skyscrapercity. 30 km from the Rotterdam's city center I would see nothing maybe besides Delftse Poort.
Big quantity of 60-100 m highrises isn't IMO adequate reason to be proud of.

THIS IS A REAL SKYLINE:
http://www.ziolek.pl/foto/warszawy/11.jpg

BTW. Rotterdam has also more 60+ m highrises than Frankfurt and Paris;):
Rotterdam 65
Frankfurt 60
Paris 52
Warsaw 31

EDIT: Your comparsion has no sense because of a distance. Palace of Culture and Science (230,7 m with the spire) and WTT (184 m to the roof) on these photos are the same size as 110 m towers in Rotterdam.
http://www.skyscrapercity.info/images/buildings/360.jpg

http://www.autolider.pl/warszawa/Zdjecia/panorama15.jpg

Complex Federation shares the same podium and are both structurally dependent on the same 450m spire

Again you post a link - if you do a count you'll find that more of the information is lacking than from Emporis....the figure you'll find is 11. All you did was prove me right with posting that link :yes:

I still think Rotterdam's skyline is better than Warsaw's.


You are wrong.

Just look this (Warsaw skyline present better than Rotterdam skyline).


MODERN EUROPE

http://perso.wanadoo.fr/lenainmechant/grattecielfrst/photos/MODERN-EUROPE-B.jpg

Hmm Petr, interesting, you show a picture of a real skyline with maybe eight visible towers. I don't think THAT's anything to be proud of ;) So from the same distance you think you don't see anything of Rotterdam's skyline. Okay, I haven't been to Warsaw so I won't judge that yet, but I don't think you've been to Rotterdam either. This is from 25 km distance

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/database/buildings.01/1527.jpg

And the comparision is a bit wrong yes, but that's not because of the distance but because your picture is smaller.

"When I'm comming to Warsaw I know I'm comming to a skyscrapercity. "

By saying this you suggest that's not the case in Rotterdam. Well these are a few views entering the city, when you see this you know you're going to a highrise (at the least) city.

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/database/buildings.01/1526.jpg

http://home.planet.nl/~stee8329/skyline/files/skylineuni.jpg

Inside the city...

http://www.skylinerotterdam.info/skyline/fotos/sk_0040.jpg

Okay just a nice pic, I agree ;)

AUTO, that are some real incomplete pictures of R'dam. Here you have a good one

http://home.hetnet.nl/~plaatjespagina/WFD5%20deel%201/montipano1.jpg
(by Aedificium Erectum)

The picture from Auto here above of Rotterdam is old. It's also a bad quality picture.

Just trying to convincer them ;) Do your best shot then Vinman :D

I think Rotterdam skyline looks better than warsaw's too. I like some individual skyscrapers in warsaw but it's just too spread out for now. Even if rotterdam is lower, it looks better

And btw Paris has more than 52 60m+ buildings , even without la défense, if you take the 3 main clusters inside the city (Place d'Italie, Font de seine, and Gare de lyon) you already have more than 50 buildings.

Just trying to convincer them ;) Do your best shot then Vinman :D

Sorry, i mean the picture of Auto. Not yours.....

and now what?

http://www.startbilder.de/einzelbild.php?id=253784&quality=80&maxpixel=800&identifier=eafc12bcc1
It's only dependent of scale,just try to locate a human body on rotterdam and in warsaw street,what's your conclusions??

Towers not depend from spire. And it is two towers, both listed on emporis.
http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/cx/?id=108215
estimated height of tower B is 245 meters.

Phil is right, Paris offcourse has a lot more (residential) towers than that 50 or something above 60 m..

Stompi offcourse Warsaw's towers are taller and more impressive on it's own, that is the good thing of Warsaw. In density and number of towers Rotterdam wins. Design is subjective but I can't say Warsaw has better designs than Rotterdam. Maybe the top 8 towers or something but you have to look to a skyline as a whole. Look in above pictures to all those communist flats. The rest of the towers (except the old one, sorry forgot the name) are blocks (something that you use against Rotterdam?!), IMO not really nice ones either (except the new ones).

http://home.hetnet.nl/~plaatjespagina/WFD5%20deel%201/montipano1.jpg

Nice, but nothing special :)

Great argumentation ;)

This photo wasn't taken from a ground level, I guess.

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/database/buildings.01/1527.jpg
Don't try to prove that lower buildings are more visible from a distans than taller ones. It's ridiculous.:)

This photo wasn't taken from a ground level, I guess.

Don't try to prove that lower buildings are more visible from a distans than taller ones. It's ridiculous.:)

I'm not trying to prove that. I'm only trying to prove the skyline is visible from large distances. As you can see that pic is indeed not from ground level but... from 20 meters height or something :| From ground level you would see quite the same. The Netherlands is flat, only thing blocking your sight could be other cities, trees (the towers are offcourse a lot taller than the trees) or the rounding of earth (too small difference on such distances)

I'm not trying to prove that. I'm only trying to prove the skyline is visible from large distances. As you can see that pic is indeed not from ground level but... from 20 meters height or something :| From ground level you would see quite the same. The Netherlands is flat, only thing blocking your sight could be other cities, trees (the towers are offcourse a lot taller than the trees) or the rounding of earth (too small difference on such distances)
Mazovia also is flat.:D
20 meters make a great difference just because of trees and lowrises. Here you have an example:
http://www.startbilder.de/einzelbild.php?id=253931&quality=100&identifier=0c4daf6a8a

All 150m+ built, u/c, on-hold, approved or proposed



Frankfurt - 23
London - 20

Moscow - 16

Rotterdam - 8
Warsaw - 7
Madrid - 6
Berlin - 4
Milan - 4
Amsterdam - 2
Barcelona - 2
Malmö - 2
Manchester - 1
Paris - 1

Source: Emporis.com

Mazovia also is flat.:D
20 meters make a great difference just because of trees and lowrises. Here you have an example:
http://www.startbilder.de/einzelbild.php?id=253931&quality=100&identifier=0c4daf6a8a

Imagine the trees in my picture being twice as tall (which isn't true btw, 40 m. tall trees?), you would still see all the towers in the center, only a few of the towers to the left and right not, but only the 50 m. tall ones. You would still see all the 100m. towers and most 70 m.

Oh and the point is, if you go 20 m. lower, the trees become 20 m. taller. It's not as easy as that. It depends on how far the trees are from the buildings.

Why don't you react on my other posts?

It's hard for me to teach optics in English, but I hope this pic would be clear for you @Super sniper:
http://www.startbilder.de/einzelbild.php?id=253977&quality=100&identifier=a23d8c32aa

All 150m+ built, u/c, on-hold, approved or proposed



Frankfurt - 23
London - 20

Moscow - 16

Rotterdam - 8
Warsaw - 7
Madrid - 6
Berlin - 4
Milan - 4
Amsterdam - 2
Barcelona - 2
Malmö - 2
Manchester - 1
Paris - 1

Source: Emporis.com

http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=102051
http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=200239
http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=204748
http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=200466
http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=102052
http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=200888
http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=111633
http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=200467
http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=111640
http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=101398
http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=100176
http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=111641
http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=111634
http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=135558
http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=111642
http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=111710
http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=200240
http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=201525
http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=204754
http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=101399
http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=201586
http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=151603
http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=201528
http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=151604
http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=151606
http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=171933
26 buildings

4 buildings of City Hall and City Dima will be added tomorrow

Town in City complex will be added on a week, when we will get an official answer from developer. As mininum 2 buildings in complex is over 150 meters.

32 buildings. All already listed on ssp.

It's hard for me to teach optics in English, but I hope this pic would be clear for you @Super sniper:
http://www.startbilder.de/einzelbild.php?id=253977&quality=100&identifier=a23d8c32aa

Nice graph Petr, but I don´t believe those trees are 40 m. tall and those trees are not 45 meters away from the point of view? Look I believe you that Warsaw is from a bigger distance more impressive than Rotterdam but is that the most important? Please react to my other points :)

Nice graph Petr, but I don´t believe those trees are 40 m. tall and those trees are not 45 meters away from the point of view? Look I believe you that Warsaw is from a bigger distance more impressive than Rotterdam but is that the most important? Please react to my other points :)
I used this example only for the purpose of showing you that small objects could screen extremely large ones. You seem to forget it.
I still support my oppinion. Warsaw's skyline looks better from the small and big distance because of height. Rotterdam's skyline looks better from the middle distance because of density and quantity.

