Comment 111810

By Haveacow (registered) | Posted May 28, 2015 at 09:55:27

@BJK (anonymous), tall buildings don't necessarily mean success. Many, if not nearly all of the super tall buildings built in China and Dubai recently (the last 20 years or so), would not be built at all if they were located in most "western countries". The reason is not entirely do to regulation of building height but banking and loan regulations. In most western countries banks require that buildings be (depending on the banking institution) 60-75% leased out before construction can begin. Many of those super tall buildings built in China are barely 10% leased. Dubai had several more buildings taller than the Burj Khalifa planned but financial reality set in and it is unlikely they will ever be built because even today, the Burj Khalifa is only 60% leased and occupied.

New York City of the 1920's had a competition of sorts between three large office buildings that were all trying to be "the tallest building in the world". The last of the three to be completed was the Empire State Building. Due to the depression, all of the more grander and taller structures that were planned for New York City were never built. It took till the 1940's before the Empire State Building was fully leased.

There is no set definition of "Skyscrapers" any more because different cities have different height regulations and occupancy rules. Originally anything over 7 stories in the late 19th century was considered to be "a Skyscraper". However, it is generally believed among developers that, anything over 100 metres is a Skyscraper now. Where as anything from 35 to 100 metres in height is considered to be a "high-rise". Then engineers and architects get involved and the definition changes again. So call it what you want, it seems to be the official definition is quite fluid.

Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools