What is the city with the largest ammount of highrises?

[ilovecz]

Interesting comparison. I think this video is driving on Yanan Road in Shanghai as you talked about. It is during the day though.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cn5B42LcVg0

This is all Puxi, with a glimpse of Pudong at the end.

To some other people, Shanghai is not spread out. It is very dense in terms of highrises. On the Puxi side, the high qaulity office buildings do spread out unlike New York, but highrise residential towers fill in the gap. 90% of the buildings appearing in the video are higher than 12 stories. Keep in mind that the highway is elevated. I would say with Pudong + Puxi, Shanghai has an almost equal numer of office towers with Manhattan, but much more highrise residential towers. Not that the residential towers are pretty or of any architectural value. Just for the sake of counting.

Originally Posted by jacks

I've lived in both Seoul and Shanghai and Seoul seems bigger to me. The buildings aren't as tall or as dense but the metro area just goes on for ever. The mountains prevent you from seeing much of it in one view but you can drive from Incheon through Seoul and up to Uijeongbu, travelling around 100km, and be surrounded by high rise the whole way. It's pretty awesome.
There's absolutely nothing in Seoul to rival a night-time cab trip along the elevated Yanan lu though. Actually the complete ease with which you can get across Shanghai probably makes it feel smaller. The expressways in Seoul aren't as good and there is a lot more traffic to slow everything down. I went up the Lupu bridge recently and the view was more impressive to me than the view from Namsan which is about the only place from which you can see a good portion of Seoul.
The building rate of Shanghai is also incredible and I suppose if you count Incheon as part of Seoul then Suzhou and Wuxi have to be part of Shanghai making it a lot bigger even than the Korean megacity.
I'm guessing Tokyo is more like Seoul - shorter buildings but covering a huge area. Sao Paulo looks smaller but quite a bit denser. With the amount of current building going on in a lot of these cities I doubt it's really possible to definitively answer this question.

[jacks]

When you look at those satellite photos of Seoul you can't really understand what they mean unless you have been there. The green spaces are unbuilt areas sure, but unlike pretty much any other huge city (Rio is closest), these areas are very steep mountain. If you look at the valleys nearby the main conurbation you see that ALL of the valley floors are built up. These photos then do not represent a series of urban areas split up by rural space. Instead they show that the main city has expanded into EVERY SINGLE BIT of flat land nearby, including places that are almost cut off by mountains. The landscape dictates that this looks like several towns joined together. If you think of the sat-pics as of one city with mountains plonked in the middle you will get a better idea of just how big Seoul is.

Tokyo is bigger still with more people, but it's buildings look quite a bit lower on average. SP is smaller with (slightly) fewer people, but has a higher proportion of high-rise and the high-rise is more densely packed. Shanghai is also smaller depending on where you set it's city limits, but has much the taller buildings. Its highrise is also more dense than Seoul's but probably less so than SP.

I doubt New York and HK have as many high-rise as the above as their 'tall' areas are smaller even though they are taller and denser. Shenzhen and Beijing are probably in the same league for total buildings along with Guangzhou and Chongqing.

Where you set the cut-off for what buildings get counted will give you several different results.

My guesses (with pulled-out-of-my-arse cut-offs and made-up figures):

Most really tall - New York (just, and probably not for much longer)
Most tall - Hong Kong (by far)
Most medium-tall - Shanghai
Most buildings that could claim to be high-rise - SP, Seoul, Tokyo or Shanghai. (probably Tokyo as it has a lot more people)

[Shera]

Originally Posted by jacks

When you look at those satellite photos of Seoul you can't really understand what they mean unless you have been there. The green spaces are unbuilt areas sure, but unlike pretty much any other huge city (Rio is closest), these areas are very steep mountain. If you look at the valleys nearby the main conurbation you see that ALL of the valley floors are built up. These photos then do not represent a series of urban areas split up by rural space. Instead they show that the main city has expanded into EVERY SINGLE BIT of flat land nearby, including places that are almost cut off by mountains. The landscape dictates that this looks like several towns joined together. If you think of the sat-pics as of one city with mountains plonked in the middle you will get a better idea of just how big Seoul is.