Petr your point is only valid when standing RIGHT in front of a small object. You are talking about large distances, well offcourse you can only see the buildings of a city 25 km away when not standing in front of an object. That's the case everywhere in the world.

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/database/buildings.01/1527.jpg

This is the case in above picture, but then viewpoint 2 m. above ground (and situations like this are obvious)

Height of viewpoint: 2 m
Distance from viewpoint to object (the trees): 20 km.
Distance from object to city (Rotterdam): 5 km.
Height of trees (I'm pretty sure about this): 35 m.
Difference between height of distance to height of trees: 33 m.

Each km. you can see (33/20) 1.65 m. less high. After 20 km. you can see 33 m. higher, thus the 35 m. of the trees.

35 m. + (5 (km.) * 1.65) 8.25 = 43.25 m.

Conclusion: in above situation you can see all buildings taller than 43.25 meters.

This means you can see all buildings (except the ones behind other buildings) in the skyline of Rotterdam. So then still the question is, what's more important, density or height?

1) ISTAN YORK :D


2) Paris
3) Frankfurt
4) Rotterdam
5) Warsaw
6) London
7) Naples
8) Madrid
9) Moscow
10) Benidorm
11) Ankara
12) Birmingham
13) Barcelona
14) Essen
15) Lyon
16) Izmir
17) Athens
18) Klaipeda
19) Zagreb
20) Belgrade
oh my god! Asimov your pathetic! like totally, have you ever travelled outside of your precious Istanbul? The hell is Klaipeda doing there? Klaipeida's skyline is trees, and belgrade hasnt really started rizing yet, but its just so shocking u add klaipeida what doesnt even come close to Vilnius... thats just shocking! :bash: :bash:
:weirdo: :weirdo: :weirdo: :eek2:

oh my god! Asimov your pathetic! like totally, have you ever travelled outside of your precious Istanbul? The hell is Klaipeda doing there? Klaipeida's skyline is trees, and belgrade hasnt really started rizing yet, but its just so shocking u add klaipeida what doesnt even come close to Vilnius... thats just shocking! :bash: :bash:
:weirdo: :weirdo: :weirdo: :eek2:

Except for Rotterdam being above London, I think his list is quite good!

@Super sniper
Height of viewpoint: 2 m - I doubt it. First it was 20 m in your oppinion.:lol:
Distance from viewpoint to object (the trees): 20 km. -
It's not a typpical situation in your country because it is extermely densely populated. It's exception.

So then still the question is, what's more important, density or height?
Athens also are very dense:
http://www.stadia.gr/nikaianow8.jpg
http://members.lycos.co.uk/fetishfactory/acropolis.jpg

I'm tired of this discussion. It depends on te point of view. We may make some poll and let people decide. But Dutchmen a Poles should not vote.

^site is offline

@Super sniper
Height of viewpoint: 2 m I doubt it. First it was 20 m in your oppinion.:lol:
Distance from viewpoint to object (the trees): 20 km.
It's not a typpical situation in your country because it is extermely densely populated. It's exception.

So then still the question is, what's more important, density or height?
Athens also are very dense:
http://www.stadia.gr/nikaianow8.jpg

You wanted a pic from the ground right? Well that picture is not from the ground but in my math it is. 2 meter is how tall a human is. Well that's not really precise but you get the point.

The Netherlands is indeed densely populated (especially this region) but as Rotterdam and The Hague are the real cities here the rest is just a lot of lowrise which you can easily look over. There are lots of points where you get such view of the skyline from different angles, you only have to be in the open land.

Offcourse Athens is dense - with lowrise! We're talking about highrise density here.

Feel free to make a poll, but show fair pictures please. I promise I won't vote. (please make it public)

As you may have noticed several comments are:

adjusted : bashing is not tolerated
deleted : off topic

==> Please stay focused on the subject and use a tolerable language, thank you.

Well according to SSP there are some 37 proposals, u/c, built, approved +150m for London, some which are from masterplans, some which I've never even heard of.

I'm sorry but I rely on emporis far more for accurate information for a good, but slightly off attempt to list skyscrapers :yes:

Well according to SSP there are some 37 proposals, u/c, built, approved +150m for London, some which are from masterplans, some which I've never even heard of.

I'm sorry but I rely on emporis far more for accurate information for a good, but slightly off attempt to list skyscrapers :yes:
Nick, as I said a million times - you also forgot about New Ring of Moscow project, which provide about 200 buildings over 30 storeys. About 120 of them will be over 150 meters... And as minimum 40 will be over 200 meters...

coth.. why waste your time.

:blahblah: :blahblah: :blahblah: whatever you say Coth - I don't see any source that backs you up on that fact other than your wonderful immagination :lol:

Because you don't want to see!

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=106507
http://skyscrapercity.com/showpost.php?p=1615250&postcount=190

about 40 buildings already proposed
http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showpost.php?p=1654816&postcount=273

unfortunately my russian is quite rusty but in the one translated report theres only the talk of city-planning of possible skyscraper points, not about actual investors though

use babelfish or online-translator

main point of this project - Moscow leave out all free space and now begin building to height.

I did some comparison of EU-Skyscrapercities:


Average heights of the Top5

1 Frankfurt 222
2 London 199,6
3 Paris 187
4 Warsaw 164
5 Vienna 139,2
6 Benidorm 135,4
7 Barcelona 134,2
8 Cologne 133,4
9 Rotterdam 132,2
10 Madrid 130,6
11 Brussels 124,4
12 Naples 122,2
13 Berlin 117
14 Munich 114,8
15 Amsterdam 113,2
16 Milan 111,4
17 Düsseldorf 108,2
18 The Hague 107
19 Genoa 103,2
20 Bratislava 103
21 Riga 101,6
22 Villajoyosa 99,2
23 Stockholm 98,6
24 Essen 98,4
25 Lisbon 98
26 Hamburg 95,8
27 Valencia 95
28 Alicante 94,4
29 Lyon 94
30 Katowice 93,4
31 Bonn 93,2
32 Vilnius 92,2
33 Manchester 91,8
34 Prague 91,4
35 Leipzig 90,8



Average heights of the Top10

1 Frankfurt 190,3
2 London 175,4
3 Paris 173,2
4 Warsaw 143,4
5 Vienna 121,5
6 Madrid 120,7
7 Rotterdam 118,6
8 Cologne 118,1
9 Benidorm 117,7
10 Naples 115,2
11 Brussels 113,4
12 Barcelona 112,7
13 Berlin 108,4
14 Amsterdam 104,3
15 Milan 102,6



Average heights of the Top25

1 Frankfurt 149,2
2 Paris 147,2
3 London 140,1
4 Warsaw 112
5 Rotterdam 104,2
6 Benidorm 99
7 Brussels 98,8
8 Vienna 97,3
9 Madrid 95,9
10 Berlin 93,2
11 Cologne 90,9
12 Naples 90,6
13 Milan 87,7
14 Amsterdam 87,4
15 Barcelona 82,8

Avg of Top5
Moscow 211,6
Istanbul 168

Avg of Top10
Moscow 188,4
Istanbul 157,8

Avg of Top25
Moscow 147,3
Istanbul 140,9



Movement in the Top15-Cities

Top5 Top10 Top25
1 [COLOR=DarkRed]Frankfurt Frankfurt Frankfurt
2 London London Paris
3 Paris Paris London
4 Warsaw Warsaw Warsaw
5 Vienna Vienna Rotterdam
6 Benidorm Madrid Benidorm
7 Barcelona Rotterdam Brussels
8 Cologne Cologne Vienna
9 Rotterdam Benidorm Madrid
10 Madrid Naples Berlin
11 Brussels Brussels Cologne
12 Naples Barcelona Naples
13 Berlin Berlin Milan
14 Munich Amsterdam Amsterdam
15 Amsterdam Milan Barcelona



Top16(!) Cities by average rank in previous table

1. Frankfurt 1
2. London 2,3
3. Paris 2,7
4. Warsaw 4
5. Vienna 6
6. Benidorm 7
-. Rotterdam 7
8. Madrid 8,3
9. Cologne 9
10. Brussels 9,7
11. Barcelona 11,3
--. Naples 11,3
13. Berlin 12
14. Amsterdam 14,3
15. Milan 14,7
16. Munich >15



;)

Lostboy's thread got a "sticky". I'm so proud ;)

Wow, as I remember this thread was closed... or not? may be I mexed something. Anyway, glad to see discussion continue.

Wow, as I remember this thread was closed... or not? may be I mexed something. Anyway, glad to see discussion continue.

You are not mixed up , I closed it cause it was infested by trolls
Trolls gone => thread re-opened !

^Preparing to close this thread again:) He is back

Frankfurt
Londen
Paris
Rotterdam
warsaw
benidorm
istanbul
moskow

Warsaw with Rondo 1 (@DZIKI REX rendering :applause: ):

http://100tka.net/~dziki/foto/rondo1xx.jpg

Quote:
Originally Posted by nick_taylor
All 150m+ built, u/c, on-hold, approved or proposed



Frankfurt - 23
London - 20

Moscow - 16

Rotterdam - 8
Warsaw - 7
Madrid - 6
Berlin - 4
Milan - 4
Amsterdam - 2
Barcelona - 2
Malmö - 2
Manchester - 1
Paris - 1

Source: Emporis.com

Umm ... just a little pointer, Birmingham already has a 150m tower and has another one Approved ... so surely it should look like this.

Frankfurt - 23
London - 20

Moscow - 16

Rotterdam - 8
Warsaw - 7
Madrid - 6
Berlin - 4
Milan - 4
Amsterdam - 2
Barcelona - 2
Birmingham - 2
Malmö - 2
Manchester - 1
Paris - 1

and as ive said before, london has a lot more than 20. the figure is closer to 35.

even like moscow have over 30 too

It´s a bit sad that skylines are rated by their skyscrapers only. What´s with churchspires, bridge-pylons, chimneys, castles (or other impressive buildings) built on hills...

Examples for church spire dominated skylines: Munich, Hamburg, Lübeck.


And here is a small city. It´s Jena in the state of Thuringia. Far smaller than any other city mentioned here (if you don´t count this tourist resort Benidorm ;) ). Population slightly under 100.000 inhabitants. And this town is not a suburb of any other town.

http://www.goshen.edu/sst/de03/snapshots/wJenaSkyline.jpg
http://www.imb-jena.de/~gmueller/jena/Images/Dsc03523.jpg

The big tower is the Intershop Tower and is 145m tall (without the little antenna on the top)

You should mention the name of the city..;)..it's Jena in Germany.

I really love the skyline of this little city. :) Heres is another pic additionally with an old tower on the right. http://www.imb-jena.de/~gmueller/jena/Images/Dsc03534.jpg


and another cities "skyline": Leipzig
http://img36.exs.cx/img36/1637/1112572.jpg


and the historical skyline of Dresden:
http://img36.exs.cx/img36/8308/dresdens.jpg

Paris's best ...


http://www.arnaudfrichphoto.com/Images/paris_la_defense_tele_1.jpg
http://hometown.aol.de/DHForum2/U-C+Paris+1.jpg
http://mapage.noos.fr/razorbladekiss/Ladefn/Ladefn005.jpg

1-Paris
2-Barcelona
3-Madrid
4-Benidorm
5-Frankfurt
6-Alicante
7-Istanbul
8-Monaco
9-Tallinn
10-London
11-Palma de Mallorca
12-Warsaw
13-Tallinn
14-Vilnius
15-Zagreb

http://hometown.aol.de/DHForum2/U-C+Paris+1.jpg

:bow: That anyone dares to put any city above this!

1-Paris
2-Barcelona
3-Madrid
4-Benidorm
5-Frankfurt
6-Alicante
7-Istanbul
8-Monaco
9-Tallinn
10-London
11-Palma de Mallorca
12-Warsaw
13-Tallinn
14-Vilnius
15-Zagreb

I have just visited Barcelona. It has no skyline and no skyscrapers. Just a few midrises scattered here and there. Soviet style propaganda with Barcelona n.2?

http://hometown.aol.de/DHForum2/U-C+Paris+1.jpg

That anyone dares to put any city above this!
:bow: :cheers:

1-Paris
2-Barcelona
3-Madrid
4-Benidorm
5-Frankfurt
6-Alicante
7-Istanbul
8-Monaco
9-Tallinn
10-London
11-Palma de Mallorca
12-Warsaw
13-Tallinn
14-Vilnius
15-Zagreb

Bless him m))

^^^^

You probably never heard of Rotterdam....... (Vilnius/Zagreb...yeah right!!!) :weirdo:

Barcelona number two? :?

Barcelona have not a skyline...

My Top 8
Frankfurt - Nothing can beat it at now! No Paris and No London!
Paris
Rotterdam
London - It is too small at now
Benidorm - Gold Coast of Europe
Istanbul
Warsaw
Brussels

oh yeah, moscow has a skyline for sure. NOT!!! moscow has nothing except couple of tall buildings that are spread around the whole city! Even Warsaw and Rotterdam beat Moscow

Noöne here is talking aabout Moscow if I´m not mistaken :?

oh yeah, moscow has a skyline for sure. NOT!!! moscow has nothing except couple of tall buildings that are spread around the whole city! Even Warsaw and Rotterdam beat Moscow
Just interesting, where did you found Moscow in my list? Or just every time, when possible you love bashing Moscow?

oh yeah, moscow has a skyline for sure. NOT!!! moscow has nothing except couple of tall buildings that are spread around the whole city! Even Warsaw and Rotterdam beat Moscow
And if you talking about tall buildings, so here is thousands of tall buildings, just couple of skyscrapers, or, if to be correct, 12 skyscrapers, which will easy twice in few year!

And if you talking about tall buildings, so here is thousands of tall buildings, just couple of skyscrapers, or, if to be correct, 12 skyscrapers, which will easy twice in few year!
I am sure that the skyline of Moscow will grow rapidly in the next decades as will do most Eastern European cities, so will Istanbul or London and perhaps Frankfurt. But I am not so sure about Paris. This town seems to be smoe kind of saturated in skyscrapers and I don't think there will be built many 100+es in the next 10 years... :) But honestly speaking - the best about Paris and London aren't their skyscrapers anyway - they have so many qualities... :) :cheers:

London, Canary wharf (deserves to be in top 3 atleast)

http://www.skyscrapernews.com/gallery/canary_wharf6-01.jpg
http://www.skyscrapernews.com/gallery/heron_quays1-01.jpg
http://www.skyscrapernews.com/gallery/canada_square2-01.jpg
http://www.skyscrapernews.com/gallery/citigroup5-01.jpg
http://www.skyscrapernews.com/gallery/canary_wharf_night4-01.jpg
http://www.skyscrapernews.com/gallery/canary_wharf12-01.jpg
http://www.skyscrapernews.com/gallery/canary_wharf5-01.jpg

In the near future:
1. Frankfurt
2. Paris
3. London
4. Moscow (by 2010 it will be #1)
5. Istanbul
6. Warsaw
7. Rotterdam
8. Madrid
9. Benidorm- gotta love the commieblocks
10. Kiev (excelent commieblocks, and 10 X 35 story skyscrapers under construction)

Dnepropetrovsk, Ukraine
http://skyscraperpage.com/gallery/data/580/238dp-mod-08.jpg

I did some comparison of EU-Skyscrapercities:


