# Overrated Skylines



## BlurredLines (Aug 1, 2013)

What, in your opinion, is the most overrated skyline in the world and doesnt deserve recognition it gets. 
IMO Dubai is VERY overrated, just alot of tall, ugly, empty, meaningless buildings lined up on a road isn't that great.


----------



## ThatOneGuy (Jan 13, 2012)

They aren't that empty. Also this thread will do nothing but cause arguments.


----------



## BlurredLines (Aug 1, 2013)

ThatOneGuy said:


> They aren't that empty. Also this thread will do nothing but cause arguments.


Just expressing my opinion


----------



## Dimethyltryptamine (Aug 22, 2009)

London.


----------



## Hauler (May 30, 2012)

London.


----------



## Zack Fair (Jan 31, 2010)

ThatOneGuy said:


> They aren't that empty. Also this thread will do nothing but cause arguments.


I'm agreed with you.


----------



## Dubai_Boy (May 21, 2003)

Every single city skyline in the world is overrated and poo. Especially the city blurredlines resides in. Except for Dubai ofcourse.


----------



## Kiboko (Nov 30, 2011)

BlurredLines said:


> IMO Dubai is VERY overrated, just alot of tall, ugly, empty, meaningless buildings lined up on a road isn't that great.


So i guess you've never been there.


----------



## teresabaixue (Feb 20, 2012)

Tokyo


----------



## Riley1066 (Mar 7, 2013)

Shanghai and Dubai


----------



## BlurredLines (Aug 1, 2013)

So...Many...butthurts.


----------



## QuantumX (Mar 19, 2008)

ThatOneGuy said:


> Also this thread will do nothing but cause arguments.


I have a feeling you are right!



BlurredLines said:


> So...Many...butthurts.


Careful now! I feeling a thread closing or an infraction coming on. 

There are two North American skylines that I think are vastly overrated, but I have never mentioned them because I know how much people love their skylines, so I hold back. What I have to bear regarding the Miami skyline sometimes is beyond belief. 

I only opened up about London on one of the other threads because Londoners on the site kept touting it to no end, but I'm in agreement with a couple of the other posts regarding the london skyline. Otherwise, I hold back.


----------



## BlurredLines (Aug 1, 2013)

This isn't saying that Dubai is a bad skyline, it's fantastic. But when people compare it to cities like Hong Kong and New York it just feels wrong. Dubai is far behind when it comes to those cities, I specially hate the design of its buildings (counting out burj al Arab and burj khalifa) it's all different and wierd shapes and sizes. But that's just MY OPINION.


----------



## ponywithaids (Sep 21, 2013)

I used to think that Shanghai didn't really have that great of a skyline, until I saw it in person. 

The skyscrapers look big and imposing on camera, but for somebody who grew up in Toronto, the tallest things I see on a regular basis are ten to twenty storey tall apartment buildings so the sheer scale of some highrises was completely incomprehensible until I visited some large Chinese cities.


----------



## Yuri S Andrade (Sep 29, 2008)

It's hard to tell if it's overrated or not as I'm not sure what skylines people here like. So I just say that I don't like Shanghai's.




QuantumX said:


> There are two North American skylines that I think are vastly overrated, but I have never mentioned them because I know how much people love their skylines, so I hold back.


Please, tell us! The curiosity...


----------



## IngMarco (May 10, 2010)

I which London had it better. It's skyline does not make any justice to such a great city.


----------



## Yuri S Andrade (Sep 29, 2008)

Forgot to mention: I don't like Vancouver's. Same-height glassy residential towers didn't make a good skyline.


----------



## BlurredLines (Aug 1, 2013)

London is one of the best cities in the world. It would be good if it had an amazing skyline but it doesn't need it. The buildings it already has are far more beautiful. But yeah it's skyline is a bit overrated.


----------



## DZH22 (Aug 9, 2009)

Yuri S Andrade said:


> Forgot to mention: I don't like Vancouver's. Same-height glassy residential towers didn't make a good skyline.


+1 Also generally lacks height, and only looks taller in pics because residential towers tend to have more floors. I have it 4th in Canada, and many people rate it as high as 4th in all of North America!

I think Sydney is *starting* to fall into the overrated category. Still incredibly beautiful, dense, and impressive, but no longer the best in Australia and living off reputation in that regard. Looking forward to seeing what the new (more substantial) construction can do for it, but at this point Melbourne is blowing it out of the water, and I only see that gap widening. Height limit in downtown hurts.

Sao Paulo. It looks incredible and enormous at first glance, but when you really think about it, if you put it into NYC it wouldn't make a dent in the skyline. Even NYC's "overflow" areas, such as the buildings flanking Central Park in upper Manhattan, are still taller and more substantial than most of SP.

I feel like, for me, a skyline needs a nice balance of height and density. In this case, all 3 of these have the density, but lack the height (particularly Vancouver and Sao Paulo). I don't think that they are necessarily bad skylines, just not worthy of the praise that is often heaped on them. 

If you put the Empire State Building and WTC as 2 orienting points in Sao Paulo, would the city really still look huge? If you put Vancouver (and it's 0 200m buildings) across a river from downtown Los Angeles (and it's 11 200m buildings) would we still be so quick to rate Vancouver as the better skyline?


----------



## Yuri S Andrade (Sep 29, 2008)

^^
I don't think São Paulo's skyline is overrated as people hardly acknowlegde the city has one. I guess it's its density, the endless highrise sprawl, that are highlighted, not the skyline(s).


----------



## Birmingham (May 29, 2007)

Cv1 said:


> Definitely.
> 
> In my opinion:
> 
> ...


Toronto?? :nuts:

Whenever I see comments like this all I think about is one of those people who goes on X Factor or American Idol thinking their the dog's bollocks but can barely hit a right note and walk of be laughed at.


----------



## Faisal Shourov (Jan 6, 2013)

Cv1 said:


> Definitely.
> 
> In my opinion:
> 
> ...


Why Toronto? I agree with the rest, but Toronto is a world class skyline. It's easily among the top 10 best skyllines as of now. It's fame and popularity is perfectly justified



Birmingham said:


> And people like you have helped achieved notoriety on this forum as being biased against certain cities. London being one of them.
> 
> As I said. London is not rated so how can it be overrated?
> 
> ...


Where is the skyline? What I see is some trees, lowrise buildings, spires and domes of churches, a wheel (!) and 8/9 highrises in the background. If you call this a good skyline, then it's definitely overrated and doesn't even qualify to be called a skyline IMO


----------



## QuantumX (Mar 19, 2008)

Faisal Shourov said:


> Where is the skyline? What I see is some trees, lowrise buildings, spires and domes of churches, a wheel (!) and 8/9 highrises in the background. If you call this a good skyline, then it's definitely overrated and doesn't even qualify to be called a skyline IMO


Let's not get into this type of interchange again. If you think the London skyline is overrated, fine! If people think church domes and cathedral spires are part of what make a great skyline, they are entitled to. If it's not your taste, that's fine too. There are just better ways of expressing it.


----------



## ikops (Jun 12, 2008)

I believe it's called diversity.


----------



## Faisal Shourov (Jan 6, 2013)

QuantumX said:


> Let's not get into this type of interchange again. If you think the London skyline is overrated, fine! If people think church domes and cathedral spires are part of what make a great skyline, they are entitled to. If it's not your taste, that's fine too. There are just better ways of expressing it.


I apologise if I have been rude, but that's what I feel. Ok bro, I wont comment here like this again...


----------



## QuantumX (Mar 19, 2008)

Faisal Shourov said:


> I apologise if I have been rude, but that's what I feel. Ok bro, I wont comment here like this again...


I just don't want this to turn into a city-bashing festival. We don't allow it here on SkyscraperCity. If certain things about a city just aren't your taste, then you are entitled to that. Just keep the conversation civil.


----------



## Seoul_Korea (Aug 14, 2013)

New York, Hong Kong, Shanghai, Tokyo and London is the most overrated.


----------



## Avatar (Sep 11, 2002)

DZH22 said:


> I think Sydney is *starting* to fall into the overrated category. Still incredibly beautiful, dense, and impressive, but no longer the best in Australia and living off reputation in that regard. Looking forward to seeing what the new (more substantial) construction can do for it, but at this point Melbourne is blowing it out of the water, and I only see that gap widening. Height limit in downtown hurts.


Melbourne is hardly blowing it out of the water. Sydney still has vastly more density and a lot more skyscrapers. Add to this Sydney also has multiple skylines that are developing at a rapid rate and it becomes obvious you don't really know what your talking about. You can't discount North Sydney, St Leonards, Chatswood, Parramatta, Rhodes, Olympic Park, Bondi Junction etc etc. Sydney does suffer from strict height restrictions in the CBD but that isn't stopping suburbs like Parramatta knocking up tall skyscrapers. Sydney will kill off it's height restrictions in coming years and with that we will see supertalls. Let's see what Greenland is going to put up in midtown and then hopefully we will see some movement on height with the redevelopment of Central rail yards. While I don't like what they are doing at barrangaoo, it is still the largest urban renewal project in Australia and with it will come a huge area of commercial and residential space not to forget a world class casino and 7 star hotel on the harbour.


----------



## Birmingham (May 29, 2007)

Faisal Shourov said:


> Where is the skyline? What I see is some trees, lowrise buildings, spires and domes of churches, a wheel (!) and 8/9 highrises in the background. If you call this a good skyline, then it's definitely overrated and doesn't even qualify to be called a skyline IMO


And the above is the exact problem we have. Maybe we should define the definate word in threads like these at the beginning to avoid this ignorance. 



> skyline (ˈskaɪˌlaɪn Pronunciation for skyline )
> 
> Definitions
> noun
> ...


This is the problem that we now have. It seems skylines are now only depicted as being highrise steel framed buildings smoothered in glass by a good percentage of people. 

Up until the 19th century, domes and church spires dominated the skylines of the worlds major cities. That hasn't changed. All that's changed is new technology and the ability to add different shaped structures of greater height to the equation. What London offers is those domes, spires, etc with the modern equivalent, albeit it with the modern equivalent being less evident to other major cities world wide. However it has monuments and spires and domes mixed in with their a modern equivalents which makes it in my honest opinion, much like La Defense and Istanbul, one of the most attractive skylines in the world. 

If you are telling me you would much prefer to look at 100's of glass boxes stacked side by side then that is your choice. 

Only a few cities in the world can pull it off to a degree where you go WOW. 

London, Paris, Istanbul has a different WOW factor on it's skylines. A historical WOW factor mixed in with modern architectural wonders.


----------



## KlausDiggy (Jan 21, 2013)

I have to give Faisal Shourov right. London include definitely not (yet) at the best skylines in the world . Even in Europe here are denser skylines (eg Paris, Frankfurt) in which the same number of skyscrapers in a cluster are
and are not divided into two clusters. But London has most major skyscrapers in Europe in planning. (12x 200m, approx 26x> = 150m)---> London - Full Summary of Projects

Therefore, I believe in the future London can catch up with cities like Miami or Toronto.









by Sir Chest


----------



## Faisal Shourov (Jan 6, 2013)

Birmingham said:


> And the above is the exact problem we have. Maybe we should define the definate word in threads like these at the beginning to avoid this ignorance.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I'm sorry if u feel offended, but I don't find any wow factor in London's skyline. London's cityscape is still stuck in 19th century and hasn't modernized very much. Those Gothic architecture might have impressed me 100 years ago, but there are much more visually striking skyline in the world right now. London's skyline looks basically flat against the ground from a distance, and this doesn't fascinate me as a skyscraper enthusiast


----------



## Azrain98 (Nov 27, 2011)

emm overrated skylines like what? give me example please...


----------



## skanny (Aug 9, 2012)

Seoul_Korea said:


> New York, *Hong Kong*, Shanghai, Tokyo and London is the *most overrated*.


----------



## Seoul_Korea (Aug 14, 2013)

skanny said:


>


If you don't count the 5-6 supertalls, the rest of Hong Kong is this: 





































































































So, please...


