Ultrapolis World's Tallest Cities Update for 2012

[Southsky2000]

Ultrapolis has issued it's World's Tallest Cities report for 2012, discussing skyscraper construction developments in 2011, and what's coming in 2012:
(For some reason, Skyscrapercity is currently not allowing a direct link, so, you may need to copy and paste URL in a separate browser window.)

http://www.ultrapolisproject.com/ultrapolis_041.htm

Rankings and some diagrams updated:

http://www.ultrapolisproject.com/ult...nes_cities.htm

[Dimethyltryptamine]

403 forbidden

[Southsky2000]

Originally Posted by Dimethyltryptamine

403 forbidden

What do you mean?

[Dimethyltryptamine]

yesterday the links weren't going anywhere. Works now so all good

[joshsam]

still don't work for me

[MelboyPete]

me neither

[Southsky2000]

For whatever reason, it looks like Skyscrapercity will not allow travel to that site. You would have to copy the urls into a different browser window.

[Southsky2000]

You can also Google for "World's Tallest Cities" and it will take you right to it. Sorry for the inconvenience.

[CWB_IAH]

The link worked for me. First time it didn't work because I copied the "comma" at the end, so you probably should delete it from there.

"The CAHTT is the “Calculated Average Height of the Ten Tallest” buildings and towers of each city. " I think it would make more sense to do an average of the one hundred tallest buildings. Cities like Houston, Toronto and Singapore are quite different and this study puts them all on the same level.

[mimip]

"The CAHTT is the “Calculated Average Height of the Ten Tallest” buildings and towers of each city. It is very beautiful.

[Manila-X]

Dubai will definitely take that title due to the fact The Burj Khalifa is there plus lots of supertall structures being built.

But compared to cities like HK or NY, Dubai still has less the volume of skyscrapers.

On the other hand, Taipei has one of the world's tallest buildings but the majority of scrapers are mid-rise so it does not make the cut. Same with Sao Paulo which has lots of skyscrapers but lack the height of those listed in the top 20.

[Southsky2000]

Originally Posted by CWB_IAH

The link worked for me. First time it didn't work because I copied the "comma" at the end, so you probably should delete it from there.

"The CAHTT is the “Calculated Average Height of the Ten Tallest” buildings and towers of each city. " I think it would make more sense to do an average of the one hundred tallest buildings. Cities like Houston, Toronto and Singapore are quite different and this study puts them all on the same level.

The site says this about that:

"The above approach, of course is not is not about determining which skyline is more aesthetic, or which appears more imposing when seen by itself, as other skyline ranking sites aim to do. It is merely an objective measurement of actual vertical dimension.

Some visitors have pointed out to us (some boosters of Hong Kong and some of New York City) that their city should be on top because their city has more tall buildings. The problem with the approach of counting buildings is that one is no longer measuring actual height, but quantity of buildings. Certainly, a larger quantity of buildings may make a skyline appear more impressive, even if all the buildings are less than 500 feet tall, but it does not make it taller."

I think if you add in 100 buildings, then places like Sao Paolo take the lead, even though they have no supertalls.

[skyscrapercity]

Busan is in top 10, the unknown city which many people in the world ignore .

1. Dubai
2. Hongkong
3. Chicago
4. Shanghai
5. Guangzhuo
6. New York city
7. Shenzhen
8. Kuala Lumpur
9. Singapore
10. Busan

[megacity30]

Originally Posted by Southsky2000

The site says this about that:

"The above approach, of course is not is not about determining which skyline is more aesthetic, or which appears more imposing when seen by itself, as other skyline ranking sites aim to do. It is merely an objective measurement of actual vertical dimension.

Some visitors have pointed out to us (some boosters of Hong Kong and some of New York City) that their city should be on top because their city has more tall buildings. The problem with the approach of counting buildings is that one is no longer measuring actual height, but quantity of buildings. Certainly, a larger quantity of buildings may make a skyline appear more impressive, even if all the buildings are less than 500 feet tall, but it does not make it taller."

I think if you add in 100 buildings, then places like Sao Paolo take the lead, even though they have no supertalls.

Very insightful, Southsky2000; I completely agree with you.

Just having a few supertalls / highrises in a small "downtown" area and the rest of the entire city being low-rise cannot make for a tall city.

Comparing the tallest 100 or 500 buildings per city would be a more realistic and accurate measure of determining the world's tallest cities.

The real challenge is gathering this data.

[CWB_IAH]

Originally Posted by Southsky2000

The site says this about that:

"The above approach, of course is not is not about determining which skyline is more aesthetic, or which appears more imposing when seen by itself, as other skyline ranking sites aim to do. It is merely an objective measurement of actual vertical dimension.

Some visitors have pointed out to us (some boosters of Hong Kong and some of New York City) that their city should be on top because their city has more tall buildings. The problem with the approach of counting buildings is that one is no longer measuring actual height, but quantity of buildings. Certainly, a larger quantity of buildings may make a skyline appear more impressive, even if all the buildings are less than 500 feet tall, but it does not make it taller."

I think if you add in 100 buildings, then places like Sao Paolo take the lead, even though they have no supertalls.

I understand. I just think 10 is just too few.. I am not sure if 100 would be a good amount.

