# North American cities ranked by # high-rises



## You are to blame (Oct 14, 2004)

This has been posted in a few other forums but not in here

North American cities ranked by # high-rises 
Rank. City (Country) - Population (not including metro) - # High Rises

1. New York City (U.S.A.) - 8,115,135 - 5,445  
2. Toronto (Canada) - 2,481,494 - 1,614
3. Chicago (U.S.A.) - 2,869,121 - 1,043  
4. Mexico City (Mexico) - 9,875,344 - 723
5. Vancouver (Canada) - 583,296 - 520
6. Los Angeles (U.S.A.) - 3,819,951 - 450
7. Honolulu (U.S.A.) - 380,149 - 424
8. Montréal (Canada) - 1,812,723 - 410
9. San Francisco (U.S.A.) - 744,230 - 353
10. Houston (U.S.A.) - 2,009,690 - 332
11. Philadelphia (U.S.A.) - 1,470,151 - 329
12. Ottawa (Canada) - 774,072 - 278
13. Washington (U.S.A.) - 553,523 - 257
14. Boston (U.S.A.) - 581,616 - 242
15. Dallas (U.S.A.) - 1,208,318 - 234
16. San Juan (Puerto Rico) - 433,412 - 230 
17. Edmonton (Canada) - 686,917 - 225 
18. Calgary (Canada) - 933,495 - 211 
19. Mississauga (Canada) - 612,925 - 202  
20. Atlanta (U.S.A.) - 423,019 - 193 
21. Miami (U.S.A.) - 376,815 - 190 
22. Minneapolis (U.S.A.) 373,188 - 189 
23. Denver (U.S.A.) - 556,835 - 180 
24. Detroit (U.S.A.) - 911,402 - 179 
25. Seattle (U.S.A.) - 569,101 - 177 
26. Arlington (U.S.A.) - 186,117 - 170 
27. Baltimore (U.S.A.) - 636,251 - 150 
28. Pittsburgh (U.S.A.) - 325,337 - 149 
29. St. Louis (U.S.A.) - 343,279 - 148 
30. Miami Beach (U.S.A.) - 89,312 - 131  
30. Winnipeg (Canada) - 619,544 - 131
32. Cleveland (U.S.A.) - 61,324 - 120
33. Fort Lauderdale (U.S.A.) - 162,917 - 115
34. Cincinnati (U.S.A.) - 317,361 - 114
35. San Diego (U.S.A.) - 1,266,753 - 108  
36. London (Canada) - 336,539 - 106
37. Hamilton (Canada) - 490,268 - 105
37. New Orleans (U.S.A) - 462,269 - 105
39. Portland (U.S.A.) - 538,544 - 100
40. Newark (U.S.A.) - 277,911- 99
41. Las Vegas (U.S.A.) - 517,017 - 98 
42. Kansas City (U.S.A.) - 442,768 - 97
42. Milwaukee (U.S.A.) - 586,941 - 97
44. Burnaby (Canada) - 205,261 - 89
44. Indianapolis (U.S.A.) - 783,438 - 89
46. Panama City (Panama) - 668,927 - 81
47. Jersey City (U.S.A.) - 239,097 - 77 
48. Columbus (U.S.A.) - 728,432 - 75
49. Buffalo (U.S.A.) - 285,018 - 71
50. San Antonio (U.S.A.) - 1,214,725 - 70
51. Austin (U.S.A.) - 672,011 - 67
51. St. Paul (U.S.A.) - 280,404 - 67
53. Oakland (U.S.A) - 398,844 - 66 