----------



## DZH22 (Aug 9, 2009)

I can see why someone would label Toronto as overrated. Personally, I am not of the opinion that it's either overrated or underrated (yet). Too much still going on and I prefer not to make judgments regarding rapidly developing skylines.

However, if I were inclined to make the overrated argument, my key points would be as follows:
1. Too many of the posters on this site like to include the "proposed" numbers as part of the city's total. These buildings aren't there yet. The city is (and has been) exploding, but nothing is a given. It could certainly catch Chicago within the next 5-7 years, but it hasn't yet, so let's slow down until more of these buildings are actually finished.
2. It seems to me, as an unbiased observer, that 80% of the new construction is just similar colored blue-glass towers. Many of these (residential) towers seem like the glass is not of the highest quality either. It's sort of like a "Vancouverisation" of Toronto. I think the waterfront area in particular is a cross between incredibly impressive, and very sterile looking. When you look at something like the following picture, I just don't find it as aesthetically pleasing as it would be with a little bit more variety in color and material.



desertpunk said:


> 2013437155 by drum118, on Flickr


----------



## DZH22 (Aug 9, 2009)

Avatar said:


> Melbourne is hardly blowing it out of the water. Sydney still has vastly more density and a lot more skyscrapers. Add to this Sydney also has multiple skylines that are developing at a rapid rate and it becomes obvious you don't really know what your talking about. You can't discount North Sydney, St Leonards, Chatswood, Parramatta, Rhodes, Olympic Park, Bondi Junction etc etc. Sydney does suffer from strict height restrictions in the CBD but that isn't stopping suburbs like Parramatta knocking up tall skyscrapers. Sydney will kill off it's height restrictions in coming years and with that we will see supertalls. Let's see what Greenland is going to put up in midtown and then hopefully we will see some movement on height with the redevelopment of Central rail yards. While I don't like what they are doing at barrangaoo, it is still the largest urban renewal project in Australia and with it will come a huge area of commercial and residential space not to forget a world class casino and 7 star hotel on the harbour.


I actually do know what I'm talking about as I follow Australian skylines pretty closely. Sydney definitely has more current density, and a bit more volume, but all of the peaks create a level, plateau-like feel for the main skyline. 
Melbourne, on the other hand, has more peaks and valleys, taller towers overall, and more impressive (immediate) construction going on, highlighted by the Pearl Tower (taller than any building in Sydney). 
Maybe Sydney's suburbs will be more impressive, but I don't think that Parammatta building a supertall is going to necessarily improve the skyline of downtown Sydney. Also, as you said yourself, the most major construction project there (barangaroo) is not exactly lighting up the world with its design.

Now if Sydney's height limit DOES lift, then Melbourne's growing lead certainly isn't insurmountable in the future. It's just that, given current construction, it looks like Melbourne will hold the "best Australian skyline" crown for the next 5 solid years.


----------



## BlurredLines (Aug 1, 2013)

DZH22 said:


> I can see why someone would label Toronto as overrated. Personally, I am not of the opinion that it's either overrated or underrated (yet). Too much still going on and I prefer not to make judgments regarding rapidly developing skylines.
> 
> However, if I were inclined to make the overrated argument, my key points would be as follows:
> 1. Too many of the posters on this site like to include the "proposed" numbers as part of the city's total. These buildings aren't there yet. The city is (and has been) exploding, but nothing is a given. It could certainly catch Chicago within the next 5-7 years, but it hasn't yet, so let's slow down until more of these buildings are actually finished.
> 2. It seems to me, as an unbiased observer, that 80% of the new construction is just similar colored blue-glass towers. Many of these (residential) towers seem like the glass is not of the highest quality either. It's sort of like a "Vancouverisation" of Toronto. I think the waterfront area in particular is a cross between incredibly impressive, and very sterile looking. When you look at something like the following picture, I just don't find it as aesthetically pleasing as it would be with a little bit more variety in color and material.


I'd actually consider Toronto a bit underrated tbh. It's so beautiful and unique but doesn't get mentioned a lot when people discuss skylines.


----------



## null (Dec 11, 2002)

Shenzhen, Dubai and London...


----------



## QuantumX (Mar 19, 2008)

BlurredLines said:


> I'd actually consider Toronto a bit underrated tbh. It's so beautiful and unique but doesn't get mentioned a lot when people discuss skylines.


I think that is because a lot of people are only familiar with lakefront profile of the city. I didn't realize how far from the lakefront the Toronto skyline extended until Isaidso showed me a few years back.


----------



## Avatar (Sep 11, 2002)

DZH22 said:


> I actually do know what I'm talking about as I follow Australian skylines pretty closely. Sydney definitely has more current density, and a bit more volume, but all of the peaks create a level, plateau-like feel for the main skyline.
> Melbourne, on the other hand, has more peaks and valleys, taller towers overall, and more impressive (immediate) construction going on, highlighted by the Pearl Tower (taller than any building in Sydney).
> Maybe Sydney's suburbs will be more impressive, but I don't think that Parammatta building a supertall is going to necessarily improve the skyline of downtown Sydney. Also, as you said yourself, the most major construction project there (barangaroo) is not exactly lighting up the world with its design.
> 
> Now if Sydney's height limit DOES lift, then Melbourne's growing lead certainly isn't insurmountable in the future. It's just that, given current construction, it looks like Melbourne will hold the "best Australian skyline" crown for the next 5 solid years.


It's good to see you following our local projects but I don't believe this is expert analysis, living here provides a very different perspective. Sydney's density completey surpasses that of Melbourne's. The only thing Melbourne does have over Sydney is a small number of taller towers, which is hardly a reason for it to be considered clearly out in front. Sydney's skyline is by no means a plateau shape it's been strictly managed to form a pyramidal shape and many photographs will evidence this. Sydney tower is taller than Eureka so as far as height goes Sydney still leads Melbourne. I also challenge you saying Melbourne has more impressive intermediate construction in process. How can you discount Barangaroo, it might not be world best from a stylistic point, but it is bringing with it significant floor space and an entire new harbour-side precinct which is far greater than any competing project in Melbourne, add to this the entire redevelopment of Darling Harbour and I fail to see how anyone could assume Melbourne was leading anything. Melbourne has a beautiful and interesting skyline but with that small height win it massively fails on density and certainly fails dismally on development outside the core CBD.

