[PuyoPiyo]

I am curious why Europe don't have any high rise like over 500 meters buildings? Alot of Eurpoean artichets proposed a tall towers to Asia, but why not Europe? Is there any height restricts there?

[malec]

^^ historical centres

[coth]

Actually there is 612 meters tall building is approved in Moscow and is currently on the plot preparation state. 448 meters tall is also under construction.

[wjfox2004]

Can somebody make the thread title a bit more interesting.

[Nexus6]

In case of Germany there are height restrictions. But I think even without height restrictions few German companies would want to build such supertalls as their are economically not interesting.

[Qaabus]

No need for uneconomical monumental tall buildings to impress the rest of the world?

[Jonas]

That's an interesting question but perhaps there is no one particular reason to indicate it in the answer. Perhaps there is a combination of reasons. I however wouldn't mind seeing more taller skyscrapers in the European cities. They DO make cities look more attractive and sexy.

[jef]

It does not make sense from economic viewpoint.

Only to satisfy ego. Dubaï supertalls are funded by state-controlled companies.

[rav]

Asia needs to proove it's economic importance. US urbanisme is centered around skyscrapers, Europe just doesn't need supertalls.

And they are coming anyways.

[Grumpy]

I guess Europeans in general are not used to live high above the ground.
There is a tendancy of living in houses or low scrapers altough a few cities like Rotterdam are really building new tall residential towers.
In larger cities like Paris or London there are since many decades many tall buildings but there are no plans to built higher towers, perhaps Moscow is the only exeption.
Honestly I cannot imagine Dubaiesque situations on the old continent altough some seaside resorts along the Mediterrenean coastline like Benidorm is the closest by far.
Asian situations are not at all to be found here; look what the several new towns of the 60's & 70's brought

[PuyoPiyo]

Well I am more likely talking about England, Germany, France, Spain, any countries at West Europe. I know they have really wonder design of towers, but not the supertalls. I think some of you might be right, they just don't like supertalls or don't need supertalls.

[wjfox2004]

I would define "supertall" as anything over 300m.

London has 1 building being planned at 310m, with another close behind at 288m.

[coth]

No need for uneconomical monumental tall buildings to impress the rest of the world?

i would not call them uneconomical.



if to take 300m mark then there are at least 16 u/c, approval and proposals in moscow.

[wjfox2004]

i would not call them uneconomical.



if to take 300m mark then there are at least 16 u/c, approval and proposals in moscow.
City Hall is one building, so you mean 13.

[coth]

no, there are 4 buildings in the city hall complex.

[CHapp]

O are we back to that one again? :jester:

Btw, you addressed your "uneconomical" post to the wrong person(s). Jonas didn't bring that subject up in his post. Nexus and jef did.

[Nexus6]

I once read that in case of Frankfurt investment costs per sqm are initially sinking with height but once you approach the 200m mark they begin to stagnate and then rise again which makes buildings above that height uneconomical. Where that point is depends mostly on two factors: land price and quality of the ground (i.e. soft sands or hard rock). The higher the land price and the harder and stable the ground, the more height it takes until construction efforts and costs rise so fast that you reach an economical ceiling

[PuyoPiyo]

Hmm Hmm... Never mind, Paris just got its more than 1 over 300 meters future buildings there.

[Metropolitan]

Hmm Hmm... Never mind, Paris just got its more than 1 over 300 meters future buildings there.Yeah.. there are two towers above 300 meters which are currently approved for Paris : Tour Generali and Tour Signal (or Tour Phare).

[SHiRO]

no, there are 4 buildings in the city hall complex.
Stop it...
Now!

[coth]

shiro, i quote the paper from the complex approval. unlike you.

[Jonas]

coth, just stop it... you make others giggle like that little puppy in your avatar while reading such arguments ;)

[GENIUS LOCI]

In Milan they're thinkin' to build a supertall for Expo 2015 (obviously in the case we host it)
They said they want to project it by an international competition and that it could be seen from the whole Alps arc

On this rendering (just more than a sketch) the tower is about between 500 and 600 m tall
You can deduce it by the confrontation with the central axe, on the left, of the existing fair site (about 1300 m)

http://www.milanoexpo-2015.com/imgs/TAV2prospettosito.jpg

http://www.milanoexpo-2015.com/proposta_sito.php#

[FREKI]

Asia needs to proove it's economic importance. US urbanisme is centered around skyscrapers, Europe just doesn't need supertalls.
So true! :yes:

It would however be nice to have a few :D

[Chrissib]

I am curious why Europe don't have any high rise like over 500 meters buildings? Alot of Eurpoean artichets proposed a tall towers to Asia, but why not Europe? Is there any height restricts there?

