daily menu » rate the banner | guess the city | one on oneforums map | privacy policy | DMCA | news magazine | posting guidelines

Go Back   SkyscraperCity > World Forums > Skyscrapers

Skyscrapers General news, discussion and announcement forum about skyscrapers, including the Skyscraper Living forum



Global Announcement

As a general reminder, please respect others and respect copyrights. Go here to familiarize yourself with our posting policy.


Reply

 
Thread Tools
Old January 26th, 2016, 04:28 AM   #2761
JuanPaulo
Guayaquil Vive Por Ti!
 
JuanPaulo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Honolulu, Hawai'i
Posts: 20,755
Likes (Received): 31692

In my opinion, NYC will be tough to beat:



__________________
JuanPaulo no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old January 26th, 2016, 07:33 AM   #2762
ainvan
Registered User
 
ainvan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 6,241
Likes (Received): 17066

Quote:
Originally Posted by JuanPaulo View Post
In my opinion, NYC will be tough to beat:
Agreed!

Newer skylines can have flashy shiny towers, but they lack the elegance and beauty of NYC skyline.
__________________

Last edited by ainvan; January 27th, 2016 at 01:32 AM.
ainvan no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 26th, 2016, 11:23 AM   #2763
nameless dude
Registered User
 
nameless dude's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 3,070
Likes (Received): 838

Quote:
Originally Posted by isaidso View Post
Money always wins the day eventually. If demand dictates, the planning department (in Sydney) will have to accommodate it because there's too much at stake to let the system back up like that.

Am I correct in saying that it's hard to build anything over 250m in Sydney? Montreal is a similar case but the upper most limit is around 205m (the height of Mont Royal). They've bowed out of the height game and are content on building a shorter skyline. They will end up with an expansive one as a result so it's a decent trade off.
235m is the absolute limit for Sydney CBD because that's the height of the underside of Sydney Tower's turret and the council wants nothing taller than that. But of the 20 years it's been there none has reached that height to roof, closest we have is 230m. Apart from the height limits we also have other controls that affect height such as the 'Floor Space Ratio' which limits the height to the size of the site (which means a building like New York's 432 Park Avenue will never be built here), and overshadowing controls, implemented to the point where a single site can have different height limits on different sides (the council loves planting trees along every street in the CBD to create 'shade', yet they don't allow tall buildings to do the same. Ingenious.) So in reality it means that of the few available sites that get the full 235m limit, it's only a few of them where you can actually build that high. And a large part of the reason why you see all those slanted roofs on towers in Sydney is because they had to conform to those controls.

There are signs that they are beginning to relax these controls. There's currently one proposal lodged with the council at 262m (plus a further 10% of that height allowed for an architectural feature depending on its final design), and apparently there's another few above 235m about to be lodged. Furthermore the state government has just created an independent planning commission which will commence tomorrow (think of the Greater London Authority), and iirc they'll have the power to override council planning controls, so we'll have to wait and see what plans they have in store. All in all I think we're beginning to head in the right direction, but we're still in the early stages of change and there's a lot more to be done. Sydney's CBD doesn't have the luxury of space, it's confined on 3 sides so the logical way to expand is up.

Oh, and for fun here's the council's logo. Pretty much gives away their mentality.

Quote:
Originally Posted by isaidso View Post
The Sydney - Vancouver comparison isn't about status in the world but more about demeanour. Sydney is head and shoulders above Vancouver by most measures, but I think they'd be remarkably similar if Vancouver had 4.5 million people.
And Vancouver might look a bit more like Toronto if it had it's population, especially considering those newer developments But then I haven't been to Vancouver or Toronto yet so don't take it seriously, and vice versa. I suppose it would take someone who've spent a decent amount of time in these cities and know them beyond their usual preconceptions to judge
__________________

Last edited by nameless dude; January 26th, 2016 at 04:11 PM.
nameless dude no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 26th, 2016, 06:08 PM   #2764
isaidso
the new republic
 
isaidso's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: The United Provinces of America
Posts: 29,623
Likes (Received): 10784

Quote:
Originally Posted by JuanPaulo View Post
In my opinion, NYC will be tough to beat:

Just fantastic JP! I agree that NYC will be tough to beat but it's not just because of height/scale. What always strikes me when
I visit is the extravagant wealth on display and the richness of its layering. Cities need many many generations of prosperity
to achieve that. On this continent you'll see it in smaller cities like Boston and Montreal but in New York both are just on another
level due to its massive size.

