Why Europe has so few skyscrapers | BBC Global
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 17 окт 2024
- Only seven of the world’s 1,000 tallest buildings are in countries in the European Union.
Why is that?
The tallest skylines around the world are dominated by North America, China and the Middle East.
No European city comes even close to breaking the top 20.
So is this down to a continental lack of love for skyscrapers - or is Europe being left behind in the march to modernity?
Subscribe to BBC Global: www.youtube.co...
For the latest news, analysis and features visit: www.bbc.com
#BBC #architecture #Europe
Tallest skyscrapers are quite often built for Ego, not Functionality.
Skyscrapers are the definition of functionality. More floor space, more workers, closer business, for less space
Cathedrals are extremely beautiful, but built with the intent of highlighting the wealth and power of the church. Flexing is inherent to the human condition
Ask George bush and team its functional or not in USA, They managed to make trillions of dollars from 3 skyscrapers
not really...this applies only for three skyscrapers in the entire world (burj,merdeka,shanghai) so its wrong saying,skyscrapers is more practical and cheaper cuz land in a big cities is expencive but height is free
@@kaisaplews1407 As a civil engineer I can tell you that this is complete bs.
Bottom line is skyscrapers are extremely unpractical and inefficient. They consume (on average) several times more electricity, about 30% more gas and the windows need to be changed relatively often. A lot of this is a result of hostile temperatures at high altitudes and strong winds. Moreover, skyscrapers are an urbanistic nightmare since you have to adjust for traffic, plumbing, water supply, etc infrastructure that is often centuries old and just overburdened too much.
Moreover, their use of land is vastly overstated. Skyscrapers only make sense in very few places usually large financial centers like London or NY. For example London has a regulatory region called "The mile" (since it`s 1 sq m) and you need to build skyscrapers in order to cram more people in said mile.
Super low building are also a waste for the most part (think US suburbs) since the population is spread thin over a large area meaning there isn`t enough tax base to support the overextended piping, plumbing, cable, electricity lines, roads etc. There is also great difficulty in organizing public transport, having shops etc.
The best buildings are middle height buildings with mixed area use. Since you have enough population density to generate a tax base to support the infrastructure but you also don`t overburden it and it requires less maintenance than a skyscraper thus making it cheaper.
Hope this helps!
I'm from South America, and in the cities of my country skyscrapers are multiplying, in a disorderly way, the result of poor urban planning.
¿Sopa de macaco?
Same in China
@@michaelqu In China the skyscrapers and all the cities are very well planned. Very efficient waste management in their cities as well. They also combine the underground overground and bus services very well. Nothing unplanned about their cities.
Same here in Southeast asia. Urban heat Island effect could be a big problem
Lies again? Semen Sperm USD SGD
If you look at any list of most livable cities in the world, they are all dominated by European cities. That's what I call real progress.
Thats because of the infrastructure, public transport, walkability and great layout.
There are many great livable cities full of skyscrapers, like Chicago or Chongqing..
I'd differ, that Europe is just very bad at integrating skyscrapers into their century-old streets
You mean the list that was made by European?
@@enkryptron no way you can debate the superiority of european cities to be honest, and in no way do skyscrapers improve the quality life in any meaningful way. Walkability, Cyclability, public transit efficiency and even car infrastructure yes car infrastructure you hear that right, i know it is surprising but wait until you drive in European highways and see how far better the drivers and the infrastructure are. in Europe we prioritize humans, Europe is rich enough to build any skyscrapers they want but they refuse for a reason,
@@ahmedgouhmid6132 Typical captive mindset. Either you came from former European colonies or you are a minority in europe constantly in need of proving yourself to your white overlord
@@enkryptron Exactly, Studies done by Europeans to satisfy themselves, Classical European style "make ourselves good and civilized than rest of the world". I don't think Europeans are happy paying high rent prices for a 200 years old building with relatively low modern amenities. skyscrapers solves housing crisis
Please preserve Old Europe..should always be like that..
Not just Europe, but old everywhere. Some older areas of Kyoto are beautiful. I hope to never were tall skyscrapers blocking the temples and shrines.
You know we can do both, preserve the old and dare to create new things
Yes please. From Hong Kong here, Europe is my fav destination for the medieval architecture
No future architecture is better
Yes modernized building structures would conflict with the various antiquities that stand to preserve history offering tourism which is Europe's bread and butter although some countries now are paying the price and are taking measures to curtail the influx of tourists.