54. Aventura (U.S.A.) - 26,882 - 64  
55. Halifax (Canada) - 359,111 - 62
56. Phoenix (U.S.A.) - 1,388,416 - 60
56. Richmond (U.S.A.) - 192,494 - 60
56. Tulsa (U.S.A.) - 387,807 - 60  
59. Brampton (Canada) - 325,428 - 59
60. Memphis (U.S.A.) - 645,978 - 58
60. Nashville (U.S.A.) - 544,765 - 58
62. Atlantic City (U.S.A.) - 40,385 - 56
62. Louisville (U.S.A.) - 700,030 - 56
62. Salt Lake City (U.S.A.) - 179,894 - 56
65. Tampa (U.S.A.) - 317,647 - 55  
65. Québec City (Canada) - 515,245 - 55
65. Tampa (U.S.A.) - 317,647 - 55  
68. Acapulco (Mexico) - 687,292 - 54
68. Charlotte (U.S.A.) - 584,658 - 54
68. Charlotte (U.S.A.) - 584,658 - 54
71. Birmingham (U.S.A.) - 236,620 - 52
71. Orlando (U.S.A.) - 199,336 - 52
73. Jacksonville (U.S.A.) - 773,781 - 51
73. Rochester (U.S.A.) - 215,093 - 51
75. Albany (U.S.A.) - 93,919 - 50
76. Omaha (U.S.A.) - 404,267 - 49
77. Fort Worth (U.S.A.) - 585,122 - 48
78. Coral Gables (U.S.A.) - 42,539 - 47
79. Richmond (Canada) - 174,201 - 43
79. West Palm Beach (U.S.A.) - 88,932 - 43
79. Windsor (Canada) - 208,402 - 43  
82. Hartford (U.S.A.) - 124,558 - 42 
83. Syracuse (U.S.A.) - 144,001 - 41
84. Oklahoma City (U.S.A.) - 523,303 - 40
84. Sunny Isles Beach (U.S.A.) - 15,327 - 40
86. Long Beach (U.S.A.) - 475,460 - 38
86. Sacramento (U.S.A.) - 445,335 - 38
88. Guaynabo (Puerto Rico) - 78,806 - 37 
88. Wilmington (U.S.A.) - 72,051 - 37
90. Burlington (Canada) - 150,836 - 36
90. New Westminster (Canada) - 59,426 - 36
90. St. Petersburg (U.S.A.) - 247,610 - 36
93. Hollywood (U.S.A.) - 143,408 - 35 
94. Norfolk (U.S.A.) - 237,835 - 34  
94. Regina (Canada) - 178,225 - 34
94. Victoria (Canada) - 76,387 - 34
97. Boca Raton (U.S.A.) - 78,449 - 33
97. San Jose (U.S.A.) - 898,349 - 33
99. Dayton (U.S.A.) - 161,696 - 32
100. Albuquerque (U.S.A.) - 471,856 - 31
100. Knoxville (U.S.A.) - 177,595 - 31
102. Columbia (U.S.A.) - 117,357 - 30
102. Hallandale Beach (U.S.A.) - 35,369 - 30
104. Des Moines (U.S.A.) - 196,093 - 29
105. Providence (U.S.A.) - 176,365 - 28
106. Guatemala City (Guatamala) - 1,167,495 - 27 
106. Oakville (Canada) - 144,738 - 27
108. Harrisburg (U.S.A.) - 48,322 - 26
108. Kitchener (Canada) - 190,399 - 26
108. Niagara Falls (Canada) - 78,815 - 26
108. North Vancouver (Canada) - 48,136 - 26
108. Southfield (U.S.A.) - 77,488 - 26
108. Tacoma (U.S.A.) - 196,790 - 26