Tokyo is bigger still with more people, but it's buildings look quite a bit lower on average. SP is smaller with (slightly) fewer people, but has a higher proportion of high-rise and the high-rise is more densely packed. Shanghai is also smaller depending on where you set it's city limits, but has much the taller buildings. Its highrise is also more dense than Seoul's but probably less so than SP.

I doubt New York and HK have as many high-rise as the above as their 'tall' areas are smaller even though they are taller and denser. Shenzhen and Beijing are probably in the same league for total buildings along with Guangzhou and Chongqing.

Where you set the cut-off for what buildings get counted will give you several different results.

My guesses (with pulled-out-of-my-arse cut-offs and made-up figures):

Most really tall - New York (just, and probably not for much longer)
Most tall - Hong Kong (by far)
Most medium-tall - Shanghai
Most buildings that could claim to be high-rise - SP, Seoul, Tokyo or Shanghai. (probably Tokyo as it has a lot more people)

This is great to read. You seem to be pretty knowledgeable about this topic.. I'm wondering if you saw my new thread on a new kind of skyline rating that accounts for the "massive-ness" factor--the kind that tries to rate on how vertically massive a city is:

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=1000785

Hope you could provide some useful insight in that thread.. pictures would also be appreciated!!!

[Shera]

Originally Posted by citypia

Is there a 360-degree panorama of Seoul taken from the top of that mountain in the middle of Seoul?

[citypia]

Originally Posted by Shera

Is there a 360-degree panorama of Seoul taken from the top of that mountain in the middle of Seoul?

I am really sorry.
I can't find a 360-degree panorama of Seoul taken from the top of the mountain in Seoul.
But these panorama are taken from the top of one of surounded mountains.
Unfortunately, lots of ugly buildings in Seoul are seen in this panorama.

pics from DC
SCROLL ------->

[citypia]

This is old down town in Seoul.

[the spliff fairy]

Originally Posted by Shera

http://wapedia.mobi/en/Gyeonggi-do




(source: Wikipedia)

Out of date!^

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seoul

"Metro 24,472,063"


Seoul city bureau data:


http://209.85.229.132/search?q=cache...&ct=clnk&gl=uk

"Seoul Metropolitan Area(Seoul, Incheon,Gyeonggido) : 24 Millions• South
Korea : 49.5Millions"

http://eng.gg.go.kr/276

"The Seoul-Gyeonggi metropolitan area is home to 24 million people", followed by breakdown


Korea Herald:

http://www.koreaherald.co.kr/NEWKHSI...0911090035.asp

"Its population has increased from less than 10 million in the 1960s to 24 million as of 2009. "


New York Times:

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/14/bu...und-seoul.html

"In their presentation, the mayors and the governor noted that the Seoul-Inchon metropolis is home to 24 million people, half the country's population."

[chinarulez]

yeah, that's correct. half of the south koreans live in this metro area, quite impressing though.

[Shera]

According to the complete enumeration results of the 2005 Population Census that the KNSO announced on May 25th 2006, the population of South Korea was 47,278,952, up 2.5 percent from 2000. The population density recorded 474 persons per 1km2, an increase of 10 from 2000. The population closeness (the distance between persons when they stand at the same interval every km2) was 45.9m in 2005, down 0.5m from 2000.

The population of the Seoul metropolitan area (Seoul, Incheon and Gyeonggi) amounted to 22,770,000, accounting for 48.2 percent out of the total population. The population in Gyeonggi, the most heavily populated area out of the 16 metropolitan cities and provinces, recorded 10,420,000 persons, followed by Seoul.

Official South Korea, source:

http://kostat.go.kr/eboard_faq/Board...atid3=&catid4=



Hey Spliff Fairy, do you think London would have even more than 15 million people if using the same total land area as Seoul+Incheon+Gyeonggi-do (11,000 km^2)? Perhaps the 24 million figure of Seoul-Gyeonggi metro includes a some urban areas right outside the south border of Gyeonggi?

