[stm]

Originally Posted by CaliNative

How about these?

Method 1: Add the total height of buildings over 100 meters in a city would be one way.

Method 2: I think a better way imho is to give progressively more weight to buildings over certain heights. For example, assign a rank of 1 for buildings between 100-200 meters, a rank of 5 for 200-300 meters, a rank of 10 for 300-400 meters, a rank of 15 for those between 400-500 meters, and a 20 for those over 500 meters. Add numbers of buildings of each rank in the city. Voila!

The second method favors cities with more supertalls, but a city with large numbers of lower buildings under 300 meters (like Miami, for example) could also rank highly.

Anybody have a more objective system?

Or we could all just have our own opinion with no basis other than we like it. Sounds a lot more fun than just a copy paste list of the biggest and baddest.