[isaidso]

Originally Posted by CWB_IAH

I understand. I just think 10 is just too few.. I am not sure if 100 would be a good amount.

Agree. Another analysis looked at all buildings over 100m and added the height of each building to get a number. This seems like the best list I've seen as it doesn't take into account short buildings under 100 m, and goes beyond only counting 10 buildings like Ultrapolis is doing.

Here are the findings for this other analysis. City, number of buildings, combined height in metres. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...st_skyscrapers

Tallest Cities in 2009

01 Hong Kong-----2354-----333,836
02 New York-----794-----109,720
03 Tokyo-----556-----73,008
04 Dubai-----403-----66,248
05 Shanghai-----430-----59,958

06 Bangkok-----355-----48,737
07 Chicago-----341-----48,441
08 Guangzhou-----295-----42,865
09 Seoul-----282-----39,308
10 Kuala Lumpur-----244-----34,035

11 Singapore-----238-----33,735
12 Shenzhen-----235-----33,435
13 Chongqing-----226-----31,475
14 Toronto-----216-----27,867
15 Panama City-----185-----27,478

16 Metro Manila-----186-----26,307
17 Jakarta-----170-----23,674
18 Sao Paulo-----194-----22,794
19 Osaka-----172-----22,754
20 Beijing-----172-----22,192

[Kensingtonian]

That list makes more sense

Originally Posted by Manila-X

Dubai will definitely take that title due to the fact The Burj Khalifa is there plus lots of supertall structures being built.

But compared to cities like HK or NY, Dubai still has less the volume of skyscrapers.

On the other hand, Taipei has one of the world's tallest buildings but the majority of scrapers are mid-rise so it does not make the cut. Same with Sao Paulo which has lots of skyscrapers but lack the height of those listed in the top 20.

Here's a list of cities with numbers of highrises to get an idea of volume rather than height. Sao Paulo comes in 2nd. Hong Kong is first again - anyone who's been there understands why. Singapore surprises me. It didn't seem like there were thaaat many highrises when I was there, though I think it's like Toronto in that it has a lot of residential highrises outside of the core.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...rise_buildings

[megacity30]

Originally Posted by isaidso

Agree. Another analysis looked at all buildings over 100m and added the height of each building to get a number. This seems like the best list I've seen as it doesn't take into account short buildings under 100 m, and goes beyond only counting 10 buildings like Ultrapolis is doing.

Here are the findings for this other analysis. City, number of buildings, combined height in metres. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...st_skyscrapers

Tallest Cities in 2009

01 Hong Kong-----2354-----333,836
02 New York-----794-----109,720
03 Tokyo-----556-----73,008
04 Dubai-----403-----66,248
05 Shanghai-----430-----59,958

06 Bangkok-----355-----48,737
07 Chicago-----341-----48,441
08 Guangzhou-----295-----42,865
09 Seoul-----282-----39,308
10 Kuala Lumpur-----244-----34,035

11 Singapore-----238-----33,735
12 Shenzhen-----235-----33,435
13 Chongqing-----226-----31,475
14 Toronto-----216-----27,867
15 Panama City-----185-----27,478

16 Metro Manila-----186-----26,307
17 Jakarta-----170-----23,674
18 Sao Paulo-----194-----22,794
19 Osaka-----172-----22,754
20 Beijing-----172-----22,192

Yes, this list is the best so far.
The ranking is based on measuring the total height of skyscrapers per city.

[isaidso]

My one criticism of the list I posted is that it's 2009 data. A few cities would be ranked higher/lower if the same analysis were done today.

[skyscrapercity]

Originally Posted by isaidso

Agree. Another analysis looked at all buildings over 100m and added the height of each building to get a number. This seems like the best list I've seen as it doesn't take into account short buildings under 100 m, and goes beyond only counting 10 buildings like Ultrapolis is doing.

Here are the findings for this other analysis. City, number of buildings, combined height in metres. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...st_skyscrapers

Tallest Cities in 2009

01 Hong Kong-----2354-----333,836
02 New York-----794-----109,720
03 Tokyo-----556-----73,008
04 Dubai-----403-----66,248
05 Shanghai-----430-----59,958

06 Bangkok-----355-----48,737
07 Chicago-----341-----48,441
08 Guangzhou-----295-----42,865
09 Seoul-----282-----39,308
10 Kuala Lumpur-----244-----34,035

11 Singapore-----238-----33,735
12 Shenzhen-----235-----33,435
13 Chongqing-----226-----31,475
14 Toronto-----216-----27,867
15 Panama City-----185-----27,478

16 Metro Manila-----186-----26,307
17 Jakarta-----170-----23,674
18 Sao Paulo-----194-----22,794
19 Osaka-----172-----22,754
20 Beijing-----172-----22,192

What If Data (2009) was inaccurate, the ranking became full of flaws.

For example, Seoul had only 282 buildings over 100m in 2009?
Look at this Data(even though this data also has so many unlisted buildings) .
Mostly in korea, around 23 or 24 floors building reachs 100m, Seoul had more than 1,000 buildings before 2009.

http://www.emporis.com/city/seoul-southkorea/existing-buildings

Maybe, some cities had so many unlisted buildings like Seoul, I guess.