The Comedy Awards Master Thread

[Caravelle]

"This listing ranks cities by the visual impact of their skylines. It is drawn entirely from statistics in this website's database, and reflects only completed high-rise buildings as defined by the Emporis Standards Committee (ESC). This calculation does not include TV towers, masts, bridges, or other structures.
About the formula: Each building is assigned points based on its floor count (see the table to the right). The point total for each city is calculated automatically and displayed."

Points per Building
12..19 floors = 1 point
20..29 floors = 5 points
30..39 floors = 25 points
40..49 floors = 50 points
50..59 floors = 100 points
60..69 floors = 200 points
70..79 floors = 300 points
80..89 floors = 400 points
90..99 floors = 500 points
100+ floors = 600 points

Place City Population Area Buildings² Points³
1. Hong Kong 6,943,600 1,053 km² 7,681 128,547
2. New York City 8,391,881 800 km² 5,843 38,893
3. Chicago 2,853,114 589 km² 1,110 18,546
4. Singapore 4,351,400 710 km² 4,342 18,065
5. São Paulo 10,990,249 1,523 km² 5,662 17,034
6. Seoul 10,331,244 616 km² 2,877 16,880
7. Shanghai 9,145,711 6,639 km² 987 14,746
8. Tokyo 8,653,000 621 km² 2,700 13,374
9. Bangkok 7,587,882 1,569 km² 784 13,333
10. Dubai 1,241,000 3,885 km² 517 11,957


(source: Emporis)


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

[jjpb3]

Ah, ratings based on floor count, in order to come up with 'The Greatest'.

QED.

[Caravelle]

The Emporis annual ranking is actually quite scientific and hardly based on emotions. The actual number of buildings 12 stories and above is counted and each building is awarded a score based on the number of stories (the only arbitrary bit, I would say here in its computation). Still, you get the TOTAL number of buildings in the city (12 stories and above - whether the building is wretchedly ugly or supremely beautiful is not taken into consideration here). In Singapore, there are 4342 buildings meeting this criterion. The other criteria are mentioned in my earlier posting.

Many people mistakenly think that NYC has the most number of tall buildings. This is so untrue. If you examine an aerial view of Manhattan island, the buildings are only clustered in Downtown and Uptown, unlike Hong Kong which stretches all along Victoria Harbour as well as many pockets in New Territories and bay areas on HK Island itself. In NYC, there are hardly any other tall buildings in Queens, Brooklyn, Harlem, etc.

I agree with the remarks on Seoul, Bangkok but not with Sao Paulo. When I was landing in Sao Paulo a couple of years back, it is one of the few cities that I could not make out the horizon as it is totally saturated with tall buildings.

As for Singapore, in my opinion, we have an interesting skyline comprising 4342 buildings (12 stories or higher) - perhaps boosted by the many HDB flats as well, still this puts it at No. 4 globally in terms of most number of skyscrapers.

[Caravelle]

Chicago doesn't have as many skyscrapers apart from those in downtown. You can see how flat the skyline becomes out of the 5km radius.

http://i509.photobucket.com/albums/s...Picture001.jpg

Look at Sao Paulo, now that's a very DIFFERENT story.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DPjzkYobOKE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e2R_V...eature=related

Having said that - I reckon that there are more aesthetically designed buildings in Chicago compared to Sao Paulo.

[Caravelle]

^^

I actually question Bangkok, Dubai and Seoul's entries there. Sure you have the tallest building in the world but I don't see as many skyscrapers in Dubai as I do in say LA or even KL.

LA has a very small number of skyscrapers.

[jjpb3]

The Emporis annual ranking is actually quite scientific and hardly based on emotions. The actual number of buildings 12 stories and above is counted and each buidling is awarded a score based on the number of stories (the only arbitrary bit, I would say here in its computation). Still, you get the TOTAL number of buildings in the city (12 stories and above - whether the building is wretchedly ugly or supremely beautiful is not taken into consideration here). In Singapore, there are 4342 buildings meeting this criterion. The other criteria are mentioned in my earlier posting.

Many people mistakenly think that NYC has the most number of tall buildings. This is so untrue. If you examine an aerial view of Manhattan island, the buildings are only clustered in Downtown and Uptown, unlike Hong Kong which stretches all along Victoria Harbour as well as many pockets in New Territories and bay areas on HK Island inself. In NYC, there are hardly any other tall buildings in Queens. Brooklyn, Harlem, etc.

I agree with the remarks on Seoul, Bangkok but not with Sao Paulo. When I was landing in Sao Paulo a couple of years back, it is one of the few cities that I could not make out the end the horizon as it is totally saturated with tall buildings.

As for Singapore, in my opinion, we have an interesting skyline comprising more than 4342 buildings - perhaps boosted by the many HDB flats as well, still this puts it at No. 4 globally in terms of most number of skyscrapers.

You missed the critique completely, didn't you? The rating wasn't about the 'World's Highest Density of High-Rise Completed Floors' but about 'Greatest Skylines'. 'Greatest' is an emotional and subjective criterion. Other factors besides number of floors completed (despite being 'wretchedly ugly') can legitimately be included.

By the way, the choice of a so-called 'scientific' criterion is an emotional one in itself (based on the denial of the validity of less quantifiable, subjective factors).

