Top 25 Highrise Skylines & Top 25 Historical Skylines

[Taller, Better]

are those Azaleas?!??! My god, it makes our puny little ones pale by comparison!!!

[marvinganalon]

this poll doesnt base on the skylines potential but on the votes of the voters ofcourse...

but it seems there was a complict about the result how could
JAKARTA win than MANILA AND SEOUL are they funny?

Jakarta is still a poor city with slums..

yuck

jakarta doesnt deserve it even sydney doesnt deserve also

hongkong,tokyo,newyork,singapore,manila,seoul all deserve on this poll especially at better rank!!!!!!

[nameless dude]

Originally Posted by marvinganalon

this poll doesnt base on the skylines potential but on the votes of the voters ofcourse...

but it seems there was a complict about the result how could
JAKARTA win than MANILA AND SEOUL are they funny?

Jakarta is still a poor city with slums..

yuck

jakarta doesnt deserve it even sydney doesnt deserve also

hongkong,tokyo,newyork,singapore,manila,seoul all deserve on this poll especially at better rank!!!!!!

Umm, 1 question. Isn't Hong Kong and New York already at no. 1 and 2?

[PanaManiac]

The posting of this ranking system (The World's Best Skylines) has sparked heated debates in the past. It would be interesting to see if that trend continues here.

[Major Deegan]

A slightly sarcastic in this context photo manipulation from a Western Union ad showing a mutual reflection of Toronto's and Sydney's skylines.

via adsoftheworld.com



More?

[nameless dude]

hmm. Very interesting photos. The Sydney shot's rather outdated but i'm sure that it'll be likewise for Toronto.

[Occit]

Caracas

[Grey Towers]

Those mirror image skyline pics are swell in creativity terms, but you're going to end up with some discrepancies, intentional or not.
For instance, in the Toronto/Sydney picture the two TV towers look approximately the same height, whereas Toronto's is almost twice as tall as Sydney's in real life. Toronto's Skydome appears shorter than Sydney's opera house in that pic, yet Skydome's roof height is 310 ft. to the 221 ft. of Sydney's opera house.
Also, and this is not the product of any manipulation on the part of the person who assembled these contrast images, but Toronto's bank towers look about the same size as Sydney's tallest buildings in that photo, whereas they are considerably taller. That's because T.O.'s cluster of major financial towers is 1 km inland, making the individual buildings appear smaller than they are when viewed from the water. Toronto skyline shots from the waterfront perspective are misleading because most of the scrapers, barring a few of the new condos, are nowhere near the waterfront.
So, that juxtaposition picture, lovely as it is, is inaccurate in that the skylines are disproportionately scaled. Not a big deal, but I thought I'd point it out.

[Major Deegan]

Very good observations, glad you have noticed. I believe having structures from different cities match in height is intentionally crafted for the purpose of balancing out the visual composition of the pieces, for the uneven heights of various buildings in upper or lower parts of the image would affect the clarity of reading. That said, sometimes some level of the actual appearance needs to be sacrificed for the sake of effectiveness and in order to address set goals of a marketing campaign.

[icracked]

Originally Posted by marvinganalon

this poll doesnt base on the skylines potential but on the votes of the voters ofcourse...

but it seems there was a complict about the result how could
JAKARTA win than MANILA AND SEOUL are they funny?

Jakarta is still a poor city with slums..

yuck

jakarta doesnt deserve it even sydney doesnt deserve also

hongkong,tokyo,newyork,singapore,manila,seoul all deserve on this poll especially at better rank!!!!!!

i've seen a lot of your post and you are definitely a Filipino nationalist. For the Jakarta part of your comment, as far as I remember, Manlia too has huge slums, so does other cities on that list. You shouldn't get work up on a list that people voted, its opinion based.

[nameless dude]

Originally Posted by Grey Towers

Those mirror image skyline pics are swell in creativity terms, but you're going to end up with some discrepancies, intentional or not.
For instance, in the Toronto/Sydney picture the two TV towers look approximately the same height, whereas Toronto's is almost twice as tall as Sydney's in real life. Toronto's Skydome appears shorter than Sydney's opera house in that pic, yet Skydome's roof height is 310 ft. to the 221 ft. of Sydney's opera house.
Also, and this is not the product of any manipulation on the part of the person who assembled these contrast images, but Toronto's bank towers look about the same size as Sydney's tallest buildings in that photo, whereas they are considerably taller. That's because T.O.'s cluster of major financial towers is 1 km inland, making the individual buildings appear smaller than they are when viewed from the water. Toronto skyline shots from the waterfront perspective are misleading because most of the scrapers, barring a few of the new condos, are nowhere near the waterfront.
So, that juxtaposition picture, lovely as it is, is inaccurate in that the skylines are disproportionately scaled. Not a big deal, but I thought I'd point it out.