I think here isn't a very high demand of new housing in general, as the fertility rates are low and the population is starting to shrink. Also highrises need high ground prices and free areas in the near of the city. As in Europe the citys are full of old buildings you can't tear down, there is not much space. In outer areas, only little one-family-houses are built, and unfortunately no residential highrises, although I'd like to live in one.

Is it the Western culture to build only highrises for offices and not for residential things like in Asia?

[coth]

Highrise residentials is actually European legacy ;)

[Bergenser]

ofcourse we don't need supertalls but why not build'em? ;)
a few supertalls will make Europe less "oldish" :D
it's great that Moscow create supertall's right now! Will be the first in European history. :)

:skyscraper:Go Supertalls:skyscraper:

[coth]

it's you don't need them. but moscow is facing significant shortage of spaces. that's why there are tens thousands of highrises and dozens of supertall projects.

[Chrissib]

Highrise residentials is actually European legacy ;)

Where in europe are residential highrises???

[coth]

1. Europe is a homeland of commieblocks.
2. Just go any big city. You will see them.

[Minato Ku]

Paris the city of love :haha: :haha: :haha:

http://img55.imageshack.us/img55/3119/t20fx.jpg
Those residencial high-rises are actually located in Paris (inner city not suburbs)

[Swede]

Sure, the residential highrises aren't clusterd in the very core of the City like the stereotypical US city, but spread all over the metro areas. Apart from pcities like Moscow which is a vast sea of commie-blocks (and their nicer modern equivalents) even cities like Stockholm has many, many high-rise residentials here and there - even in suburbs 2-3 layers out from the City.

[Chrissib]

Paris the city of love :haha: :haha: :haha:

http://img55.imageshack.us/img55/3119/t20fx.jpg
Those residencial high-rises are actually located in Paris (inner city not suburbs)

I don't mean that 70s highrises, but the new highrises built in the 90s and 00s in Hong Kong and UAE who are like 250m tall and for middle-income-people and not for the poor like in EU.

[Jonas]

Chrissib, there are many new residential highrises rising all around Europe from London and Lisbon to Warsaw and Vilnius. Not only many of them are for "middle class" but, in fact, some of them seem like really luxury pieces to live in and cost loads more than a posh house in a good suburban area outside of the city centre. Highrise living in Europe isn't as popular as in Asia (apparently due to space issues in most cases) but it's certainly there and you can see it pretty much in every major city in the EU and beyound.

[anm]

I don't mean that 70s highrises, but the new highrises built in the 90s and 00s in Hong Kong and UAE who are like 250m tall and for middle-income-people and not for the poor like in EU.

In Hong Kong land is very limited, so builing very high residential towers is the only option. Nowhere in Europe there is such limit of space, so residentail high-rises are lower. But this does not have much to do with the subject of supertalls in Europe. Few people live in supertalls even in Hong Kong anyway.

[Minato Ku]

I don't mean that 70s highrises, but the new highrises built in the 90s and 00s in Hong Kong and UAE who are like 250m tall and for middle-income-people and not for the poor like in EU.

Those buildings in Paris are not for poor but for upper middle class

[Marcu]

Mostly height restrictions and down-zoning. All the talk about "not needing" supertalls is completely innacurate. Most Western European countries have very expensive housing and land despite a zero growth or declining population. A few supertall residentials could certainly add some much needed living space but Europe can't seem to find a balance between aesthetic quality and practicability, and fundemental economics is usually looked down upon. Also, a lot of the height restrictions are a product of the landed class' desire to maintain high land prices.