I'm a Malaysian and lived in KL where we have numerous skyscrapers. Although many tourists are impressed by these buildings, I don't, because they are soulless steel & concrete without personality whereas Europe's architecture has long history and uniqueness. We have 1000 shopping malls and office occupancy rate is 75% yet we keep on building more despite malls are struggling to survive in today's online shopping trend and lower birthrate, respectively. I suspect twenty years from now KL office occupancy rate would be 50%.
Recently visited KL and I was surprised to know that the second tallest tower in the world is Merdeka 118. I never heard about the name until I visited KL. Guess the govt should have promoted it more. Nonetheless, KL is a beautiful city. Would love to visit again.
I as malaysian totally agree with you.. i want malaysian city to be more alive by building a more pedestrian friendly cities
Merderka 118 is just Najib giving the middle finger to the patronas as towers.
same here! old buildings like lowyat plaza, sungai wang and midvalley still pretty favoured more compared to newly built malls. perhaps we don't really need those new ones but they had been approved anyway.
Yeah I lived in KL for 2 years and loved it for the most part - great people, food, modern infrastructure etc - but the lack of walkability was the biggest drawback personally. I'm in Seoul now and the contrast is stark, it's a breath of fresh air being able to walk just about anywhere - hopefully Malaysia can invest more in public infrastructure and pedestrian paths because with that it could become one of Asia's best cities.
In 100 years, they will be so glad they didn't follow the trend
No tall buildings in Paris so that the Eiffel Tower can look the tallest 😂
Paris has tall buildings but they are concentrated in the La Defense
What’s funny about that
eifel tower was supposed to be torn down after the exposition it was built for. at the time when it was built it was hated by many parisians.
Its ego @@mohamedayadeddinenouadi6304
French people are smart 😂. They want to present a generic looking tower as unique
Cathedrals > skyscrapers.
Unfortunately, It's quite.difficult to put office space in a Cathedral.
and housing price > Rocket speed
@@questioned54 In Europe there is more than enough office space because of good urban planning
Amen.
@@Alex-gf5xn That is very true.
because europe has history! i mean good protected and preserved history
Good?🤨
@BabyGirlDontEvenPlay well said
@BabyGirlDontEvenPlay go learn about economy politics and worldwide power dumbass
lol no
@BabyGirlDontEvenPlay Sweety that's called exploring and expanding your seed.
Why have you completely ignored Frankfurt?
and warsaw, istanbul, madrid, Rotterdam, milan .....
Tirana, Belgrade, Sofia, Madrid...maybe they do not have a lot but still counts
London has hundreds more skyscrapers than Frankfurt
not one building over 300 meters.
@@StormGuy.Productions Yes, but unlike Frankfurt, London was mentioned in the video.
A story on skyscrapers in Europe, but no shots of Frankfurt?
There are about as many skyscrapers in Europe as there are in New York City.
Top skylines in Europe are Moscow, Istanbul, London, Frankfurt, Paris/La Defence, Warsaw, Manchester, Rotterdam and Milan.
You also have Manchester, Leeds, Birmingham and Belfast, these cities are experiencing a skyscraper boom, Manchester has just set the world record for the highest hectangonal building in the world and also will boast Europe's tallest residential building, beating London's 278m tower by 10m, making it the 5th tallest building in Europe I believe
China isn't 'catching up fast' -it has 4x as many skyscrapers as the US, plus the the world's two tallest cities (and 6 out of the top 10) in terms of buildings over 150m. NYC for example has one third less skyscrapers than Shenzhen, and almost half as many as HK.
Exactly!😂
yes but the difference is that every chinese city is a horrifically ugly dump, whereas american cities are the most jaw droppingly beautiful, artistic and liveable cities on earth
@@ftftyffghfvghfcht6701 LOL no
@@ftftyffghfvghfcht6701have you seen shenzhen, shanghai, hong kong, chongqing?
@@destroyer-fr4dz yes. those places are incomprehensibly ugly. even the skyline alone is just not pleasant at all.
Probably why Europe is still the most beautiful place on Earth.
So delusional
As a civil engineer I can give a little oversimplified technical insight for those wondering
Skyscrapers are extremely unpractical and inefficient. They consume (on average) several times more electricity, about 30% more gas and the windows need to be changed relatively often. A lot of this is a result of hostile temperatures at high altitudes and strong winds. Moreover, skyscrapers are an urbanistic nightmare since you have to adjust for traffic, plumbing, etc infrastructure that is often centuries old and just overburdened too much.