I do have a penchant for those old established cities in the US NE, midwest, and the adjacent strip in Canada for these reasons.
__________________
World's 1st Baseball Game: June 4th, 1838, Beachville, Ontario, Canada
North America's Oldest Pro Football Teams: Toronto Argonauts (1873) and Hamilton Tiger Cats (1869)

I started my first photo thread documenting a recent trip to Halifax, Nova Scotia. Have a peek: http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=724898
isaidso no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 26th, 2016, 06:43 PM   #2765
isaidso
the new republic
 
isaidso's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: The United Provinces of America
Posts: 29,623
Likes (Received): 10784

Quote:
Originally Posted by nameless dude View Post
235m is the absolute limit for Sydney CBD because that's the height of the underside of Sydney Tower's turret and the council wants nothing taller than that. But of the 20 years it's been there none has reached that height to roof, closest we have is 230m. Apart from the height limits we also have other controls that affect height such as the 'Floor Space Ratio' which limits the height to the size of the site (which means a building like New York's 432 Park Avenue will never be built here), and overshadowing controls, implemented to the point where a single site can have different height limits on different sides (the council loves planting trees along every street in the CBD to create 'shade', yet they don't allow tall buildings to do the same. Ingenious.) So in reality it means that of the few available sites that get the full 235m limit, it's only a few of them where you can actually build that high. And a large part of the reason why you see all those slanted roofs on towers in Sydney is because they had to conform to those controls.

There are signs that they are beginning to relax these controls. There's currently one proposal lodged with the council at 262m (plus a further 10% of that height allowed for an architectural feature depending on its final design), and apparently there's another few above 235m about to be lodged. Furthermore the state government has just created an independent planning commission which will commence tomorrow (think of the Greater London Authority), and iirc they'll have the power to override council planning controls, so we'll have to wait and see what plans they have in store. All in all I think we're beginning to head in the right direction, but we're still in the early stages of change and there's a lot more to be done. Sydney's CBD doesn't have the luxury of space, it's confined on 3 sides so the logical way to expand is up.
Thanks very much. A few things about Sydney's CBD always seemed a little strange but now I know why it looks the way it does: the abundance of antennas and slanted roofs, etc.

Urban planning is always a delicate balance. As much as we skyscraper geeks ridicule some regulations they do get a lot of things right these days. That commentary on shadowing made me chuckle though. They're fanatical about it here. I don't need to be bathed in direct sunlight while walking about the downtown so I've always found their arguments a little absurd. I'm not sure how long they can keep it up with Toronto getting ever more vertical in the core. Mitigating against the wind tunnel effect makes sense though.

Sydney hemmed in on all 3 sides? Not to bring up Vancouver again but that's the first thing I thought of when I read that. Vancouver has nowhere to go but up except some people don't want their precious views of the mountains compromised. It's all rather ridiculous when one considers that one can't see them any way when you build higher than 10-15 floors.

Quote:
Originally Posted by nameless dude View Post
Oh, and for fun here's the council's logo. Pretty much gives away their mentality.
There are a lot of Torontonians that view this city like that: the city of neighbourhoods is what they say. I say the big city should be allowed to be a big city. I didn't move here for uninterrupted views of the sun, quiet, or the low density. I came for the sounds, smells, energy, monumental buildings, packed streets, and even watching planes take off from the Island airport adds to the urban experience imo.

'Toronto the Good' rears it's ugly head far too often. They scuttled the island airports desire to expand (and bring in jets over turboprops) and nixed the downtown casino. Municipal government like to control everything they can get their hands on and we're still a bit of a nanny state I'm afraid.

