Cycles of boom and bust can be effectively avoided or at least reduced in severity through targeted regulation and at any rate are preferable to never-ending economic stagnation, which seems to be the most common alternative.
They can, but not in a true laissez faire system. A mixture of both free enterprise and government interference is always a good way to go, but it's a difficult thing to get the balance right.
Being born and raised not too far from Frankfurt, Germany I thought Germany would make the list. But here comes the funny thing: While Frankfurt has 14 skyscrapers above 150 m there is only one other German city (Bonn) with only 1 of such skyscrapers.
This quiz says a skyscraper is "defined as a building above 150 meters in height." Both the Ulm Minster and the Cologne Cathedral fit that description.
You wouldn't call a cathedral a Skyscraper though, would you? The 150 meter definition as mentioned above the quiz is correct but it's missing the addition "...continuously habitable high-rise building that has over 40 floors...".
China has almost as many as the next five combined. I bet in 1980 - and possibly 1990 - it would not have even made the list (certainly not without the help of Hong Kong).
For centuries, there were rules such as "No building may be taller than our cathedral." It takes a while to get away from that, especially where there's a lot of old buildings that fall under historical protection rules.
I don't know about the others but for the UK it has a lot to do with economics. London really dominates the UK financially so that's where they'd be, but London is built on clay rather than bedrock. That makes it much more difficult and expensive to build huge great skyscrapers.
I think it's good that there aren't many on the European continent. They are ugly and detrimental to a good community feel at street level. Skyscrapers seem to be a very nouveau riche kind of accessory.
Yes, my gut feeling is that they appeal more to cultures that feel the need to prove themselves with ostentatious displays and less to cultures that feel secure in their identity as successful people. There's a lot underlying all that, both positive and negative on both sides.
Indeed, what is the point of a skyscraper? Unless you are very short of space (perhaps applies to Qatar and Singapore on this list), the disadvantages (cost, aesthetics, community) seem to outweigh the advantages. They seem to me like status symbols for those with more money than good sense. In my view, Europe is ahead of the game in turning the tide against them.
Turning the tide against efficient use of urban space? Or you mean to say that they are at the cutting edge of sticking with buildings that are hundreds of years old instead of adopting more modern ones?
The view of Hong Kong from Victoria Peak is breathtaking and stunningly beautiful. Not every city in the world needs to look like Hobbiton. I'm not saying there's no place in the world for such cookie cutter quaint-and-impractical-but-at-least-the-tourists-like-them villages, but it makes little sense to be a snob about it.
''Or you mean to say that they are at the cutting edge of sticking with buildings that are hundreds of years old instead of adopting more modern ones?''
And what do you want us to do? Demolish the historical center of each city to make space for skyscrapers?
Skyscrapers are suitable for the urban centres that started evolving from 20th century onward.
you think that Tokyo, New York, Seoul, Shanghai, Beijing, Chicago, Mecca, or Moscow only started developing in the 1900s? This comment makes no sense. Europe is not the only place in the world with history.
I'm with Kal on this one... They have - finally - announced a "concrete stop" in my country (Belgium) because there is too little 'free soil' left for water to drain away in after heavy rains for example. Using the space where we build things more efficiently by building up higher, seems to make perfect sense to me. Of course, that argument mainly applies for (large) cities, I wouldn't appreciate a 200m+ construction in the middle of acres of grassy fields.
I think that both have advantages and both can look amazing, but it is worth pointing out that many (though not all) cities with lots of skyscrapers tend to have low-density urban sprawl around them, while many cities without so many are very densely-populated around the edge as well.
You have to keep in mind they didn't have the technology back then to build tall skyscrapers when most of Europe started to urbanize. Many of the countries in the list have only urbanized over the past century or have growing populations. Most European countries have a slow growing or shrinking population, so they don't need as much space for housing, work, and entertainment. Also, buildings in most European cities are intentionally kept low so they don't block the view of landmarks (e.g.-Eiffel Tower in Paris, Colosseum in Rome).
Good grief. Everyone’s ignorant about some things. Don’t shame them for learning. Whether or not you know something is not a matter of nationality. I promise that there was a point in your life, no matter where you’re from, when you didn’t know Turkey had a lot of skyscrapers.
Everyone here is talking about Panama, which is certainly a surprise...but personally, I think I might find the UAE even more mind-boggling. A country that small (both size and population-wise) and they have more skyscrapers than the entirety of Japan and 8 times more than Saudi Arabia?
Yes, I know the UAE is famous for its skyscrapers. It was one of the first countries I guessed. Still, I wouldn't have thought it would be that high up on the list!
There are actually three main reasons for that. The first is property development rights. That means they do not own the land for a long period of time with the main partner in Dubai so they build high to get the most out of their investment in the short time they have part ownership of the property. The second is resource distribution efficiency. that means since almost all of their goods are imported like food and water. Instead of having a spread out country of cities and towns they compact them to make it easier on the countries funds for infrastructure. They spend less on infrastructure and get more with short routes to give out imports. Third is the pressure to divest away from oil. Their oil reserve are not nearly as large as surrounding countries. Most of these other cities built over centuries but UAE has had to do this in a short amount of time, by building large buildings they are hoping once oil runs out they have something in the future to build on with the skyscrapers.
It is a little more complicated than that but that is the short version since we have only so many characters to use in an explanation. Look up Ferj Osio's article in Quora about this subject. He was one of the top architects that built many of the skyscrapers in Dubai and other cities in the UAE. The title is "Why Does Dubai Have So Many Skyscrapers"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Ul-Efi1Xys
It should've been on this list
The view of Hong Kong from Victoria Peak is breathtaking and stunningly beautiful. Not every city in the world needs to look like Hobbiton. I'm not saying there's no place in the world for such cookie cutter quaint-and-impractical-but-at-least-the-tourists-like-them villages, but it makes little sense to be a snob about it.
And what do you want us to do? Demolish the historical center of each city to make space for skyscrapers?
Skyscrapers are suitable for the urban centres that started evolving from 20th century onward.
Yes, I know the UAE is famous for its skyscrapers. It was one of the first countries I guessed. Still, I wouldn't have thought it would be that high up on the list!
I DID GET ONE THO-