(C) Emporis May 2005

remember this is not a rating of the skyline but just tall buildings. The a city toronto for instance has many large clusters of mid-highrises and 5 toronto surburbs are on the list aswell


----------



## Ionizer (Jun 8, 2005)

A continent of Skyscrapers for almost a century!


----------



## dave8721 (Aug 5, 2004)

And to think #'s 21, 30, 33, 54, 82, 83, 88, 97, 101, and 106 are all in the Miami meto. Think if Miami was the geographical size of most cities and combined all those together.


----------



## rantanamo (Sep 12, 2002)

what are the metro numbers?


----------



## philadweller (Oct 30, 2003)

Ottawa? seems like a mid rise city....


----------



## Mike19 (Feb 5, 2005)

cant wait till miami shoots up that list when all the projects are completed


----------



## WinnipegPatriot (Apr 9, 2005)

Not buying those numbers...there is no way Ottawa has more highrises than Calgary...or Edmonton for that matter (although Ottawa and Edmonton may be close).


----------



## crazyjoeda (Sep 10, 2004)

Canada did well, its a surprisingly urban country. 
My city Vancouver is 5th and 4 of its suburbs made the list.


----------



## DrJoe (Sep 12, 2002)

> Not buying those numbers...there is no way Ottawa has more highrises than Calgary...or Edmonton for that matter (although Ottawa and Edmonton may be close).


Ottawa has alot of highrises outside of the core. For Canada(probably the US too) Emporis is pretty damn accurate


----------



## LosAngelesSportsFan (Oct 20, 2004)

LA is going to move up on that list, possibly past vancouver in a few years, with tons of projects U/C or proposed and Long Beach will also move up, up to somewhere in the 45 - 50 range within 2-3 years.


----------



## softee (Mar 6, 2003)

Ottawa definitely has more highrises than Calgary and Edmonton.


----------



## DrJoe (Sep 12, 2002)

LosAngelesSportsFan said:


> LA is going to move up on that list, possibly past vancouver in a few years, with tons of projects U/C or proposed and Long Beach will also move up, up to somewhere in the 45 - 50 range within 2-3 years.


Well considering Vancouver only has a pop of 580,000 that really doesnt say much.


----------



## wickedestcity (Jul 23, 2004)

accualy i remember seeing in several sources chicago has somwere around 1500-1600 high rises, somthings wrong about those numbers.


----------



## DrJoe (Sep 12, 2002)

That might be for the whole metro.


----------



## Azn_chi_boi (Mar 11, 2005)

I am surprise at Miami...(even though there are buildings is not in the city, but in metro).

Chicago is #3, yay...but if we count 1,000ft and higher... Chicago is #1!


----------



## You are to blame (Oct 14, 2004)

WinnipegPatriot said:


> Not buying those numbers...there is no way Ottawa has more highrises than Calgary...or Edmonton for that matter (although Ottawa and Edmonton may be close).


like i said in the original post this is not a ranking of skyline as alot of cities like toronto have many clusters outside the CBD. This is for the entire city. And emporis is not that inaccurate for North America

anyway here is what metro toronto looks like

1 Toronto 1,614
18 Mississauga 202
37 Hamilton 105
59 Brampton 59
94 Burlington 36
110 Oakville 27

Total 1938 - watch out New York :bash:

Metro Vancouver

5 Vancouver 520
44 Burnaby 89
83 Richmond 43
94 New Westminster 36
112 North Vancouver 26

Total 714 - watch out Mexico City :bash:


----------



## You are to blame (Oct 14, 2004)

LosAngelesSportsFan said:


> LA is going to move up on that list, possibly past vancouver in a few years, with tons of projects U/C or proposed and Long Beach will also move up, up to somewhere in the 45 - 50 range within 2-3 years.


I don't know about vancouver is constantly putting up towers and tallers one are on there way


----------



## DrJoe (Sep 12, 2002)

You are to blame said:


> like i said in the original post this is not a ranking of skyline as alot of cities like toronto have many clusters outside the CBD. This is for the entire city. And emporis is not that inaccurate for North America
> 
> anyway here is what metro toronto looks like
> 
> ...


Well this is just the top cities, it would probably be well over 2000 you counted every city in the GTA.


----------



## You are to blame (Oct 14, 2004)

^ true, here is your list from SSP


2 Toronto - 1614 
18 Mississauga - 202 
37 Hamilton - 105 
59 Brampton - 59 
94 Burllington - 36 
110 Oakville - 27 
Markham - 18 
Richmond Hill - 18 
Vaughan - 14 
Oshawa - 13 
Ajax - 11 
Whitby - 7 
Pickering - 5 
Newmarket - 1  
Total - 2130


----------



## PanaManiac (Mar 26, 2005)

*Skyline Ranking by "Visual Impact"*

This listing is essentially based on the average height of the skyscrapers in each city, from tallest to lowest. Click on the link below.

http://www.emporis.com/en/bu/sk/st/sr/


----------



## You are to blame (Oct 14, 2004)

CiceroClark said:


> Why is Rochester listed twice?
> 
> 71. Rochester (U.S.A.) - 215,093 - 51
> 77. Rochester (U.S.A.) - 215,093 - 51


ok i fixed a few mistakes i just saw, the list is should be fine now


----------



## FastWhiteTA (Jul 24, 2004)

You are to blame said:


> more like the grat number of 20 to 50 story buildings we have at many clusters in the city, so don't lie and say all toronto has is 10-15 stories. deal with the fact that chicago is 3rd, and that toronto has 60% more mid-highrises than chicago


I swear, TO people have a chip on their shoulder. He never said TO has ONLY 10-15 story bldgs, you are putting words in his mouth, he just said they have many 10-15 story buildings that are helping in these particular rankings.


----------



## You are to blame (Oct 14, 2004)

FastWhiteTA said:


> I swear, TO people have a chip on their shoulder. He never said TO has ONLY 10-15 story bldgs, you are putting words in his mouth, he just said they have many 10-15 story buildings that are helping in these particular rankings.


we have many 20-50 story buildings that are everywhere in the city not just in the central core like other cities that why we have such a high number. it's not the 10-15 stiry buildings. 10 & 11 story isn't even included in the stats. 

We only have a chip on our shoulders when people who don't know our city make ignorant comments


----------



## Perth4life14 (Apr 14, 2005)

You are to blame said:


> ^ true, here is your list from SSP
> 
> 
> 2 Toronto - 1614
> ...


stop trying to compare toronto with NY, NY has double that and some more, its pointless.


----------



## DrJoe (Sep 12, 2002)

^ WTF man, that list had absolutely nothing to do with New York...thanks for the wierd out of place comment anyway.


----------



## sukh (Sep 30, 2004)

You are to blame said:


> like i said in the original post this is not a ranking of skyline as alot of cities like toronto have many clusters outside the CBD. This is for the entire city. And emporis is not that inaccurate for North America
> 
> anyway here is what metro toronto looks like
> 
> ...


Yeah, count the entire Greater Vancouver Area, and its a whole new ball game. I dont know if thats the exact total though.


----------



## captain_canuck (Jul 6, 2005)

You are to blame said:


> ok i fixed a few mistakes i just saw, the list is should be fine now


Tampa is on there twice.


----------



## doady (May 23, 2004)

Yeah this list had alot of mistake when I first made it so don't blame You Are To Blame blame me, I updated it here: http://www.urbancanada.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=569

Basically some cities are on there twice and several obscure American cities were missing too.


----------



## DrJoe (Sep 12, 2002)

sukh said:


> Yeah, count the entire Greater Vancouver Area, and its a whole new ball game. I dont know if thats the exact total though.



Yeah and you could also count the whole Toronto metro...


----------



## Jaye101 (Feb 16, 2005)

crazyjoeda said:


> Canada did well, its a surprisingly urban country.
> My city Vancouver is 5th and 4 of its suburbs made the list.



Percapita, Canada has double the amount of highrises as the USA.



CrazyPersonAgainstToronto said:


> stop trying to compare toronto with NY, NY has double that and some more, its pointless.


50 years and we'll talk.


----------



## partybits (Apr 29, 2005)

chicagogeorge said:


> Emporis counts any bulding that has 12 stories or greater as a "highrise" Toronto has many 10-15 story buildings. Now if you want to count real highrises,(say 200+ft which is 20-25 stories) then Chicago would definetly be second in number only behind NYC. There will be 140 new highrises in Chicago by 2010. 30 are currently under construction as we speak in the D/T.


