# Futuristic skyscrapers, Asian or European?



## Manila-X (Jul 28, 2005)

When it comes to futuristic skyscrapers, which is the best example or the most innovative? It is Asian skyscrapers or European ones?


----------



## Wssps (Mar 22, 2005)

well that's a stupic question in my opinion


----------



## south (Nov 26, 2005)

I'd say both kinds are futuristic.

But the European ones are not as tall as the Asian ones.


----------



## weird (Feb 24, 2006)

No doubt... Asian..


----------



## pookgai (Oct 16, 2004)

I think European skyscrapers are just as futuristic. I think the question you are looking for is: 'Are Asian scrapers more daring than European scrapers?' because European cities have much more stringent planning regulations than their Asian counterparts. In general many major European cities attempt to preserve their character by imposing limits whether in height or design in order to ensure that character is preserved. 

I voted Asian =P


----------



## Rem (Feb 26, 2006)

I voted Asian of course their skyscrapers are more numerous and futuristic but sometimes, in particular in china, i find they are strange and ugly.


----------



## hkskyline (Sep 13, 2002)

There are a number of futuristic skyscrapers in Europe :

Paris - La Grande Arche 










London - Swiss Re










Then there's Torre Aqbar in Barcelona, Turning Torso in Malmo, and the list goes on ...


----------



## weird (Feb 24, 2006)

^^
Just a few..


----------



## 909 (Oct 22, 2003)

I won't vote, because Asia and Europe have great examples of influential and futuristic skyscrapers. But what does someone mean with 'futuristic'? 



Rem said:


> I voted Asian of course their skyscrapers are more numerous and futuristic but sometimes, in particular in china, i find they are strange and ugly.


So futuristic is equal too: 'more numerous', 'strange' and 'ugly'?



weird said:


> ^^
> Just a few..


Yes, but in relative terms Europe has more so called futuristic skyscrapers.


----------



## Newcastle Guy (Jul 8, 2005)

This is a bit silly, both continents have a great mix of skyscrapers, both have futuristic ones.


----------



## Nick (Sep 13, 2002)

Its a tough call.HK,Shanghai and Tokyo has some wonderful examples.So does London and Paris.

I would tip the scales in Aisa's favour.Just because there so many more scrapers there.Some not nice but many just out of this world,espeically on the outskirts of Tokyo and in its port area.Asia has many other players as well.Singapre,Taipei and other capitals have some fine examples.

Outside London and Paris there isnt really anthing that comes to mind.Frankfurt maybe,but I dont really know that skyline that well.Berlin has outstanding examples between Alexanderplatz and Zoodagarden(sorry about the spelling) but they aint tall enough to call them scrapers.

Mind you,I am only speaking about cities ive been to.


----------



## LordMarshall (Jun 26, 2005)

Asian skyscrapers for me.


----------



## Jules (Jun 27, 2004)

Asian. More futuristic, and better looking at the same time.


----------



## DrasQue (Jan 10, 2006)

Moscow,Istanbul,London,Paris,Frankfurt,Rotterdam and Warsaw will rock europe.But in asia hk,seoul,singapore,tokyo :S that is a very difficult question but I say EUROPE =)


----------



## ncon (Apr 6, 2005)

Asian all the way !


----------



## Urban Dave (Apr 18, 2004)

weird said:


> ^^
> Just a few..


Lloyd's Building in London is another one. But in my opinion Asian's one are more futuristic than Europan's skyscrapers.


----------



## steve_skyline (Jul 30, 2005)

hkskyline said:


> There are a number of futuristic skyscrapers in Europe :
> 
> Paris - La Grande Arche
> 
> ...


The La Grande in Paris is ugly and Swiss Re is nice. Overall, Asian skyscrapers are futuristic


----------



## samsonyuen (Sep 23, 2003)

Asian, but I think too futuristic can look quite silly at times.


----------



## Rem (Feb 26, 2006)

909 said:


> . But what does someone mean with 'futuristic'?


a futuristic skyscraper for me is a kind of UFO, colored, glassy or with curves and simple frontages etc...


----------



## weird (Feb 24, 2006)

Urban Dave said:


> Lloyd's Building in London is another one. But in my opinion Asian's one are more futuristic than Europan's skyscrapers.


I don't mean just the buildings @hhskyline post, I know Europe has plus futuristic buildings, but Asia has more futuristic buildings, in quantity and futuristic looking terms.


----------



## myszoman (Aug 4, 2005)

I guess Asian cities are futuristic in all, but skyscrapers? Tough question, I choose none because you cannot say this is more futuristic than this, it is futuristic or not and both areas has a lot of them


----------



## james2390 (Mar 31, 2003)

Europe.

There's a difference between futuristic and tacky.


----------



## mauritius gunner (Nov 3, 2005)

From afar, Asian city skylines look spectacular, but up close, very bland and clinical and without character. Look at Pudong district in Shanghai, amazing but the environments are over planned, lack greenery. Frankly, if I had to live and work there, I would want to kill myself with depression within a month.

European skyscrapers, may look out of place or not be tall enough, but 'fit in' to the existing city's character and environment. Aesthetically and artistically. They add to the character of the city irrespective of immediate appearances. Paris is a classical example- La Grande Arche (courtessy of Steve Skyline, thank you), the George Pompidou Centre, may look strange, but add character to a city I love.

When it comes to skyscrapers however, debate aside, New York tops the bill, with historical skyscraper architecture dating back to the 1900s. I think the Chrysler building is perhaps the most beautiful in the world...


----------



## XCRunner (Nov 19, 2005)

They both have innovative new scrapers, but how do you define what is futuristic and what isn't?


----------



## Manila-X (Jul 28, 2005)

The reason why I discussed this thread is because I had a debate with a friend of mine on which skyscraper is more futuristic whether it's Asian or European. He chooses European while I choose Asian.

Alot of Euroscrapers are futuristic and are innovative. The Swiss-Re in London is an example of this though it's not as tall compared to other Asian scrapers.

Another one, this is the tallest right now in the continent is the Commerzbank Tower in Frankfurt.


----------



## LordMarshall (Jun 26, 2005)

Europe IMO does not have that many really intresting skyscrapers.

Asia seems to building up and pushing the envelop in scraper design, just like UAE.


----------



## Manila-X (Jul 28, 2005)

LordMarshall said:


> Europe IMO does not have that many really intresting skyscrapers.
> 
> Asia seems to building up and pushing the envelop in scraper design, just like UAE.


Actually they do like the Swiss-Re, Torre Agbar or Turning Torso for example. In fact, some proposals like The Russia Tower for example are state of the art.

Again, the only thing in Europe is they don't build them as tall compared to Asian scrapers. Well it's probably because European cities are less populated or crowded compared to Asian cities.


----------



## Mekky II (Oct 29, 2003)

steve_skyline said:


> The La Grande in Paris is ugly and Swiss Re is nice. Overall, Asian skyscrapers are futuristic


La Grande Arche is maybe ugly but it was the first skyscrapers like this in the world, since then Tokyo copied it and Beijing will built a similar.

Also Torre Agbar and Swiss Re don't exist outside Europe, I predict you that asians will copy them in the future ! Be futuristic means that others will copy what you have because they never had that and they find it attractive, most of big projects in Asia (beijing airport, opera houses of Beijing and Shangaï and so on) are made by european architects ! Zara Hadid, Norman Foster and Calatrava are enough well known to make Europe ahead.

The number of towers and the height of skyscrapers don't make them futuristic, they can be considered futuristic with technical figures (like the big ball of Taipei 101), but artistically it's another world !