Moreover, their use of land is vastly overstated. Skyscrapers only make sense in very few places usually large financial centers like London or NY. For example London has a regulatory region called "The mile" (since it`s 1 sq m) and you need to build skyscrapers in order to cram more people in said mile.
Super low building are also a waste for the most part (think US suburbs) since the population is spread thin over a large area meaning there isn`t enough tax base to support the overextended piping, plumbing, cable, electricity lines, roads etc. There is also great difficulty in organizing public transport, having shops etc.
The best buildings are middle height buildings with mixed area use. Since you have enough population density to generate a tax base to support the infrastructure but you also don`t overburden it and it requires less maintenance than a skyscraper thus making it cheaper.
Moreover, there are lots of added benefits. For example, US households throw on average 30% of their groceries since they have to drive to business zoning areas to get stuff say once a week instead of just going down the stairs and buying from the first floor. The necessity of cars is also a factored expense instead of walking/cycling/public transport.
Moreover you get less bone density, hearing damaging noise pollution and more obesity by living in car centric resource inefficient cities.
Hope that helps!
Brilliantly put tbh 💯
I prefer skyscrapers. They are environmentally friendly. Otherwise, you get urban sprawl into nature.
@@TheBooban If you read my comment you`d understand that skyscrapers are energy and resource expensive and are thus not very environmentally friendly.
City expansion for the most part doesn`t come at the expense of nature either. Most cities in the world are built on flat planes, coastal areas or on rivers and river intersections of some sort. The expansion of a city doesn`t come at the expense of nature. It comes at the expense of farmland.
So if you want "more nature" you should focus more on increasing crop yields so that we can produce the same amount of food from less farmland. Or we can built our cities the way I pointed out so we can you know.......not throw out 30% of our food and buy less stuff that we don`t need.
@@cowboybeboop9420 but nothing you said make sense and are empty claims. Stats are constantly just made up and faulty. There is no way they are inefficient. Putting everyone in the same building is much more efficient than spreading them out. Cities are highly efficient for humans, where you can manage everything, have public transport and don’t have to travel far. I don’t think you go to Asia very much. There is no way countries can comfortably support those human populations without skyscrapers and condos. And I don’t know how you conflate nature with farmland.
@@TheBooban In terms of population density YES you do need population density but there is a balance to be struck. Too little population density and you can`t generate the tax base for said area to maintain the infrastructure (road, cable, pipping etc).
Too much density and the infrastructure can`t handle it and you live in a dystopia essentially. The housing becomes too expensive, you`re constantly stuck in traffic and you get a series of mental and physical health problems such as anxiety, depression, addiction, obesity, low bone density etc.
These come from a series of environment effects as well as the signals and the effects the primal part of our brain makes us act upon. The best type of population density comes from "gentle density" where you have about 3-7 stories high buildings in mixed use zoning areas. With such a height you can generate a tax base that supports the infrastructure while also building an environment fit for humans at a reasonable price.
It was said that skysrapers are a sign of progress... I think European cities are very modern. They build stuff with purpose and adjust it to fit the environment. Its not just a block of steel, but rather something that covers - design, functionality and preserves the city "vibe"
The title of this video is nonsensical. Europe now has many skyscrapers albeit not as many as in America or Asia. You can't have failed to notice how rapidly London's skyline has changed over the past 20 years. Manchester is also changing fast. La Defense in Paris has plenty of skyscrapers. Moscow has a massive amount of skyscrapers.
This video is a waste of everyone’s time. Why did the BBC make this?
America is a baby compared to Europe. We simply don't have classic buildings the same way Europe does. So it makes sense for us to have more skyscrapers.
America isn't that young. Their buildings all followed classical architectural styles until WWII. After that, most old buildings were demolished to make room for brutalist skyscrapers, whereas Europeans were more skeptical of brutalism and chose to preserve their architectural heritage.
@@michaelpouget80Americanis very young. Not even 150 years old
@@leonleon2276I assure you that the United States of America has been around for well over two centuries. And it has existed as British colonies for well over 100 years before independence.
@@michaelpouget80 that's very young... it's a newly found continent you dope
@@dariusftw3378 You think they built glass skyscrapers 200 years ago? Buildings used to follow the same architectural styles as in Europe until they were demolished and rebuilt right after WWII.