I see your point, but the problem becomes what point do we start at. 150ft? 200ft? 400ft? 1000ft? As Emporis had a readily available list of about 100ft and higher, that was used.

Anyways, in any ranking over 200ft, Chicago would become second, and in any ranking under 150ft, Toronto would have 2nd spot. See how easy stats can be bended in anyones favour.
Conclusion, Toronto has more overall buildings, but Chicago has more overall taller buildings.
And to be a jackass (it's fun..try it!) Toronto is number#1 when over 1500ft. Thank you CN tower...lol.


----------



## Archiconnoisseur (Nov 4, 2004)

*Emporis' skyline ranking methodology is severely flawed*


Floor count is a poor approximation of actual height. Residentials, for example, tend to have lower ceilings than office buildings.

Building cross-sectional area is not taken into account. Massive structures such as the MetLife (Pan Am) Building are scored the same as thin buildings such as Langham Place Office Tower.

The point allocation scheme is discontinuous and arbitrary, thus exaggerating small differences.

Consider Hong Kong's skyline.
Skyscrapers ranked by roof height (Rational approach).
Skyscrapers ranked by floor count (Emporis' approach).​
According to Emporis, both the Sorrento and Harborside are _taller_ than The Center. Tregunter Tower 3 is taller than the Cheung Kong Center. Highcliff (252.4m) gets 300 points while Langham Place Office Tower (255.1m) gets 100 points. What the heck kind of ranking is this?

It gets worse. According to Emporis, the Trump Building (282.5m) gets 300 points and the GE Building (259.1m) gets 200 points because the latter misses the 70 floor cutoff by ONE floor.

Even more hilariously, Emporis gives Manhattan's 3 Lincoln Center Condominiums (181m) 200 points and Citicorp (278.9m) 100 points. Citicorp is 54% taller than 3 Lincoln Center and yet gets half the points!

This is how Emporis ranks Hong Kong and New York skyscrapers. Note how all those diminutive Hong Kong residentials are scored higher because they have more floors than office towers. I go into more a more detailed analysis [http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=233634]here[/url].

In summary, Emporis' skyline rankings are pure unmitigated BS.


----------



## Azn_chi_boi (Mar 11, 2005)

tampa is on there 2 times.

65. Tampa (U.S.A.) - 317,647 - 55 
65. Québec City (Canada) - 515,245 - 55
65. Tampa (U.S.A.) - 317,647 - 55 

So is Charlotte
68. Charlotte (U.S.A.) - 584,658 - 54
68. Charlotte (U.S.A.) - 584,658 - 54


----------



## sukh (Sep 30, 2004)

DrJoe said:


> Yeah and you could also count the whole Toronto metro...


Yeah, the number would go up significantly.


----------



## spyguy (Apr 16, 2005)

And who is to say that in 50 years NY won't have triple the amount, or any other city in North America for that matter? Don't make predictions to sound tough or anything.

Archiconnoisseur nicely summed up what I hate about these rankings.


----------



## bennyboiler (Jul 22, 2003)

FastWhiteTA said:


> I swear, TO people have a chip on their shoulder. He never said TO has ONLY 10-15 story bldgs, you are putting words in his mouth, he just said they have many 10-15 story buildings that are helping in these particular rankings.


I hear ya, its weird how many threads turn into TO bragging/slagging fests over the most insignificant of comments. Its funny for a while then it just becomes really fucking annoying. :bash: 

Anyway, interesting list, quite a few of the rankings suprised me a lot actually.


----------



## Skybean (Jun 16, 2004)

Archiconnoisseur said:


> This is how Emporis ranks Hong Kong and New York skyscrapers.


I don't understand what you have against Hong Kong. Even if we were talking about Emporis' skyline rating minus the floor issue, there would be no question as to whether HK would be on top.. residential or office building. 
*
Hong Kong buildings over 90m *: 3535
*New York (including Jersey City) buildings over 90m*: 847 
http://www.library.tudelft.nl/~egram/skylines.htm




Archiconnoisseur said:


> In summary, Emporis' skyline rankings are pure unmitigated BS.


