Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 28

Thread: New York City Now Ranked 6th in World's Tallest Skylines

  1. #1

    Default New York City Now Ranked 6th in World's Tallest Skylines

    This annual survey show NYC dropping form 1st place in 2000 to 6th in 2011. A commentary on 2011 developments:

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

    The actual rankings:

    http://www.ultrapolisproject.com/Tal...nes_Cities.htm

    Links to diagrams:

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

    Thoughts?

  2. #2
    Crabby airline hostess - stache's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Nairobi Hilton
    Posts
    8,511

    Default

    We still have the largest collection of towers from every period going back over 120 years.

  3. #3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by stache View Post
    We still have the largest collection of towers from every period going back over 120 years.
    Agreed.

  4. #4

    Default

    And don't forget many of these towers are international icons decades after being eclipsed in height.

  5. #5

    Default

    Very true, and some of the most beautiful when it comes to detail. But this won't appease the many who want 4,000 footers clad in glass, some of which will be commenting in this thread very shortly, unfortunately.

  6. #6

    Default

    There is no ranking of "world's tallest skylines". It's obviously subjective.

    Considering height only, any measure above the 300-ft range or so, there are only two cities that would remotely qualify- NYC and Hong Kong. The rest have nowhere near as many buildings at this height level or higher (300 ft.+, 500ft.+, 700ft+, etc.)

  7. #7

    Default

    It makes sense though. They focus only on the top 10 buildings according to their method. If you look at that, it is obvious that Dubai would be #1, given they will soon have over 20 supertall towers.

    However, shouldn't they just add up all the buildings rather than just top 10 to get the real height of a skyline?

    I wonder how the upcoming towers will improve this ranking for NYC? It could surpass Chicago at least soon enough. I see Shenzhen, Shanghai, Seoul, and GZ, all improving soon though. HK will be overtaken soon enough by its Chinese brethren.
    Last edited by futurecity; March 14th, 2012 at 03:08 PM.

  8. #8

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by futurecity View Post
    It makes sense though. They focus only on the top 10 buildings according to their method. If you look at that, it is obvious that Dubai would be #1, given they will soon have over 20 supertall towers.
    Yeah, I didn't bother to read their methodology, but if that's what they're doing, then the top cities will all be developing world-type places building showplace buildings.

    To me, that isn't really a skyline. You can't determine the biggest or best skyline by looking at a handful of buildings. I mean, if some dude in Fargo, North Dakota decided to build a 5000-ft toothpick of a building, should we put Fargo on the list?

    If we're talking about skylines in totality (the thousands of buildings that make up a skyline), really only Hong Kong and NYC are serious contenders. Though, again, it all depends on your methodology. Dubai makes sense if they only care about the very tallest few buildings.

  9. #9

    Default

    Wouldn't it be fair to just add up the heights of all the buildings in the city?

  10. #10

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by futurecity View Post
    Wouldn't it be fair to just add up the heights of all the buildings in the city?
    If you did that, then the city with the largest number of buildings, not the tallest, would rank at the top. That would put cities like Sao Paolo and Mexico City high up on the top, even though they have no supertalls, but huge numbers of 100-150 feet high buildings. New York City has a lot of buildings, probably still the most, in the 500-700 ft range, but once you go higher, it loses out.

  11. #11

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SouthSky View Post
    If you did that, then the city with the largest number of buildings, not the tallest, would rank at the top. That would put cities like Sao Paolo and Mexico City high up on the top, even though they have no supertalls, but huge numbers of 100-150 feet high buildings. New York City has a lot of buildings, probably still the most, in the 500-700 ft range, but once you go higher, it loses out.
    Makes sense.

    All NYC needs is a 600m tower to get it back in the game

    Top 10 buildings is a good way to measure height of a skyline. However, you could do better with top 20, which may give a better account.

  12. #12

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SouthSky View Post
    If you did that, then the city with the largest number of buildings, not the tallest, would rank at the top. That would put cities like Sao Paolo and Mexico City high up on the top, even though they have no supertalls, but huge numbers of 100-150 feet high buildings. New York City has a lot of buildings, probably still the most, in the 500-700 ft range, but once you go higher, it loses out.
    Sao Paulo has a ton of midrises, as does Tokyo (though fewer than Sao Paulo), so those cities would rank very highly if you did a "total number of floors" or "total number of buildings of any height" analysis. Mexico City actually has few midrises (at least relative to Sao Paulo or Tokyo). Mexico City is mostly lowrise.

    If you did an analysis of anything over, say, 200-300 ft., up to about 1000-1200 ft., only NYC and HK are realistic contenders.

    Now if you're just looking at a few supertalls, it will always be Dubai or some showplace-type city. So it all depends on your definition.

  13. #13

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ASchwarz View Post
    Sao Paulo has a ton of midrises, as does Tokyo (though fewer than Sao Paulo), so those cities would rank very highly if you did a "total number of floors" or "total number of buildings of any height" analysis. Mexico City actually has few midrises (at least relative to Sao Paulo or Tokyo). Mexico City is mostly lowrise.

    If you did an analysis of anything over, say, 200-300 ft., up to about 1000-1200 ft., only NYC and HK are realistic contenders.

    Now if you're just looking at a few supertalls, it will always be Dubai or some showplace-type city. So it all depends on your definition.
    A few supertalls? Dubai is approaching 20+ last time I looked (including spires).

    Come on, admit it, cities like Dubai, Shenzhen and Shanghai has blown the rest of the world away when it comes to building tall buildings. They deserves the top spot, no matter what fueled the boom it is an amazing achievement. Not that I advocate that style of imprudent unbridled development for NYC of course, even though I'd love to see NYC reach greater heights.
    Last edited by futurecity; March 14th, 2012 at 11:47 PM.

  14. #14

    Default

    My case in point.

    On which lot that isn't landmarked or feasible to build these towers do you propose this plan?

  15. #15

    Default

    How the hell should I know, did I propose anything? No, I stated my aspiration for NYC.

    I just want to see NYC rise, like the pioneering skyscraper city it once was, so it may take back its rightful place among the tallest cities today and tomorrow. Probably unlikely, but that is what I'm interested in seeing occur.

    By the way, I prefer bold and dominant towers that are clad in metal, stone or concrete rather than plain glass

    Many of my favorite towers are not glass and are far more striking than glass towers could ever be. NY needs more towers like that, rather than WTC glass style towers or mirror glass towers.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  


Google+ - Facebook - Twitter - Meetup

Edward's photos on Flickr - Wired New York on Flickr - In Queens - In Red Hook - Bryant Park - SQL Backup Software