Chinese here. Hate my city CBD which is filled with skyscrapers. Feels so cold and uninviting. Also the glass walls are harmful for birds.
Taiwan number 1
🦠
@@さい-w4x💣
@@さい-w4x💣
But it's an Italian company that covers two thirds of the skyscrapers built all over the world with glass ;-)
Designs them, builds them or owns them????
@@ciaranReal both build them, cover them (for example the Italian company PERMASTEELISA is a world leader in skyscraper coverings all over the world) and design them. For example THE SHARD skyscraper in London was designed by RENZO PIANO and covered by PERMASTEELISA. This happens with skyscrapers all over the world
then there are also Italian companies that build skyscrapers in the world and not only in the world, bridges, railways, subways, dams, even large navigation canals
It's funny how Europe is without skyscrapers and yet it is the most beautiful.
Indians cities have neither skyscrapers nor beauty
What about Frankfurt germany?
Since the city bombed beyond the bedrock and lost almost all cultural heritage beyond the repair and reconstruction due to monetary hurdles it kinda swept through
Europe has culture and history that we want to protect and not ruin with disgusting skyscrapers simple as that
You're right. Skyscrapers are disgusting, end of.
Manchester has a lot of new skyscrapers with a lot under construction. It doesn’t have any height restrictions or protected sight lines like you’ve talked about.
Because it has no pretty buildings to obscure. That seems to be the conclusion of the video: cities with attractive/historic architecture don't want to spoil it with big ugly blocks of concrete and steel.
@simonsimon325 You call skyscraper big ugly blocks of concrete and steel. Are you spiteful😂
New York City used to have smaller buildings with beautiful aesthetics look around the Flatiron and Greenwich Village.
Europe might have way less skyscrapers but it still has way too many.
We have less skyscrapers, but we have the Colosseum, the Eiffel Tower, the Palace of Westminster, the Cologne Cathedral, Neuschwanstein Castle, Sagrada Familia etc. etc..
*way fewer.
@@Melior_TraianoNever heard of anything besides first two you mentioned
@@daksans6764 Thats not the flex you think it is.
@@Melior_Traiano Europeans live in tiny places so they overestimate the importance of their cultural sites
Why Warsaw wasn't mentioned?
Russia is not part of Europe
What is Warsaw?
@@daksans6764 saudi model
@@BarlasF Didn't get it
Haven't you seen what happened to the tower in Pisa, Italy,?
😂
Frankfurt?
Why would they want huge crystal boxes that make all cities look the same?
Funny thing is all European cities look the same 😂😂. Atleast Asian cities are way more diverse
I think heritage is important for human emotion, for instance ,I was really miss the primary school I read when I was child, but when I came back to school everything is changed, building are rebuild, streets,parks,all the things changed, i was really sad that I had to forever say goodbye to my good memories.just keep them
Lots of American cities don't have skyscrapers or a huge skyline. Washington, D.C. Charleston, and Salt Lake City just to name a few. Many cities have height restriction laws to prevent the building of tall buildings.
Skyscrapers may look cool but they only make sense when you are physically out of space like in Hong Kong. Living on the 50th floor will just isolate you from the outside world and it will cause traffic because more people will drive to one exact spot.
It's quite simple. You don't always need skyscrapers to build very dense cities. Look at Paris, Madrid, and many other cities. They have a lot of dense blocks of max 6-8 floors. This keeps cities livable and pretty. Many European cities are at the top of the list of best places to live. Skyscrapers aren't always bad or ugly, but there are good alternatives. Skyscrapers are often built because of ego as well.
Best places to live? Only if you’re wealthy. Plus they’re chock full of gays and communists.
That's why many Europeans want to leave Europe
The only place that got skyscrapers right was the middle east tbh.
@@treek10k What about South-East and East Asia
Мэр Москвы снял ограничения по высоте зданий, боюсь что Москва будет вся утыкана небоскребами
They could easily have both, I have never understood the dichotomy. You dont need to build skyscrapper festival in the middle of your historic center, you can building them in any of the suburb sprawls around the thousand random villages surrounding it.
Just architecturally weird + the infrastructure isn't set for mass population on the outskirts. The skyscrapers double as a mass gathering (work space) for the public.
don't even destroy Europe with skyscraper, that's your edge among other countries...
Dont compare Europe with USA and Dubai when it comes to good city planning 💀
So your saying europe is worse?
Europe should not have any skyscrapers. Keep all the historical buildings.
Europe doesn't have iconic architecture like Taj Mahal or Great Wall of China maybe except for Eiffel Tower
@@daksans6764 pls don’t. Stay as it is. I like to go Europe. Each time feel like meeting old friend again. They will be there forever after I long gone.
@@yeowchongong5608 Europe is the most boring place on Earth
@@daksans6764 I beg to differ. The value of keeping the heritage is priceless
@@yeowchongong5608 You can have both heritage and modernization
how fun they didnt mention Lakhta Center which is 1516 ft (around 450 m)
462m
You forgot about Frankfurt. It's the other city with skyscrapers in Europe, besides London and Moscow.
Speaking of modern architecture, here’s a great quote:
"Imagine, if you will, the ancient Romans, draped in the dignified folds of their togas, standing shoulder to shoulder beneath the sprawling shadow of a skyscraper, a monolith of glass and steel piercing the heavens. Their eyes, accustomed to the harmonious symmetry of the Pantheon and the grandeur of the Colosseum, now bear witness to this cold, vertiginous giant. They gaze upward, their eyes tracing the sterile, soulless edges that slice through the fabric of the sky - a sky once cradled by the gentle curves of domes and arches that spoke of the gods and the earth in a divine architectural marriage.
To the Romans, this grey obelisk embodies a perplexing charade, a cacophony of hollow ambition striving, not for the immortal applause of history, but for the fleeting gasps of a world that has traded splendor for scale. It is as if the builders of this new Babel, envious of the sun, constructed a spire of reflective arrogance, hoping to blind the heavens themselves with their impudence. The warm, breathing stone of Roman ingenuity, which once rose in tribute to the caprice of human stories, now lies supplanted by the frigid calculus of efficiency, the new god of this alien era.
For the men of ancient virtue, walking amidst this forest of glass, these structures feel like the skeletal remains of a lost civilization, all flesh of cultural identity stripped clean, leaving only the bare, glistening bones of functionality. The very essence of humanity, once so intricately carved into marble facades, lives no more. The silence here is deafening; not even an echo of the forums’ vibrant debates or the bustling sounds of the Agora can be heard within these indifferent towers, where the relentless march of homogeneity drowns out the unique whispers of artisan souls.
These wayfarers from a time predicated on the notion of city as organism, a living, breathing extension of mankind’s communal spirit, see a grave dissonance in the modern edifice’s claim to grandeur. Their Rome, a testament to visceral artistry, where every column told a story and every villa was a stanza in the civilization's epic poem, contrasts starkly with the fiscal dirge that these high-rises sing - a tuneless melody, echoed in empty lobbies and sterile hallways.
In the Romans’ eyes, the skyscraper represents not progression but a regression into a Babylonian confusion, a labyrinth of lost legacies. The enormity of their disgust is not merely for the form these titans take, but for the void in spirit they represent - an abyss where the rich tapestry of human expression once thrived unbounded.
Thus, the ancient Romans stand as silent sentinels, sorrowful statues mourning not for progress, but for the soul of artistry sacrificed on the altar of the faceless modernity. Their hearts ache as transcendence is sacrificed for utility, and the celestial dance of creativity is reduced to a machine's tepid, predictable hum." - Andrea Zanzotto
I love the way euro is ..rich in history and memories
Stuck in the past
@@BREZHNIK actually no, Europe is very impressively modern and has exceptional infrastructure by all standards. It just refuses to waste money on skyscrapers because what is the value? what do skyscrapers bring to the table other than to brag? Europe can build skyscrapers if it so desires anytime but the history well that one you cant buy 😉
@@ahmedgouhmid6132 i certainly admire the historic weight behind our european buildings. Gothic cathedrals are my favourite. Nonetheless, today skyscrapers are the ultimate indicator of modernity and wealth. I criticize our european inability to combine the respect of the old with the strive for modernity. You cannot live off of celebrating past successes forever - that accounts for our architecture and politics alike
@@BREZHNIK I genuinely do get your point but arguably Europe is one of the most developed regions on earth, Skyscrapers don't make you developed, sure they do look good in their own right but for example Germany has Frankfurt which is going hard on skyscrapers atm and Paris has la défense and I think that is enough.
And Europe is eventually building more skyscrapers but I genuinely don't want it to be in historic centers but rather outside.