That's good and all.. but who was talking about Emporis' skyline rating?? This thread is about Emporis defined "highrise" buildings which are at least 35m in height. Emporis' skyline rating has nothing to do with this thread at all.


----------



## Archiconnoisseur (Nov 4, 2004)

Skybean said:


> I don't understand what you have against Hong Kong. Even if we were talking about Emporis' skyline rating minus the floor issue, there would be no question as to whether HK would be on top.. residential or office building.


I have nothing against Hong Kong; you're just being defensive because you're a fanboy of that city. You're also stating your opinion as fact.

Toronto has more high-rises than Chicago according to Emporis' *arbitrary definition* of a high-rise. Raising the standard from 35m to, say, 50m would undoubtedly change the rankings. Toronto also has more area (630 km²) than Chicago (589 km²). If you added 41 km² worth of edge cities to Chicago, its high-rise count could again go up.

How you define a city can dramatically change high-rise tallies. Take a look at Shanghai (6,639 km²). If you added New York, Chicago, Houston, Honolulu, Los Angeles, Dallas, Atlanta, San Francisco, Philadelphia, Seattle, Miami, Boston, and Minneapolis, you'd still get a city with a smaller area (6,551 km²) but one with a total of 9,647 high-rises. Shanghai's 549 high-rises don't look nearly so impressive now.

My point is that Emporis' methodology is very flawed. Don't take it as any kind of objective measurement of anything.


----------



## Archiconnoisseur (Nov 4, 2004)

Skybean said:


> http://www.library.tudelft.nl/~egram/skylines.htm


They incorporate the same methodological flaw as Emporis:
_For buildings where only the height with spire was know I took that height minus 10% as an intelligent guess for the height without. When only the number of floors was known I estimated the height using 3.40m/~11ft per floor (about average for office and residential buildings)._​As you can see, they use floor count as a substitute for actual height and use an arbitrary multiplier based on the _average_ of office and residential floor heights. I've already demonstrated how flawed this assumption is.


----------



## doady (May 23, 2004)

Archiconnoisseur, what is your problem. This is not a skyline ranking. It is simply a count of the number of high-rises in each city regardless of the location and there height.


----------



## Jaye101 (Feb 16, 2005)

NWside said:


> Chicago is probably one of the handful of cities that is actually 99.9% accounted for, you can't get more accurate then the Chicago staff, and some of its members here on ssc for tracking down projects and construction throughout the city. As for Toronto having more skyscrapers then Chicago..... that's so 2002-2003.


It will always be this way. Chicago''s great tho .


----------



## jon jon (May 5, 2005)

56. Phoenix (U.S.A.) - 1,388,416 - 60

:laugh: 




97. San Jose (U.S.A.) - 898,349 - 33

:rofl: 




Tuscon (U.S.A.) 512,023 - 8

WOW. Just WOW.


----------



## dave8721 (Aug 5, 2004)

jon jon said:


> 56. Phoenix (U.S.A.) - 1,388,416 - 60
> 
> :laugh:
> 
> ...


Yes very sad when you compare them to smaller cities like:
Honolulu (USA) 377,260 - 424
Naples (USA) 21,480 - 87
Aventura (USA) 27,236 - 64
Sunny Isles Beach (USA) 15,327 - 41


----------



## Effer (Jun 9, 2005)

It shouldn't be long before Chicago has more Skyscrapers.


----------



## bay_area (Dec 31, 2002)

San Jose is definitely highrise needy...but aside from that...its more desirable to live in then all but 3-4 cities in all of North America.


----------



## jeicow (Jul 18, 2005)

12231989 said:


> Phoenix doesent have many because most of the city has hight limits of 50 ft in most areas


That's what hampered our development here in Mississauga for the longest time saying that buildings couldn't be over ~35stories. Luckily though, Council has become much more open to larger buldings and by 2012 a brand new development will be added right next to city hall that will feature two 45 storey buildings, a 50 storey building and a bunch of smaller highrises, and it's suppose to hold over 12,000.