Average heights of the Top5

1 Frankfurt 222
2 London 199,6
3 Paris 187
4 Warsaw 164
5 Vienna 139,2
6 Benidorm 135,4
7 Barcelona 134,2
8 Cologne 133,4
9 Rotterdam 132,2
10 Madrid 130,6
11 Brussels 124,4
12 Naples 122,2
13 Berlin 117
14 Munich 114,8
15 Amsterdam 113,2
16 Milan 111,4
17 Düsseldorf 108,2
18 The Hague 107
19 Genoa 103,2
20 Bratislava 103
21 Riga 101,6
22 Villajoyosa 99,2
23 Stockholm 98,6
24 Essen 98,4
25 Lisbon 98
26 Hamburg 95,8
27 Valencia 95
28 Alicante 94,4
29 Lyon 94
30 Katowice 93,4
31 Bonn 93,2
32 Vilnius 92,2
33 Manchester 91,8
34 Prague 91,4
35 Leipzig 90,8



Average heights of the Top10

1 Frankfurt 190,3
2 London 175,4
3 Paris 173,2
4 Warsaw 143,4
5 Vienna 121,5
6 Madrid 120,7
7 Rotterdam 118,6
8 Cologne 118,1
9 Benidorm 117,7
10 Naples 115,2
11 Brussels 113,4
12 Barcelona 112,7
13 Berlin 108,4
14 Amsterdam 104,3
15 Milan 102,6



Average heights of the Top25

1 Frankfurt 149,2
2 Paris 147,2
3 London 140,1
4 Warsaw 112
5 Rotterdam 104,2
6 Benidorm 99
7 Brussels 98,8
8 Vienna 97,3
9 Madrid 95,9
10 Berlin 93,2
11 Cologne 90,9
12 Naples 90,6
13 Milan 87,7
14 Amsterdam 87,4
15 Barcelona 82,8

Interesting list.

In the near future:
1. Frankfurt
2. Paris
3. London
4. Moscow (by 2010 it will be #1)
5. Istanbul
6. Warsaw
7. Rotterdam
8. Madrid
9. Benidorm- gotta love the commieblocks
10. Kiev (excelent commieblocks, and 10 X 35 story skyscrapers under construction)


Moscow 4th? Could you show me the skyline of Moscow?

Moscow 4th? Could you show me the skyline of Moscow?
Good point!:lol:

Too big to show it ;)

Moscow 4th? Could you show me the skyline of Moscow?
Well, actually he is right! Moscow has a skyline, just it is very big... You can see all New York skyline, because it is big too... right...? So why Moscow is worse? It is real skyline, just very gigantic...

Just show me some pics please.Moscow could be no 1 in the future but nowadays it's nothing special.Istanbul,Warsaw and Rotterdam all these cities have better skylines than Moscow.Don't tell me "it's to big" If one can't see the skyline than there is no skyline.

no, you are not right. there is a skyline, just it is tooooo big:)

1-Paris
2-Barcelona
3-Madrid
4-Benidorm
5-Frankfurt
6-Alicante
7-Istanbul
8-Monaco
9-Tallinn
10-London
11-Palma de Mallorca
12-Warsaw
13-Tallinn
14-Vilnius
15-Zagreb

Exellent to see Tallinn appear TWICE on the list! :D

1. Frankfurt
2. Paris
3. London
4. Rotterdam
5. Brussels

@Vlad the Great - when you list Kiev as No10 - i do not know... I miss here some more info about Kiev and its plans... Are there any threads?

Ukraine is one of most progressive countries in Europe. Here is big planes for whole country. As you see I posted photo of Dnepropetrovsk skyline. Go SSP gallery and you will found interesting shots and rendering. I agree with you - we need to make threads about Ukraine.

In what respect one of the most progressive ones in Europe?

But regarding the highrises - yes, have seen in SSP the diagrams of highrises in Kiev. Very many of them! It is a pity that nobody updates them in emporis.com...

ukraine is one of the most progressive countries in europe? hahahah!
i believe it is europes last remaining dictatorship.

You mixed up it with Belarus. Ukraine is democratic country. Here is only some communists opposition forces which also blame Kuchma as dictator. But it's bullshit.

what you mean like the president of ukraine having had journalists assassinated and parliament are calling for his impeachment or maybe you mean the sell off of its largest steel company which was awarded to ukraines richest man, the son of the president whilst ignoring all the higher bids, ukraine banning the russian language from ALL media, the head of the largest radio station in ukraine forced to flee from a presidential death squad, ukraine suffering economic sanctions for refusing to pass money laundering laws, ukraine suffering economic sanctions for refusing to pass copyright laws, the eu closing its border with ukraine, ukranian prisoners tortured with electric shocks/suffocation... etc etc.

I think there is a dispute not about politics, but about skylines...
And I must say that some ukrainian cities like Kiev, Dnepropetrovsk and other have many interesting projects... The architecture of them is interesting and original.

The whole thread is a bullshit. Just like any other "whose penis is the most penisual"-thread.

I like THIS skyline, and don't like THAT and THAT. I absolutely don't care which one you like or dislike. Nobody can make me change my mind because it's MY OWN vision and taste.
^ That's not only my mind.

I have been to Kiev, it has a great middle-sized skyline near the waterfront. The skyline is made up of hi-rise castles and such. Unfortunately I have only seen it from a highway and did not have a chance to take a good picture of it.

Speaking about dictatorships - Kuchma is an a#@hole, but not a dictator.

in 2010 BEST SKYLINES WILL BE
1 MOSCOW
2 LONDON
3 ISTANBUL
4 FREANKFURT
5 PARIS

I like THIS skyline, and don't like THAT and THAT. I absolutely don't care which one you like or dislike. Nobody can make me change my mind because it's MY OWN vision and taste.

good opinion in this issue.If we have to tell about how many floors have ESB we cant't polemic,but if it is a matter of taste we can:)

@ s0me0ne: When did you go to Kiev? How was it like? (I might go next year)

BTW Kutchma is evil :devil: can't wait till the elections and someone new will come in

in 2010 BEST SKYLINES WILL BE
1 MOSCOW
2 LONDON
3 ISTANBUL
4 FREANKFURT
5 PARIS

Where is Madrid??? :eek2:

Madrid will be 7th or 8th. Here is also Warsaw for 6th place.

Canary wharf 2008

http://www.skyscrapernews.com/wharf_golden2.jpg
http://www.skyscrapernews.com/canary_wharf2008.jpg

in 2010 BEST SKYLINES WILL BE
1 MOSCOW
2 LONDON
3 ISTANBUL
4 FREANKFURT
5 PARIS
I agree they will be the top 5, but not necessarily in that order...

1.moscow/istanbul
2.frankfurt
3.london
4.paris
5.not sure about this one...

Canary wharf 2008

http://www.skyscrapernews.com/wharf_golden2.jpg
http://www.skyscrapernews.com/canary_wharf2008.jpg

Looking good!
I've gotta see it to believe it though!
Only 4 years left...

for all those who say moscow will be no1 in 2010...

there we got the present frankfurt skyline:
http://img25.exs.cx/img25/8840/1305999.jpg


here's la defense:
http://www.arnaudfrichphoto.com/Images/nanterre_7.jpg


and here's something like the current moscow downtown skyline looks like:
http://www.mirax.ru/images/federation/dinam/150604_big.jpg


now i'm just wondering... how do you imagine that, moscow beating these skylines within 65 month...?

Rudi. Skyline will completed by 2007. In 2010 will added Russia Tower. In the end of this year will be unveiled city-2 project. 7x expanding for city. It will be larger than area of La Defense. But there is no complete date, because it will be just a district. But some projects already announced to built there, like Avanguard and Kasakhstan. Some buildings already built on this territory, like Trianon and one one more complex.

May be skyline of City-1 will not be big, but it will be very unique and very tall.

Rotterdam in the European Top 5

http://home.planet.nl/~stee8329/forum/plaswijck/pano2.jpg

see http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=121695
all photos made by Patricks Highrise

yep, and for the moment it still beats Moscow I think.

My number 5 european skylines:

1. Frankfurt
2. Paris
3. London
4. Rotterdam
5. Warsaw

Frankfurt definate no. 1 , 'cause buildings are high, have good design, skyline is (rather) dense seen from all parts of the city.

Paris - no. 2 - is very dense and even thought not as high as London, looks more like a real city skyline to me.