----------



## Mekky II (Oct 29, 2003)

WANCH said:


> Actually they do like the Swiss-Re, Torre Agbar or Turning Torso for example. In fact, some proposals like The Russia Tower for example are state of the art.
> 
> Again, the only thing in Europe is they don't build them as tall compared to Asian scrapers. Well it's probably because European cities are less populated or crowded compared to Asian cities.


No, it's because lands cost more, do you know how much cost a land in Frankfurt or London ? Hong-Kong is not specific of other asian cities considering its small land, but Tokyo actually have not really tall towers, the cost of land is quite big, but in China it's easy to buy one ! (a proof is that only 30% of Shangai offices are used ...). It's one of many reasons ! preservation is another, some districts of Paris have twice the density of Hong-Kong, but we still prefer don't built towers, it's like this in Paris you have a big quality of life either and the sensation that in some districts, you are in a small village of town, and not inside a metropolis of 10 millions inh. !


----------



## hkskyline (Sep 13, 2002)

Asian skyscrapers make better use of lighting to make their new skyscrapers stand out at night. The use of neon is quite common, and it permeates not just the skyscrapers but also the low- and mid-rises at street level (Taipei, Tokyo, Seoul, etc.)

Shanghai's office vacancy rate is actually quite low at around 6-7%. The 30% occupancy rate is definitely not true. 

*Shanghai hungry for grade-A office space 
American and Japanese firms are the main drivers in the leasing market, as multinationals go into expansion mode *
22 February 2006
South China Morning Post

The upward trend in the leasing market in Shanghai shows no signs of abating, even after new office supply last year reached its highest level since 2000. 

In the past year, a total of 391,892 square metres of office space came on the market, more than 90 per cent of which was developed to grade-A specifications (see chart). 

*The average vacancy rate for grade-A office space in Shanghai was 6.6 per cent last year. The average was 6.4 per cent at the end of 2004. *

Many grade-A properties completed last year, such as the AZIA Center and K. Wah Centre, were heavily pre-leased, with more than 60 per cent of space committed and nearing full occupancy by year-end. 

We witnessed a moderate 4 per cent increase in the average asking rent in the fourth quarter of last year to 216 yuan per square metre per month. 

The year-on-year increase was 15.3 per cent. 

*Multinational companies are the key driver in the sector. United States firms continue to dominate the scene both in terms of numbers and area occupied, followed by Japanese companies. *

The outlook is expected to remain bright this year, with some interesting developments forecast. 

With the latest round of World Trade Organisation-related market concessions for the banking sector, we noticed several foreign banks, particularly on the retail operating side, making plans for substantial office expansion this year. 

Besides the banking sector, a number of industries are in expansion mode, including service providers and professional firms. In fact, professional service firms were a major presence in international grade-A properties last year, expanding in parallel with the banking and insurance sectors. 

Companies in these sectors are expected to benefit from increasing business opportunities arising from China's commitment to the WTO, thus contributing to growth in office demand. 

This year, new supply is expected to reach another high at an estimated 440,000 square metres. 

I expect that in the coming year the market will be characterised by substantial pre-leasing activities as a result of strong pent-up demand for quality space. 

Rentals are forecast to continue to follow a moderate upward trend, especially on the Puxi side. But as rents rise, companies are weighing their options in leasing space. 

This year should see moves by multinationals to alternative office hubs, such as Zhuyuan in fringe Lujiazui and suburban office space at Zhangjiang Hi-Tech Park in Pudong. This is to be expected as headcount grows and companies seek to avoid unnecessary exposure to rising rents downtown. 

Some corporations are considering moving their back-office functions to grade-B office space as a cost-efficient option in downtown areas of the city. 

Edward Cheung is general manager of DTZ Debenham Tie Leung (Shanghai)


----------



## Manila-X (Jul 28, 2005)

Mekky II said:


> No, it's because lands cost more, do you know how much cost a land in Frankfurt or London ? Hong-Kong is not specific of other asian cities considering its small land, but Tokyo actually have not really tall towers, the cost of land is quite big, but in China it's easy to buy one ! (a proof is that only 30% of Shangai offices are used ...). It's one of many reasons ! preservation is another, some districts of Paris have twice the density of Hong-Kong, but we still prefer don't built towers, it's like this in Paris you have a big quality of life either and the sensation that in some districts, you are in a small village of town, and not inside a metropolis of 10 millions inh. !


