Friday, April 20, 2007

Isn't Big 3 a redundant term?

It is common for scraoper enthusiasts to talk of a Big 3 of CHI, NYC and Hong Kong.

CHI has 10 buildings over 250 metres with 2 in construction. Total 12.
NYC 7 and 3 respectively. Total 10.
HK 9 and 5 respectively. Total 14.
Shanghai 9 and 6 respectively. Total 15.

I realise that there are arguments about aesthetics and other issues but purely on number of supertalls - by which I mean 250 mtrs plus - isn't it no longer accurate to speak of a big 3 when in 2 to 3 years Shanghai will have hafd as many again supertalls than NYC? Isn't it true that now we have a Big 4?

Interesting aside: Each Chinese city has as many supertalls in construction as the U.S. Big 2 combined. The Chinese boom goes on relentlessly.>

No comments: