# Explosion of skyscrapers a sign of an unhealthy economy



## 600West218 (Aug 30, 2010)

A very interesting article from the news today:



*MUMBAI, India (AP) — A skyscraper building boom in China and India may signal an impending economic correction in two of Asia's largest economies, a new report says.

Barclays Capital has mapped an "unhealthy correlation" between construction of the world's tallest buildings and impending financial crises over the last 140 years.

Today, China is home to half of the world's skyscrapers — defined as buildings over 240 meters (787 feet) tall — currently under construction.

India, which has just two skyscrapers, is seeing its first skyscraper building boom, with 14 under construction, including the world's second-tallest tower, in the financial capital Mumbai.

"Building booms are a sign of excess credit," Andrew Lawrence, director of property research at Barclays Capital in Hong Kong, said Wednesday.

Historically, skyscraper construction has been characterized by bursts of sporadic, but intense activity that coincide with easy credit, rising land prices and excessive optimism, but often by the time skyscrapers are finished, the economy has slipped into recession, Lawrence said.*

The rest here:

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/china-india-skyscraper-boom-may-herald-downturn-095904234.html


----------



## Kanto (Apr 23, 2011)

^^ Thank you for the article, it's interesting but I'd say such threads belong into the architecture section :cheers:


----------



## Jay (Oct 7, 2004)

The building bubble is getting a little out of control, when massive towers are constructed with no demand in the middle of nowhere there is a problem. 

At least in NYC and Hong Kong there is demand and good use for buildings in excess of 300 meters, otherwise they are never necessary.


The article states that there is no building UC taller than Burj Khalifa, but there may be one soon in Saudi Arabia, I'm also pretty sure the Mumbai tower is on hold as it states that it is UC in the article.


----------



## SSCBob (Aug 26, 2011)

Anyone else laugh a bit when the article said "skyscrapers [are] defined as buildings over 240 meters (787 feet) tall"?


----------



## LucasOWTC (Dec 4, 2011)

SSCBob said:


> Anyone else laugh a bit when the article said "skyscrapers [are] defined as buildings over 240 meters (787 feet) tall"?


There are no objective numerical definitions for the word ''skyscraper''. Any building can be considered a skyscraper.


----------



## Jasonhouse (Jul 27, 2002)

SSCBob said:


> Anyone else laugh a bit when the article said "skyscrapers [are] defined as buildings over 240 meters (787 feet) tall"?


yes!:nuts:


----------



## Kiboko (Nov 30, 2011)

SSCBob said:


> Anyone else laugh a bit when the article said "skyscrapers [are] defined as buildings over 240 meters (787 feet) tall"?


Who defined this height? Some n00bs of a newspaper?

Anyway, the article isn't that interesting. Sure some skyscrapers were built just before a economical crisis, but also sountless skyscrapers arised in better times. By using a similar method, i bet it is also possible to link war and climate changes to skyscrapers.


----------



## Pennypacker (Mar 23, 2010)

SSCBob said:


> Anyone else laugh a bit when the article said "skyscrapers [are] defined as buildings over 240 meters (787 feet) tall"?


I'd imagine that figure was chosen so that they could claim that India only has two skyscrapers, which is complete nonsense.


----------



## Wunderknabe (Jun 29, 2010)

Well I think the point of the article can easily been proved by recent developments in Dubai. I couldn't believe the pure amount of construction work going on there and always asked myself where all the buyers and tenants shall come from.

And suddenly as people realized the relation between demand, prices and supply for space was quite miscalculated, it stopped.

And so did the construction of most bigger projects.

I expect similar developments in China.


----------