Satellite skylines are indeed part of Sydney's DNA and can't be overlooked. Melbourne is decades behind on this front. North Sydney alone has some significant new proposals and Chatswood is also seeing significant renewal through projects that almost double the heights of current towers. while they might not directly impact the CBD they have a significant impact on the city overall.


----------



## QuantumX (Mar 19, 2008)

*Post #2 of this thread*


ThatOneGuy said:


> They aren't that empty. Also this thread will do nothing but cause arguments.


*Post #12 of this thread*


QuantumX said:


> I have a feeling you are right!
> 
> Careful now! I'm feeling a thread closing or an infraction coming on.





gumnut said:


> What an insulting thread!


I want to get more of a consensus first before I close it.


----------



## saiho (Jun 28, 2009)

London is overrated.

Don't understand why Shenzhen is brought up. If the skyline is not English speaking, North American and/or European is safe to assume its underrated to a certain extent. Given how Western/Anglo-centric "mainstream" skyscraper fanning is ATM. Except for Japan, the western world knows Japan extremely well relative to its neighbors. 

Toronto on the other hand I can see why people think its overrated. Its got that inverse tip of the iceberg thing going on. All these proposed buildings make up most of the "claimed activity" that everyone is boasting about in future renders etc., jumping the gun. 

When a much smaller amount is actually happening and changing the skyline TODAY. Its still impressive but there is definitely some overhype. There are ~20 +150m buildings U/C in Toronto and ~100 proposed. Man if you did the same to Toronto transit we would have the world's best transit system. 

Nowadays, you get comparisons and chest thumping about how we have more activity than New York in the media. Even though New York has slightly less projects than us, all their projects are monster landmark tower and mega developments. While Toronto is mostly of filler cookie cutter condos. 

Sometimes I get the feeling that Urban Toronto believes that Toronto is the only city that is building buildings. That being said I do love my home's skyline and it will certainly grow well and hold out to the "rush" Asian mega skylines.


----------



## neilio (Jan 12, 2005)

gumnut said:


> What an insulting thread!


Pfft, you're just mad that Melbourne is better than Sydney. 
(troll face).


----------



## 009 (Nov 28, 2007)

Toronto


----------



## 519992 (Mar 31, 2012)

QuantumX said:


> All in all, I think Dubai is the closest thing to looking like Coruscant that we have here on earth.


This^^


----------



## Joseph Gomes (Jul 31, 2013)

No matter you hate Dubai or not, it's truly a special skyscrapercity in the world. It might not have the density of Hong Kong or architecture of New York, but it has the sheer amount of skyscrapers to be called a remarkable skyscrapercity. You may dislike UAE for their economy, or their culture (which is insanely stupid imo), but one can't deny that Dubai has brought supertall building revolution on this planet. It it rightly deserves the recognition it gets. 18 supertall is not a matter of joke, whether you like Dubai's architecture or not. 

Like everybody else, I also believe London is extremely overhyped. With its puny skyline, I don't understand how Londoners attempt to compare their skyline and downplay cities like Dubai or Hong Kong which are renowned for their skylines. If London's handful amount of buildings were built in any Chinese city, they would be labeled as ugly or tacky. London skyline is talked about because of London's global fame only, nothing else.


----------



## 519992 (Mar 31, 2012)

Actually it's..


Seoul_Korea said:


> New York, Hong Kong, *Shanghai*, *Tokyo* and London is the most overrated.


----------



## Sid Vicious (Jul 21, 2011)

London is the most overrated skyline. Singapore is also a bit overrated.


----------



## Birmingham (May 29, 2007)

Maybe London is the most overrated because it never had a highrise skyline up until 2000-2001 and the fact it's transformation over the last 10 years has seen alot of positive articles wrote about it?? 

Maybe it's growth upwards has caused more of a stir because of it's traditional lowrise topography?? I know I have been more intrigued with London's growth upwards then most traditionally highrise cities. 

And Joseph Gomez. London skyscrapers would be called tacky in Chinese cities?? Swiss RE, Leadenhall, The Shard and Fenchurch are the only towers that differ from a boxyness design. 

These 4 skyscrapers are the best architecturally designed towers anywhere in Europe. Built anywhere they would be regarded as the best architecturally designed towers.

Get that frigging chip of your shoulder. You sound ridiculous.


----------



## BlurredLines (Aug 1, 2013)

Joseph Gomes said:


> No matter you hate Dubai or not, it's truly a special skyscrapercity in the world. It might not have the density of Hong Kong or architecture of New York, but it has the sheer amount of skyscrapers to be called a remarkable skyscrapercity. You may dislike UAE for their economy, or their culture (which is insanely stupid imo), but one can't deny that Dubai has brought supertall building revolution on this planet. It it rightly deserves the recognition it gets. 18 supertall is not a matter of joke, whether you like Dubai's architecture or not.
> 
> Like everybody else, I also believe London is extremely overhyped. With its puny skyline, I don't understand how Londoners attempt to compare their skyline and downplay cities like Dubai or Hong Kong which are renowned for their skylines. If London's handful amount of buildings were built in any Chinese city, they would be labeled as ugly or tacky. London skyline is talked about because of London's global fame only, nothing else.



True that.


----------



## BlurredLines (Aug 1, 2013)

Frozt said:


> London better than this? I love London, but do you think its comparable?
> Dubai isn't the most underrated, but probably the most hated, by people like you


LOL when did I ever say london is better than dubai. I just said london isn't nearly as overrated as dubai. Dubai ain't as special as everybody says it is.


----------



## BlurredLines (Aug 1, 2013)

QuantumX said:


> *Post #2 of this thread*
> 
> 
> *Post #12 of this thread*
> ...


People have a thread for ugly buildings, overrated buildings, ugly cities and everything idk why people are getting so butthurt over this one.


----------



## QuantumX (Mar 19, 2008)

BlurredLines said:


> People have a thread for ugly buildings, overrated buildings, ugly cities and everything idk why people are getting so butthurt over this one.