True. Actually most of Paris' highrises are built outside the city centre or beyond the freeway ring  But there are some high-rises in the city centre like Montparnase, Bibiotechque Nacional and a few high-rises near The Statue Of Liberty.

Anyway, some of the skyscrapers in La Defense are also very impressive not just The Grande Arche but also other scrapers like the Tour Societe Generale. Also, there was suppose to be a supertall built there which was the La Tour Sans Fins but I think the project has been cancelled.


----------



## hkskyline (Sep 13, 2002)

WANCH said:


> True. Actually most of Paris' highrises are built outside the city centre or beyond the freeway ring  But there are some high-rises in the city centre like Montparnase, Bibiotechque Nacional and a few high-rises near The Statue Of Liberty.
> 
> Anyway, some of the skyscrapers in La Defense are also very impressive not just The Grande Arche but also other scrapers like the Tour Societe Generale. Also, there was suppose to be a supertall built there which was the La Tour Sans Fins but I think the project has been cancelled.


Montparnasse isn't exactly in the CBD. It's in Paris proper, but in the 14th district. The core of Paris is the 1st district. La Defense is technically outside Paris proper (it's not in the arrond. network).


----------



## Jo (Jul 6, 2003)

Mekky II said:


> Also Torre Agbar and Swiss Re don't exist outside Europe, I predict you that asians will copy them in the future !


It's only fair if it's 'copied' because phallus shaped stone towers has dominated SE Asian skylines for centuries


----------



## DARKNIGHT (Jun 26, 2005)

This one is a tough debate.  Both continents are good. If we are counting Dubai as part of Asia than I would have to give the edge to Asia. Dubai has an amazing number of futuristic skyscrapers built, being built, approved and proposed. I must admit that London and Paris are getting some amazing buildings. I've always like Frankfurt skyline overall too. On the other hand Hong Kong, Shanghai and tokyo's smaller buildings are just amazing as well among other cities in Asia.


----------



## mithology77 (Mar 29, 2006)

Europe this changing a lot above all Moscow and Madrid.


----------



## Ozcan (Feb 4, 2005)

Definitely Asia. Next question please.


----------



## Prestonian (Sep 11, 2002)

Depends how you want to consider 'futuristic'. Asia certainly has more of the, IMO, tacky sci-fi scrapers which look quite wacky and daring but also lack a degree of quality in some cases. On the other hand Europe offers more svelte corporate futuristic buildngs which have a very high level of quality and technological innovation. I think in many cases European buildings are the more futuristic due to the complexity of sqeezing them into unforgiving locations and in dealing with regulations making designs very very clever.


----------



## Newcastle Guy (Jul 8, 2005)

Now, Asia.

Soon, europe:

The Shard (310m):










Russia tower (600m, taller than anything in Asia):










Dubai Tower istanbul (300m):










Bishopsgate tower (290m):










Minerva Tower (247m):










Federation tower (432m):










Diamond of Istanbul (256m):


----------



## Manila-X (Jul 28, 2005)

The Federation Tower looks nice except I don't like those skybridges.


----------



## www.sercan.de (Aug 10, 2003)

isn't dubai also Asia?

BTW
DOI will be IMO 238m 

and i loveee those english skyscraper renderings :cheers:


----------



## James Saito (Nov 6, 2002)

Dubai is in Asia, please don't steal it!!


----------



## Manila-X (Jul 28, 2005)

www.sercan.de said:


> isn't dubai also Asia?
> 
> BTW
> DOI will be IMO 238m
> ...


Yes Dubai is in Asia though it's classified as Middle East.


