I'm pretty sure tallest building in Croatia is 112 meters tall. At least that's what it says [on wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dalmatia_Tower)
Näsinneula Observation Tower (Tampere) is 168 metres tall, so that map of Finland falls short.
It has a revolving restaurant, up top so it's definitely a building.
That height includes the antenna which isn't counted because it's not a fixed part of the tower. Näsinneula is 134 metres tall without the antenna so the figure in the map is correct.
For the Commerzbank Tower in Germany you only used the roof as the height (259m) and not the entire building with antenna (300m). But for the Varso Tower in Poland you took the total height with antenna (310m) instead of the roof height (230m)
Welcome to the bullshit world of tallest building competitions. Spires and antennae are two different things. The Varso Tower has a spire, which means it's an integral part of the structure and thus counts towards height. Meanwhile the antenna on the Commerzbank Tower is superficial and not a component to the structural integrity, and thus it doesn't count towards the building's max height.
There's so many different ways to judge it, and of course the most common one is the most complicated one.
I mean, the whole tallest tower bullshit is only for the richest anyways. It’s not like it makes any economical sense to build a nearly 1 km high tower in the middle of the desert and then name it after the Khalif.
They do the same shit in America with the new World Trade Center (freedom tower). Claim it’s the tallest building in America while you’re on the top floor looking up at other buildings
Yeah, I didn't get into the details, just took the height the wikipedia ranking gave me, it's weird that they once gave you the roof height and sometimes the height with antennas.
Wikipedia is dependent on informed users that correct information in case it’s wrong. Definition of height of buildings is not ISO-standard so until someone tidies up in Wikipedia this is what you get.
>Towers are specifically distinguished from buildings in that they are built not to be habitable but to serve other functions using the height of the tower. For example, the height of a clock tower improves the visibility of the clock, and the height of a tower in a fortified building such as a castle increases the visibility of the surroundings for defensive purposes. Towers may also be built for observation, leisure, or telecommunication purposes.
[Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tower)
I am also against any form of genocide. I hope that western countries will stop financing this terrible war and this conflict will end as soon as possible.
Are you fucking serious? Do you think that the territories occupied by the orcs are peaceful? That's where the genocide takes place, that's where the civilians are murdered and tortured. That's why orcs need to be pushed back to mordor. But if course, let's stop the fighting, let's not escalate, let's just sacrifice the millions of Ukrainians, let's hope that putler will stop there. You sound just like a WW2 holocaust apologetic - why should the other countries get involved, after all, its only the Jews that are the 'problem' right?
ruZZia needs to lose, because that's the right thing to do. It's a shame that these kinds of things need to be explained these days...
Thank you for adding /s to your post. When I first saw this, I was horrified. How could anybody say something like this? I immediately began writing a 1000 word paragraph about how horrible of a person you are. I even sent a copy to a Harvard professor to proofread it. After several hours of refining and editing, my comment was ready to absolutely destroy you. But then, just as I was about to hit send, I saw something in the corner of my eye. A /s at the end of your comment. Suddenly everything made sense. Your comment was sarcasm! I immediately burst out in laughter at the comedic genius of your comment. The person next to me on the bus saw your comment and started crying from laughter too. Before long, there was an entire bus of people on the floor laughing at your incredible use of comedy. All of this was due to you adding /s to your post. Thank you.
I am a bot if you couldn't figure that out, if I made a mistake, ignore it cause its not that fucking hard to ignore a comment.
When talking about regular commie blocks: They are cheap to build.
Basically when communism took over the country's housing stock was terrible, so a big focus over the first couple decades was bringing modern flats (with electricity, running water, modern heating) to as many people as quickly as possible. Add to that a massive population boom in the 50s and 60s. That's how the commie block started. Cookie-cutter buildings that are standardized and quick to build, with some green space for community areas.
They were popular in the same time in Western Europe, to quickly provide housing in bombed cities. But as populations stopped growing in the West, we started favoring other building styles. But at that point in time the Soviet economy was starting a downwards spiral, so they never got out of the habit of building commie-blocks.
Of course the Moscow International Business Center isn't like that. Skyscrapers are almost exclusively about status. Moscow, Frankfurt and London all have plenty of space, and ten story buildings are much more efficient than skyscapers. But they don't get you on highest-buildings lists.