Because even in Manhattan most of those skyscrapers are empty And so many people are homeless and sleep on the streets?
In India, we too have such a tough beauraucracy that almost NO skyscrapers get built ( except Mumbai, but there too restrictions are very high ), we desperately need a tough leader who can break through all this age old stupid beauraucracy that has ruined our cities.
Maybe try to fix that majority of the population that are living in slums first
@@degenetron7590 Yeah and build better housing and infrastructure along side it..
@@degenetron7590I am least interested to give an explanation but living in greater Noida it's 2024 i guess you are in 1850s, racist much?? And its high time the west starts learning Hindi and Mandarin...
@@siddhartharoy4698 I don't care developing nation. Also your racism card is cute
@@degenetron7590 ya let's not use racism rather let this sink in that however many times west tried to down play us we won..... There is a reason every map in medieval Europe wanted to reach India....just how now everyone wants to go to America ... But your ego can't digest facts ....
I am an asian specifically I'm from Malaysia. I hope that europe protects and continues to preserve their beautiful continent and its traditions, history, culture, and people.
Nudism is only culture there 😂😂
The Eiffel Tower was itself highly controversial and unloved when it was built. As late as the 1930s, in fact, many people were still considering tearing it down, but then the Radio Age came and the Tower came to be seen as a perfect radiowave beacon. Then the cultural upraisal came.
You haven't mentioned about some significant exceptions, like Frankfurt or, especially, Warsaw where I live. Warsaw's Varso Tower is the largest skyscraper in Europe, if you don't count the Russian ones. As of 2023, Warsaw had 27 buildings measuring over 100 meters and the new ones are being built or designed
As a Londoner I like modern skyscrapers if they are well designed like the Shard or Gherkin in London. But just because the rest of the world has an obsession with building the tallest doesn’t mean it’s what europe needs. European cities are unique and something that can’t be easily replicated elsewhere. But just because we don’t see skyscrapers being built in europe like Dubai doesn’t mean we don’t have the capability to build them when you consider British architects and civil engineers help design and build those fancy skyscrapers in cities like Dubai. We have the expertise and the knowhow but lack the will.
True. Also like you said Italian and British architects designs the most skyscrapers in dubai
@@ciaranReal Not just our world renowned architects but our engineers too. Remember, an architect can design a building but he cant build it.
I only loved skyscrapers as a kid. I found them cool. Now I couldn’t care less. When I visited Tokyo, the tall buildings were the last thing I paid attention to
Moscow has the most skyscrapers and st Petersburg also in Russia has the talles in Europe.
Soulless buildings, nothing to be proud of.
@@AttackTheGasStation1Better than other European cities though
Other than London, London has loads growing by over 20 a year 😂😂
It depends on the city. In London they really have made it work by clustering.
I’m sorry, what you heard of Warsaw’s skyscrappers?
they are all short
The chimneys for the ovens don't count
@@NewAgeBarbarian uffff
wstydziłbyś się porównywać z polskim gównem
Skyscrapers aren't perception of progressive civilisations for me at all. What shows real sign of development is easily accessible public utilities and the way new constructions are blended in with the old ones visually to preserve the cultures and identity, along with taking care of the environmental issues as well. Europe really does well in those sections.
Europe has managed to block most skyscrapers, but we have not managed to avoid commercial ugly buildings where making a cold power statement with money has won over any attempt of beauty or human community. Also, way too many wide roads for cars in places where they should not exist.
keep crying
To each there own. I Love Chicago and Boulder, Co.
As much as I love European architecture, I believe some amount of new skyscrapers can really ease the housing crisis in many cities. I live in Ireland and this could inject lots of new houses into Dublin.
I have lived in Greater Noida, India my entire life and god we have hella skyscrapers in my citiy and Mumbai, Gurugram, Hyderabad, Bangalore but i hope the companies never build skyscrapers in historical places like Old Delhi , Jaipur and many more such beautiful places ❤❤
India has zero skyscrapers
Tell me if I’m wrong but if a city like London with very expensive rentals for apartments. Wouldn’t a few skyscrapers of apartments give more housing opportunities and with more supply than demand the rent prices would reduce. With the Burj Khalifa built in the sand , that building has proven that you don’t need hard strata to build a skyscraper like in New York where the entire ground is hard strata . For the Burj Khalifa they used concrete poles to create friction from the sand so they could build as high as 800m. If London had a few extra 500m skyscrapers to provide more apartments wouldn’t rent go down .
