Why no European supertalls

[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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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 :

1. Sears Tower, Chicago: 442,3 m
2. Empire State Building, NYC: 381 m
3. AON Center, Chicago: 346,3 m
4. John Hancock Center, Chicago: 343,5 m
5. US Bank Tower, Los Angeles: 310,3 m
6. 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]

Originally Posted by UncleRando

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]

Originally Posted by Metropolitan

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 :

1. Sears Tower, Chicago: 442,3 m
2. Empire State Building, NYC: 381 m
3. AON Center, Chicago: 346,3 m
4. John Hancock Center, Chicago: 343,5 m
5. US Bank Tower, Los Angeles: 310,3 m
6. 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]

Originally Posted by Metropolitan

1. Sears Tower, Chicago: 442,3 m
2. Empire State Building, NYC: 381 m
3. AON Center, Chicago: 346,3 m
4. John Hancock Center, Chicago: 343,5 m
5. US Bank Tower, Los Angeles: 310,3 m
6. Chase Tower, Houston: 305,4 m

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

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

[Metropolitan]

Originally Posted by GENIUS LOCI

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

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

318 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/d...fm?ID=s0010714 ), which is situated 325 metres above ground and a size of 4 * 5 metres.

[Minato Ku]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by Grumpy

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]

Originally Posted by 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?

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:



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.