# Cities that SHOULD have skyscrapers (or taller ones)



## somataki (Aug 10, 2005)

sebvill said:


> Athens is really really dense. Amazing the lack of green areas.


Actually Europe's biggest metropolitan park is going to be created until 2011 in Athens , the Hellenicon Metropolitan Park.


----------



## neil (Jan 20, 2005)

Manchester U.K.


----------



## Energy2003 (Jun 13, 2007)

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Segundo

wow, and just 17.000 inhabitants

:eek2:


----------



## Wey (Jul 8, 2008)

SAO PAULO!!!!!!!!! 

hno:


----------



## Wuppeltje (Jan 23, 2008)

somataki said:


> Actually Europe's biggest metropolitan park is going to be created until 2011 in Athens , the Hellenicon Metropolitan Park.


Hmm, biggest in Europe? I do see the Amsterdamse Bos as a 'metropolitan park' of Amsterdam. It is the biggest park of Amsterdam with 1.000 hectares, but certainly not in a certain way biggest in Europe. The Hellenikon Metropolitan Park is going to be only 400 hectares?

Ontopic:

I think that Amsterdam could have taller buildings in the following highrise zones: 
-Sloterdijk (preferably at least one 200m)
-Bijlmer ArenA (the 77/78 m high stadium is dominating this area, the highest building is only 20 meter higher - 150m will be a good start here)
-Zuidas (hard to get taller ones though due to the limitation Schiphol gives, but 120-130m is possible --> many are 105m now)

A problem is that Sloterdijk & the Bijlmer ArenA area have some high office vacancies and are not yet in a mixed zone. The proposed 150m residential tower in the Bijlmer ArenA might change that.


----------



## philadweller (Oct 30, 2003)

Portland, Oregon......Portland, Maine and of course Washington DC. 

All state capital cities in the US have some weird height limit except Atlanta. Trenton, NJ should have some skyscrapers.

If Philly did not break its height limit in the 1980's it would have had a low (40 story or so) boxy skyline like that of DC or downtown Boston (not Back Bay).

I think Phoenix needs some height too. But first knock down all the single family sprawl and strip malls.


----------



## Assemblage23 (Jan 6, 2008)

Tokyo would be spectacular with a few supertalls.


----------



## DG (Sep 2, 2005)

Tokyo and major Japanese cities.


----------



## Barragon (Dec 26, 2004)

Lisbon !! :bash:


----------



## xXFallenXx (Jun 15, 2007)

Definitely LA.


----------



## brianmoon85 (Oct 14, 2006)

Seoul definitely


----------



## earthJoker (Dec 15, 2004)

Zürich West (the real one, not Bern).


----------



## aaabbbccc (Mar 8, 2009)

casablanca needs more tall towers !!


----------



## deranged (Jan 22, 2009)

There's a huge number of cities which could be included here, but as for megacities:
Sao Paulo, Rio de Janeiro, Los Angeles, Tokyo, Seoul, Jakarta, Lagos, Cairo, Johannesburg and London are the ten most in need imo.
Also Harbin, but I'm not sure if its metropolitan area exceeds 10 million.


----------



## amar11372 (Sep 5, 2005)

Dhaka and Chittagong with 16 Million and 5 Million people respectively.


----------



## Küsel (Sep 16, 2004)

Los Angeles needs more - much more highrises. Boring carpet of houses with a small CBD.

Athens: yes and no: it's too dense and the sprawl at the limit. But you have to reurbanize the whole central area and that would not be easy - also politically. Cairo is a similar case.

Here in Zurich they finally react. But it took a long time. Some clusters were already planned in the 80s and 90s but hight was limited by law. The urban sprawl in Switzerland is on of the main problems of the country, they should have enforced density much earlier.


----------



## Manila-X (Jul 28, 2005)

Küsel said:


> Los Angeles needs more - much more highrises. Boring carpet of houses with a small CBD.
> 
> Athens: yes and no: it's too dense and the sprawl at the limit. But you have to reurbanize the whole central area and that would not be easy - also politically. Cairo is a similar case.
> 
> Here in Zurich they finally react. But it took a long time. Some clusters were already planned in the 80s and 90s but hight was limited by law. The urban sprawl in Switzerland is on of the main problems of the country, they should have enforced density much earlier.


LA's CBDs are scattered. You got Downtown, Century City, El Segundo, Burbank, etc. 

Downtown has a nice cluster though its not that dense, the average skyscraper there is around 700 ft. Century City on the other hand needs some taller ones.


----------



## DanielFigFoz (Mar 10, 2007)

Lisbon.


----------



## l'eau (Jul 7, 2008)

everycity.


----------



## DarkFenX (Jan 8, 2005)

Boston


----------



## Astronaut from Mars (May 28, 2008)

It's a city without trees...weird


----------



## joga (Oct 26, 2007)

^^^^

This isn't true and it's a stupid thing.

There are some parks, not so big, in the centre: Parco Sempione, Giardini pubblici, Parco delle Basiliche, Parco Ravizza.

Many big road have got trees through all the street.

In the outskirt there is crown of big parks: Trenno, Nord, lambro, Forlanini, Cave and the very big Parco Sud Milano, a big regional park, strickly regulated by the public administation.


----------



## philadweller (Oct 30, 2003)

Portland, Ottawa and Washington DC!!!!


----------



## Looking/Up (Feb 28, 2008)

Los Angeles.


----------



## isaidso (Mar 21, 2007)

Tokyo, Seoul, Osaka, Sao Paolo, Mexico City, Los Angeles, Boston, and Madrid.


----------



## goschio (Dec 2, 2002)

Hamburg should have a real CBD with nice skyscrapers. The city is way too flat IMO.


----------



## NorthWesternGuy (Aug 25, 2005)

Mexicali... Earthquakes are an outdated and stupid excuse:yes:


----------



## TEHR_IR (Mar 1, 2008)

Tehran !! we have many but like 100-150 M and one 435M and one 202M but we need more 300+


----------



## dollaztx (May 2, 2009)

LA, San Antonio, DC. Tokyo, Mexico City need taller. Brazilian cities have plenty but need a supertall as well.


----------



## backupcoolm4n (Nov 4, 2008)

NYC, Chicago, Houston, Seattle


----------



## whizz_pat (Jul 30, 2008)

philadweller said:


> Portland, Ottawa and Washington DC!!!!


I disagree with Washington D.C. As much as I like skyscrapers (hence I am on this site), I don't think it would be suitalbe for Washington DC. Being the political capital, with many old, grand buildings, gives it a feeling of timelessness, as if it is THE capital, the unmovable, unchanging capital. If it were filled with steel and glass skyscrapers, it would give it a modern feel, something I don't think is appropriate.

On the other hand, all what I said is highly subjective. I have never set foot on the American continent (north or south), and so what I am saying may be complete and utter bullshit.


----------



## Inkdaub (Dec 28, 2006)

We don't need any skyscrapers in Portland. Nothing above say 25 stories. Infill is the way to go.


----------



## Chrissib (Feb 9, 2008)

goschio said:


> Hamburg should have a real CBD with nice skyscrapers. The city is way too flat IMO.


German cities in general. I could also imagine Berlin. Frankfurt needs some supertall skyscrapers higher than 300m. Maybe also one with 500m.


----------



## peeph0le (Dec 16, 2006)

*San Jose, CA...*










For a city of a million people, it is sure lacking a good skyline.


----------