[Builder-Lemming]

well, think about which european country starts to build such skyscrapers and which countries and cities are leading in this department...

the first supertall is going to be build in moskow, russia, the country with the world wide worst poor-rich gap, the usa as the leading skyscraper country has the biggest poor rich gap in the western world

the only town in germany with a higher density of skyscrapers is frankfurt am main, the town with the highest crime rate in the whole country, a lot higher than for example in new york!

might be an uncomfortable truth, but skyscrapers always reflect a certain socio-cultural attitude, and its neither good reason nor philanthropy or humanism...

it may be contrary to the nature of market economy but humbleness is still a value in many european countries, its not a matter of capability, european has the most healthy economies with the highest living standards in the world, norway for example has the highest gross national product per person of all territorial state, yet the highest building doesnt exceed 120 meters

skyscrapers are not an indication for wealth and power but rather for wealth and power in the wrong hands

[Fabb]

In Hong Kong land is very limited, so builing very high residential towers is the only option.

That's probably true of the HK island, but not the HK territory that is mostly not urbanized and offers plenty of space for housing.
The fact that it's filled with high-rises is a choice, not a necessity.

Let's be honest : high-rises allow the density that makes transportation easier, cheaper, more efficient. Housing the population in low rises results in urban sprawl...

[staff]

That's probably true of the HK island, but not the HK territory that is mostly not urbanized and offers plenty of space for housing.
The fact that it's filled with high-rises is a choice, not a necessity.
Actually, 97% or so of the Hong Kong territory is protected land where developments are prohibited, so I'd say that it is both a choice and a necessity.

[staff]

That's probably true of the HK island, but not the HK territory that is mostly not urbanized and offers plenty of space for housing.
The fact that it's filled with high-rises is a choice, not a necessity.
Actually, 97% or so of the Hong Kong territory is protected land where developments are prohibited, so I'd say that it is both a choice and a necessity.
All developments don't have to be highrises, but in the long run they are forced to do it. Just imagine the amount of space the HK urban area would take up if it was built like a US city, or even a European ditto.

[Mercutio]

^ It's not as high as 97%. However it's true that the majority of Hong Kong's territory is unsuitable for development and I agree that high rises are an absolute necessity in Hong Kong. There is plenty of undeveloped land in Hong Kong but it's extremely steep and mountainous and therefore prohibitively expensive if not impossible to build upon. Other uninhabited areas are on Hong Kong's ~300 islands - many of which are uninhabited or have little or no transport connections to the city. The conditions for density in Hong Kong are not replicated anywhere in Europe. Gibralter and Monaco have the same shortage of land but on a vastly smaller scale (populations of ~30,000 as opposed to 7 million!). Naples has a vaguely similar combination of flat land squeezed between steep hills and the sea, and Naples is indeed dense, but Naples still has far more flat land and a much smaller population than Hong Kong. However why look to Hong Kong or indeed anywhere in Asia? Most of the population of former communist bloc cities are housed in high rise residential blocks. I'd say the percentage of high-rise residential dwellers in most former communist bloc cities is as high or higher than the majority of cities in Asia (including Singapore or Tokyo for instance....). Europe's old city centres are characterised by high density apartment buildings (5-12 stories) that are probably just as dense as most high-rise districts in any case (the buildings themselves are closer together than on the high-rise districts on the city outskirts). When it comes to high density cities Europe has little to learn from Asia and even less from America (with the notable exception of New York....). Our cities are already dense and offer, on average, the best urban lifestyle in the world. Only the very brightest and best cities outside Europe can compete.

Supertalls are mainly about prestige. Many cities outside Europe have no recognisable landmarks and have built supertalls simply to put them on the map. Dubai, Taipei, and Kuala Lumpur are all examples of that. European cities already have world recognised landmarks and so have no need to boost their profile in this way. However they may add supertalls for the same desire for prestige and to give them contemporary landmarks. London, Paris, Moscow, and Istanbul (Europe's four largest cities) will all build 300m+ buildings in the coming years.

[Marcu]

well, think about which european country starts to build such skyscrapers and which countries and cities are leading in this department...

the first supertall is going to be build in moskow, russia, the country with the world wide worst poor-rich gap, the usa as the leading skyscraper country has the biggest poor rich gap in the western world

the only town in germany with a higher density of skyscrapers is frankfurt am main, the town with the highest crime rate in the whole country, a lot higher than for example in new york!

might be an uncomfortable truth, but skyscrapers always reflect a certain socio-cultural attitude, and its neither good reason nor philanthropy or humanism...

it may be contrary to the nature of market economy but humbleness is still a value in many european countries, its not a matter of capability, european has the most healthy economies with the highest living standards in the world, norway for example has the highest gross national product per person of all territorial state, yet the highest building doesnt exceed 120 meters

skyscrapers are not an indication for wealth and power but rather for wealth and power in the wrong hands

I think there's some causation/correlation confusion. Also, some overgeneralizations. So therefore, the statements are fairly easy to refute. I just have to find one example: how about Toronto.

In The United States supertalls are usually built around central train locations. For example in Chicago, where all the train lines meet. It therefore makes sense and is economically sound. It doesn't really have much to do with the uber-wealthy showing off their wealth (they usually live in low-density stand-alone suburb houses anyhow and oppose any high-rise developments because it might jeapardize their high land values).

Norway is indeed a very wealthy and economically healthy country but it doesn't have the population size or density to need supertalls. A similar example would be any middle-upper class suburban county in the US.

As for humbleness still being a value in European countries (and as you implied no where else...), I'm not sure there's people outside Europe that would ever assert that they are the most humble in the world. A little ironic.

[UncleRando]

'Supertalls' are not what make a city...so I don't even know why Europeans would give a crap! Sure in the states we have tons of skyscrapers, but many of the urban cores are lackluster and not nearly equivelant to the urban vitality of European cities.

I would much rather have 1,000 city blocks of 4-8 story bldgs than 100 city blocks of 40-80 story bldgs (imho). Supertalls are naturally pedestrian unfriendly....whereas streetscapes with smaller bldgs are much more human scale. This is why Vancouver is soo great....they mix both. Slender skyscrapers set back off the street, with 3-4 story townhouses/stores fronting the street.

[R@ptor]

the only town in germany with a higher density of skyscrapers is frankfurt am main, the town with the highest crime rate in the whole country, a lot higher than for example in new york!
:haha: :haha: :haha: :haha: :haha: :haha:

Just for your information...New York alone has almost as many homicides (~600) as all of Germany (pop. 82.5 million) combined (794 in 2005)!!!!!!!!

[UncleRando]

^err, thats not really a fact that I would be openly sharing with the world...let him think that the crime is worse in Germany than NYC.

[coth]

the first supertall is going to be build in moskow, russia, the country with the world wide worst poor-rich gap, the usa as the leading skyscraper country has the biggest poor rich gap in the western world
gini index
russia - 39,9
usa - 40,8

[éemreé]

If supertalls are defined anything over 300 m + Istanbul will build 1 same as London and Paris. With another close behind at 270 m and 261 m.

[Accura]

US urbanisme is centered around skyscrapers
That may have been true in the past, but not anymore. I would say contemporary US urbanism is based around urban sprawl, NY being an exception.

[Marcu]

That may have been true in the past, but not anymore. I would say contemporary US urbanism is based around urban sprawl, NY being an exception.

"sprawl" is a vague term without a very specific concept. In reality, most American city cores have been revitalizing for about 20 years or so now.

[Warcry]

i thought supertalls were anthing over 400m?

*answer to thread question* its beacuse 90% of the citys in europe are Historic, and major citys with architectural monuments.. (london paris etc..) have guildlines on where highrises can be built, to stop the view from being ruined.

[Metropolitan]

i thought supertalls were anthing over 400m?

*answer to thread question* its beacuse 90% of the citys in europe are Historic, and major citys with architectural monuments.. (london paris etc..) have guildlines on where highrises can be built, to stop the view from being ruined.Well, in the regular vocabulary, a supertall structure has been defined as a structure which is taller than 1,000 feet, which is slightly more than 300 meters.

The first supertall structure worldwide has been the Eiffel Tower. It is the only supertall structure built during the 19th century (specifically in 1889). At the time of its completion, it was nearly twice taller than the former tallest structure.

Nowadays, supertalls imply more a skyscraper... probably because the arrivals of concrete and TV have multiplied the number of tower above 300 meters, making them too common.

Now this being said, 118 years later, the Eiffel Tower remains the structure hosting the highest floor in Europe. Something which is kind of amazing knowing everything which happened during the 20th century.

[Warcry]

i suppose that supertalls sizes differ in certain countries.
like in China the term supersize would be anything over 400m beacuse skyscrapers of 300m+ are the norm, this is the same situation with the USA. in countries with smaller amounts of tall skyscrapers (UK, France etc...) then the supertall status should and IS smaller. on the UK forums on skyscrapercity, i know that people class anything over 300m a supertall beacuse non yet exsist in the UK. (shard is set to change this :) )

[Alpha]

I believe, there is an informal treaty not to built structures of any kind taller than 365.25 metres (= 1200 ft) in Europe (excpt former Soviet Union).

It should be noted, that only 5 antenna structures were built in Europe except of former Soviet Union, that overpasses this mark.

These are/were:

* Konstantynow Radio Mast, Konstantynow, Poland, built 1972-1974, collapsed in 1991, height: 646.4 metres ( http://en.structurae.de/structures/data/index.cfm?id=s0000672 )
* Hellissandur longwave transmission mast, Hellissandur, Iceland, built 1963, height: 412 metres ( http://en.structurae.de/structures/data/index.cfm?ID=s0014958 )
* Old TV Mast Emley Moore, Emley Moore, UK, built 1964, collapsed in 1969, height: 385 metres ( http://en.structurae.de/structures/data/index.cfm?id=s0013859 )
* Belmont TV Mast, Donington on Bain, UK, built 1965, height: 385 metres ( http://en.structurae.de/structures/data/index.cfm?ID=s0014952 )
* Gerbrandy Tower, Ijsselstein, Netherlands, built 1961, height: 375 metres ( http://en.structurae.de/structures/data/index.cfm?ID=s0012623 )
* TV Tower Berlin, Berlin, Germany, built 1969, height: 368 metres ( http://en.structurae.de/structures/data/index.cfm?ID=s0000113 ). The height of TV Tower Berlin was until the renovation of its antenna mast in 1997, 365 metres, so it did not exceed the 365.25 metres at time of completion.

When you go to lower height values, you will find out that the number o structures in the corresponding height ranges grow fastly and that nearly each European country has at least one structure in the height range between 300 and 365.25 metres in form of a guyed mast, a free-standing tower, a chimney or in case of France also as a bridge.

This list shows clearly that after 1965 except of Konstantynow Radio Mast no structure taller than 365.25 metres was built in Europe outside the area of former Soviet Union, although there are and were many proposals for structures taller than 365.25 metre as that for a 750 metre tall TV tower or for skyscrapers in Paris.
Even at present time there is no such structure under construction in Europe outside the GUS-states!

From all proposls only the proposed rebuilt of Konstantynow Radio Mast was close before realizatio ( some basements work were made, before it was cancelled after protests of people living nearby fearing electrosmog).

Messina Strait Bridge, which was until short time ago the best candidate for Europe's next structure exceeding the 365 metre mark, was obviously also cancelled for next time ( although the idea of a bridge over Messina Strait will never die and if it will be ever built, it will be built for practical-technical reasons as suspension bridge with supertall bridge pillars. A tunnel would be not a good choice, because Mssina Strait is very deep)

I believe, that the next structure in Europe exceeding the 365.25 metre mark will be Torre Solar in Spain. But until no construction work definitely started for it, one should not elive, that it will be built ( in my opinion this tower should be built higher than the proposed 750 metres, not only for prestige, also to mke the power station it should serve for more efficient)

For supertall skyscrapers in Europe (except former Soviet Union), I believe there is only a bare chance of realization. First, living in high-rise buildings is not popular in Europe and the richer people prefer living in houses with gardens.
Then many companies reduce their administrative section, so the requirements for office space decrease. For example the chemical company Bayer in Leverkusen replaced its old headquater in a highrise building ( http://www.leverkusen.com/guide/Archiv1.txt/Lev00054.html ) by a new headquater in a flat building ( http://www.leverkusen.com/guide/Archiv1.txt/Lev00294.html ) and not by a taller highrise building!

The highrise building "Langer Oscar" in Hagen ( http://en.structurae.de/structures/data/index.cfm?ID=s0015519 ) was replaced by the lowrise "SparkassenKarree" ( http://www.velta.de/de/pdm0502/projekt.htm ).

[Warcry]

agreed :)
also very interesting post thanks for sharing :)

[Qaabus]

That just doesn't make any sense. And why would they use feet to define the limit?

[Teeif]

That just doesn't make any sense. And why would they use feet to define the limit?

I still remember metrification! It only occured in the UK in the 1980s. Before everything was feet, yards and well, we still use miles. I guess this is an old 'agreement'.

I'm all up for some evidence, I've never heard of any treaty restricting heights in Europe.

[Swede]

Where'd you get the idea there's a limit in Europe? I've never heard of it before.
And even if the UK only joined the modern world in '80s (;)) the rest of us have been using the metric system for generations. So having a limit defined in feet makes no sense.

As for the radio masts - they don't count as buildings and thus can't be a "supertall".

[Alpha]

This limit is not officially. But when you look at tables of tall structures (where all kinds are listed), you find that this is the fact.
Why I got the value 1200 ft. In aviation height datas are often given in feet and the 1200 ft mark is a round number, which is and was only surpassed by fvery ew structures in Europe!

Europe was and is one of the ecconomically most powerful regions of the world. Why would noone have money to build a structure taller than 365 metre after 1965?

For example RTL could have built in the sixties or seventies a supertall TV tower or guyed radio mast in Luxemburg, in order to transmit FM-radio and TV-programmes to Belgium or Germany, where it could not get a broadcasting licence at those days as privately-owned radio stations were prohibited in most European countries at those days ( Little countries like Luxemburg were before Mid 80ies nearly the only countries in Europe where privately owned radio stations could operate).

However, the tallest TV mast of RTL in Luxemburg, situated at Hosingen, is 300 metres tall ( http://www.skyscraperpage.com/cities/?buildingID=45491 ).
Why not much taller?

Concerning very tall highrise buildings: they are not welcome in many towns in Europe. A few years ago, there was a 200+ metre tall Trump-Tower planned at Stuttgart. It was planned to equip this highrise building with an observation deck, so one would have a second very high observation point in Stuttgart (the first one is the TV tower) for a nice city panorama. As I like such things, I looked forward to it, although I gave the project not a big chance for realization.
And it was not unsurprisingly cancelled!

Since then no investor wanted to build a comparable building in Stuttgart.

In general, building something very tall like a radio tower or something large like a motorway is today very difficult in Germany, because there are very powerful ecologists and getting a construction license lasts much longer than building it!

[villelumiere]

Yeah.. there are two towers above 300 meters which are currently approved for Paris : Tour Generali and Tour Signal (or Tour Phare).

Yes but they are Paris extramuros plutot que intramuros and would never get permission within ville de paris.

Europe does have some supertalls. Frankfurt- has two towers over 250 metres one of them a genuine 300metre plus biant which would stand out in any skyline on Earth.

However the reality is that European middle class chattering class elites simply do not want towers in historical cities. I love towers but frankly tour montparnasse is in the wrong place. It's only value is as a means of seeing and photographing the city and la Defense.

There is an english phrase horses for courses and some thing fit there which would not in Paris centre ville or rome or Prague. In for instance Chicago, my favourite American city and the best skyline on earth outside HK, they think the 1920s wrigley building is historic. It is a totally different mindset. Totally different timeframe so different horses for different courses and frankly unlike Dubai or Shanghai do places like Paris, London or Rome have to say "look how big mine is compared to yours"? not really. They are already internationally the most visited most favoured cities on Earth.

[staff]

Please don't mention Dubai and Shanghai in the same sentance. The only thing they have in common is that both are building a lot of tall buildings (for different reasons).

[www.sercan.de]

i think a +80 Floor tower is also a Supertall??!!!

BTW
Istanbul has only a PROPOSED +300m Tower
But it is not clear if it will be built

[Metropolitan]

i suppose that supertalls sizes differ in certain countries.
like in China the term supersize would be anything over 400m beacuse skyscrapers of 300m+ are the norm, this is the same situation with the USA. in countries with smaller amounts of tall skyscrapers (UK, France etc...) then the supertall status should and IS smaller.I would like to understand better your definition about what is the "norm"...

In a city such as New York City, there's only one single building which is really above 300 meters: The Empire State building. The only thing really exceeding 300 meters in the Chrysler building is the antenna. It's true that the city has violently suffered in an event we all remember though.

Counting antennas, there's only 13 buildings all over America which are above 300 m. With such kind of ranking, there's already one in Europe then (Commerzbank in Frankfurt).

Buildings having their roof height above 300 meters aren't the norm in the US... I can count only 6 of them : Sears Tower, Chicago: 442,3 m
Empire State Building, NYC: 381 m
AON Center, Chicago: 346,3 m
John Hancock Center, Chicago: 343,5 m
US Bank Tower, Los Angeles: 310,3 m
Chase Tower, Houston: 305,4 m

The big difference between the US and Europe isn't really about buildings over 300 meters, it's more about buildings above 200 meters, which we can indeed consider as the norm in the US.

[malec]

Supertalls are naturally pedestrian unfriendly....whereas streetscapes with smaller bldgs are much more human scale. This is why Vancouver is soo great....they mix both. Slender skyscrapers set back off the street, with 3-4 story townhouses/stores fronting the street.

Sure this is the logical thing to say but I don't think it's a rule. Sure, it's more difficult to make a 300m rather than a 10m building street friendly but it's not impossible. In fact I've seen many lowrises that are much more street unfriendly than towers. The problem is many developers just couldn't care less ;)
In general what I don't like one 50-storey building popping out from a 5-storey cityscape, like the tour montparnasse. Also the general public hates this sort of stuff in general. I guess this is why European cities don't have supertalls (yet). IMO the way to do it is to designate an area for highrises and preserve the historic centre. This way you get a nice skyline rather than lonely towers, like London or Paris.

[villelumiere]

I would like to understand better your definition about what is the "norm"...

In a city such as New York City, there's only one single building which is really above 300 meters: The Empire State building. The only thing really exceeding 300 meters in the Chrysler building is the antenna. It's true that the city has violently suffered in an event we all remember though.

Counting antennas, there's only 13 buildings all over America which are above 300 m. With such kind of ranking, there's already one in Europe then (Commerzbank in Frankfurt).

Buildings having their roof height above 300 meters aren't the norm in the US... I can count only 6 of them : Sears Tower, Chicago: 442,3 m
Empire State Building, NYC: 381 m
AON Center, Chicago: 346,3 m
John Hancock Center, Chicago: 343,5 m
US Bank Tower, Los Angeles: 310,3 m
Chase Tower, Houston: 305,4 m

The big difference between the US and Europe isn't really about buildings over 300 meters, it's more about buildings above 200 meters, which we can indeed consider as the norm in the US.


This is true. Chicago is the only multi supertall city if 300 metre roofs are to be seen as normal.

[GENIUS LOCI]

Sears Tower, Chicago: 442,3 m
Empire State Building, NYC: 381 m
AON Center, Chicago: 346,3 m
John Hancock Center, Chicago: 343,5 m
US Bank Tower, Los Angeles: 310,3 m
Chase Tower, Houston: 305,4 mUps... and Chrysler Building, NY, 318 m?

Anyway I agree with you that 300 mt buildings aren't the norm in the States

[Metropolitan]

Ups... and Chrysler Building, NY, 318 m?

Anyway I agree with you that 300 mt buildings aren't the norm in the States318 meters is the height of the Chrysler building from the floor to the top of the antenna. The roof height is only at 282 meters.

According to the same criteria, The Commerzbank building in Frankfurt also reaches 300 meters. :)

[Alpha]

@Metropolitan: The highest floor in Europe may be the restaurant of Ostankino TV Tower at Moscow, situated 330 metres above ground.

[Alpha]

There are two other estonishing facts:

In 1891 construction work for a 353 metre tall lattice tower, the such called Watkin's tower ( http://www.skyscraperpage.com/cities/?buildingID=41047 ) started. In 1894 work on it was stopped on it for financial reasons as its structure reached just a height of 47 metres and work was never resumed afterwards ( in 1907 the stump was demolished). If it would have been completed, it would be still today the second tallest totally free-standing structure in Western Europe ( after the chimney Endesa Termic in As Pontes, Spain and if one does not count Slovenia to Western Europe).

After 1910 building of tall radio towers started. In 1913 the central mast of Eilvese transmitter with a height of 250 metres was completed ( http://www.skyscraperpage.com/cities/?buildingID=58411 ). It was used as the masts of other large radio stations of those days for VLF-transmission, that is transmitting on frequencies whose corresponding wavelengthes are 10 kilometres and more. From the physical point of view an antenna height of a quater or a half of the used wavelength would be the best choice, but smaller antennas can be also used, if electrical lengthening is used. Nevertheless an antenna, which is longer and uses less electrical lengthening is more efficient, than a shorter one with extensive electrical lengthening.

So it is a bit estonishing that until the erection of Lakihegy tower ( http://www.skyscraperpage.com/cities/?buildingID=10547 ) in 1933 no radio masts taller than Eiffel tower were built!

[zilfondel]

Lol, don't almost every major European city already have a really tall observation tower?

As far as highrises in Canada & US, we build for both residential and commercial. In fact, many cities are seeing far more residential high rises being built than office towers.

[Alpha]

@Metropolitan: The highest floor in the European Union may be the a room for technical equipment on Berlin Frohnau Directional Radio Mast ( http://en.structurae.de/structures/data/index.cfm?ID=s0010714 ), which is situated 325 metres above ground and a size of 4 * 5 metres.

[Minato Ku]

Lol, don't almost every major European city already have a really tall observation tower?

As far as highrises in Canada & US, we build for both residential and commercial. In fact, many cities are seeing far more residential high rises being built than office towers.

Paris is in the same case but all those residencial highrises was built in 1960's 1970's.

[Grumpy]

In MIPIM in Cannes two 200m are going to be revealed for Brussels !!

[Mercutio]

London and other British cities are building quite a few residential high-rises now. They are different from the '60s/'70s buildings which were intended to provide mass housing. The new generation are luxury developments for yuppies.

New York and Chicago have loads of 300m+ buildings built or UC.

[Minato Ku]

The majority of 90m+ residencial highrises in Paris are for upper and upper middle class.
As I know two mixed use skyscrapers (Twin towers) are soon u/c near la Defense.

[brisavoine]

In MIPIM in Cannes two 200m are going to be revealed for Brussels !!
If true, then that's excellent news for Bruxelles.

Allez Bruxelles!

[www.sercan.de]

MIPIM is great
but there are never pics or infos about the projects :(

[Ruhrarea]

I am curious why Europe don't have any high rise like over 500 meters buildings? Alot of Eurpoean artichets proposed a tall towers to Asia, but why not Europe? Is there any height restricts there?

It´s quite easy to answer this question. Because there are 3 things why it is so.
Everybody knows that the most super tall buildings are build because of the high ground places in the center of the cities. In Europe the most cities have got a historical inner city where the ground Prices are very high. In fact that you can´t tear down any of this buildings the big europeans companies are seated around the inner city where the ground places are lower so they can buils big buildings but not high buildings cheaper.

The second fact is that europe have got a much higher population density then the USA. So big companies can have their Headquarter in smaller towns which are near to two big towns. (For example the Region beetween Cologne and Bruxelles).

At last European companies doen´t need prestige buildings because it´s cheaper to have a campus and many europeans thinks that a campus like the google campus is more attractive for the workers.

sry for my badly english it´s not my first language :)

[dbee84]

These are the tallest buildings u/c or built in Europe:

http://img409.imageshack.us/img409/8325/eubuildingsqz5.jpg

All Eu cities have a historical center which shouldnt be touched, but why not build super talls in business districts?

Go Moscow

[brisavoine]

^^You forgot the New Axa Tower in La Défense which is currently under construction. It will be 240 m high.

[dbee84]

^^You forgot the New Axa Tower in La Défense which is currently under construction. It will be 240 m high.

I just pasted the diag SSP made, but yeah I heard about that- Its incredible how they´re gonna change the look of that building

[Alpha]

Nevertheless, there is one supertall structure in Europe, that has no counterpart in the rest of the world so far. It is Viaduc Miliau ( http://en.structurae.de/structures/data/index.cfm?id=s0000351 ), world's highest bridge!

[Minato Ku]

The construction of the first western european supertall will start in 2008.
With the Shard (310m) in London and Generalli tower (318m) in Paris.
After in 2009 it will be the start of the construction of Phare tower (300m)
ans the Signal tower (300m or more)
These two towers are in Paris.

Paris could be the second european city for the number of supertall.