# The "supertall" trend in Asian cities



## Manila-X (Jul 28, 2005)

This may be an old topic but one thing I noticed that most Asian cities have at least one or more supertalls (300m or above) 

It first started with HK with the completion of The BoC back in 1989. The scraper was the first to break the 300m mark outside the US. After the BoC, alot of supertalls were planned in other cities in the region especially in Southeast Asia and China. Bangkok has the Baiyoke II while Kuala Lumpur completed The Petronas which was then the tallest building in the world. China joined the trend with cities like Guangzhou, Shenzhen or Shanghai. Other Asian cities like Manila or Jakarta had several supertalls proposed but were never built due to the Asian crisis. Later on Taipei had it's supertall with the Taipei 101, currently the world's tallest.

Do Asian cities really need supertalls. Are they becoming symbols of a growing economy or a growing metropolis? What do you think?


----------



## hkskyline (Sep 13, 2002)

Dr. Mahatir had every intention to build the world's tallest building in Kuala Lumpur, as a testament of Malaysia's economic growth. It was specifically designed to trump the Sears Tower by a little bit.

However, Japan isn't a country of supertalls even though it is the most economically powerful country in the region. Taiwan seemed to have defied that trend. Other than 101, there aren't that many big buildings in Taipei.


----------



## kashyap3 (Jul 11, 2006)

the Taipei 101 sticks out from the rest of low/mid rises in the city

these towers are more of a landmark status symbol than a real necessity

there are only some exceptions in cities where land is limited

whereas all other cities are merely trying to get on the "Tallest Building" map


----------



## Manila-X (Jul 28, 2005)

hkskyline said:


> Dr. Mahatir had every intention to build the world's tallest building in Kuala Lumpur, as a testament of Malaysia's economic growth. It was specifically designed to trump the Sears Tower by a little bit.
> 
> However, Japan isn't a country of supertalls even though it is the most economically powerful country in the region. Taiwan seemed to have defied that trend. Other than 101, there aren't that many big buildings in Taipei.


True about Japan but there were proposed visionary supertalls for cities like Tokyo such as The Millennium Tower or Skycity 1000. 

As for Taipei, does the city need a Taipei 101? Doesn't Taipei lie in an earthquake zone.


----------



## hkskyline (Sep 13, 2002)

WANCH said:


> True about Japan but there were proposed visionary supertalls for cities like Tokyo such as The Millennium Tower or Skycity 1000.
> 
> As for Taipei, does the city need a Taipei 101? Doesn't Taipei lie in an earthquake zone.


Japan's supertall plans were spurred by a need for more unique land use applications for the crowded country rather than some trend or attempt to get the world's tallest crown. It was more a vision of what living might be like in the future. I don't think any of those proposals were technically viable.

101 had to deal with some unique engineering tasks to make it quake-safe. There was a major earthquake during construction, but the building was still sound.


----------



## Manila-X (Jul 28, 2005)

hkskyline said:


> Japan's supertall plans were spurred by a need for more unique land use applications for the crowded country rather than some trend or attempt to get the world's tallest crown. It was more a vision of what living might be like in the future. I don't think any of those proposals were technically viable.
> 
> 101 had to deal with some unique engineering tasks to make it quake-safe. There was a major earthquake during construction, but the building was still sound.


If Taipei 101 is an example of a "quake proof" supertall, then it can be done in Tokyo or Osaka.


----------



## hkskyline (Sep 13, 2002)

WANCH said:


> If Taipei 101 is an example of a "quake proof" supertall, then it can be done in Tokyo or Osaka.


It ultimately becomes a cost efficiency / recovery exercise. Sure, the technology is there to do a lot of things, but who is willing to invest all that money and not recover the investment?

The need for supertall development is simply not there in Japan. Unless the economy starts to pick up significantly after a 10-year slump, I don't see more extravagent projects going up anywhere in Japan. There may be a few skyscrapers going up here and there, but those are not really a trend compared to the skyscraper craze in neighbouring countries.

That's the difference between 'it can be done' and 'it will be done'.


----------



## sharpie20 (Nov 5, 2005)

Asian Cities have super tall buildings because they want to show that after some 500 years of being second tier to the west that they can prosper on the own and show the world that they have become successful. 

IMO building tall buildings 300 does nothing more than flaunt your status to others around the world, similar to a fancy sports car or mansion.


----------



## Derryn-Hinch (Jul 26, 2006)

Shame on Japan.

Japan is the strongest country economically in the region.The leaders,designers and planners in that country have let the side down.Judging on its relative industrial size to all the other countries around it,Japan should have 100 super talls.

When you consider Japan is the only real country in Asia to have a popluation who's lifestyle and aspirations are first world(Singapore also,but its a citystate),its a bloody shame they dont have more super talls.

Shame on you Japan

You are so strong and powerful but you dont want to show it.


----------



## Manila-X (Jul 28, 2005)

Derryn-Hinch said:


> Shame on Japan.
> 
> Japan is the strongest country economically in the region.The leaders,designers and planners in that country have let the side down.Judging on its relative industrial size to all the other countries around it,Japan should have 100 super talls.
> 
> ...


Japan can just show it off by it's people and it's products rather than supertalls.


----------



## OtAkAw (Aug 5, 2004)

A supertall building is not a proof of economic prowess, and Japan experiences alot of deadly earthquakes so it's better to protect your people than "SHOW-OFF"...


----------



## Kiss the Rain (Apr 2, 2006)

sharpie20 said:


> Asian Cities have super tall buildings because they want to show that after some 500 years of being second tier to the west that they can prosper on the own and show the world that they have become successful.
> 
> IMO building tall buildings 300 does nothing more than flaunt your status to others around the world, similar to a fancy sports car or mansion.


You can't say much really, if you are a such a believer in only build things if its absolutely Necessary, then why dont you americans all get back to downtowns and living in apartments as its not exactly absolutely necessary to live in suburb and drive everywhere.


----------



## staff (Oct 23, 2004)

Supertall skyscrapers are tools to show off, just like people have said in this thread. They are not really economically viable and "needed", unlike tall buildings in general. 

Japan has been the most powerful country economically in the region for a long time, thus not needing to "show off". Just look at Europe - no supertalls there either.


----------



## drunkenmunkey888 (Aug 13, 2005)

sorry double post


----------



## drunkenmunkey888 (Aug 13, 2005)

> When you consider Japan is the only real country in Asia to have a popluation who's lifestyle and aspirations are first world(Singapore also,but its a citystate),its a bloody shame they dont have more super talls.


That is blatantly false because you forgot to count South Korea. Its has a population who has one of the highest living standards in the world, equal to that of Japan. Everyone has a Hyundai, Kia, or Daewoo. Seoul has a population of 10 million and there are few buildings over 200m. Correct me if I'm wrong but I do not believe they have a single building over 300m. However, aren't they the second most developed/powerful nation in Asia? That proves your point that supertalls are just for countries who are insecure about their progress to flaunt it. As a mayor of Seoul said back in the 80's when asked why the capital of such an economically powerful country does not have many skyscrapers, "buildings are for utility not for aesthetic beauty"


----------



## 909 (Oct 22, 2003)

Japan has another reason why it's lacking supertalls. Remember that the costs of labour are in Japan much higher than in the most regions of Asia. Therefore it is much easier to contruct a supertall in China than in Japan.

But i think that the rise of supertalls in Asia is something great, but on the other hand i doubt if skyscrapers as a form of urbanity would become great symbols in the future. Look at the most big cities in China, they are all construction skyscrapers. So, how special are they in the world of tomorrow?


----------



## hkskyline (Sep 13, 2002)

I don't think the show off factor is as big as some may portray it to be. Skyscrapers in the region need to be economically viable since many involve Western investors. Nobody is going to invest in a show-off that is not going to earn a reasonable return.


----------



## Manila-X (Jul 28, 2005)

909 said:


> Japan has another reason why it's lacking supertalls. Remember that the costs of labour are in Japan much higher than in the most regions of Asia. Therefore it is much easier to contruct a supertall in China than in Japan.
> 
> But i think that the rise of supertalls in Asia is something great, but on the other hand i doubt if skyscrapers as a form of urbanity would become great symbols in the future. Look at the most big cities in China, they are all construction skyscrapers. So, how special are they in the world of tomorrow?


Tokyo for example right now planning the Sumida Tower which will soon be the highest structure in Japan. But this is a freestanding structure and not a building.

As for China, skyscrapers is a must because of high population in it's cities. But it's CBDs are constructing supertalls enough to house offices of both local and foreign companies.


----------



## George W. Bush (Mar 18, 2005)

Maybe it's a bit of a Chinese thing ... in East Asia you find them predominantly in China, Taiwan and cities with very strong presence (= strong business influence) of ethnic Chinese like Kuala Lumpur, Bangkok (one only but new ones coming in the next years) and Singapore (ok, only 3 almost-supertalls).


----------



## Manila-X (Jul 28, 2005)

George W. Bush said:


> Maybe it's a bit of a Chinese thing ... in East Asia you find them predominantly in China, Taiwan and cities with very strong presence (= strong business influence) of ethnic Chinese like Kuala Lumpur, Bangkok (one only but new ones coming in the next years) and Singapore (ok, only 3 almost-supertalls).


It can be but it's not! As for Singapore, they have that 280 height limit! Get it of it and lets see if the country builds at least one supertall.


----------