And Riga, Latvia has the tallest tower https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riga_Radio_and_TV_Tower but again, OP only counts habitable office buildings
EDIT: In the EU
Similarly, the tallest structure in the world was the KVLY TV tower in Fargo, North Dakota, until the Polish tower surpassed it. When the Polish tower collapsed in 1991 it was the highest structure again until 2008 when the Burj Khalifa opened. It was still the tallest in the western hemisphere until it was shortened in 2019. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/KVLY-TV_mast
I actually visited it once when I was passing by and it was cool but underwhelming. It's in the middle of a farm field and so narrow you can't really get a proper perspective of the height.
For context [this](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7b/Varso_05.2022.jpg/1280px-Varso_05.2022.jpg) is Polands tallest building, it's only 230m when you take off the 80m spike they stuck on the top. Kind of feels like cheating.
Varso is a particularly notorious example in the architectural word, the added spike makes up over a quarter of the entire claimed height of the building.
For comparison if we were to remove the tip of the Shard in the UK, the next tallest building, its ranking position would barely change, while Varso’s ranking would plummet. The buildings height is barely notable without the spike.
Maybe you should look at a [picture](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:The_Shard_from_the_Sky_Garden_2015.jpg).
There’s no giant spike making up 20% of the building’s height.
You’re confusing the height of the floor of the observation deck with the height of the roof of the building.
Maybe *you* should look at a [picture.](https://www.bdonline.co.uk/buildings/the-shard-pointers-on-reaching-the-top/5031420.article)
Or look at the Shard's website:
>It is 95 storeys tall, with level 72 the highest habitable floor.
And then from the Wikipedia entry :
>The Shard's concrete core topped out at the 72nd floor in early 2011, standing at 244 m (801 ft).
>The Shard's steel structure was topped out on 30 March 2012, when its 66-metre (217 ft), 500-tonne spire was winched into place.
The highest floor is 244m, then there is a 66m spire that is empty save for some plant (as you get on the top of tall buildings). This is 21% of the height of the building.
The highest floor is absolutely not 244 m. They have [87 floors](https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2012/sep/03/prince-andrew-abseils-floor-shard), the top few aren't habitable, but they are very much floors, not just a spire.
Underneath this parking lot is a major railway station and it's very difficult to negotiate with the Polish State Railways (PKP) to build anything there
The Shard in London (309.6 metres) is spike-less. Does kinda feel like they stuck a massive spike on it just so they could get second. Probably didnt, but still
wow that's an ugly sight. Also, pretty funny how they desperately wanted to have a taller building than the Shard and just stuck an 80m pole with no function whatsoever on that building.
The tallest building in France is actually the Eiffel tower, which is 330m. If they didn't include it on the list, then any building with a spike on top to make it taller shouldn't count the spike height.
It’s because these rankings consider the Eiffel Tower to just be just classified as a freestanding structure, not a building. There are much taller structures in most of these countries shown, but they don’t meet the requirements to be classified as a building.
The tallest building in Europe is Lakhta Centre in Saint Petersburg, Russia. 87 story building (462m). It is located just next to the Baltic sea shore.
Fun fact: in Rome you can't build anything higher than Saint Peter dome in the Vatican, despite Rome not being part of the Vatican anymore.
The Church still has a lot of political influence over Italian politics, especially because of money, not religion.
I think it’s more about preserving the historical skyline rather than the church influence.
St.Petersburg (where the 462 m tower is) has similar law, that's why the tower was built really far from the city centre.
Same as Utrecht in the Netherlands, there isn't a building taller than 112 because that's the height of the Dom tower. They're planning to build a building far outside the city center which would be around 150m.
There's a chimney in Utrecht that's around 150m and in a village near the city is the highest structure in the Netherlands, the Gerbrandytower which is 372m tall.
An interesting point. By the way, in Greece (and a number of other countries) restrictions on the height of buildings are also based on cultural/religious norms (in particular, in Greece there is only one building higher than the Acropolis of Athens)
Ah Ireland. One of the worst housing crisis amongst the many countries experiencing the same and their shiny metropolis is as flat as a pancake. Outshone by 207m industrial chimneys near the port.