Quote:
Originally Posted by nameless dude View Post
And Vancouver might look a bit more like Toronto if it had it's population, especially considering those newer developments But then I haven't been to Vancouver or Toronto yet so don't take it seriously, and vice versa. I suppose it would take someone who've spent a decent amount of time in these cities and know them beyond their usual preconceptions to judge
Hear hear! It's always amusing to listen to people judge places they've never been to or only visited as a tourist. Living somewhere for 6 months+ is the only way to get a good sense of a place. The tourist veneer fades into the background and the realities of living in that place rise to the surface.

Melbourne and Toronto may not be globally famous like a Paris or NYC (or Sydney for that matter) but there are reasons they perennially top 'best cities' lists. They do most things very very well. To put another way, they tick off a lot of boxes.
__________________
World's 1st Baseball Game: June 4th, 1838, Beachville, Ontario, Canada
North America's Oldest Pro Football Teams: Toronto Argonauts (1873) and Hamilton Tiger Cats (1869)

I started my first photo thread documenting a recent trip to Halifax, Nova Scotia. Have a peek: http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=724898

ChuckScraperMiami#1, Zaz965 liked this post

Last edited by isaidso; January 26th, 2016 at 06:57 PM.
isaidso no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 26th, 2016, 07:01 PM   #2766
isaidso
the new republic
 
isaidso's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: The United Provinces of America
Posts: 29,623
Likes (Received): 10784

Quote:
Originally Posted by ainvan View Post
Melbourne & Toronto = Awesome skylines!
Sydney & Montreal = party, anyone?
Brisbane & Vancouver = surfing or snowboarding?
Perth & Calgary = iron ore or oil?
By the process of elimination Adelaide is Winnipeg: stately but a little dull.
__________________
World's 1st Baseball Game: June 4th, 1838, Beachville, Ontario, Canada
North America's Oldest Pro Football Teams: Toronto Argonauts (1873) and Hamilton Tiger Cats (1869)

I started my first photo thread documenting a recent trip to Halifax, Nova Scotia. Have a peek: http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=724898

ChuckScraperMiami#1, Zaz965 liked this post
isaidso no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 26th, 2016, 11:34 PM   #2767
Hudson11
Stuck on the Cross Bronx
 
Hudson11's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: The Empire State
Posts: 9,515
Likes (Received): 22513

the skyscraper city http://www.6sqft.com/friedland-prope...d-development/

Hudson11 está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote
Old January 26th, 2016, 11:45 PM   #2768
KavirajG
Global Trekker
 
KavirajG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Quatres Bornes, Mauritius
Posts: 1,248
Likes (Received): 1813

Ever Beautiful Singapore





cc: Daniel Cheong Photography - SG
__________________
KavirajG no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 27th, 2016, 01:37 AM   #2769
ainvan
Registered User
 
ainvan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 6,241
Likes (Received): 17066

The City That Never Sleeps

Alicia Keys - Empire State of Mind


Just imagine what the future skyline would look like ten years from now


Manhattan by Brian Fuller, on Flickr
__________________

Last edited by ainvan; January 27th, 2016 at 01:48 AM.
ainvan no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 27th, 2016, 02:13 AM   #2770
stop that
BANNED
 
stop that's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 532
Likes (Received): 546

Unfair, how can anyone else try to compete with that
__________________
stop that no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 27th, 2016, 04:35 AM   #2771
JuanPaulo
Guayaquil Vive Por Ti!
 
JuanPaulo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Honolulu, Hawai'i
Posts: 20,755
Likes (Received): 31692

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hudson11 View Post
This really looks like the future cities we see in movies. It is amazing and I love it. The Empire State Building almost looks like mid-rise filler. Crazy!
__________________
JuanPaulo no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 27th, 2016, 05:50 AM   #2772
Pals_RGB
Resigned
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Chandigarh | Bangalore | Guwahati
Posts: 5,904
Likes (Received): 8054

Skyline ranking based on elegance, quality and setting is completely subjective. I like New York skyline but it's not the best skyline for me. I like new, futuristic looking, towers in the park type of skylines and that's why most of my favourite skylines are in Asia. But, i would still put Newyork in the no 3 position because of it's sheer size, quality of the buildings and the fact that it was once the skyscraper capital of the world.