And I really don't care for any of those threads. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.


----------



## neilio (Jan 12, 2005)

BlurredLines said:


> People have a thread for ugly buildings, overrated buildings, ugly cities and everything idk why people are getting so butthurt over this one.


People have more of a connection with entire cities, especially cities that they live in more so than individual buildings. There is ego attached. ON TOP of that, a near majority of the people here (like ANY FORUM) are not that intelligent or are simply lazy and fail to research the facts before posting. When judging a skyline you should always take into account a few things, for example:
-natural setting (to an extent)
-aesthetics, are the buildings nice looking, are they good quality? How about the shape of the skyline, Vancouver's table top vs Toronto's peaked mountain.
-height and Quantity statistics, this is where most morons fail horribly. There are like 100 different websites you can get these stats from, if all else fails take a look at the damn skyscraperpage diagrams, THIS IS NOT ROCKET SCIENCE. 

As a result of peoples failure to research properly, they spew retarded crap out of their mouths (fingers) which in turn offends others because of how factually wrong they are and how badly that retarded crap misrepresents their city or a city that they like. 

For example, If I were to say "If every proposal in Chicago and Toronto were built within the next 5 years, Toronto would have a higher average height than Chicago and MORE towers over 200m" I would be stating A FACT, but the uneducated masses will simply spew crap about how Toronto could NEVER catch Chicago and turn it into a big city vs city pissing contest, rather than just... researching and confirming those statistics and facts... And if they lose that argument they would graduate onto the next argument "Well most of them probably wont be built yadayadayada", even though we've calculated that roughly 80% of all Toronto proposals are constructed (which is a VERY high success rate). So why do people get butt hurt? Because they are stupid and refuse to research and accept the facts. People who are highly knowledgeable and intelligent... DONT GET BUTTHURT.


----------



## isaidso (Mar 21, 2007)

saiho said:


> Toronto on the other hand I can see why people think its overrated. Its got that inverse tip of the iceberg thing going on.


Do you think people include proposals and construction in their ratings? I suppose there's some of that going on, but I suspect most people use photographs supplemented with data to arrive at their decisions. Btw, what did you mean by 'inverse tip of the iceberg'? 



saiho said:


> Sometimes I get the feeling that Urban Toronto believes that Toronto is the only city that is building buildings.


That site can be a little much to take, but I do find its members to be well informed/well traveled. It's a city based site as the name implies so development that happens beyond Toronto is not the focus. It's an 'industry' site populated by people in architecture, urban planning, and the development industry.


----------



## wino (Sep 8, 2009)

Highcliff said:


> balneario camboriu in brazil is a bit overrated...


never even heard of the place.. 
how is it overrated?


Sao Paolo is NOT overrated.
You don't see it often on rankings..


----------



## wino (Sep 8, 2009)

Sid Vicious said:


> London is the most overrated skyline. Singapore is also a bit overrated.


I agree on Singapore. 
always in the top 10 rankings.. which I really don't understand..


----------



## isaidso (Mar 21, 2007)

saiho said:


> If the skyline is not English speaking, North American and/or European is safe to assume its underrated to a certain extent. Given how Western/Anglo-centric "mainstream" skyscraper fanning is ATM. Except for Japan, the western world knows Japan extremely well relative to its neighbors.


I agree that it's very Western-Anglo centric, but isn't everything? We're also on an English speaking site. It would be interesting to see what people's perceptions of skylines are around the world on a Chinese site or Indian site. 

That said, Asian skylines are beginning to get the attention they deserve. Tokyo, Singapore, and Hong Kong have long been recognized, but people's horizons are expanding.


----------



## Azrain98 (Nov 27, 2011)

what a thread....


----------



## isaidso (Mar 21, 2007)

wino said:


> never even heard of the place..
> how is it overrated?


Wino, you made me laugh.


----------



## TowerVerre:) (Dec 1, 2012)

I like Dubai (judged from pictures), it has much tall towers, the city itself is designed pretty futuristic and many buildings are great (Rose Tower, Burj Al Arab, Burj Khalifa, Emirates Towers). I don't know why people everytime say that all of Dubai's buildings are ugly and tracky while there are this masterpieces. Also it is pretty dense from my point of view(Dubai Marina). In this Forum Dubai is underrated because it seems nearly everybody hates it. The only bad thing about Dubai is the temperature.


----------



## BlurredLines (Aug 1, 2013)

Should I delete thread?


----------



## TowerVerre:) (Dec 1, 2012)

^^ No it is interesting in my opinion.


----------



## CarltonHill (Dec 11, 2011)

I am sorry but I think London and LA are both overrated.  sorry.


----------



## saiho (Jun 28, 2009)

isaidso said:


> Do you think people include proposals and construction in their ratings?


Yes I would say they tend to if they know follow what is going on in the city though the SCC skyscraper projects boards... with the casual post about the boom in the poll's thread. In North American news I do think Toronto is a bit overexposed in the skyscraper boom. Though, not as much as pre-bust Miami.



isaidso said:


> I suppose there's some of that going on, but I suspect most people use photographs supplemented with data to arrive at their decisions.


Exhibit A:



neilio said:


> For example, If I were to say ``If every proposal in Chicago and Toronto were built within the next 5 years, Toronto would have a higher average height than Chicago and MORE towers over 200m`` I would be stating A FACT, but the uneducated masses will simply spew crap about how Toronto could NEVER catch Chicago and turn it into a big city vs city pissing contest, rather than just... researching and confirming those statistics and facts... And if they lose the argument their they would graduate onto the next argument ``Well most of them probably wont be built yadayadayada``, even though we`ve calculated that roughly 80% of all Toronto proposals are constructed (which is a VERY high success rate).


Not saying he is wrong but people know this stuff and they will factor it in. Also note that Toronto's proposals takes forever to finish. Yes 80% will finish but most will be altered and the bigger question is when will they finish. 



isaidso said:


> Btw, what did you mean by 'inverse tip of the iceberg'?


the opposite of the saying "tip of the iceberg" more and more people seem to focus more an either the huge amount of proposals that might not be built as is if at all or the new super proposals such as project core, pinnacle center, oxford redevelopment, Holt Renfrew redevelopment. When what is actually happening is much smaller.



isaidso said:


> I agree that it's very Western-Anglo centric, but isn't everything? We're also on an English speaking site.


Exactly, so by default the non-Western-Anglo skylines are most likely not overrated. This English speaking site has more influence on the skyline rating scene than say gaolumi etc.



isaidso said:


> That said, Asian skylines are beginning to get the attention they deserve. Tokyo, Singapore, and Hong Kong have long been recognized, but people's horizons are expanding.


Starting is the key word here. I hardly think a skyline that is starting to be recognized of its merit to be overrated.


----------



## QuantumX (Mar 19, 2008)

BlurredLines said:


> Should I delete thread?


You can't delete the thread. You can ask to have it deleted if you want, but most people seem to find it interesting enough to keep, so I won't delete it. Closing is preferable to deleting because of opinions already expressed unless a thread is an absolute train wreck.


----------



## bigbarcelona (Dec 11, 2005)

I'm sorry, but London along with many European cities (PARIS, MADRID, MILAN and many others) don't have an underrated skyline... They have overrated or non existent skylines. 

Just because these cities have buildings with history or monuments that made these cities great doesn't mean they have a skyline. I know people will defend London to the teeth especially the British, but I'm sorry, London doesn't have a skyline AT ALL! Chicago , NY, Miami, Toronto, and Hong Kong are cities with a great skyline, and London is not.

Is London or Paris greatness affected because they don't a great skyline? No, because London and Paris will always be amazing and incredible cities, but the skyline is clearly not a representation of how great these two European cities along with many are. 

So let's stop pretending and defending a city that clearly doesn't have anything to really show for.


----------



## dexter26 (Feb 24, 2008)

^^ But London and Paris are more historic cities, I mean that's exactly the reason why their skylines are less impressive than the other cities you mention. Because of history.

In practical terms it wouldn't be possible to have skylines like Chicago, N.Y. or Hong Kong in those cities. Not without disrespecting, disregarding and tearing down quite a lot of history. 

I'll put it in another way; in a way your judgment of London and Paris as overrated skylines is a tad childish or immature. Same way a kid would probably prefer a pastel colored photo of Nicki Minaj or Hannah Montana or something, to a slightly dark black and white photo of some urban decay place. But a photo artist or pro photographer probably wouldn't.


----------



## QuantumX (Mar 19, 2008)

And they most certainly do have skylines. If they are not to someones individual taste and someone thinks they are overrated because of what someone thinks a skyline should be composed of, then fine. That's all you have to say.


----------



## Good Karma (Mar 22, 2011)

bigbarcelona said:


> I'm sorry, but London along with many European cities (PARIS, MADRID, MILAN and many others) don't have an underrated skyline... They have overrated or non existent skylines.
> 
> Just because these cities have buildings with history or monuments that made these cities great doesn't mean they have a skyline. I know people will defend London to the teeth especially the British, but I'm sorry, London doesn't have a skyline AT ALL! Chicago , NY, Miami, Toronto, and Hong Kong are cities with a great skyline, and London is not.
> 
> ...


You are VERY ignorant and narrow minded if you believe what you wrote.


----------



## saiho (Jun 28, 2009)

dexter26 said:


> ^^ But London and Paris are more historic cities, I mean that's exactly the reason why their skylines are less impressive than the other cities you mention. Because of history.
> 
> In practical terms it wouldn't be possible to have skylines like Chicago, N.Y. or Hong Kong in those cities. Not without disrespecting, disregarding and tearing down quite a lot of history.


o·ver·rate (vr-rt)
tr.v. o·ver·rat·ed, o·ver·rat·ing, o·ver·rates
To overestimate the merits of; rate too highly.

I think you misread the posts, but we are not judging London as a city but for its skyline. There are tons of cities in the world that don't have impressive skylines because of X or Y but the fact is they don't have a impressive skyline. Therefore shall be rated accordingly. The question is: *What makes London so special?* It has a collection of critically acclaimed buildings but is that really enough to be rated that highly? 



dexter26 said:


> I'll put it in another way; in a way your judgment of London and Paris as overrated skylines is a tad childish or immature. Same way a kid would probably prefer a pastel colored photo of Nicki Minaj or Hannah Montana or something, to a slightly dark black and white photo of some urban decay place. But a photo artist or pro photographer probably wouldn't.


So Toronto and Singapore crowd have tastes akin to are the Nicki Minaj or Hannah Montana skylines and London and Paris crowd have tastes akin Bach or Mozart. Don't you think that's a bit judgmental.


----------



## isaidso (Mar 21, 2007)

saiho said:


> Exhibit A:


Considering there are likely 100+ forum members from Toronto, being able to cite 1 that takes proposals and U/C in reaching a decision isn't evidence that it's what people from Toronto are doing. Even finding 10 that do that isn't much of an argument either. 

Besides, 'Neilio' was clearly rebutting claims that Toronto would never catch Chicago in building count. I'm not sure how you can extrapolate that to mean that he's using U/C and Proposals in determining where Toronto *currently* stacks up. 



saiho said:


> Not saying he is wrong but people know this stuff and they will factor it in.


You really haven't shown any evidence that people are doing that. 



saiho said:


> Exactly, so by default the non-Western-Anglo skylines are most likely not overrated. This English speaking site has more influence on the skyline rating scene than say gaolumi etc.
> 
> Starting is the key word here. I hardly think a skyline that is starting to be recognized of its merit to be overrated.


I've looked through pages of this thread and I don't see too many people arguing that Asian cities are over rated so I don't understand your criticism. If anything, people seem to be in agreement that they are under rated. I've seen Singapore mentioned a couple times, but that's just one skyline. :weird:


----------



## saiho (Jun 28, 2009)

isaidso said:


> I've looked through pages of this thread and I don't see too many people arguing that Asian cities are over rated so I don't understand your criticism. If anything, people seem to be in agreement that they are under rated. I've seen Singapore mentioned a couple times, but that's just one skyline. :weird:


right, I guess I was reading too much in the beginning where Shenzhen and Hong Kong was called out.