London - no 3, very good design, it will become probably no. 1 in few years. For the time being I find London scrapers in CW too boxy though. The other scrapers are too much spread around the city. (Swiss Re is of course amazing and LBT will be superb!! :) )

Rotterdam - no. 4 and before Warsaw, because its scrapers are of higher quality than the ones in Warszawa, and believe me guyz, I am born in Poland myself, and I know both cities very well.
Rotterdam as urban area is much better organized than Warszawa. The scrapers are not that high as in Warszawa, but skyline is dense, buildings have good design and Rotterdam has more mid-rise scrapers.
And actually the difference in height is not that big: Warszawa 6 scrapers 130m +, Rotterdam 3 scrapers 130m+

Upcoming gr8 skylines:
1. Moskva
2. Madrid

I didn't vote for Benidorm, bacause for me it's a different city and should be categorized with the other sea-sun-holiday-housemusic cities list. ;) ;) ;)

guys i think a city has a lot more to add to a skyline than just scrapers if we look closley. for example i visited istanbul last week and was amazed by the beauty of all the mosques. if someone was able to include say the blue mosque ( my favorate) to the renderings of scrapers then it would be world class. As it happens we cant and if any one was thing about going to istanbul then dont because its shit. London is able to include st. pauls, paris the eifle tower and so on which really does in my oppion make the best skyline.

Im a great fan of st mary's axe and st. pauls but the stunning efile tower with the la Defence in line with it wins it for me.

Thank God the old churches and mosques of Istanbul aren't mixed with skyscrapers...

The Golden Horn acts as a natural barrier between the two parts of European Istanbul: The old part in the south and the new part in the north.

The ancient city of Constantinople (inside the walls) is under UNESCO protection and it's illegal to build skyscrapers there (luckily so... This way the silhouette of Old Istanbul, today, is the same with its silhouette of hundreds of years ago) :)

If someone builds a skyscraper within the Walls of Constantinople, I'll personally go and shoot him. :yes:

Thanks to the Golden Horn, Istanbul can be both "Florence" and "New York" at the same time; while neither side/characteristic of the city disturbs (or threatens the existence of) the other. :okay:

Warsaw
http://www.pkin.pl/5d.jpg

WOW! :eek2::eek2::eek2:
I haven't seen this photo yet!

This photo is amazing, indeed!

It's difficult to rate skylines before having seen skyscrapers built.
Actually only one skyscrapers can push a city n°1 in the futur.

imagine if the Tour Sans Fin was built in Paris...
it would have been the best skyline in the world for a while.

Yeah.........but thats like saying all the 400m proposals were built in London (some 5 individual proposals I believe)!!!!

Paris also had its share of serious tall proposals , but TSF was actually different cause it was approved and about to start construction when it was cancelled.
Anyway I think that what he means is that showing "canary wharf 2008" or mentioning the LBT won't make current London skyline better, or same for Madrid Arena, Max in Frankfurt or T1 and Granite in Paris, etc.

Oh boy am I going to get myself unpopular again. After being back from my two week holiday in London, and recently having been in almost all major skyscrapercities in Europe (Warsaw and Istanbul excluded), this honestly is my list

1. Paris
2. Rotterdam
3. London Canary Wharf
4. Frankfurt
.....

London city doesn't really belong here IMHO. Further, again this list excludes Warsaw and Istanbul, never been there. I do believe canary wharf will take over in a few years, it has endless potential. And who thinks I am biased, don't judge Rotterdam before you crossed the Brienoordbridge please.

you're one comedian, sniper. you are planing to enter into competition with asimov, dont you?

Whats that scraper on the right of the Warsaw Photo? You could imagine it in 1920's America, pity we don't have more "classical scrapers" in Europe :(

Thats the palace of culture, built in 1955 I believe. Tallest building in Europe(to roof) for 30 some odd years. Im surprised youve never heard of it before.

Tallest to spire you mean ? Cause to roof Montparnasse, built 18 years later, is taller.

You're right. I forgot about Toure Montparnasse (I was thinking One Canada Square was the first to beat it)

To the mast, Lomonsow University in Moscow is 8m taller.

Ah Cheers, I have heard of it before and knew it was a Soviet Building, I'd never seen a pic though.

Moscow State University. 240m. Tallest in Europe from 1952 to 1991, when surpassed by MesseTurm.
It was tallest building in the World, outside New York, when built.
http://www.msu.ru/tour/images/2.jpg

Palace of Culture & Science. 231 meters tall. It was tallest by roof until Tour Montparnasse.
http://skyscraperpage.com/gallery/data/727/3539palac001.jpg

you're one comedian, sniper. you are planing to enter into competition with asimov, dont you?

Hey Rudi I am serious and I like to be taken serious.

Come on no hard feelings at all and I may seem a bit biased some times but I think you really shouldn´t judge when you haven´t even visited the place. My excuses if you have been there.

Rudi, you really consider me a comedian when in MY opinion this is the second skyline of europe? Rotterdam probably is overall probably the most dense city with highrises behind Benidorm (and Moscow?), as it has highrises everywhere around the city, whereas most city just have them in their center (or bussiness district)

http://home.planet.nl/~stee8329/forum/plaswijck/pano2.jpg

http://members.lycos.nl/skyscrapercity/IMAGE0006.JPG

http://home.zonnet.nl/p_bezemer/imagebase/00061.jpg

My top5 actuallity:

1º Frankfur
2º Paris
3º London
4º Warsaw
5º Madrid

Rudi, you really consider me a comedian when in MY opinion this is the second skyline of europe? Rotterdam probably is overall probably the most dense city with highrises behind Benidorm (and Moscow?), as it has highrises everywhere around the city, whereas most city just have them in their center (or bussiness district)

http://home.planet.nl/~stee8329/forum/plaswijck/pano2.jpg

these are midrises

Madrid yesterday

http://fotos.ya.com/tomahawk29/ph10922258516322.jpg

Paris, today

http://perso.wanadoo.fr/cyril.poisson/pano-a.jpg

wow great picture :)

Awesome panorama Gun57 ! Great job :runaway:

skyline pics by themselves are no real indication of things. the reason as the rotterdam one shows is there is no scale. it looks impressive in a large part because the buildings surrounding them are so low rise as you might remember when i stuck canary wharf in la defense to show the difference of scale....

@gothicform, you use valid arguments but isn't the contrast part of the impressiveness of a skyline? Further I don't really think there is much difference between the average amount of floors between Paris and London. The average amount of floors in Rotterdam centre is around 7-10 (including the towers, the average lowrise is 4 - 7 floors I guess) floors, I don't think that's a big difference either. Offcourse the difference height is important yet I do consider Rotterdam having one of the biggest real skylines (ie no big gaps) in Europe, you can make a panorama of Rotterdam and it has towers everywhere. Rotterdam won't gain real height in the future but the skyline of the city centre will be merged with the Wilhelminapier (5 x 150 m.), Laan op Zuid (much 70 - 90 m.) and Zuidplein (few 120 m.) Then the skyline will be really dense from Weena to the Zuidplein (distance larger than 4 kilometers, more than half of the city's north-south distance)

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/database/buildings.01/1527.jpg

And it still is bigger than this, esspecially the harbor skyline is impressive

Paris

http://www.kottke.org/plus/photos/200105europe/champs03.jpg

Pictures do not justify the skyline as different angles change the appearence of density ect... but honestly its not ROCKET science when the top are

Frankfurt, London and Paris... but in order its like

Frankfurt
London or Paris - most would say paris others London, but i think Paris JUST abit better

http://www.myparisnet.com/images/gallery/Pompidou.jpg

I know it's not a skyline but it's such a beautiful photo

jesus christ, rotterdam isn't even in the top 5, let alone number 2. the individual buildings are just plain boring - with no architectural value at all. most buildings look like modern versions of ugly 60s and 70s architecture. the skyline is extremly spread out, lacks height (we should compare rotterdam with birmingham, essen or naples, but not with london, paris or frankfurt). vienna is beating rotterdam in every aspect - it has a better skyline and better designed buildings - and thats just vienna. warsaw is years ahead of rotterdam despite rotterdams self-proclaimed highrise "history". barcelona managed to create a better skyline than rotterdam just within a few years. we shouldn't mention istanbul or frankfurt - rotterdam will never have such a skyline. even london (and I'm not talking about canary wharf - I mean whole london!) has a better skyline than rotterdam. the canary wharf - city of london - southbank - vauxhall axis is much more exciting than the "it could be anywhere"-skyline of rotterdam.

