One example of being too flat is Mesa, Arizona.
The Relationship Between Skyscrapers and Great Cities
11–20 of 34 posts
Re: The Relationship Between Skyscrapers and Great Cities
#12It's surprising to see Boston this high on the list despite the insurmountable limits it faces building upward: 1) The Logan height restriction that much of downtown faces due to the airport's proximity: https://www.massport.com/media/11778/BOS_COMPOSITE_Ver2pt0_d... 2) The city's most desirable neighborhoods (Back Bay, Beacon Hill, South End, Charlestown Navy Yard) are protected as historical districts: http://bosto…
It's because the city of Boston is only a small part of the Boston Metro area and doesn't include the suburbs that were annexed into other cities.
Re: The Relationship Between Skyscrapers and Great Cities
#13Comparing cities is very tricky because different cities governments cover different things, think Minneapolis and St. Paul or Boston which didn't annex many of it's suburbs compared to cities like Chicago or New York hence why it has such a high building hight, because a real comparison would include Cambridge, Somerville, Brookline, Quincy, Newton and other jurisdictions that are part of the core city.
Re: The Relationship Between Skyscrapers and Great Cities
#14Equating skyscrapers only with supertalls (200m+) is pretty misleading. For example, both Sydney and Singapore are currently experiencing massive skyscraper booms, but they don't appear on the charts because they're "only" in the 150m range.
Also, the "cities" are poorly defined. Tangerang is a suburb of Jakarta and should be counted as such, while Mandaluyong is in Manila. I suspect the same applies to a number of those Chinese cities.
Re: The Relationship Between Skyscrapers and Great Cities
#15Equating skyscrapers only with supertalls (200m+) is pretty misleading. For example, both Sydney and Singapore are currently experiencing massive skyscraper booms, but they don't appear on the charts because they're "only" in the 150m range.
Also, the "cities" are poorly defined. Tangerang is a suburb of Jakarta and should be counted as such, while Mandaluyong is in Manila. I suspect the same applies to a number of those Chinese cities.
Re: The Relationship Between Skyscrapers and Great Cities
#16It's surprising to see Boston this high on the list despite the insurmountable limits it faces building upward: 1) The Logan height restriction that much of downtown faces due to the airport's proximity: https://www.massport.com/media/11778/BOS_COMPOSITE_Ver2pt0_d... 2) The city's most desirable neighborhoods (Back Bay, Beacon Hill, South End, Charlestown Navy Yard) are protected as historical districts: http://bosto…
NIMBY? The city of boston has been a construction zone for twenty years.
Re: The Relationship Between Skyscrapers and Great Cities
#17> These areas boast an abundance of mid-rise, open-floor plan, historic buildings that create street-level interaction, where people and ideas can combine and recombine to form new innovations and startup companies. Historic office buildings are anything but open-floor plan-based. Open-floor plans suck for startups because the square footage is usually immense, which means you can't rent office space cheaply. That's…
Maybe you like privacy, but it might be better for your business to rent from a company like WeWork.
"I notice that if you have the door to your office closed, you get more work done today and tomorrow, and you are more productive than most. But 10 years later somehow you don't know quite know what problems are worth working on;"
Re: The Relationship Between Skyscrapers and Great Cities
#18I am surprised they left out Houston, which has the most urban sprawl of any US city. There's tons of construction going on in the city as well. But for the lack of zoning laws, Houston would be a larger city than NYC. Not that I would suggest other cities copy Houston's (lack of) urban planning, but leaving out such a singular example seems strange. Especially since they included Austin.
>But for the lack of zoning laws, Houston would be a larger city than NYC.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Can you explain?
Re: The Relationship Between Skyscrapers and Great Cities
#19It's surprising to see Boston this high on the list despite the insurmountable limits it faces building upward: 1) The Logan height restriction that much of downtown faces due to the airport's proximity: https://www.massport.com/media/11778/BOS_COMPOSITE_Ver2pt0_d... 2) The city's most desirable neighborhoods (Back Bay, Beacon Hill, South End, Charlestown Navy Yard) are protected as historical districts: http://bosto…
Much of it has to do with the preposterous price of real estate and pent up demand in Boston. Finding a condo anywhere near a transit station 20 minutes out will cost you north of 400K. 10 minutes and you're looking at 600K.
Re: The Relationship Between Skyscrapers and Great Cities
#20Equating skyscrapers only with supertalls (200m+) is pretty misleading. For example, both Sydney and Singapore are currently experiencing massive skyscraper booms, but they don't appear on the charts because they're "only" in the 150m range. Also, the "cities" are poorly defined. Tangerang is a suburb of Jakarta and should be counted as such, while Mandaluyong is in Manila. I suspect the same applies to a number of t…
It is odd picking that metric. Those are exceptionally tall buildings.
For example, somehow one of the largest cities in the world, São Paulo, didn't even make the list despite having an outrageous number of tall buildings: http://static.panoramio.com/photos/original/2169111.jpg
Where's Tokyo? Hong Kong? I'm confused why these were omitted.