i dont think so because those buildings will only fuil the hunger for expensive apartments and make richer people want to move there. it wont help the commun person in housing, not in transportation
Tell me if I’m wrong but if a city like London with very expensive rentals for apartments. Wouldn’t a few skyscrapers of apartments give more housing opportunities and with more supply than demand the rent prices would reduce. With the Burj Khalifa built in the sand , that building has proven that you don’t need hard strata to build a skyscraper like in New York where the entire ground is hard strata . For the Burj Khalifa they used concrete poles to create friction from the sand so they could build as high as 800m. If London had a few extra 500m skyscrapers to provide more apartments wouldn’t rent go down . I love that Europe maintains its culture with prehistoric buildings and it’s amazing but unfortunately having enough housing for everyone is difficult if you can only build 130m high.
The tallest is the shard at 310m. They’re never going to exceed that. There’s plenty of high rises being built across London currently.
I think Berlin is difficult because of the soil conditions right?
Still Frankfurt there!
@@liqiz1755 oh nice! Germslim
Interesting video but it did not other major factors which might influence reluctance to build skyscrapers. Taller buildings create greater traffic demand (cars traffic volumes and parking) which Europe's older right of ways may not the capacity for and would cause alot of traffic congestion (without other modes of transport (trains, cylcing, etc). So I wished the video framed the issue more wide beyond the issue of laws to protect historic buildings, and instead talked about how talk buildings create traffic problems.
the opposite, suburbs create more traffic demand, not high density which makes public transport and walking viable
@@markfarrell1667 ye like just walk from your skyscrapers to the nearest store
U have more of them in warsaw poland and why its not showen??
Building restrictions aren't as tight in London purely because most of the old architecture got destroyed in ww2. Compare this to Paris which got away mostly unscathed. Personally I think architectural variation is a good thing as it shows how civilisation has progressed. Just remember that the old architecture that we cherish today (like St Paul's cathedral) was probably looked upon as an eyesore when it was first built
True good point
Please keep it like that too
Because they are not needed. Skyscrapers are very inefficient (e.g. power and maintenance) and there's plenty of space to build.
Also, somehow European cities are happiest and most livable in the entire world
China needs skyscrapers for its big population or other population density countries
Imo, when you walk down an alley, that is surrounded by skyscrapers, you feel...not loved...unlike to as medium highted coloured building that have that warm welcoming feel to it
The correct question should be: why America, having so much space, has built a lot of skyscrapers?
America is wise to preserve its world renowned National Parks. You don’t need to build on every square inch of a country. Build upwards, not outwards.
Except for a few large cities such as NYC，there are almost no tall buildings in other parts of the US. If we only look at the proportion of single-family homes, the US has more than most European countries.
Young, brash, immature. 🤷♂️
@@markfox1545It’s whats called an efficient use of space. Build up, not out
Because Europe has history and the buildings have superb architecture.
Great Wall of China alone has more interesting history than all European architectures combined
“China catching up fast”? You must be kidding 🤣🤣🤣 China already left USA behind.
I'm surprised true editor didn't catch that. It's just, spreading misinformation. 🤷♂️
USA skyscraper have existed for decades; China is just building its own in the last 15years okay but the birth place of sky skyscrapers is America
Nobody cares about Chinese cities.
@@Bjonnet55 yeah for sure the birth place of skyscrapers is America to be specific USA, but as of now or even a decade ago china is leading take for instance that china has more than 4 times the one's US has above 150m.
And if you talk about 100m and above china is something else there.
NYC can't make tope Three in china maybe top 5 and for other US cities they don't make the top 10 lists maybe the second Which might be Chicago can be no. 12 in china
You talk like more skyscrapers is better ???😅
Secon highest building is in Warsaw not london .
Is it?
@@ciaranRealVarso Tower check it please
Varso Tower, 309 m
Never even heard of Warsaw
Because you not educated 😂@@daksans6764
I think a major reason is that Europe has so much fertile land and habitable areas - people can spread out and live in medium density towns and villages. By contrast half of the US and China are deserts or mountains.
The US has the most arable land on the planet. Basically, the whole middle of the country is farmland. You can drive for nearly 2 days and it's all farmland.
@@HKim0072 Absolutely
@@HKim0072most Koreans are slaves of America and the West.
