[MEastman]

Recenty released report by Ultrapolis on skyscraper building developments of 2011, with some interesting insights:

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

And their new rankings for the world's tallest cities (chart shows trends since 2000):

http://ultrapolisproject.com/Tallest_25_Skylines_Cities.htm

Also the CTBUH Journal, Issue 1 of 2012 has an excellent report on 2011 developments, with all sorts of graphs. It is worth the read, for those interested in the what and where of supertalls built in 2011, as well as what lies ahead.

http://www.ctbuh.org/Publications/Journal/tabid/72/language/en-US/Default.aspx

[Bailey]

Hopefully, this will quiet some of the Houston critics. There are quite a few new highrises under construction right now in Uptown and the Med Center and 3 more are waiting to break ground downtown.

[hunser]

List is BS. Ranks only ten tallest buildings. Next.

[MEastman]

From the site: "The above approach, of course is not is not about determining which skyline is more aesthetic, or which appears more imposing when seen by itself, as other skyline ranking sites aim to do. It is merely an objective measurement of actual vertical dimension."

So they take the ten tallest of each city every year, get a number, and then see where it lands.

Other sites, like Emporis, do something similar, but differently.

"Certainly, a larger quantity of buildings may make a skyline appear more impressive, even if all the buildings are less than 500 feet tall, but it does not make it taller. This is why sites such as Emporis.com and Egbert Gramsbergen and Paul Kazmierczak's 'The World's Best Skylines' rank Sao Paulo relatively high on their lists even though it has few buildings above 500 feet, and none above 1,000 feet. Those rankings do not focus solely on height (nor do they claim to) as we aim to do here."

The point is to get one objective observation of skyscraper trends from year to year. I think it's informative.

[THE BIG APPLE]

Indeed I was the first to post this info over at the Bank of America Tower (NYC) thread. While the list isn't quite accurate, and there is NO real way of finding the tallest city, I can agree that NYC is not number 1 anymore.

[pico44]

Kinda dumb. Plus the website discredits itself by perpetuating the incorrect myth that the Home Insurance building was the first skyscraper.

[Misterfreeman87]

Ummm, could someone explain to me why Busan is 10th and thus in front of cities like Tokyo (15th) or Seoul (18th) ?? Doesnt seem to make any sense at all :sly:
I ve been to all 3 cities, and I cant recall that many tall structures in Busan....

[bnk]

This link takes you direct to the top 5 cities for the last few years from the same website. It just saves you a few clicks....

http://www.ultrapolisproject.com/Tallest_25_Skylines_Cities.htm

[caltrane74]

Because of Singapore's height limit, their spot is our best hope to get back into the top ten.

Unlikeky though, since everyone is building taller than Singapore.

[MEastman]

Kinda dumb. Plus the website discredits itself by perpetuating the incorrect myth that the Home Insurance building was the first skyscraper.

What was the first one?

[MEastman]

What was the first one?

Looked it up on Wikipedia:
"Definition

The term "skyscraper" was first applied to buildings of steel framed construction of at least 10 storeys in the late 19th century, a result of public amazement at the tall buildings being built in major cities like Chicago, New York City, Detroit, and St. Louis.[1] The first steel frame skyscraper was the Home Insurance Building (originally 10 storeys with a height of 42 m or 138 ft) in Chicago, Illinois in 1885. Some point to New York's seven-floor Equitable Life Assurance Building, built in 1870, as an early skyscraper for its innovative use of a kind of skeletal frame, but such designation depends largely on what factors are chosen. Even the scholars making the argument find it to be purely academic.[2]"

So it, seems that which was first is somewhat subjective, but the HIB qualifies as a candidate.

[Steely Dan]

So it, seems that which was first is somewhat subjective, but the HIB qualifies as a candidate.

it's a little silly to even think of it in terms of "what was the very first skyscraper?" for 2 main reasons. first, the word "skyscraper" has no single universally understood and agreed to definition. second, the development of the multi-story office building was a gradual development that occurred along a continuum. there wasn't one magic moment where we were all living in grass huts and then, BAM, the empire state building appeared out of the blue. there was no "eureka, this building is entirely and radically different than all those that came before it".

the home insurance building displayed some of the qualities that are generally thought to have constituted early skyscraper construction, but it's by no means the only building to display those qualities, and singling it out above all others is more than a little arbitrary.

if anyone ever tries to convince you that they know for a fact what the very first skyscraper was, they're talking right out of their ass.

[MolsonExport]

^Quite.

http://laschezza.com/sangimignano.jpg
laschezza.com

http://laschezza.com/larderello_volterra_san_gimignano_eng.php

While in other cities, such as Bologna or Florence, most or all of their towers have been brought down due to wars, catastrophes, or urban renewal, San Gimignano has managed to conserve fourteen towers of varying height which have become its international symbol.
-wikipedia

[MEastman]

it's a little silly to even think of it in terms of "what was the very first skyscraper?" for 2 main reasons. first, the word "skyscraper" has no single universally understood and agreed to definition. second, the development of the multi-story office building was a gradual development that occurred along a continuum. there wasn't one magic moment where we were all living in grass huts and then, BAM, the empire state building appeared out of the blue. there was no "eureka, this building is entirely and radically different than all those that came before it".

the home insurance building displayed some of the qualities that are generally thought to have constituted early skyscraper construction, but it's by no means the only building to display those qualities, and singling it out above all others is more than a little arbitrary.

if anyone ever tries to convince you that they know for a fact what the very first skyscraper was, they're talking right out of their ass.

It isn't as arbitrary as you say. While yes, building tall was not new, after all, far taller than the towers in Italy were the Eiffel Tower, the Cathedrals built as far back as the Middle Ages, and before that, the pyramids of ancient Egypt. But, the building methods that led to the modern skyscraper were new, as employed in Chicago for the first time. So, there was a "BAM" moment with the HIB.

Books written on skyscrapers, and I've looked at three now, all mention HIB as the "first.":
"Skyscrapers: Form and Function" by David Bennett;
"Skyscrapers: Reaching for the Sky" by Herbert Wright; and
"Skyscrapers: A History of the World's Most Famous and Important Skyscrapers," by Judith Dupre (foreword by Phillip Johnson - only one of the most eminent architects of our time).

No offense, but while your point is interesting, I - ahem - would be a little slower at the draw with the 'ass' remarks when talking about all those accomplished persons.

[Steely Dan]

^ don't believe everything you read in books. the home insurance building still had two of its 4 exterior walls as good old fashioned masonry load bearing construction, it was not the first all steel framed multi-story office building in the world.

conventional wisdom says "the home insurance building was the first skyscraper in the world' and it's a mantra that's been repeated so many, many times that even esteemed authors like judith dupre take it as gospel. however, researchers who have really dug into the history of the home insurance building claim that it's really just a hybrid structure at best, and should not qualify as the world's first steel framed multi-story office building (that itself is a very narrow, and not universally accepted, definition of "skyscraper" to begin with). the HIB was an important point along the continuum of grass huts to the empire state building, but it was not the BAM moment that it has been hyped up to be by so many authors who have absorbed and repeated the mythology surrounding the HIB without further scrutiny.

here's a link to an article about the REAL STORY of the home insurance building: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1200/is_v129/ai_4501450/


here's my favorite exceprt from the article. read, and reread this excerpt. take it to heart, for here is the truth.

Most of the inventions needed for a livable tall building date back to the late 18th and early 19th centuries. They were improved and came together in the great building boom of the second half of the 19th century in cities like New York and Chicago. The invention and improvement of the elevator was one key element in this reaching for the sky.

"If there is a building in which all these technical factors--structural system, elevator, utilities--converge at the requisite level of maturity," argues Condit, "it's the Equitable Life Assurance Building in New York." Completed in 1870, the building rose 7-1/2 stories, twice the height of its neighbors. To lighten the building and keep costs down, engineer George B. Post used a primitive type of skeletal frame in its construction. A great fire destroyed the building in 1912.

But the choice is controversial. "It depends entirely on the criteria that you choose--what you're looking at," says Tom Peters of Cornell University in Ithaca, N.Y. The importance of the Home Insurance Building, he says, has clearly been blown out of proportion. But pinpointing any other building would probably be just as doubtful. A complex evolutionary process involving many stages led to today's skyscrapers.

Condit agrees. "It really is very difficult to establish such a thing," he says. "I can remember when I was in grade school, we were taught that the Renaissance began in 1453 with the fall of Constantinople. All of a sudden, everybody woke up and said, 'Now we have a Renaissance.' History is just too complicated for that kind of assertion."

"The relative value we assign to various developments depends entirely on what preoccupies us at the moment," says Peters. "That is why history is continually being rewritten." He adds, "History is not just an amusing pastime when you have nothing else to do. It is actually an analytical tool to understand the problems that we have today.

[isaidso]

List is BS. Ranks only ten tallest buildings. Next.

Agree, it shouldn't be called a 'Tallest City' list when it's only taking into account the 10 tallest buildings in each city. The 100 tallest in each would give a far more accurate portrayal.

[MEastman]

Steeley Dan, the article you posted was fascinating. However, throughout the entire article, the words "suggest" and "may" peppered the entire content. The other thing that I thought rather interesting is that while it mentioned a discussion a the conference where the question came up, it did not mention any counter-arguments by anyone at the conference where there was a 'discussion,' and that 25 years later the "myth" persists among the expert professionals in this very field. I find that odd.

I'm not going to say there's nothing to it, but one old article that apparently has had no significant impact cannot, by itself, counter what seems to be established consensus among those professionals who publish their work.

I am also skeptical (but again, don't discount it), because people often like to write something that shows they have uncovered something 'new', or contrary to common wisdom. Like "Sharks are actually friendlier than dolphins," or "the ugly truth behind flowers." It gets more readers. And people like to believe they know something most others don't.

Still, it's food for thought, and the article did raise the question as one worth exploring further -at least by me. I have learned something new.

[MEastman]

Agree, it shouldn't be called a 'Tallest City' list when it's only taking into account the 10 tallest buildings in each city. The 100 tallest in each would give a far more accurate portrayal.

Why adding more buildings (all shorter) to the mix, does not get you to "taller" was addressed above. But, for scale or the breadth of the skyline, I would go to Emporis.com. They rank by "visual impact" which is probably what you are looking for. There, Sao Paulo ranks higher than Dubai, even though its tallest building is 170 m.

http://www.emporis.com/statistics/skyline-ranking

[isaidso]

Why adding more buildings (all shorter) to the mix, does not get you to "taller" was addressed above. But, for scale or the breadth of the skyline, I would go to Emporis.com. They rank by "visual impact" which is probably what you are looking for. There, Sao Paulo ranks higher than Dubai, even though its tallest building is 170 m.

http://www.emporis.com/statistics/skyline-ranking

Your views on this issue have been noted already. My view on the issue is that 10 buildings isn't enough. Emporis is the other extreme and not a good source either; they count everything over 12 floors.

A city's top 100 tallest buildings is the best gauge, imo.

[Steely Dan]

I'm not going to say there's nothing to it, but one old article that apparently has had no significant impact cannot, by itself, counter what seems to be established consensus among those professionals who publish their work.
carl condit is the MOST distinguished published author about chicago architectural history*. if he says that the HIB's claim to "world's first skyscraper" is myth, then it's a freaking myth. just because the myths of ancient greece have been told and retold millions of time doesn't make them anymore true. the HIB building had two of its 4 exterior walls as good old fashioned masonry load bearing walls. the other two walls were supported with an early form of steel framing, but at best it was a hybrid structure. the authors of the books you mentioned are not the true experts in the field of studying the HIB. the researchers who have actually dug into the real story, who have studied the construction and demolition of the building in extreme detail have all reached a different conclusion than the lazy authors who just repeat the same old myth ad nauseam.

Condit's larger point about the absurdity of there even being "the world's first skyscraper" is one you really need to take to heart. there was no "world's first skyscraper". it was a development continuum along which many buildings, including the HIB, played important roles in the process of creating the building form we know today as the skyscraper.

(*) Condit's work "the chicago school of architecture" is consider the bible of chicago architecture.

[Centropolis]

Frankie Wright said that the Wainwright Bldg in St. Louis was "the very first human expression of a tall steel office-building (Skyscraper) as Architecture!"

See what I did there?

:D

Actually I do think there is still a plaque on it stating that it is the first skyscraper, obviously that is a leap of faith and I agree with Steely.

[MEastman]

carl condit is the MOST distinguished published author about chicago architectural history*. if he says that the HIB's claim to "world's first skyscraper" is myth, then it's a freaking myth....
Condit's larger point about the absurdity of there even being "the world's first skyscraper" is one you really need to take to heart. there was no "world's first skyscraper". it was a development continuum along which many buildings, including the HIB, played important roles in the process of creating the building form we know today as the skyscraper.

(*) Condit's work "the chicago school of architecture" is consider the bible of chicago architecture.

Hmm, too bad more current writers on the subject either don't see it that way, or seem unaware of his views on the matter -or they wouldn't be almost universally repeating a contrary/misinformed view. Perhaps that's what making everyone so edgy?

Either way, it should be enough for you that I said I would explore the matter further. If your point really has the greater weight of the facts behind it, I'll find out on my own soon enough. In fact, I'll come back here and admit you were right and even write Ultrapolis and all those book writers an annoyed message. But for now, there's no emergency that requires that I accept your view at this very moment.

[The Jerk]

I vote (x)humans, (x)with bricks and iron, probably in the (x)Levant.

[whiteford]

It isn't as arbitrary as you say. While yes, building tall was not new, after all, far taller than the towers in Italy were the Eiffel Tower, the Cathedrals built as far back as the Middle Ages, and before that, the pyramids of ancient Egypt. But, the building methods that led to the modern skyscraper were new, as employed in Chicago for the first time. So, there was a "BAM" moment with the HIB.

Books written on skyscrapers, and I've looked at three now, all mention HIB as the "first.":
"Skyscrapers: Form and Function" by David Bennett;
"Skyscrapers: Reaching for the Sky" by Herbert Wright; and
"Skyscrapers: A History of the World's Most Famous and Important Skyscrapers," by Judith Dupre (foreword by Phillip Johnson - only one of the most eminent architects of our time).
.se, but while your point is interesting, I - ahem - would be a little slower at the draw with the 'ass' remarks when talking about all those accomplished persons.

also the Vally of the pyramids in Bosnia, which like it or not is the real deal, has the tallest of all ancient structures. much taller than the Egyptian pyramids. date built? at least 10,000 yrs past. cant wait to see what they find there.

[Ch.G, Ch.G]

also the Vally of the pyramids in Bosnia, which like it or not is the real deal, has the tallest of all ancient structures. much taller than the Egyptian pyramids. date built? at least 10,000 yrs past. cant wait to see what they find there.

The Valley of the "Pyramids" is pseudo-scientific nonsense.

[emathias]

Hmm, too bad more current writers on the subject either don't see it that way, or seem unaware of his views on the matter -or they wouldn't be almost universally repeating a contrary/misinformed view. Perhaps that's what making everyone so edgy?

Either way, it should be enough for you that I said I would explore the matter further. If your point really has the greater weight of the facts behind it, I'll find out on my own soon enough. In fact, I'll come back here and admit you were right and even write Ultrapolis and all those book writers an annoyed message. But for now, there's no emergency that requires that I accept your view at this very moment.

Steely and I both live less than a mile from the site of the former Home Insurance Building, and we're both big fans of Chicago in general, happy to accept accolades when they're deserved. And I doubt he goes around correcting tour guides mentioning it to tourists here in the city. However he's right: it's hardly a clear-cut case, and as much about the power of Chicago to make the claim as anything else.

[Tom In Chicago]

^Yeah. . . the Home Insurance Building - being the first skyscraper in the world - is just another hard-to-disqualify exaggeration that is hammered on into Chicago mythology. . . and subsequently repeated by civic boosters and book-writers. . . actually. . .

. . .

[whiteford]

The Valley of the "Pyramids" is pseudo-scientific nonsense.

"pseudo-scientific nonsense" certainly does not build 700 plus foot buildings. the entire area is a true constructed area.

[The_Architect]

"pseudo-scientific nonsense" certainly does not build 700 plus foot buildings. the entire area is a true constructed area.

Except it's been proven to just be natural hills...

[MolsonExport]

also the Vally of the pyramids in Bosnia, which like it or not is the real deal, has the tallest of all ancient structures. much taller than the Egyptian pyramids. date built? at least 10,000 yrs past. cant wait to see what they find there.

The Valley of the Pyramids is 100% pure horseshit.

[tech12]

"pseudo-scientific nonsense" certainly does not build 700 plus foot buildings. the entire area is a true constructed area.

If I remember right, the person who came up with the theory that those hills are pyramids is the local eccentric. When actual experts checked it out they concluded they were definitely just hills with somewhat unique shapes...not pyramids. But that dude who "found" them is of course sticking to his pyramid theory.

It would be amazing if it were real, but yeah it's bullshit.

[whiteford]

i would love to know who exactly has proven that they are in fact just hills. who? the evidence that they are pyramids has been proven to me, with little doubt doubt. do the research for yourself. don't believe the bullshit that the established brainwashes are having you believe. that is the real bullshit. how the hell does a structure as elaborate as the pyramid of the moon just fall there bye nature. it doesn't ever ever happen in nature. i do a lot of work in construction. tile work, cement work. in fact i am an artisan. the work that i do convinces me that the very same type of construction finishes where being used on the Bosnian pyramid structures. the very same techniques used today using cement and adhesion processes, where used extensively on what is turning out to be the entire valley of the pyramids. the underground tunnels are also real. the use of water for power has not been rediscovered until Tesla showed the word it was possible. oh ya! he was also scientist right? the people of the world who think they know everything are the ones who seem to know nothing about our past. Bosnian archeology will speak for itself. in the near future we will know more about who we are and where than the entirety of our existence. all because sam went against the established scientific dogma. here is your discription of the work being done at the valley of the pyramids.Jump to: navigation, search

Pseudoscience is a claim, belief, or practice which is presented as scientific, but does not adhere to a valid scientific method, lacks supporting evidence or plausibility, cannot be reliably tested, or otherwise lacks scientific status.
[1] Pseudoscience is often characterized by the use of vague, exaggerated or unprovable claims, an over-reliance on confirmation rather than rigorous attempts at refutation, a lack of openness to evaluation by other experts, and a general absence of systematic processes to rationally develop theories.

what i would love to know is who is the experts that have proven the Bosnian pyramids to be as such? from the research i have done it is to the contrary. over and over again i see real buildings and real structures being unearthed. in fact the Bosnian pyramids are in many ways far superior to what we are doing today in construction. the cement used is more than five times as strong as the concrete used on the base of many of today's skyscrapers. hmm cement that strong, yet it is not real, or it is fake? yet, there it is. on the side of a so-called natural hill in Bosnia, over 2100 feet above the valley floor. the real Pseudoscience is the one telling us that we know everything and there is no possibility that we cannot learn more or find new things about our past. that is just retarded egotistical foolishness, shared bye more than enough of today's know it all bullshit educators. you know, just like the ones that tell us that some Spanish guy named Columbus discovered the Americas. we all know that he never even landed on the north or south continents of America's. not only that but there was millions of people already here when the first true European finally did arrive. sorry for hijacking this thread, but if i am correct, the Bosnian Vally of the pyramids are still to this day, one of the worlds tallest cities.

[MolsonExport]

No credible expert has endorsed the man-made theory. The burden of arguing against conventional wisdom lies with the dissenter. You remind me of TalB with your style of debunking.


http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history-archaeology/The-Mystery-of-Bosnias-Ancient-Pyramids.html


In early 2006 Osmanagich asked a team of geologists from the nearby University of Tuzla to analyze core samples at Visocica. They found that his pyramid was composed of the same matter as other mountains in the area: alternating layers of conglomerate, clay and sandstone.


"The landform [Osmanagich] is calling a pyramid is actually quite common," agrees Paul Heinrich, an archaeological geologist at Louisiana State University. "They're called ‘flatirons' in the United States and you see a lot of them out West." He adds that there are "hundreds around the world," including the "Russian Twin Pyramids" in Vladivostok.


Read more: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history-archaeology/The-Mystery-of-Bosnias-Ancient-Pyramids.html#ixzz1qVXqLjBj


Evidence in support of the Pyramidal theory? Nada, except that it somewhat resembles a pyramid.

[The_Architect]

That was one hell of some nonsensical rambling...