Paris isn't a very beautiful city, actually.

Apart from the beautiful Haussmann-era buildings (which also look a bit too "repetitive" as if they came out of a Xerox machine) the city looks too "concrete" and dull...

Perhaps it's because cities away from the sea don't attract me very much.

jesus christ, rotterdam isn't even in the top 5, let alone number 2. the individual buildings are just plain boring - with no architectural value at all. most buildings look like modern versions of ugly 60s and 70s architecture. the skyline is extremly spread out, lacks height (we should compare rotterdam with birmingham, essen or naples, but not with london, paris or frankfurt). vienna is beating rotterdam in every aspect - it has a better skyline and better designed buildings - and thats just vienna. warsaw is years ahead of rotterdam despite rotterdams self-proclaimed highrise "history". barcelona managed to create a better skyline than rotterdam just within a few years. we shouldn't mention istanbul or frankfurt - rotterdam will never have such a skyline. even london (and I'm not talking about canary wharf - I mean whole london!) has a better skyline than rotterdam. the canary wharf - city of london - southbank - vauxhall axis is much more exciting than the "it could be anywhere"-skyline of rotterdam.

Why don't you just respect other people's opinions? Not everyone thinks the towers are dull, that's just as much as an opinion as yours. Your opinion isn't better than anyone else's.

And there are lots of original towers coming up and u/c (transport college, Hoog aan de Maas, Calypso).

BTW, does Barcelona have such original towers in your opinion?

Offcourse there is little bias in my opinion (although I do believe I have travelled enough to compare it to other cities) but I say that Rotterdam's skyline is so much better in real than in pictures (opposite to ie London City).

I got no idea where your Rotterdam hate is coming from putting Rotterdam in the same league with Essen, Birmingham and Napels is ridiculous, just looking at most of the people's opinions here Rotterdam is between Frankfurt, Paris and London and the cities you mentioned, somewhere in the subtop with Warsaw (and Vienna which is terribly underrated here).

Paris isn't a very beautiful city, actually.

Apart from the beautiful Haussmann-era buildings (which also look a bit too "repetitive" as if they came out of a Xerox machine) the city looks too "concrete" and dull...

Perhaps it's because cities away from the sea don't attract me very much.

I guess you've never been in Paris because in this city there are many parks and Paris in a whole is a "beautiful Haussmann-era buildings"

http://fvgffm.de/temp/bmx/bmx1.jpg http://fvgffm.de/temp/bmx/bmx2.jpg http://fvgffm.de/temp/bmx/bmx3.jpg http://fvgffm.de/temp/bmx/bmx7.jpg http://fvgffm.de/temp/bmx/bmx10.jpg http://fvgffm.de/temp/bmx/bmx14.jpg http://fvgffm.de/temp/bmx/bmx16.jpg http://fvgffm.de/temp/bmx/bmx19.jpg http://fvgffm.de/temp/bmx/bmx22.jpg http://fvgffm.de/temp/bmx/bmx24.jpg http://fvgffm.de/temp/bmx/bmx25.jpg http://fvgffm.de/temp/bmx/bmx27.jpg http://fvgffm.de/temp/bmx/bmx26.jpg

all pictures above: © F.W.Von Goetz, fwvongoetz@aol.com


http://img25.exs.cx/img25/5564/1445951.jpg

I found a nice photo of Frankfurt.

http://ams1.lo3.wroc.pl/~tomek/duze/02/55820.jpg

http://fvgffm.de/temp/bmx/bmx19.jpg
Look out!! A missile is just going to hit one of the scrapers! :D

http://fvgffm.de/temp/bmx/bmx19.jpg
Look out!! A missile is just going to hit one of the scrapers! :D

This is not Israel. ;)

Das ist DEUTSCHE BUNDESWEHR FRANKFURT VON JUNKERS, jaaaaa! :D

No missile hits ze Commerzbank... :nono:

Some artifical view on the skyline:

http://www.frankfurtopia.de/images/skyscrp/newsky.jpg

Some Birmingham shots


http://www.webbaviation.plus.com/birmingham/bm46.jpg

http://www.heystudent.com/nick/east.jpg

http://www.photoways.com/partenaires/photoways/affiche_vignette.php?

http://www.heystudent.com/nick/d3.jpg

http://www.heyholiday.com/nick/Big%20Joe.jpg

http://www.photoways.com/partenaires/photoways/affiche_vignette.php?a=L2J3YWNnYCg5JjokPT05NiYjPX52d2w4KS4sKiwqJykSD1VAUA==

in my opinion:

1. Frankfurt
2. Paris
3. Warsaw
4. London
5. Rotterdam

in my opinion:

1. Frankfurt
2. Paris
3. Warsaw
4. London
5. Rotterdam
You cannot seriously put Warsaw above London. Sorry, but that is just ridiculous.

Cities on the same level I consider as similar place on the list. It's the first so complete list in this thread. I'm waiting your comments about changes and more precisely placing of the cities aspecialy betwen 13-20 place.

1.Frankfurt
2,3.London, Paris
4,5.Warsaw, Rotterdam
6,7. Madryt, Brassel
8.Milan,
9,10.Wiena, Amsterdam,
11,12. Hamburg, Köln
13-20. Tallin, Wilnius, Berlin, Salford, Posen, Munich, Moscow,Lisbon

You cannot seriously put Warsaw above London. Sorry, but that is just ridiculous.


Why ? London has 2 skylines and neither of them is better than Warsaw's skyline. They are separated by quite a distance, Warsaw skyline is much more compact compared to London's 2 skylines.


For me Warsaw is above London as well.

http://www.autolider.pl/warszawa/Zdjecia/panorama14.jpg

http://www.autolider.pl/warszawa/Zdjecia/panorama15.jpg

^
Second that.

Warsaw Rocks!! LOL

Canary Wharf is so much better in real life than on pictures. Can't say anything about Warsaw because I haven't been there yet.

Pictures don't say much to me, I have to see things in real life to judge.

London City isn't as good in real life as it is in pictures
Canary Wharf is way better in real life
Frankfurt is about as good as on pictures
Rotterdam is way better in real life
Paris is a bit better in real life.

Canary Wharf is so much better in real life than on pictures. Can't say anything about Warsaw because I haven't been there yet.

Pictures don't say much to me, I have to see things in real life to judge.

London City isn't as good in real life as it is in pictures
Canary Wharf is way better in real life
Frankfurt is about as good as on pictures
Rotterdam is way better in real life
Paris is a bit better in real life.

Obviously you like the quiet life, or you didnt actually go to London ;)

Why? I love the urban life mate. I wasn´t talking about London as a city but about London City skyline.

Btw here´s something for the picturewhores :naughty:

http://www.mikaellykmadsen.dk/rotterdam/panorama1.jpg

(by mlm!!!)

Canary Wharf is so much better in real life than on pictures. Can't say anything about Warsaw because I haven't been there yet.

Pictures don't say much to me, I have to see things in real life to judge.

London City isn't as good in real life as it is in pictures
Canary Wharf is way better in real life
Frankfurt is about as good as on pictures
Rotterdam is way better in real life
Paris is a bit better in real life.

I must agree with what you are saying. In Warsaw still is much to do in a street level which is a bit chaotic. Canary Wharf has got very god small architecture like pavements, lights, benches etcetera. It’s a cause you feel that Canary is better than Warsaw. I feel that to so I putted London above Warsaw, however it’s a thread about skyline not street level so maybe I was wrong. Warsaw in fact has got more higher skyscrapers in very beautiful combination if you watch them from a distance.

http://www.startbilder.de/einzelbild.php?id=286585&quality=100&identifier=cc202aa0bd&

You cannot seriously put Warsaw above London. Sorry, but that is just ridiculous.

i think that i already did this.