[Shera]

Originally Posted by citypia

I am really sorry.
I can't find a 360-degree panorama of Seoul taken from the top of the mountain in Seoul.
But these panorama are taken from the top of one of surounded mountains.
Unfortunately, lots of ugly buildings in Seoul are seen in this panorama.

pics from DC

Thank you sooo much, citypia, for the breathtaking panos of Seoul!!!

Wow, I have to catch my breath after looking at those pics, damn!

[the spliff fairy]

Originally Posted by Shera

Official South Korea, source:

http://kostat.go.kr/eboard_faq/Board...atid3=&catid4=


Perhaps the 24 million figure of Seoul-Gyeonggi metro includes a some urban areas right outside the south border of Gyeonggi?

Then I would hazard the 24.5 million number comes from a Seoul-Gyeongju-Incheon aglommeration. 1,8 and 4 on the map, especially as Incheon is fully contiguous and integrated as solid cityscape all the way into central Seoul:

Originally Posted by Shera

Hey Spliff Fairy, do you think London would have even more than 15 million people if using the same total land area as Seoul+Incheon+Gyeonggi-do (11,000 km^2)?

if you look at an artificially highlighted map of the urban areas (which will reveal a myriad peppering effect of small, dense developments), pretty much most of England would count as part of one agglommeration. Basically urbanised England fits in 47 million people into an area the size of Maine:

[Shera]

Originally Posted by the spliff fairy

Then I would hazard the 24.5 million number comes from a Seoul-Gyeongju-Incheon aglommeration. 1,8 and 4 on the map, especially as Incheon is fully contiguous and integrated as solid cityscape all the way into central Seoul:

No, the official census data was including Incheon in the metro area. It's the official S. Korea census of 2005, which is as official as it can get (and there is estimated to be less than 1% change in population since).

However, I would take liberty and include some of the urban areas immediately south of Gyeonggi to match that 24-26 million people, since a 20M+ mega-city certain should cover some more area.

The urban area would still be wayyyy less than 11,000 km^2 if I leave out half of Gyeonggi's total area (to the north and to the east), and include the urban areas about 50-80 miles (80-130km) south of Seoul.


By comparison, London would have about 12 million people in a strictly circular radius of 11,000 km^2, and about 16.6 million people in a circle of 22,000km^2, and if including the East and Southeast regions of England, it would have 20.9 million people (39,500 km^2). New York City with a roughly circular area of 17,884 km^2 has 21,295,000 people. I could give you more specifics later on if you want.. Some of the unofficial population agencies estimate Tokyo to have over 40 million people if covering the same area as NYC's "grand" consolidated metro area (of course, I never accept any data that includes Philadelphia or Hartford for 30 million, which is purely non-sense for NYC). This is interesting, but it might be a bit off-topic for this thread, I guess?

[jacks]

The difference between London and Seoul is that the space around London is space that could have been used for building but was deliberately set aside to provide a green belt whereas the space around Seoul can't be built on as it is too steep.
Because of this, I would limit London to the continuously built up area but I would expand Seoul to include all the separate built up areas out to the point where a decent portion of the usable land is not built up. Thus while South East England and Gyeonggi-do both have ~20-25 million people in a not too disimilar area, I would include nearly all of those as being in Seoul but only around half as being in London.
If you define a city as an economic unit this would make no sense, but from the point of view of continuously built up area it does (at least to me...)

[Shera]

Yep, the country-side farmers should be banned from being included in the city's metro population, whether in the green belt around London or in the valleys about 40 miles south of Seoul! Hehe, just kidding!

Ok, back to topic before it becomes so badly derailed! Ha!

[ilovecz]

I'd say that is probably right. Currently New York probably still wins in the 250m--300m category, Hong Kong wins 200m+, Shanghai wins 100m+, and Tokyo, Seoul, Shanghai and SP win 30m+ (and most probably Tokyo wins).

Originally Posted by jacks

My guesses (with pulled-out-of-my-arse cut-offs and made-up figures):

Most really tall - New York (just, and probably not for much longer)
Most tall - Hong Kong (by far)
Most medium-tall - Shanghai
Most buildings that could claim to be high-rise - SP, Seoul, Tokyo or Shanghai. (probably Tokyo as it has a lot more people)