----------



## Mosaic (Feb 18, 2005)

Asian without a doubt


----------



## Manila-X (Jul 28, 2005)

How about this, alot of European architects designed several landmark skyscrapers in Asia. Just like The HSBC Building in HK by Sir Norman Foster. How would you consider this, Asian or European


----------



## SEG (Apr 2, 2006)

Singapore and Kuala Lumpur are in the British Commonwealth.


----------



## Mosaic (Feb 18, 2005)

^^^ There is nothing to do with that matter.^^^.


----------



## Newcastle Guy (Jul 8, 2005)

I think both are really interesting, and futuristic in their own way.


----------



## Justme (Sep 11, 2002)

It's an interesting one, as both continents have some very interesting and daring designs. I personally though would give the edge to Asia for skyscrapers.

However, for lowrise buildings, I would give the futuristic edge to Europe.


----------



## Manila-X (Jul 28, 2005)

Asia got some pretty modern lowrise structures as well including airports. How about the HK's airport, isn't that modern?


----------



## hkskyline (Sep 13, 2002)

Stansted and Munich have very modern airports as well. Both continents do a good job with some very innovative designs, but Europe offers a much bigger contrast especially with their stock of old buildings.


----------



## staff (Oct 23, 2004)

Futuristic, eh?


----------



## Manila-X (Jul 28, 2005)

Oh man, The Turning Torso is already defining the futuristic design of the euroscraper if not The Swiss Re or Torre Agbar.


----------



## el_artista_violeta (Nov 20, 2004)

Mekky II said:


> No, it's because *land cost more*, do you know how much cost a land in Frankfurt or London ? Hong-Kong is not specific of other asian cities considering its small land, but Tokyo actually have not really tall towers, the cost of land is quite big, but in China it's easy to buy one ! (a proof is that only 30% of Shangai offices are used ...). It's one of many reasons ! preservation is another, some districts of Paris have twice the density of Hong-Kong, but we still prefer don't built towers, it's like this in Paris you have a *big quality of life *  either and the sensation that in some districts, you are in a small village of town, and not inside a metropolis of 10 millions inh. !





Mekky II said:


> La Grande Arche is maybe ugly but it was the first skyscrapers like this in the world, since then Tokyo *copied* it and Beijing will built a similar.
> 
> Also Torre Agbar and Swiss Re don't exist outside Europe, I predict you that asians will *copy* them in the future ! Be futuristic means that others will *copy* what you have because they never had that and they find it attractive, most of big projects in Asia (beijing airport, opera houses of Beijing and Shangaï and so on) are made by european architects ! Zara Hadid, Norman Foster and Calatrava are enough well known to make Europe ahead.
> 
> The number of towers and the height of skyscrapers don't make them futuristic, they can be considered futuristic with technical figures (like the big ball of Taipei 101), but *artistically it's another world !*




^^^he's right.

-------------
we are all debating here and we are communicating via English, an European language.

we are using the Internet, something created by Americans, descendant of Europeans.

wasn't the whole skyscraper concept born in North America (yeah West again)

I think the concept of architecture like we know it started in Europe, with the Ancient Greeks, am I wrong?

This is a ridiculous comparison. Asia is great, no-one can deny that, very respectable people. But Europe is kind of the "promised land", things really started in Europe. All the ideas, the development, all the art, all the science, all the music.... I mean we are talking about hundreds and hundreds of years of non-stop craving for civilization. Europe is probably packed with development already, ancient development, so Europeans don't need skyscrapers to show they are developed, they've had hundreds of years of unbeatable progress, triumph, failure, the usual issues of the human experience, but always showing the most order among everyone on Earth.

The most important languages on Earth are all Europeans: English, Spanish, French. 

So yeah I think this is a ridiculous comparison. You earthlings..... 

damn you're so stupid sometimes.