I would say the poles forumers kinda convinced me of their skyline. I'm gonna put it above London too wich has a lot to build. (and will build a lot).

Siena copycat :D

http://www.heyholiday.com/nick/Big%20Joe.jpg

Mangia Tower in Siena looks much better though...

And is 500 years older. ;)

jesus christ, rotterdam isn't even in the top 5, let alone number 2. the individual buildings are just plain boring - with no architectural value at all. most buildings look like modern versions of ugly 60s and 70s architecture. the skyline is extremly spread out, lacks height (we should compare rotterdam with birmingham, essen or naples, but not with london, paris or frankfurt). vienna is beating rotterdam in every aspect - it has a better skyline and better designed buildings - and thats just vienna. warsaw is years ahead of rotterdam despite rotterdams self-proclaimed highrise "history". barcelona managed to create a better skyline than rotterdam just within a few years. we shouldn't mention istanbul or frankfurt - rotterdam will never have such a skyline. even london (and I'm not talking about canary wharf - I mean whole london!) has a better skyline than rotterdam. the canary wharf - city of london - southbank - vauxhall axis is much more exciting than the "it could be anywhere"-skyline of rotterdam.


Being a Rotterdammer I might be a bit biased, but you are kinda exaggerating things. Rotterdam comparing with Birmingham is bullshit, but I totally agree that Rotterdam can not top Paris, London or Frankfurt.

You claiming that Rotterdam's buildings are all plain boring sounds more like an act of being difficult than having a good based opinion. I admit they are definitely not all great but you can't say that the KPN tower by Renzo Piano is boring. Or the Fortis tower, which in my opinion is one of the nicer ones in Europe.

Vienna has some marvelous old architecture, but I don't get the fuss about their so called skyline. The Vienna skyline is nothing special in my opinion. It's definitely not as great as Rotterdam's skyline.

And about Barcelona... Beautiful city, but what skyline? Those two towers they have???

In my opinion:

1. Paris (Most urban looking city in Europe, by far)
2. Frankfurt (Architecture and height are both good, the city itsself could be more dense.)
3. London (Will be nr. 1 in 10 years)
---
4. Rotterdam (No superhighs, but a lot of density)
4. Warsaw (Some nice high ones, but no great architecture in general. Palace of Culture & Science is beautiful though. Tie with Rotterdam.)
---
6. Vienna (I don't get it about their so called skyline. Never saw any good pics.)
6. Birmingham
6. Manchester
6. Essen
6. Naples

So, instead of bashing my city, try posting some good shots of the Vienna skylines to make me change my opinion. Already plenty of decent shots of Rotterdam, btw.

I don't know about Moscow and Istanbul. I still don't consider those cities European (yet).

I don't know about Moscow and Istanbul. I still don't consider those cities European (yet).
What? Moscow is not so away from center of Europe. It is Europe - geographically, culturally, historically. Istanbul geographically on part in Europe, but culturally and historically it is Europe.

Being a Rotterdammer I might be a bit biased, but you are kinda exaggerating things. Rotterdam comparing with Birmingham is bullshit, but I totally agree that Rotterdam can not top Paris, London or Frankfurt.

You claiming that Rotterdam's buildings are all plain boring sounds more like an act of being difficult than having a good based opinion. I admit they are definitely not all great but you can't say that the KPN tower by Renzo Piano is boring. Or the Fortis tower, which in my opinion is one of the nicer ones in Europe.

Vienna has some marvelous old architecture, but I don't get the fuss about their so called skyline. The Vienna skyline is nothing special in my opinion. It's definitely not as great as Rotterdam's skyline.

And about Barcelona... Beautiful city, but what skyline? Those two towers they have???

In my opinion:

1. Paris (Most urban looking city in Europe, by far)
2. Frankfurt (Architecture and height are both good, the city itsself could be more dense.)
3. London (Will be nr. 1 in 10 years)
---
4. Rotterdam (No superhighs, but a lot of density)
4. Warsaw (Some nice high ones, but no great architecture in general. Palace of Culture & Science is beautiful though. Tie with Rotterdam.)
---
6. Vienna (I don't get it about their so called skyline. Never saw any good pics.)
6. Birmingham
6. Manchester
6. Essen
6. Naples

So, instead of bashing my city, try posting some good shots of the Vienna skylines to make me change my opinion. Already plenty of decent shots of Rotterdam, btw.

I don't know about Moscow and Istanbul. I still don't consider those cities European (yet).



fine.


1) here comes vienna:



http://mywebpage.netscape.com/Skyshadow2500/Wien/Geras/Gerasdorf1.jpg

http://mywebpage.netscape.com/Skyshadow2500/Wien/Donaucity/153_5335.jpg


http://mywebpage.netscape.com/Skyshadow2500/Wien/Wienerberg/150_5050.jpg


and these three pictures don't even include the tallest buildings in the city like the millennium tower



2) the kpn tower may have been a good idea on the drawing board, but it certainly went very wrong - no wonder no one is ever mentioning it when speaking about piano. and if you think the fortis tower is one of the better ones in europe ... well then frankly it makes no sense to discuss that further with you. I guess living in rotterdam made you being satisfied with less. that's fine. but most people are not surrounded by 60s architecture in a modern dress in a way people in rotterdam are...



3) well, you have obviously not been to barcelona recently (same with vienna), because then you would have recognized a HUGE new highrise district miles to the east of the "two towers" you mentioned. barcelona has created a new highrise district that is more dense than anything in rotterdam. there is many threads about the highrise boom in barcelona in this forum, you should check it out.


4) I am not bashing rotterdam. I'm not even half as critical as most dutch forumers in your local forum. it is incredible how much bashing is going on in the dutch forum and how much praise there is for the plain, unimaginative and boring modern dutch architecture (mister supersniper is the bash-king). there is always the occasional exception to the rule. the highrise architecture of the hague is much better than that of rotterdam. hell, even amsterdam is building better looking highrises. a few years ago I thought the rotterdam highrise architecture is leading in europe - this has changed dramatically. all new projects are nothing but new versions of the so much hated 60s architecture. sure, a lot of ugly boxes can make a good skyline too. and rotterdam has a nice skyline. but it's just a modern version of manchaster and birmingham:

http://www.heystudent.com/nick/manc07.jpg
http://www.heystudent.com/nick/brum107.jpg

not rotterdam is leader of "good" highrise architecture in holland - it's the hague, or amsterdam ...

fine.


1) here comes vienna:



and these three pictures don't even include the tallest buildings in the city like the millennium tower



2) the kpn tower may have been a good idea on the drawing board, but it certainly went very wrong - no wonder no one is ever mentioning it when speaking about piano. and if you think the fortis tower is one of the better ones in europe ... well then frankly it makes no sense to discuss that further with you. I guess living in rotterdam made you being satisfied with less. that's fine. but most people are not surrounded by 60s architecture in a modern dress in a way people in rotterdam are...



3) well, you have obviously not been to barcelona recently (same with vienna), because then you would have recognized a HUGE new highrise district miles to the east of the "two towers" you mentioned. barcelona has created a new highrise district that is more dense than anything in rotterdam. there is many threads about the highrise boom in barcelona in this forum, you should check it out.


4) I am not bashing rotterdam. I'm not even half as critical as most dutch forumers in your local forum. it is incredible how much bashing is going on in the dutch forum and how much praise there is for the plain, unimaginative and boring modern dutch architecture (mister supersniper is the bash-king). there is always the occasional exception to the rule. the highrise architecture of the hague is much better than that of rotterdam. hell, even amsterdam is building better looking highrises. a few years ago I thought the rotterdam highrise architecture is leading in europe - this has changed dramatically. all new projects are nothing but new versions of the so much hated 60s architecture. sure, a lot of ugly boxes can make a good skyline too. and rotterdam has a nice skyline. but it's just a modern version of manchaster and birmingham:

http://www.heystudent.com/nick/manc07.jpg
http://www.heystudent.com/nick/brum107.jpg

not rotterdam is leader of "good" highrise architecture in holland - it's the hague, or amsterdam ...

