Quote:
Originally Posted by LeftCoaster
Am I missing something? How is a subjective award an error?
|
They only tallied buildings that had complete stats, making those from other cities and countries that do exist, but simply didn't have their heights listed, as non-existent.
So essentially, if a building that existed, say in China or Malaysia, that was completed in 2001, had far more state of the art facilities, innovative engineering, and stunning architecture, was listed in Emporis, had the number of floors, photographs proving its existence, and so on, BUT had no height statistic in meters or feet, it is NOT eligible for the award.
Vancouver had a distinct advantage, the Editor in Chief, Dylan LeBlanc (yes, he was an editor back then) and myself were from there. Plus all you need to do is go to Cityhall, ask for the info, and there ya go. This type of info isn't exactly easily available in most cities, and some don't even had editors to tabulate (believe it or not, I actually covered Calgary and Toronto even though I never been to those places back then).
So even back then, it would appear that Vancouver had the "more highrises", meaning buildings over 12 floors than, say Sao Paulo, Brazil. Essentially, their methodoligy is flawed, but still, they presented their data as undisputable fact, same with the awarding.
This was actually quite a controversy back then, and there was even animosity between users of SSP, Skyscrapers.com (now Emporis), and World Skyscraper Forums (now Skyscrapercity). Those were interesting times indeed...
Threaded Mode