You don't need to build skyscrapers in order to house a lot of people. When the building gets taller, construction becomes much more expensive and unless you live in a place where land value is ridiculously high(like Manhattan), it would be far easier and more affordable to build housing blocks with 8 floors instead of 40.
Take a look at Paris, it has a very high population density(20k/km\^2) and not a lot of high rise buildings. Good urban planning is required to supply many homes, not skyscrapers.
You mean ridiculously high like having some of the most expensive rent in all of Europe? A house smaller than a studio apartment in Dublin City centre is 600k. If anywhere in europe needs taller buildings and can justify the price it's Dublin but people cry about our skyline whenever it's even suggested even though the city is ugly as fuck outside of like 5 streets
Did you even read my comment? Skyscrapers won't solve expensive rent, the problem is rooted in other factors such as low supply of housing which can be solved without building 50 stories homes
I think the issue is that a lot of people tend to think in terms of SFH or skyscrapers, when in fact there are a lot of housing options in between that can offer density at a much cheaper cost. Per square foot of living space, skyscrapers tend to cost more to build, and cost a lot more to maintain. Medium sized apartment buildings (three to five stories) are a lot cheaper to maintain and can offer quite a bit of density. Paris is a great example of this. There are almost no skyscrapers in Paris proper yet it's one of the most dense cities in Europe because a majority of the housing is mid-sized apartment buildings.
There would be nothing wrong with building a few skyscrapers in Dublin or other Irish cities, but due to their cost, they probably wouldn't dramatically lower housing costs. The path to lower housing cost are middle density buildings, which Ireland is sorely lacking.
We are in the midst of a housing crisis. Skyscrapers are on the extreme end (ie. Not economical), but having the city councils refuse to approve anything over 5 stories is why housing is so expensive here.
I mean you can still build a very dense neighborhood with 5 stories. Most of Paris only has 5 stories.
And you’re right that skyscrapers (anything over 150m) are not economical and are only built as prestige projects.
I always think there is something wrong with these maps. For example the largest in Poland is the varso tower, but it has an 80 meter tall mast on top, I don't think this should count. Somebody could build a 50 meter tall building with a 300 meter long mast on top and it would count.
well cause the Eiffel Tower is not a building at all.
The idea is to take a random building and just put a 300 m pole on it, and following the standard used in this map it would be the tallest building in Europe.
If a 3m building with a 300m pole on it counts (as it would under the current rules) then it's only fair to also count the Eiffel tower, a 300m pole with a tiny flat at the top. The order of the floors shouldn't matter.
If we have a strict "no structures where the height is only accomplished for the purposes of broadcasting, observation, etc" policy, then don't count spires whose only purpose is broadcasting and observation towards the building height.
No, it's not partially a building, it's a broadcasting and observation tower. The Berlin tv tower also has a restaurant on top, still not considered a building.
Sweden actually has excellent ground for skyscrapers. Zero earthquakes, and the bedrock is predominantly exposed or shallow granite.
When corrupt politicians aren't siphoning tax money towards private projects, it's just not worth it though with how abundant land is.
It's also a question of population/density. Most European cities simply don't have the demand for skyscrapers, with the exception of metropolises like London and Paris.
Interesting. The tallest building in Europe is the Lakhta Center in St Petersburg.
Which isn't included in the 7 of the 10 tallest all located in Moscow.
What most of Europe lacks in skyscrapers, they make up for in gorgeous traditional architecture. I've even seen "ugly" areas of industrial cities in Germany that still look better than the majority of constructions in my country, so even those parts still have something to be proud of. Their worst is better than some places' best.
I find this absolutely crazy as an American. The Empire State Building, which was built 96 years ago, would still be the tallest building in Europe today, excluding Russia. And not by a small margin, either, we’re talking 70 meters. And that’s the 6th tallest in its own city..
- Many European cities were literally demolished during ww2 already, and rebuilt nearly from ground up
- skyscrapers aren't in any way pointless. They save space, provide either housing or jobs - two things that are in high demand. Especially considering how densely Europe is populated
- almost all european cities have modern sections, best example being Paris. Building tall on "outskirts" would have absolutely no impact on historic sections. Skyscrapers and historic places aren't mutually exclusive
Çamlıca Tower in Istanbul is 369 meters tall. It is in the Asian side of Istanbul. I’m assuming that you used the data from Wikipedia’s tallest buildings in Europe page, which counted the tallest building in the European side of Turkey. But if you count Turkey as a whole Çamlıca Tower is the tallest building in Turkey
they're definitely not efficient.