I have to say that these pictures of Vienna don't really do the trick for me. Sure, there's a nice skyline, but in my opinion not better than Rotterdam's. Maybe that's just a difference of taste among the two of us.

Also I have to admit that Den Haag is definitely original when it comes to their modern architecture. As a matter of fact I think my country's nicest is the Hoftoren in Den Haag.

Since 2000 I have visited Chicago, Detroit, Cleveland, Toronto, Honolulu, Sydney and Paris. And ofcourse Rotterdam, Amsterdam and Den Haag. So that statement that 'I guess living in rotterdam made you being satisfied with less.' is a little funny to me. I've seen enough. I know that Rotterdam has some bad looking ones, but so has Vienna. Your pictures couldn't really convince me yet. And I'm not like some of the other Dutchies claiming that Rotterdam is top notch skyscraperwise. I love my city, but I'm honest. The true beauty of my city is not the skyline, it's a beauty that foreigners will never see.

About Barcelona, I was not aware of the many building projects of the last years. I rarely see it mentioned here on the world boards. But I'm gonna look for it right now!

I would like it if you could show me pics of buildings in Vienna that you think is top architecture. I am very curious to see what your idea of great architecture is.

Btw, when you talk about boring Dutch architecture I mention one guy: Rem Koolhaas. From Rotterdam... :)

What? Moscow is not so away from center of Europe. It is Europe - geographically, culturally, historically. Istanbul geographically on part in Europe, but culturally and historically it is Europe.

I know, but that's just the feeling I have. It would be weird for me if Russia would join the euro-region, or Turkey. Ofcourse I have nothing against Turkey or Russia, but I just never saw those countries as European. So also not their cities.

We consider ourselves more "Mediterranean" rather than European.

And proudly so... :D

We consider ourselves more "Mediterranean" rather than European.

And proudly so... :D

I wish we had your weather! :)

forefround: asian part and the Kozyatagi Business district
background: Skyline of Sisli and LEvent (european part)
http://wowturkey.com/tr26/Burc_adadan_7209.jpg

http://wowturkey.com/tr26/umit_ist_from_hotel_27iw75.jpg
http://wowturkey.com/tr26/umit_otelden_ist_1375.jpg

HD, again, why don't you just respect other people's opinions?
You think the new projects in Rotterdam are bad, some others might not agree.
Hell, some might even think 60's architecture is the best there is!

I'm thinking you just don't like Rotterdam's designs because the majority are residential, where it's much harder to be innovative as in office towers.
For example, few residential towers have reflective glass, just because it is not good for the view.

Some people call the towers commieblocks, but it seems to me that some people just think all residential towers are commieblocks.

By the way, I do agree office towers have better designs than residential towers in general, because the latter are more conversative.
But hey, I think it goes too far to call them modern versions of '60s architecture.

http://perso.wanadoo.es/salvanex/index_fotos/dsf2.jpg

http://mywebpage.netscape.com/Skyshadow2500/Wien/Geras/Gerasdorf1.jpg

http://www.mikaellykmadsen.dk/rotterdam/panorama1.jpg

I don't think many would agree with you. I got the impression you weigh the designs of the towers above all.

By the way, rating Rotterdam nr. 1 skyline of Europe was indeed exagarated.

Lodz in Poland although looks good. This who never heard about it could be surprised. :D
http://www.retsat1.com.pl/georaf/2/a.jpg

Istanbul is a muslim state to me and was very much so when i went. Your only part of EU to benfit economies but at the end of the day turkey will have no real say in europe for a long time.

Rotterdam skyline is impressive, would benefit grealy fom a night shot i think but does lack in height which you can see from the pics

quote 'Warsaw better skyline than london' stay off the happy pills!!, you need to be comparing your city with Rotterdam Naples and Istambul

London CW and Paris LD and frankfurt are in a legue of their own with sheer height and quality of desgn and structure that no other city can come close to compare compare.

Granted that some shots of Istanbul and Rotterdam pics are nice but there are too many crummy builds in them which are no where to be seen in the top three.

ratings:
1 Frankfurt
2 Paris LD (looks more urbanised than CW)
3. London
4. Rotterdam
5. Istanbul
6. Warsaw
7. Naples etc (cant make up my mind)

rotterdam and istanbul are both nice, but if you remember many pages back i sat la defense next to canary wharf to give an idea of height to make the point. la defense is shorter than canary wharf, canary wharf has less towers than frankfurt, london as a whole has the same prob as istanbul of many clusters, and london has 4 towers taller than istanbuls tallest and 1 the same height.
the best cluster remains frankfurt, followed by la defense which has more bulk than canary wharf in terms of ground space. london comes third and istanbul fourth. the best thing is in the next 12 months london leapfrogs paris and frankfurt :)
im sure also next year a lot of people will be talking about manchester and liverpool and leeds... and as for naples, birmingham has a better skyline.

I can agree - we need the Coolsingeltoren. That will make the skyline a bit more complete maybe.

http://home.hetnet.nl/~tdb150881/panordam2007.jpg

WARSAW the ultimate collection part 1 ;)

by @OlekD
http://www.free-image-hosting.org/9/25313565164.jpg
http://www.free-image-hosting.org/9/25313544050.jpg
http://www.free-image-hosting.org/9/25313590691.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v498/olek39mln/3.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v498/olek39mln/d5.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v498/olek39mln/b7.jpg

part 2

by @REDHATT
http://www.startbilder.de/einzelbild.php?id=286585&quality=100&identifier=cc202aa0bd&
http://www.startbilder.de/einzelbild.php?id=286581&quality=100&identifier=1870af76aa&
http://www.startbilder.de/einzelbild.php?id=286583&quality=100&identifier=6cb5797358&
http://www.startbilder.de/einzelbild.php?id=294706&quality=100&identifier=a26f002058&
http://www.startbilder.de/einzelbild.php?id=294710&quality=100&identifier=ade064ffa1&
http://www.startbilder.de/einzelbild.php?id=294711&quality=100&identifier=504e66d575&
http://www.startbilder.de/einzelbild.php?id=294714&quality=100&identifier=2a676cc949&
http://www.startbilder.de/einzelbild.php?id=296822&quality=100&identifier=9f451d886a&
http://www.startbilder.de/einzelbild.php?id=296823&quality=100&identifier=a3bf058211&

part 3 by @svir

http://www.svir.neostrada.pl/NG1.jpg
http://www.svir.neostrada.pl/NG3.jpg
http://www.svir.neostrada.pl/NG7.jpg

part 4 from plfoto.com
http://plfoto.com/zdjecia/406640.jpg
http://plfoto.com/zdjecia/417064.jpg
http://plfoto.com/zdjecia/400122.jpg
http://plfoto.com/zdjecia/399240.jpg
http://plfoto.com/zdjecia/426713.jpg

I really think Milan will get a so beautiful skyline in some years!Trust me guys! :pepper:

http://www.autolider.pl/warszawa/Zdjecia/panorama10.jpg
http://www.autolider.pl/warszawa/Zdjecia/panoramamarzen1.jpg

last photo was a little "corrected" though;)

I can agree - we need the Coolsingeltoren. That will make the skyline a bit more complete maybe.

http://home.hetnet.nl/~tdb150881/panordam2007.jpg

Sorry to say this but this skyline is not correct !

The locations of some of the towers are (just a little bit) wrong, that's all.

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/database/buildings.02/2851.jpg

And just for good measure, a few of Canary Wharf...

http://homepage.mac.com/benveasey/.Pictures/nov23f.jpg

http://img79.exs.cx/img79/2163/CWestatefromtheSE.jpg

http://img79.exs.cx/img79/1385/CWinbteweenthamesbarrier.jpg

http://img27.exs.cx/img27/1096/l31.jpg

http://img2.exs.cx/img2/4083/l4.jpg

http://users.pandora.be/edelbach/canarywharf/canarywharf_140-4042_IMG.jpg

http://www.willfox.com/images/skyscrapers/cityairport.jpg