Really, though, the list, IMO, belongs to the Comedy Thread for its pseudo-scientific positioning.

[Caravelle]

Perhaps the term "Greatest Skyline" is not the best term to use, even to infer to Emporis' rather methodological ranking. Can anyone propose a better term, based on Emporis' methodology? I'll compile a list of terms and forward it to Emporis.

[Caravelle]

You missed the critique completely, didn't you? The rating wasn't about the 'World's Highest Density of High-Rise Completed Floors' but about 'Greatest Skylines'. 'Greatest' is an emotional and subjective criterion. Other factors besides number of floors completed (despite being 'wretchedly ugly') can legitimately be included.

By the way, the choice of a so-called 'scientific' criterion is an emotional one in itself (based on the denial of the validity of less quantifiable, subjective factors).

Really, though, the list, IMO, belongs to the Comedy Thread for its pseudo-scientific positioning.

As I mentioned - I have my misgivings about the term "Greatest" but there certainly wasn't any mistake with the element of the 'World's Highest Density of High-Rise Completed Floors' in the methodology of this survey . Examine the survey methodology again.

Everything in life has a subjective element to it. All surveys are subjective. If we insist on taking a purist stance, all surveys should be abolished and perhaps every assessment we administer in life should be done away too.

[jjpb3]

Chicago's doesn't have as many skyscrapers apart from those in downtown. You can see how flat the skyline becomes out of the 9km radius.

http://i509.photobucket.com/albums/s...Picture001.jpg

Look at Sao Paulo, how that's a very DIFFERENT story.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DPjzkYobOKE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e2R_V...eature=related

Having said that - I reckon that there are more aesthetically designed buildings in Chicago compared to Sao Paulo.

Clearly you and I attach different weights to quality vs. quantity for the definition of a 'Great Skyline'. The world is more interesting because of these differences. You can be amazed going by the sheer count of the number of tall buildings, while I can happily stand back as a skyline with a small number of skyscrapers makes me pause and marvel.

[Caravelle]

Clearly you and I attach different weights to quality vs. quantity for the definition of a 'Great Skyline'. The world is more interesting because of these differences. You can be amazed going by the sheer count of the number of tall buildings, while I can happily stand back as a skyline with a small number of skyscrapers makes me pause and marvel.

[jjpb3]

As I mentioned - I have my misgivings about the term "Greatest" but there certainly wasn't any mistake with the element of the 'World's Highest Density of High-Rise Completed Floors' in the methodology of this survey . Examine the survey methodology again.

Everything in life has a subjective element to it. All surveys are subjective. If we insist on taking a purist stance, all surveys should be abolished and perhaps every assesment we administer in life should be done away too.

Interesting. You don't think taking a stand and announcing 'Greatest Skylines' based on the Emporis ratings wasn't (1) subjective, and to a certain extent, (2) purist?

By the way, I didn't say that there was a mistake in the way they executed their algorithm, i.e., that a city who should have scored higher based on their criterion wasn't rated higher. What I did claim was that the choice of the algorithm was too limiting in order to come up with a list of the 'Greatest', and that based on my own subjective views, the number of city skylines that made it to 'Greatest' status was also inflated.

As for your suggestion to abolish any survey if the outcome of this survey is critiqued, don't you think you yourself took a black-and-white view of the implication? The implication of the critique, as far as I can see, is to be wary of any list proclaiming 'greatest', particularly when the methodology is some algorithm going purely with a quantifiable criterion.

[Caravelle]

Interesting. You don't think taking a stand and announcing 'Greatest Skylines' based on the Emporis ratings wasn't (1) subjective, and to a certain extent, (2) purist?

As for your suggestion to abolish any survey if the outcome of this survey is critiqued, don't you think you yourself took a black-and-white view of the implication? The implication of the critique, as far as I can see, is to be wary of any list proclaiming 'greatest', particularly when the methodology is some algorithm going purely with a quantifiable criterion.

Of course we have to be wary of any list proclaiming "greatest". Please refer to my previous posting. I am as much bedeviled by this term as you are.

[jjpb3]

Of course we have to be wary of any list proclaiming "greatest". Please refer to my previous posting. I am as much bedeviled by this term as you are.

I see, we agree on this.

[Caravelle]

I see, we agree on this.

[Kyo]

Settle down, boys

The 'cityscape' rather than the 'skyline' of Bangkok, when viewed from a high point in the city *is*, to me, breathtaking (maybe not as huge a breath as when viewing Hong Kong for example). It's the same kind of 'breathtaking' I get when I'm in Beijing. There are actually many distinguishing features - here's some of the ones in Bangkok:

UOB robot building
Kasikorn 'double-green-diamond' building
Lebua State Tower's Dome
Banyan Tree building
Baiyoke Sky Tower
Tip of the Conrad Hotel
Hotels all along the Chao Phraya river

And even 'lit-up' landmarks such as:

Roftops - e.g. Red Sky (it's a restaurant/bar near Central World area)
Bridges (all unique, and lit up)
Temples / Wats

All these contribute to making me always stop to catch my breath. It's still one of the most 'calming', yet spectacular views for me. It's when I look out from a hotel room over Bangkok late at night and take it in, that I feel quite 'at home' in my home away from home.

Righty-o, enough of waxing lyrical.