----------



## neilio (Jan 12, 2005)

saiho said:


> :Not saying he is wrong but people know this stuff and they will factor it in. Also note that Toronto's proposals takes forever to finish. Yes 80% will finish but most will be altered and the bigger question is when will they finish.


That's the thing though, they DON'T know this stuff and they most certainly do not factor it in. You put far to much confidence/faith in people lol. If they knew what they were talking about or simply took the time to research the facts before stating their opinion I would not have to be correcting them so often lol. 

As for alterations, I'm not sure how that really fits in here because yes they happen, take Trump for example that was a good example of a large height decrease and design change (how disappointing), but most of the time they include a height increase and design changes that hardly affect the over all building for better or worse.

I can see some cities like Dubai taking a building from Proposed to U/C in a very short time, they are trying to increase the size of their urban ***** as fast as they can to impress the world, it seams that cities like Toronto have WAY MORE red tape and considerations in planning such as zoning by-laws and consideration for historic buildings etc.
So I think the time in which it takes most towers in Toronto to get to the construction faze is pretty average over all, there are some exceptions like L Tower, that building took for freakin EVER so much so that many Toronto forumers thought it was dead lol. However if we are using that in the context of Toronto and Chicago and we surmise that Chicago puts up Towers faster than Toronto on average it would still not change anything because Toronto has a higher percentage/success rate of tower proposals hitting the construction faze to begin with.


----------



## neilio (Jan 12, 2005)

Good Karma said:


> You are VERY ignorant and narrow minded if you believe what you wrote.


Seriously there is no need to be that harsh to somebody even if its absolutely the truth. Everyone here needs to understand something, yes people have different opinions and ideas of what a skyline is and in some cases their ideas and opinions are based on ignorant and or narrow minded views. Calling them out on it is one option, simply explaining why you disagree with them is another and may I add a BETTER option.

What we lack in this thread is a definition of what we are talking about exactly and in what context. It is technically wrong to say that London does not have a skyline, hell my current city of 21,000 people HAS A "SKYLINE" as per the dictionary definition lol. SO, context people. I would argue that the context is one where we are debating over rated MODERN skylines. In other words skylines with buildings that were built since the 1920's and later and reach anywhere from 150m to burj khalifa. Judging by most posts here, THAT is the context, the second we start saying "ya but London has gorgeous buildings from 1500AD that have huge cool spires and neat stonework and they look great in the skyline" we are comparing apples with oranges. So unless people reach a consensus on the context in which the topic is being discussed, people will continue the never ending "LONDON IS OVER RATED!", "NUH UH ITS THE BEST EVER!" argument/retardation.


----------



## BlurredLines (Aug 1, 2013)

bigbarcelona said:


> I'm sorry, but London along with many European cities (PARIS, MADRID, MILAN and many others) don't have an underrated skyline... They have overrated or non existent skylines.
> 
> Just because these cities have buildings with history or monuments that made these cities great doesn't mean they have a skyline. I know people will defend London to the teeth especially the British, but I'm sorry, London doesn't have a skyline AT ALL! Chicago , NY, Miami, Toronto, and Hong Kong are cities with a great skyline, and London is not.
> 
> ...


I'm sorry I've NEVER heard ANYONE mention Paris, Madrid or Milan in their list. They are barely rated.


----------



## Birmingham (May 29, 2007)

The problem we have here is the fact that 80% of the people replying to this thread do not know the definition of "Skyline". 

Skyline does not mean to Tall. Modern. Skyscrapers. only.


----------



## Good Karma (Mar 22, 2011)

neilio said:


> Seriously there is no need to be that harsh to somebody even if its absolutely the truth. Everyone here needs to understand something, yes people have different opinions and ideas of what a skyline is and in some cases their ideas and opinions are based on ignorant and or narrow minded views. Calling them out on it is one option, simply explaining why you disagree with them is another and may I add a BETTER option.
> 
> What we lack in this thread is a definition of what we are talking about exactly and in what context. It is technically wrong to say that London does not have a skyline, hell my current city of 21,000 people HAS A "SKYLINE" as per the dictionary definition lol. SO, context people. I would argue that the context is one where we are debating over rated MODERN skylines. In other words skylines with buildings that were built since the 1920's and later and reach anywhere from 150m to burj khalifa. Judging by most posts here, THAT is the context, the second we start saying "ya but London has gorgeous buildings from 1500AD that have huge cool spires and neat stonework and they look great in the skyline" we are comparing apples with oranges. So unless people reach a consensus on the context in which the topic is being discussed, people will continue the never ending "LONDON IS OVER RATED!", "NUH UH ITS THE BEST EVER!" argument/retardation.


Very good post, I agree. The reason why I didn't provide an explanation is because I already posted on the thread explaining a skyline doesn't just mean tall buildings. If he is going to trash talk about other city skylines with such harsh language (I.e this City has no skyline) which is infanct untrue then I have every right to call him ignorant. Who the hell made him the boss of the world to determine what a skyline should consist of??


----------



## Joseph Gomes (Jul 31, 2013)

Birmingham said:


> The problem we have here is the fact that 80% of the people replying to this thread do not know the definition of "Skyline".
> 
> Skyline does not mean to Tall. Modern. Skyscrapers. only.


This is Skyscrapercity. I'm surprised that you expect to find many people here who think skylines without skyscrapers should be regarded appealing or impressive. Like 90% of other members here, I too visit this site to see photos and update of various skyscrapers around the globe. If people think that skylines without skyscrapers are boring and ugly, then the bias against those skylines is perfectly justified and reasonable.

