Why no European supertalls

[staff]

Originally Posted by Fabb

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]

Originally Posted by 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

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]

Originally Posted by Builder-Lemming

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!

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]

Originally Posted by Builder-Lemming

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]

Originally Posted by rav

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]

Originally Posted by Accura

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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/d...fm?id=s0000672 )
* Hellissandur longwave transmission mast, Hellissandur, Iceland, built 1963, height: 412 metres ( http://en.structurae.de/structures/d...fm?ID=s0014958 )
* Old TV Mast Emley Moore, Emley Moore, UK, built 1964, collapsed in 1969, height: 385 metres ( http://en.structurae.de/structures/d...fm?id=s0013859 )
* Belmont TV Mast, Donington on Bain, UK, built 1965, height: 385 metres ( http://en.structurae.de/structures/d...fm?ID=s0014952 )
* Gerbrandy Tower, Ijsselstein, Netherlands, built 1961, height: 375 metres ( http://en.structurae.de/structures/d...fm?ID=s0012623 )
* TV Tower Berlin, Berlin, Germany, built 1969, height: 368 metres ( http://en.structurae.de/structures/d...fm?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/Arch.../Lev00054.html ) by a new headquater in a flat building ( http://www.leverkusen.com/guide/Arch.../Lev00294.html ) and not by a taller highrise building!

The highrise building "Langer Oscar" in Hagen ( http://en.structurae.de/structures/d...fm?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]

Originally Posted by Qaabus

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]

Originally Posted by Metropolitan

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.