Yeah, the whole thing is manipulated to make the cities look similar. Sydney tower was lengthened in the photo to create the same dwarfing effect of the CN Tower to the rest of Toronto. CN Tower stands at 553m while Sydney Tower's at 305m.

Grey towers, that was well said and I respect your facts and opinions. However, I would just like to point out a few things for Sydney to balance this.

Firstly, I'd like to point out that that comparison photo is outdated. For example, Sydney in there is missing 3 towers above 200m that are in today's Sydney skyline as well as a number of other buildings. But I'm sure Toronto will be missing some too.

Now, what you said about Toronto's major cluster is 1km inlands is true. However, the eastern edge of the northern end of Sydney's skyline from the traditional harbour perspective depicted in that shot is also around 1km inland. For instance, take Governer Phillip Tower. Of the two buildings which appear to be the tallest in Sydney from that comparison photo, Governer Phillip tower is the one on the right. In that photo, it's 1.15kms from the edge of the Botanical Gardens (the park separating the skyline from the harbour in that perspective).

About heights, it's true that the three tallest buildings in Toronto are taller than the tallest buildings in Sydney. However, as we go down starting with Toronto's 4th tallest building, Sydney begins to balance out. Here's the heights for the buildings above 200m for both Sydney and Toronto.

Toronto:
1. First Canadian Place - 298m
2.Scotia Plaza - 275m
3.TD Canada Trust Tower - 261m
4.Commerce Court West - 239m
5.Toronto Dominion Tower - 223m
6.Bay Adelaide Centre (under construction, topped out) - 218m
7.Bay Wellington Tower - 207m

Sydney:
1. Chifley Tower - 244m
2. Citigroup Centre - 243m
3. Deutche Bank Place - 239m
4. World Tower -230m
5. MLC Centre - 228m (244m including antenna)
6. Governer Phillip Tower -227m (254m including antenna)
7. Ernst & Young Centre - 222m
8. Aurora Place - 218m

While it might be true that Toronto's skyline from the waterfront is misleading, the same can also be said for Sydney's skyline from that harbour perspective depicted in that comparison photo. Since Sydney's skyline spans inwards instead of along the waterfront, the skyline is actually shot at an around 45 degree angle, causing the southern end of the skyline to look much smaller than what it actually is. In reality, Sydney's skyline spans for around 3 kms inland and the southern end is arguably as large as the northern end. The actual skyline is much longer than what it looks in photos.

image hosted on flickr


It's a bad photo shot in a plane at a distance, I know, but see that the southern end's actually much larger than what it appears to be in that comparison photo? I'd also like to point out that while Toronto's skyline is larger, much of it is spread out and is not as notable as the epicentre, ie, the tallest and most defining section of the skyline which in Toronto's case is that cluster of taller buildings around the First Canadian Place and the Scotia Plaza, a small section of the skyline. On the other hand, almost the entire skyline of Sydney is the epicentre. This perhaps is reflected in the fact that Sydney has 8 buildings over 200m while Toronto has 7.

Don't think that I'm saying Toronto's skyline isn't impressive. I just wanted to point out that both cities have their own pros and cons in their skylines.

[elliot]

^

This perhaps is reflected in the fact that Sydney has 8 buildings over 200m while Toronto has 7.

At risk of bringing up the dreaded spire debate ;-) ... I think the 200m "yardstick" (pun intended) is a little misleading given the plethora of spires/poles that adorn Sydney buildings.
If you look at the SSP diagram below, I think you'll see that Toronto's tallest are much more substantial than Sydney's... generally the roof heights are much taller.

For example, Commerce Court at only 239m certainly appears taller than Sydney's 6 tallest. Similarly, Sydney's so-called 5th tallest MLC Centre (roof 228m) looks taller
than the other 4 "taller" buildings in that city.

As for the actual 200 metre club, Toronto will have 6 additions to that list.

Don't know how the credit crunch has affected 200m+ projects in Sydney, however in Toronto we have 5 under construction ranging from Trump @ 282/257m to 4 Seasons 195/205m.
... plus Aura at 252m is starting this summer (sales and financing A-ok). So we're very lucky compared to many cities. Not sure how accurate this is but the diagram shows only one 200m+ proposal
for Sydney and like some of its sisters, it relies on an appendage to cross the 200m threshold.