2025 is still nine years away. In nine years, a lot can happen esp in developing countries. Some new skylines might emerge out of nowhere, you never know.
__________________
Account waiting for deletion...
Pals_RGB no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 27th, 2016, 12:52 PM   #2773
nameless dude
Registered User
 
nameless dude's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 3,070
Likes (Received): 838

Quote:
Originally Posted by isaidso View Post
Thanks very much. A few things about Sydney's CBD always seemed a little strange but now I know why it looks the way it does: the abundance of antennas and slanted roofs, etc.

Urban planning is always a delicate balance. As much as we skyscraper geeks ridicule some regulations they do get a lot of things right these days. That commentary on shadowing made me chuckle though. They're fanatical about it here. I don't need to be bathed in direct sunlight while walking about the downtown so I've always found their arguments a little absurd. I'm not sure how long they can keep it up with Toronto getting ever more vertical in the core. Mitigating against the wind tunnel effect makes sense though.

Sydney hemmed in on all 3 sides? Not to bring up Vancouver again but that's the first thing I thought of when I read that. Vancouver has nowhere to go but up except some people don't want their precious views of the mountains compromised. It's all rather ridiculous when one considers that one can't see them any way when you build higher than 10-15 floors.

There are a lot of Torontonians that view this city like that: the city of neighbourhoods is what they say. I say the big city should be allowed to be a big city. I didn't move here for uninterrupted views of the sun, quiet, or the low density. I came for the sounds, smells, energy, monumental buildings, packed streets, and even watching planes take off from the Island airport adds to the urban experience imo.
Your sentiments very much echoes those in the Ozscapers section

Quote:
Originally Posted by isaidso View Post
'Toronto the Good' rears it's ugly head far too often. They scuttled the island airports desire to expand (and bring in jets over turboprops) and nixed the downtown casino. Municipal government like to control everything they can get their hands on and we're still a bit of a nanny state I'm afraid.
Wait, so you have an airport that close to downtown? Lucky it isn’t in Australia where the aviation authorities double as city planners – They’re extremely protective of their precious flight paths and ‘radar surfaces’ and are the reason why the Australia 108 supertall in Melbourne and the Aspire Tower in Parramatta, originally intended as a supertall were cut down from their original heights, even though Sydney and Melbourne airports are both 20kms away from those towers and the closest airports to both are still more than 10kms away, and are mainly used as aeroplane museums and a landing strip for enthusiasts. So certainly if any city in Australia had an airport as close as Billy Bishop is to Toronto I think we can pretty much forget about skyscrapers, we’d probably have to dig a ditch along those flight paths!

But then again at least we’re allowed to have glitzy casinos, so fair trade off much?

Quote:
Originally Posted by isaidso View Post
Hear hear! It's always amusing to listen to people judge places they've never been to or only visited as a tourist. Living somewhere for 6 months+ is the only way to get a good sense of a place. The tourist veneer fades into the background and the realities of living in that place rise to the surface.

Melbourne and Toronto may not be globally famous like a Paris or NYC (or Sydney for that matter) but there are reasons they perennially top 'best cities' lists. They do most things very very well. To put another way, they tick off a lot of boxes.
Agreed, you need a lot longer than a short visit to get a real feel of the city. Like those who go to a city, go to the usual tourist hotspots and maybe walk around the downtown a bit and call it that they've 'seen' the city, or especially those who can't be bothered to do some simple navigating or research themselves and leave that to bus tours shuttling them between attractions and their hotel - imo they've only touched the surface!
__________________

isaidso, ChuckScraperMiami#1, Zaz965 liked this post
nameless dude no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 27th, 2016, 03:20 PM   #2774
hunser
Steinway to Heaven |Ķ┆┊
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Wien
Posts: 1,837
Likes (Received): 5031

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pals_RGB View Post
Skyline ranking based on elegance, quality and setting is completely subjective. I like New York skyline but it's not the best skyline for me. I like new, futuristic looking, towers in the park type of skylines and that's why most of my favourite skylines are in Asia. But, i would still put Newyork in the no 3 position because of it's sheer size, quality of the buildings and the fact that it was once the skyscraper capital of the world.

2025 is still nine years away. In nine years, a lot can happen esp in developing countries. Some new skylines might emerge out of nowhere, you never know.
Interesting. I'm on the other side of the spectrum. I love supertalls going up in super-dense neighborhoods, and New York is just going crazy with constructing several 400m+ behemoths in a very dense area (the buildings nearly touch each other). The big plus here is that it adds so much to street activity; the buzz is all around. You walk along the street, and in the midst of all those highrises/skyscrapers there it is - BANG a supertall.
Before 2010 one could argue that NY wasn't the skyscraper capital anymore, but things have changed dramatically now. Formerly criticized for being "too short" the city is on its way to have the most 400m+ towers (to the roof) in the world. So the skyline is not only getting denser, but taller.
And yes, much can happen in 9 years. Jakarta and especially Mumbai should be on everyone's radar.

Last edited by hunser; January 27th, 2016 at 03:27 PM.
hunser no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 27th, 2016, 07:24 PM   #2775
isaidso
the new republic
 
isaidso's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: The United Provinces of America
Posts: 29,623
Likes (Received): 10784

Quote:
Originally Posted by nameless dude View Post
Wait, so you have an airport that close to downtown? Lucky it isn’t in Australia where the aviation authorities double as city planners – They’re extremely protective of their precious flight paths and ‘radar surfaces’ and are the reason why the Australia 108 supertall in Melbourne and the Aspire Tower in Parramatta, originally intended as a supertall were cut down from their original heights, even though Sydney and Melbourne airports are both 20kms away from those towers and the closest airports to both are still more than 10kms away, and are mainly used as aeroplane museums and a landing strip for enthusiasts. So certainly if any city in Australia had an airport as close as Billy Bishop is to Toronto I think we can pretty much forget about skyscrapers, we’d probably have to dig a ditch along those flight paths!

But then again at least we’re allowed to have glitzy casinos, so fair trade off much?
Billy Bishop (the island airport) was conceived in the 1930s as Toronto's main airport. Passenger traffic peaked in the 1960s and then dwindled to almost nothing. There were plans to redevelop it but it survived. The founding of Billy Bishop based Porter Airlines in 2003 revitalized the island airport and passenger traffic skyrocketed. Air Canada flies out of there as well now. Billy Bishop is now Canada's 14th busiest airport but doesn't have much room to grow without a major expansion.

The runway is too short for jets so its a regional airport flying Torontonians to New York, Chicago, Myrtle Beach (South Carolina), Halifax, etc. They currently use Bombardier turboprops. Lengthening of the runway to accommodate Bombardier 'whisper' jets which would facilitate longer flights to Vancouver, LA, etc. was recently shot down but I think it's just a matter of time before it happens. A lot of people love the convenience of the island airport. It's hassle free, so close you can walk there, and you get awesome skyline views during landing/takeoff.

You could never build that airport today but I'm glad it's there. I use it as often as I can. Pearson is expensive, takes longer to get to, and it's more expensive to get to. Porter Airlines (which flies out of the island airport) is awesome too. Free booze, free cappuccino bar, free snacks, free use of Apple computers, free newspapers, luxe passenger lounge, and no more expensive than Air Canada.



Casinos? The hypocrisy of not allowing a downtown casino is that the Ontario government is neck deep in the gambling industry. They run all the slots in the province and all the lotteries. They make tons of money off gambling.
__________________
World's 1st Baseball Game: June 4th, 1838, Beachville, Ontario, Canada
North America's Oldest Pro Football Teams: Toronto Argonauts (1873) and Hamilton Tiger Cats (1869)

I started my first photo thread documenting a recent trip to Halifax, Nova Scotia. Have a peek: http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=724898

Last edited by isaidso; January 27th, 2016 at 07:47 PM.
isaidso no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 27th, 2016, 07:53 PM   #2776
SmilingFace17
Registered User
 
SmilingFace17's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Bacolod City, Philippines
Posts: 572
Likes (Received): 717

Quote:
Originally Posted by KavirajG View Post
Ever Beautiful Singapore





cc: Daniel Cheong Photography - SG
Just wow! With limited spaces left for SG, there'll be more super tall towers to be built 5-10years from now.
__________________
SmilingFace17 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 27th, 2016, 08:01 PM   #2777
isaidso
the new republic
 
isaidso's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: The United Provinces of America
Posts: 29,623
Likes (Received): 10784

Quote:
Originally Posted by stop that View Post
Unfair, how can anyone else try to compete with that
It seems unreachable, doesn't it? That said, no city stays #1 forever. New York will remain at or near the top for a very long time but cities can catch it by slowly closing the gap each passing decade.

I won't see Toronto rival the New York skyline in my life time but that's not to say that it can't be done. Rome wasn't built in one day... so they say.
__________________
World's 1st Baseball Game: June 4th, 1838, Beachville, Ontario, Canada
North America's Oldest Pro Football Teams: Toronto Argonauts (1873) and Hamilton Tiger Cats (1869)

I started my first photo thread documenting a recent trip to Halifax, Nova Scotia. Have a peek: http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=724898
isaidso no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 27th, 2016, 08:15 PM   #2778
KavirajG
Global Trekker
 
KavirajG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Quatres Bornes, Mauritius
Posts: 1,248
Likes (Received): 1813

Quote:
Originally Posted by SmilingFace17 View Post
Just wow! With limited spaces left for SG, there'll be more super tall towers to be built 5-10years from now.
Depends on aviation regulations there...they were about to amend their plot ratio formula to allow for higher constructions. Either this or they go for more land reclamation.
However the expansion of Changi will impact greatly on this...so we will have to wait a bit more to know about the strategy.

But regardless, SG's skyline is already very beautiful...looks so orderly, clean and most of the buildings are in harmony with one another.
__________________

ChuckScraperMiami#1, Zaz965 liked this post
KavirajG no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 27th, 2016, 08:35 PM   #2779
SmilingFace17
Registered User
 
SmilingFace17's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Bacolod City, Philippines
Posts: 572
Likes (Received): 717

Quote:
Originally Posted by KavirajG View Post
Depends on aviation regulations there...they were about to amend their plot ratio formula to allow for higher constructions. Either this or they go for more land reclamation.
However the expansion of Changi will impact greatly on this...so we will have to wait a bit more to know about the strategy.

But regardless, SG's skyline is already very beautiful...looks so orderly, clean and most of the buildings are in harmony with one another.
There could be big changes in regulation once Terminal 4 is finished, but land reclamation is a great idea. Let's wait and see what's going to happen in 2017. Anyway, there's no doubt SG is now one of the most organized country and when it comes to skyline, I could say it has the best and most fascinating skyline in SEA to date.
__________________

ChuckScraperMiami#1, Zaz965 liked this post
SmilingFace17 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 27th, 2016, 11:25 PM   #2780
stop that
BANNED
 
stop that's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 532
Likes (Received): 546

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pals_RGB View Post
Skyline ranking based on elegance, quality and setting is completely subjective. I like New York skyline but it's not the best skyline for me. I like new, futuristic looking, towers in the park type of skylines and that's why most of my favourite skylines are in Asia. But, i would still put Newyork in the no 3 position because of it's sheer size, quality of the buildings and the fact that it was once the skyscraper capital of the world.

2025 is still nine years away. In nine years, a lot can happen esp in developing countries. Some new skylines might emerge out of nowhere, you never know.
"Futuristic".. maybe you meant distopian, to which I agree. Towers that look like they they were designed from the pages of 1950s American comics, i wouldn't exactly call futuristic. They're more 'retro' to my eyes. A mid century american vision of what the 'future' could look like, adopted by Asia 60 years later.
Of course there are exceptions, shanghai tower, Jao ming, Petronas are amazing, hong kong has the best and most modern designed office towers in asia, they're more like developed world skyscrapers and will be what most asian cities look like in a few decades
__________________

ChuckScraperMiami#1, Zaz965 liked this post

Last edited by stop that; January 27th, 2016 at 11:34 PM.
stop that no está en línea   Reply With Quote


Reply

Tags
skyline

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Related topics on SkyscraperCity


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 10:45 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

SkyscraperCity ☆ In Urbanity We trust ☆ about us | privacy policy | DMCA policy

Hosted by Blacksun, dedicated to this site too!
Forum server management by DaiTengu