*The Ancient Greeks*


*New York City*









*New York City - The Grandiosity of Freedom and Democracy, an European model*









*Paris - The Eiffel Tower - The First of its kind*









*Paris - The Notredame Cathedral - Art, Architecture, Faith, Order*









*The British Empire - yeah baby!!!*









*Spain - Flamenco, the guitar, Gaudi, Picasso, Dali..... simply insanity.*









*Caracas - Spaniards, Italians, Portuguese, Arabs, Germans, Mestizos.... a thriving city built on a mountain system.*


*Western Hottie :cheers:* 









*Buenos Aires: an European-modeled gem in South America*


*Buenos Aires - it's just cool to be westerner.........* :banana: 











I call it even.

Europe has things that Asia could never handle... and Asia can do things that Europeans would consider unnecessary.

I love you earthlings...


----------



## _00_deathscar (Mar 16, 2005)

Since we're going 'so far back' - civilisation started in Asia. So technically...


----------



## hkskyline (Sep 13, 2002)

China was the world's most technologically advanced nation with huge cities that led the world until the Renaissance. There were a lot of scientific innovations happening in China as Europe plunged into the Dark Ages. The compass, gunpowder, and paper were all Chinese inventions, so I wouldn't buy the Western-centric argument that European civilization is far more advanced since the leap was only made in the last 500 years. That's why Marco Polo made it all the way to Cathay and was amazed with what he saw.


----------



## Seb (Jan 16, 2005)

el_artista_violeta said:


> [/B]This is a ridiculous comparison. Asia is great, no-one can deny that, very respectable people. But Europe is kind of the "promised land", things really started in Europe. *All* the ideas, the development, *all* the art, *all* the science, *all* the music.... I mean we are talking about *hundreds and hundreds * of years of non-stop craving for civilization. Europe is probably packed with development already, ancient development, so Europeans don't need skyscrapers to show they are developed, they've had hundreds of years of unbeatable progress, triumph, failure, the usual issues of the human experience, but *always* showing the most order among everyone on Earth.


WOW, you just made my day... :sleepy:


----------



## _00_deathscar (Mar 16, 2005)

Yea precisely.

Riles me that some people can be so ignorant.


----------



## cyrusal (Sep 20, 2005)

definitely asian


----------



## el_artista_violeta (Nov 20, 2004)

hkskyline said:


> China was the world's most technologically advanced nation with huge cities that led the world until the Renaissance. There were a lot of scientific innovations happening in China as Europe plunged into the Dark Ages. The compass, gunpowder, and paper were all Chinese inventions, so I wouldn't buy the *Western-centric argument  * that European civilization is far more advanced since the leap was only made in the last 500 years. That's why Marco Polo made it all the way to Cathay and was amazed with what he saw.


yeah well you have a good argument. anyway, I never said Europe was better or more advanced or more important than anyone else, I would never say that. Earth is all of us, and all that we have today has been the work of all humans thriving to make things better. The Dark Ages though represented a relatively short amount of time compared to all of Europe's history. Still, this was a very necessary step for the great Renassaince.




_00_deathscar said:


> Since we're going 'so far back' - civilisation started in Asia. So technically...


Uh huh..... yeah.... I thought civilization started in Africa, and then Babilon (where Irak is located). 




Seb said:


> WOW, you just made my day... :sleepy:


thx for the sarcasm, I wish I had butter to put on it. 




_00_deathscar said:


> Yea precisely.
> 
> Riles me that some people can be so ignorant.


oh man that's sweet. I tell you mirrors are sooooo cool.......






I love you earthlings. :bash:


----------



## _00_deathscar (Mar 16, 2005)

el_artista_violeta said:


> Uh huh..... yeah.... I thought civilization started in Africa, and then Babilon (where Irak is located).


Your ignorance shines through yet again.

Human life began in Africa. Civil*s*ation began in Egypt and Mesopotamia as well as Eastern Asia (namely, by the Yangtze and Indus rivers).


----------