The big question mark is 1 Bloor East at 290.5m (the site was cleared then silence) which promises to be very impactful if/when built... 2nd tallest in the city but miles away from the tall banking district.

There are a few other under construction projects that are only 10/15 m below the 200m threshold that are bulking up downtown as well.

So when the dust settles, the scorecard will see Toronto with at least 12 over 200 metres... and as you can see in the diagram, none of those will cross the line into the 200m club via the somewhat artificial use
of non-structural appendages.

From SSP:



As for camera angles, like Toronto, I think it is fair to say that the waterfront shots of Sydney, though very attractive/famous, do diminish the apparent
size of the city compared to those high angles that show a mini-Manhattan.

[Looking/Up]

That photo you posted, Nameless_Dude, is fantastic!

[nameless dude]

Artificial use...not sure about that. The spire's built into the building, it's a part of it. That's why spires are included in the official heights. It's personal, but I prefer buildings with spires over buildings without them. At least the spire would eliminate that boring flat roof. But let's not get into that debate again.

The financial crisis had affected Sydney's boom to some degree. It's already regrettably halted a number of approved towers and projects, including the John Boyd tower and the 200m+ Richard Johnson Square. However, there a still a number of smaller towers which are to be completed in the CBD that are approved or under construction. Although none of them are above 200m, they will fill gaps and enhance the skyline. But once the economy's fine, there's almost no doubt that the boom will continue.

The cause of the apparent lack of height with some buildings in Sydney is partly due to the elevations and depressions in the terrain. The city's basically situated on a slope which makes the taller towers in the northern end of the skyline look shorter than what they are.

Here's what I'm talking about:
image hosted on flickr


As for 200m+ buildings, having too much of them in Sydney might actually do more harm than good. It's not just height that matters with skylines. An impressive skyline isn't one that just builds supertalls on every empty spot that they can find. Factors such as balance, position, etc could matter even more than height. After all, a skyline is a visual landscape. As for Sydney, having too many 200m+ buildings might actually spoil the balance and appearance as the skyline's already very dense and almost "built out". Having buildings too tall might also spoil the appearance of the city and overshadow the harbour and surroundings like what the CN tower has done to the Toronto's current skyline (not saying that Toronto can't change that in the future). For the future, we will have to seek to expand the CBD and build elsewhere. The two projects, Frasers Broadway which will consist of 10 new scrapers to the immediate south of the skyline and Barangaroo which will consist of 11 new scrapers including a couple of 200m+ towers to the immediate north-east of the skyline, will are both planned to start next year. They'll combine with the current CBD in the future to create an even larger skyline. Given that there's also an array of projects, scrapers and buildings which are currently proposed, approved or under construction around the CBD and in the inner city suburbs, the skyline and the appearance of Sydney in general will improve even further.

Again, I'm not trying to say that Toronto isn't impressive, I'm just trying to point out that both skylines have their respective advantages and disadvantages. If there's one thing in common, that's the fact that both of our city's most well known shots do diminish the actual sizes of their skylines.

Originally Posted by Looking/Up

That photo you posted, Nameless_Dude, is fantastic!

Was it? Oh, thanks, I thinking that the colour made it look a little dull. But I guess it's good anyway.

[SilentStrike]

wow look at the Shenzhen picture!!! and its only 23???

I think Toronto is ranked too high as well.

[Taller, Better]

Oh well, these are all just personal opinions of people here on SSC, so I don't think anyone should take it too seriously!

Christos-Greece found this wonderful photo of Toronto:


http://www.flickr.com/photos/13299505@N04/2692484609/

[Lukinhaaaz]

The skyline of Sao Paulo is much more beautiful and impressive than that of Rio de Janeiro, not counting that of São Paulo is not well portrayed in this photo.

[Rekarte]

I think the skyline of São Paulo, so ugly
the Rio de Janeiro, is better, but not all the things

[Looking/Up]

I agree. I don't find either Sao Paulo or Rio to be particularly spectacular in their built forms, but Rio's geography just can't be beat. Rio is just beautiful.

[Nsch]

Originally Posted by Looking/Up

I agree. I don't find either Sao Paulo or Rio to be particularly spectacular in their built forms, but Rio's geography just can't be beat. Rio is just beautiful.

the city maybe is beautyfuler... but we are talking about skylines. And the financial district´s skyline at sao paulo is better... just better