However, your views about skylines can't be modified and everybody else's would also remain the same. That's why I suggest the moderator to consider deleting this thread. If you think ancient churches and lowrises building make world class skyline, then so be it. But on skyscrapercity, expect people to favour tall skylines over short ones. The name of the website speaks for itself


----------



## neilio (Jan 12, 2005)

Joseph Gomes said:


> This is Skyscrapercity. I'm surprised that you expect to find many people here who think skylines without skyscrapers should be regarded appealing or impressive. Like 90% of other members here, I too visit this site to see photos and update of various skyscrapers around the globe. If people think that skylines without skyscrapers are boring and ugly, then the bias against those skylines is perfectly justified and reasonable.
> 
> However, your views about skylines can't be modified and everybody else's would also remain the same. That's why I suggest the moderator to consider deleting this thread. If you think ancient churches and lowrises building make world class skyline, then so be it. But on skyscrapercity, expect people to favour tall skylines over short ones. The name of the website speaks for itself


This is my sentiment exactly, this is skyscrapercity and the overwhelming majority will define a skyline by its MODERN 1920AD+ buildings over 100m. There is no debating this given the very nature and purpose of the website. Debates like this are fine IMO and can greatly change peoples attitudes and work to educate them even. As long as people are aware of the context in which this is being discussed then there wouldn't be a problem.


----------



## QuantumX (Mar 19, 2008)

Guys (gals) please! However, you define what a skyline is, it is still all a matter of ones individual taste as to what they think a nice skyline should be composed of, which everybody is entitled to. Whatever any individual thinks makes a great skyline is just fine, whether it be height, density, or a balance of the old and the new. 

With me, for instance, I like the overall mass and density of the skylines of Shanghai and Shenzen, but I have trouble with some of the architectural shapes and designs. It's all in what I'm used to, I guess, being an American who has only seen the skylines of New York and Chicago up close. 

Best, overrated, underrated, it's all individual taste. I'm often baffled by what a lot of people feel and think about a lot of different things, but that's life. I have the strangest couple living next door to me and another strange couple farther down the hall, but who am I to criticize the choices they've made in life, so let's just try to keep the conversation more civil or let's have it remain that way for those of you who know how to make civil conversation.


----------



## Joseph Gomes (Jul 31, 2013)

QuantumX said:


> Guys (gals) please! However, you define what a skyline is, it is still all a matter of ones individual taste as to what they think a nice skyline should be composed of, which everybody is entitled to. Whatever any individual thinks makes a great skyline is just fine, whether it be height, density, or a balance of the old and the new.
> 
> With me, for instance, I like the overall mass and density of the skylines of Shanghai and *Shenzen*, but I have trouble with some of the architectural shapes and designs. It's all in what I'm used to, I guess, being an American who has only seen the skylines of New York and Chicago up close.
> 
> Best, overrated, underrated, it's all individual taste. I'm often baffled by what a lot of people feel and think about a lot of different things, but that's life. I have the strangest couple living next door to me and another strange couple farther down the hall, but who am I to criticize the choices they've made in life, so let's just try to keep the conversation more civil or let's have it remain that way for those of you who know how to make civil conversation.


Shenzhen is still a newbie in the skyline competition, it should not be judged so early. Most of taller skyscrapers of Shenzhen are yet to rise above the ground, and those towers will vastly change the cityscape once they're built. Shenzhen's _'ugly'_ highrise apartments were built out of demand. Shenzhen is far more populated than all major cities of USA, thus it has to built lots of tall apartment all over the city. That's why the CBD's of Shenzhen don't look so prominent. Also Shenzhen is bordered by mountains and sea, so building tall apartments will save lots of valuable space and mountains won't have to be sacrificed.


----------



## QuantumX (Mar 19, 2008)

Joseph Gomes said:


> Shenzhen is still a newbie in the skyline competition, it should not be judged so early. *Most of taller skyscrapers of Shenzhen are yet to rise above the ground, and those towers will vastly change the cityscape once they're built. *Shenzhen's _'ugly'_ highrise apartments were built out of demand. Shenzhen is far more populated than all major cities of USA, thus it has to built lots of tall apartment all over the city. That's why the CBD's of Shenzhen don't look so prominent. Also Shenzhen is bordered by mountains and sea, so building tall apartments will save lots of valuable space and mountains won't have to be sacrificed.


That will certainly be interesting to see! The same applies to Miami. Our taller skyscrapers have yet to make it out of the ground as well. The market remains strong here, but like Singapore, we are limited by height restrictions due to the proximity of Miami International Airport, but at least we can have supertalls at just over 1,000 feet. Singapore cannot. We have two supertalls currently planned. Without the market collapse of the last decade, we would have had a total of four planned altogether.


----------



## EU-Europa (Oct 2, 2013)

Faisal Shourov said:


> I'm sorry if u feel offended, but I don't find any wow factor in London's skyline. London's cityscape is still stuck in 19th century and hasn't modernized very much. Those Gothic architecture might have impressed me 100 years ago, but there are much more visually striking skyline in the world right now. London's skyline looks basically flat against the ground from a distance, and this doesn't fascinate me as a skyscraper enthusiast


LOL. You're clearly a troll. Let me guess; you think Dhaka has a better skyline than London? :nuts: :lol:


----------



## ThatOneGuy (Jan 13, 2012)

This thread is borderline city vs. city


----------



## EU-Europa (Oct 2, 2013)

bigbarcelona said:


> I'm sorry, but London along with many European cities (PARIS, MADRID, MILAN and many others) don't have an underrated skyline... They have overrated or non existent skylines.
> 
> Just because these cities have buildings with history or monuments that made these cities great doesn't mean they have a skyline. I know people will defend London to the teeth especially the British, but I'm sorry, London doesn't have a skyline AT ALL! Chicago , NY, Miami, Toronto, and Hong Kong are cities with a great skyline, and London is not.
> 
> ...


I really hope you're trolling, because otherwise, this is just a display of your ignorance. You clearly haven't seen the skylines of these cities in person, or you have a false understanding of the term "skyline" hno:


----------



## 009 (Nov 28, 2007)

EU-Europa said:


> LOL. You're clearly a troll. Let me guess; you think Dhaka has a better skyline than London? :nuts: :lol:


lol this troll tried to tell me dhaka had a better and denser skyline than hong kong and new york in another thread


----------



## Taller Better (Aug 27, 2005)

Clearly City vs City, and wholly based on negativity. Please do NOT start threads like this again as all it does is give trolls a platform to vent against cities they don't like.


----------