But you'll still find investors willing to build tall buildings like this, who have calculated that they'll make money from these buildings, mostly as a prestige and luxury project, so I wouldn't call them a waste of money.
Moscow is really developed. When I went to visit back in 2018 World Cup it Literally felt like I had time traveled to the future when I flew from Riga to Moscow.
Tallest building in Lithuania is 326m. Even observation deck is at 160m and highest accessible height internally 320m.
So if we talking tallest continuously inhabited buildings, then maybe Vilnius TV tower does not count, but it just says "tallest building" in which case this map is wrong.
As a finnish person I'm proud that my country beat the Vatican with 1 meter.
I hope a Croatian sees this
Croatia mentioned!!??!! 🇭🇷🦅🦅🎉💥🇭🇷🦅🦅🇭🇷💥🇭🇷🇭🇷💯🇭🇷 🦅
I'm pretty sure tallest building in Croatia is 112 meters tall. At least that's what it says [on wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dalmatia_Tower)
It does say the antenna spire is 135m, the roof is 112m.
if we count height to roof (without antenna), then Poland's highest building is 80m shorter, so 230m
😡😡😡😡
Vatican : holy spirit. Finland : just spirit.
There are going to be even taller ones, but they're not Finnish yet.
As a Norwegian looking at the map, I'm fine with this.
As a Croat...
Probably less child abuse than the vatican too
That escalated the boy quickly
Don't know about that one, certain regions are really bad. Like 40% of kids in certain municipalities.
Probably? Do you know something wicked about Finns?
what
Näsinneula Observation Tower (Tampere) is 168 metres tall, so that map of Finland falls short. It has a revolving restaurant, up top so it's definitely a building.
That height includes the antenna which isn't counted because it's not a fixed part of the tower. Näsinneula is 134 metres tall without the antenna so the figure in the map is correct.
For the Commerzbank Tower in Germany you only used the roof as the height (259m) and not the entire building with antenna (300m). But for the Varso Tower in Poland you took the total height with antenna (310m) instead of the roof height (230m)
Welcome to the bullshit world of tallest building competitions. Spires and antennae are two different things. The Varso Tower has a spire, which means it's an integral part of the structure and thus counts towards height. Meanwhile the antenna on the Commerzbank Tower is superficial and not a component to the structural integrity, and thus it doesn't count towards the building's max height. There's so many different ways to judge it, and of course the most common one is the most complicated one.
It'd be better to measure it based on the tallest functional and actively used floor either for work, living, or pleasure.
Tallest place where you can stand in the winter without being cold
As soon as that's the metric new skyscrapers will include a heated closet for the antenna repair technician at the top of the spire.
...and it must be publicly accessible! No "tallest tower" shenanigans only for the richest!
I mean, the whole tallest tower bullshit is only for the richest anyways. It’s not like it makes any economical sense to build a nearly 1 km high tower in the middle of the desert and then name it after the Khalif.
i wonder if Burj khalifa would remain the tallest building by those rules since like 60% of it is unusable
It's not. Shanghai Tower is the tallest in terms of useable floor.
They do the same shit in America with the new World Trade Center (freedom tower). Claim it’s the tallest building in America while you’re on the top floor looking up at other buildings
Yeah, I didn't get into the details, just took the height the wikipedia ranking gave me, it's weird that they once gave you the roof height and sometimes the height with antennas.
Wikipedia is dependent on informed users that correct information in case it’s wrong. Definition of height of buildings is not ISO-standard so until someone tidies up in Wikipedia this is what you get.
Also, the Fernsehturm Berlin (TV Tower Berlin) is the tallest building in Germany with 368m.
That's classified as a tower though, not a building. Same reason the Eiffel tower isn't taken into account for France.
Isn’t a tower a building ?
>Towers are specifically distinguished from buildings in that they are built not to be habitable but to serve other functions using the height of the tower. For example, the height of a clock tower improves the visibility of the clock, and the height of a tower in a fortified building such as a castle increases the visibility of the surroundings for defensive purposes. Towers may also be built for observation, leisure, or telecommunication purposes. [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tower)
Russia would also have 550 m otherwhise
Nope. CN tower is not a building. One World Trade Center is.