Ususally, cities realize their hieght limits are hampering development, but I don't how large Pheonix is (landwise) and how much unused land is there but hopefully they raisw their limit to at least 100ft.


----------



## Jaye101 (Feb 16, 2005)

effer said:


> It shouldn't be long before Chicago has more Skyscrapers.


The thing I've noticed with Chicago and Toronto is that Toronto will ALWAYS have more, and Chicago will ALWAYS have more height.

The number of proposed/UC/Approved for Toronto is well above (DOUBLE OR MORE) Chicago, BUT When you look at the height of the buildings in Chicago, they far surpass the height in Toronto.

Chicago Proposed/UC/Approved:150
Toronto Proposed/UC/Approved:343


------------------------------------------------------




Toronto's Metro:

2 Toronto - 1614 
18 Mississauga - 202 
37 Hamilton - 105 
59 Brampton - 59 
94 Burllington - 36 
110 Oakville - 27 
Markham - 18 
Richmond Hill - 18 
Vaughan - 14 
Oshawa - 13 
Ajax - 11 
Whitby - 7 
Pickering - 5 
Newmarket - 1 
Total - 2130


----------



## EtherealMist (Jul 26, 2005)

You are to blame said:


> This has been posted in a few other forums but not in here
> 
> North American cities ranked by # high-rises
> Rank. City (Country) - Population (not including metro) - # High Rises
> ...



5,445 high rises holy shit, New York City is such a beast


----------



## addisonwesley (Jun 19, 2005)

"17. Edmonton (Canada) - 686,917 - 225 
18. Calgary (Canada) - 933,495 - 211 
19. Mississauga (Canada) - 612,925 - 202"

- AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA....ahh...okay.


----------



## italimex (May 28, 2005)

Mexico City is fourth! cool


----------



## Architorture (Sep 22, 2004)

why is charlotte on there twice?


----------



## malek (Nov 16, 2004)

those numbers are totaly inaccurate for montreal, i don't even see the building i'm working in on emporis... and laval city isn't even there and has way more than 30.

anyways...


----------



## You are to blame (Oct 14, 2004)

malek said:


> those numbers are totaly inaccurate for montreal, i don't even see the building i'm working in on emporis... and laval city isn't even there and has way more than 30.
> 
> anyways...


i wouldn't say totally inacurate. I doubt a few missing towers for montreal would not change the ranking


----------



## You are to blame (Oct 14, 2004)

effer said:


> It shouldn't be long before Chicago has more Skyscrapers.


chicago has taller towers in the works, but toronto has about double the amount proposed + approved + under construction

edit, thanks jaythe only

*Chicago Proposed/UC/Approved:150
Toronto Proposed/UC/Approved:343*


----------



## limited (Oct 10, 2004)

Panama City (Panama) 81 !?

:rofl:

Emporis is sooo acurate...


----------



## malek (Nov 16, 2004)

You are to blame said:


> i wouldn't say totally inacurate. I doubt a few missing towers for montreal would not change the ranking


yeah it won't be #1, but it'll have way more than 410... anyhow if the numbers are inaccurate for many cities (like the replies seen here), it shows that the whole thing is bogus.


----------



## You are to blame (Oct 14, 2004)

limited said:


> Panama City (Panama) 81 !?
> 
> :rofl:
> 
> Emporis is sooo acurate...


it's more accurate for americans and US cities, after that it's a crap shoot.


----------



## canada cowboy (Dec 31, 2004)

addisonwesley said:


> "17. Edmonton (Canada) - 686,917 - 225
> 18. Calgary (Canada) - 933,495 - 211
> 19. Mississauga (Canada) - 612,925 - 202"
> 
> - AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA....ahh...okay.


Is that a laugh??? You gotta get out more.