When you're packing, you don't need to prove it. You just know you've got it. 🤷♂️
The UK has nearly a thousand skyscrapers planned
Love those old architecture with intricate designs. Wanna visit European nations but very costly for middle class.
Europe has cheap architecture but still expensive
You missed Frankfurt...it has skyscrapers...
Welcome to Nairobi
As an American, I hate skyscrapers and prefer living in the more rural, quiet, country.
My sincere thanks for sharing it.
I am from Ras Al Khaimah and we have julphar tower 200 meter in my opinion, I hope the government does not build more skyscrapers, because they really distort the natural image of the city.
What does. Skyscrapers even do
We wouldn't need to build skyscrapers if the big metropolitan cities weren't overpopulated
Well, Europe basically invented cultural heritage protection in the 19th century. The thing is, during the industrialisation in Europe, many cities began to make place for the buildings, the industrialisation required. Not only America vibed about rapid growth, expansion and progress in technology, Europe did too.
The protection of cultural heritage emerged from a new fever for old civilisations, empires and remains from the ancient world. Originally this fever has its roots in the huge archeological discoveries in Egypt, Greece, Turkey and the Middle East. This fever influenced architects in Europe massively in the 19th century. That's the great irony of the this era. On the one hand, building like they did in ancient Rome or in the Middle Ages, but on the other hand rapidly boosting industry in and around cities. In fact, Europe began to erase some of the old structures to make place for the new, like I said. Paris is a very good example with the Haussmann plan and the Eiffel Tower. But during this clash between old and new, most european cities decided, that the massive remodeling of already big cities would cause too much damage in many aspects. So cultural heritage protection became a tool.
My point is, Europe wasn't always like "You can't built here your anything, because this city gate is 600 years old". Until the 19th century, many cities in Europe changed their faces regularly. Mostly because of wars, major fires or economic downfall. And reconstruction was often accomplished with modern techniques, styles and materials. Of course, there always was a sense for the old, but this intense interest to protect the european cities really started in the 19th century.
A good example for comparison is China. China has a rich history like Europe has, but they never developed a bigger sense for protection of their cultural heritage over the centuries and dynasties. You can't just say, Europe protects so much, because it is obvious or something. No it was a conscious decision, which could have turned out differently
Milan has couple of them in the business district.
Rome is beautiful without skyscrapers
Why would Europe want to be anything like a Chinese city or an American city? European cities don’t feel so overwhelming like almost everyone else. Having tall buildings does not mean success
I find it laughable that many people today still equate tall buildings with progress and prosperity.
@BabyGirlDontEvenPlay What????
@BabyGirlDontEvenPlay please, enlighten me
@BabyGirlDontEvenPlay there is a big difference between turning to and being influenced by
europe looks better than usa, uae, saudi cities. European cities look like museum. ❤
I prefer one Versailles rather than 5 skyscrapers from La Defense. But France is rich enough to have both.
Luckily we don’t that much in Switzerland
I prefer the European approach especially in Paris where it is not allowed except in the business district where there are a lot of skyscrappers so the best of both worlds. Also, having skyscrappers everywehere and randomly through out the city just blocks out the sun for loads of apartments etc
If you don’t allow modern skyscrapers, you will limit humans growth.
Modern skyscrapers ( properly managed) will grow the cities with newer and better retail , amenities etc.
Europe is like a museum
You can find plenty of modern buildings in Europe, just not that many skyscrapers
I will still prefer admiring the neo-gothic and baroque architectural marvels of Vienna, Paris and Prague rather than watching the bland New York and Shanghai skyscrapers.
Was this really a surprise to anyone?
I love skyscrapers
I think it's ok to mix old and new and move with time. Not everything has to be Europeanised. Many of us don't even have long history to have cities built up early like the Europe. However, I do think that any existing old structures should be restored for heritage purposes.
What about the other part of italy? The other part of greece? The other part of france? the other part of uk? Surely those countries have other cities besides them, why compare with ancient cities? Ofc those cities have strict regulations on tall building. There are more skyscrapers in kuala lumpur than all of europe combined including moscow, and there's china
skyscrapers can allso destroy the urban composition of a city. Cities need to be build so it is liveable. in many neighberhoods with a lot of skyscrapers or highrise buildings, city life is dead at night. its often dodgy and the wind the buildings catch are blown on the neighberhood. so in conclusion skyscrapers look cool but can be destructive too for the urban framework.
This is good thing!
Have you been to Warsaw mate?