So your proof that these are man made is because there are tunnels? (Because nobody's ever tunnelled under a mountain before), and the "concrete" is strong (because there are no natural materials that are strong). The rest was just drivel.

Only one nut in the city claimed they were man made, and geologists and archaeologists have debunked that claim. It is up to you to provide proof that they are man made, and nonsensical ramblings like you just posted don't constitute as proof.

[Nowhereman1280]

carl condit is the MOST distinguished published author about chicago architectural history*. if he says that the HIB's claim to "world's first skyscraper" is myth, then it's a freaking myth. just because the myths of ancient greece have been told and retold millions of time doesn't make them anymore true. the HIB building had two of its 4 exterior walls as good old fashioned masonry load bearing walls. the other two walls were supported with an early form of steel framing, but at best it was a hybrid structure. the authors of the books you mentioned are not the true experts in the field of studying the HIB. the researchers who have actually dug into the real story, who have studied the construction and demolition of the building in extreme detail have all reached a different conclusion than the lazy authors who just repeat the same old myth ad nauseam.

Condit's larger point about the absurdity of there even being "the world's first skyscraper" is one you really need to take to heart. there was no "world's first skyscraper". it was a development continuum along which many buildings, including the HIB, played important roles in the process of creating the building form we know today as the skyscraper.

(*) Condit's work "the chicago school of architecture" is consider the bible of chicago architecture.

To be fair to the HIB, Steely, you have to acknowledge that the two "masonry load bearing walls" were, in fact, partial party walls and couldn't possibly have been load bearing without significant alterations to the neighboring structures.

I believe the real debate over how "pure" the HIB should be more focused on what role the masonry elements had on resisting torquing from the wind and other forces as it's not entirely fair to say "oh that wall was self supporting masonry because it was a party wall with an adjacent property, therefore it's disqualified". Sure they could have set it back a foot or two from the lot line and hung it on the frame, but that's just not how they did site plans back then.

In any case HIB was a radical design for it's time that pushed the boundaries of technology and should be acknowledged as such. It also represents one of many major achievements that occurred in Chicago in the late 1800's which resulted in the evolution of the skyscraper. Sure you can't say there was one "eureka moment" where you suddenly got skyscrapers, but you can trace the modern concept squarely back to Chicago in the 1880's when the confluence of the Chicago school of architecture, steel frame engineering, and boom town economic growth transformed a city of 5 floor masonry buildings into what is essentially the first modern metropolis over 25 or so years.

[Steely Dan]

^ multiple advances occurred simultaneously in both chicago and NYC during that time frame. to place one city above the other as "the birthplace of the skyscraper" is hot-air civic boosterism.

listen to carl condit. He knew FAR more about this stuff than you and i ever will.

[Centropolis]

i never expected the thread to take a turn like that (pyramids).

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/34/Wainwright_building_st_louis_USA.jpg/535px-Wainwright_building_st_louis_USA.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/34/Wainwright_building_st_louis_USA.jpg/535px-Wainwright_building_st_louis_USA.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wainwright_Building

for those who are more knowledgable, on some kind of scale how much of an argument, compared to the usual suspects, does one have in making a bold statement of importance about the Wainright Bldg in St. Louis.

you know from complete bullshit, irrelevant, up to arguably important. i'm not wondering if it is the first skyscraper, but i never hear any mention of it.

[Steely Dan]

^ it's an absolutely drop-dead gorgeous structure. thank christ it wasn't demo'd in the era of "hey, lets tear all this old shit down because it's old".

who can possibly care if it's the first or not*, it's an absolute treasure, and that's all that matters to me.




(*) as stated previously, i find the whole notion of "first skyscraper" to be a stupid game of self-serving semantics.

[Centropolis]

^ it's an absolutely drop-dead gorgeous structure. thank christ it wasn't demo'd in the era of "hey, lets tear all this old shit down because it's old".

who can possibly care if it's the first or not*, it's an absolute treasure, and that's all that maters to me.




(*) as stated previously, i find the whole notion of "first skyscraper" to be a stupid game of self-serving semantics.

yeah, we unfortunately dropped all of her neighbors...*the price is right FAIL noise*

http://www.builtstlouis.net/opos/images/realestaterow.jpg
http://www.builtstlouis.net/opos/images/realestaterow.jpg