First - Calgary actually has 253 on Emporis, Mississauga 235, and Edmonton is actually 300 now...you gotta wonder what else they're missing.

Second - Mississauga's tallest would sit around 35th in Cowtown...if their tallest gets built, they may catch up to Calgary's 10th or 11th tallest...maybe.

Third - Calgary's population is a million. That's it, proper and metro. Mississauga is nothing more than a suburb of the bigger 6 million GTA area - those (both commercial and residential) who can't afford the real TO, move there, or other cheaper GTA areas.

Regardless of how some will define when to call a skyscraper a skyscraper - 12 stories in the modern world is hardly worth noting. And when a skyline is full of a bunch of 12-15 floor condos - nevermind commercial/office buildings - it's barely impressive. 

I doubt Mississauga will ever look as good as Calgary's skyline.


----------



## FastWhiteTA (Jul 24, 2004)

canada cowboy said:


> Is that a laugh??? You gotta get out more.
> 
> First - Calgary actually has 253 on Emporis, Mississauga 235, and Edmonton is actually 300 now...you gotta wonder what else they're missing.
> 
> ...




That 253 you're seeing is complete+proposed+u/c+ misc. The 212 (now) is how many are completed.


----------



## ChicagoSkyline (Feb 24, 2005)

Archiconnoisseur said:


> Floor count is a poor approximation of actual height. Residentials, for example, tend to have lower ceilings than office buildings.
> 
> Building cross-sectional area is not taken into account. Massive structures such as the MetLife (Pan Am) Building are scored the same as thin buildings such as Langham Place Office Tower.
> 
> ...


Great point!


----------



## ChicagoSkyline (Feb 24, 2005)

Archiconnoisseur said:


> I have nothing against Hong Kong; you're just being defensive because you're a fanboy of that city. You're also stating your opinion as fact.
> 
> Toronto has more high-rises than Chicago according to Emporis' *arbitrary definition* of a high-rise. Raising the standard from 35m to, say, 50m would undoubtedly change the rankings. Toronto also has more area (630 km²) than Chicago (589 km²). If you added 41 km² worth of edge cities to Chicago, its high-rise count could again go up.
> 
> ...


It is all about the height, volumne, and area of da city in total not one way or another, great point, Archiconnoisseur!


----------



## ChicagoSkyline (Feb 24, 2005)

Archiconnoisseur said:


> Again, you claim facts without actually providing any (except those flawed Emporis stats). As I stated before, Hong Kong and New York merely serve as the best way for me to criticize Emporis' methodology. I could probably pick any two large cities in the world, but not all of them have as many famous and precisely measured skyscrapers to choose from. In addition, most North American cities seem to adhere to large block sizes whereas Asian and European cities use smaller blocks; hence, Emporis' flaws are more glaring when comparing a North American city with an Old World one. Please debate my points instead of questioning my motives (ad hominem).
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Once again, you have indicated another great point when considering the difference on high rises with "most North American cities seem to adhere to large block sizes whereas Asian and European cities use smaller blocks", doesn't it enuf to say that the high rises stats based on da 90m+ or floor count just aren't consistent enuf across the world! Look at those tall slim shaddy buildings of HK,lol!


----------



## ChicagoSkyline (Feb 24, 2005)

Archiconnoisseur said:


> American cities are in NORTH AMERICA, are they not? Some people quoted Emporis as an authority, did they not?
> 
> You're projecting. It seems that anything that makes a Chinese city look bad upsets you, which is why you needed to make a personal attack about my "agenda". It's a forum for discussion and debate, so learn to argue without resorting to ad hominem. If you say that Toronto has a better skyline than Chicago, then that's fine with me. If you say that Toronto has more high-rises than Chicago, then be prepared for a debate.
> 
> I'm not going to continue fending off your _ad hominem_ since you clearly intend to have the last word.


Great debate all the way!


----------



## addisonwesley (Jun 19, 2005)

AHAHAHAHAHA, a suburb just behind those two cities...ahahahaha...haha..okay.


----------