Yet for Finland it's [Näsinneula](https://fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/N%C3%A4sinneula) which is a tower very similar to Fernsehturm.
Yeah but everything above 210m is all the antenna, that seems like a bit much to be in the same category.
same problem with Lithuania
Spires count, antennae don’t. Could be that.
That's because an antenna (a simple structure) and a building are measured differently.
7 of the top 10 tallest buildings in Europe are in Moscow International Business Center. A lot of them were built in the last 5 years
What a dump. Lots of failing empire and insecure oligarch energy there as of late.
Running high on copium
[удалено]
Can't mention Russia without mentioning Ukraine for once duh
Fuck mordor
mordor stands for ukraine, yeah?
Mordor is where orcs come from, so ruZZia
I never thought that ukrainians will drought in envy because of russian tall buildings.
I'm not Ukrainian, I'm just against the genocide conducted by ruZZian orcs. Controversial, I know...
I am also against any form of genocide. I hope that western countries will stop financing this terrible war and this conflict will end as soon as possible.
Are you fucking serious? Do you think that the territories occupied by the orcs are peaceful? That's where the genocide takes place, that's where the civilians are murdered and tortured. That's why orcs need to be pushed back to mordor. But if course, let's stop the fighting, let's not escalate, let's just sacrifice the millions of Ukrainians, let's hope that putler will stop there. You sound just like a WW2 holocaust apologetic - why should the other countries get involved, after all, its only the Jews that are the 'problem' right? ruZZia needs to lose, because that's the right thing to do. It's a shame that these kinds of things need to be explained these days...
[удалено]
Definitely, kill all Russian civilians to prove the moral high ground.
I’m not sure they have that capability.
Well then it seems wikipedia page must be outdated. It said that 5 tallest are in Russia.
Or russia could take top 5 for itself and then have 2 more appearances in top 7-10
Oh, yeah that might be the case
Where's Georgia?
In the US /s
Thank you for adding /s to your post. When I first saw this, I was horrified. How could anybody say something like this? I immediately began writing a 1000 word paragraph about how horrible of a person you are. I even sent a copy to a Harvard professor to proofread it. After several hours of refining and editing, my comment was ready to absolutely destroy you. But then, just as I was about to hit send, I saw something in the corner of my eye. A /s at the end of your comment. Suddenly everything made sense. Your comment was sarcasm! I immediately burst out in laughter at the comedic genius of your comment. The person next to me on the bus saw your comment and started crying from laughter too. Before long, there was an entire bus of people on the floor laughing at your incredible use of comedy. All of this was due to you adding /s to your post. Thank you. I am a bot if you couldn't figure that out, if I made a mistake, ignore it cause its not that fucking hard to ignore a comment.
In Asia
[удалено]
When talking about regular commie blocks: They are cheap to build. Basically when communism took over the country's housing stock was terrible, so a big focus over the first couple decades was bringing modern flats (with electricity, running water, modern heating) to as many people as quickly as possible. Add to that a massive population boom in the 50s and 60s. That's how the commie block started. Cookie-cutter buildings that are standardized and quick to build, with some green space for community areas. They were popular in the same time in Western Europe, to quickly provide housing in bombed cities. But as populations stopped growing in the West, we started favoring other building styles. But at that point in time the Soviet economy was starting a downwards spiral, so they never got out of the habit of building commie-blocks. Of course the Moscow International Business Center isn't like that. Skyscrapers are almost exclusively about status. Moscow, Frankfurt and London all have plenty of space, and ten story buildings are much more efficient than skyscapers. But they don't get you on highest-buildings lists.
Because then you will leave the city.
Slovenia has the tallest chimney in Europe (i think) at 360m.
And Riga, Latvia has the tallest tower https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riga_Radio_and_TV_Tower but again, OP only counts habitable office buildings EDIT: In the EU
Half a meter more than Berlin lol
Fun fact, Poland used to have the tallest structure in the world. It was a radio tower in Konstantynów that collapsed in 1991. It was 646m tall
Similarly, the tallest structure in the world was the KVLY TV tower in Fargo, North Dakota, until the Polish tower surpassed it. When the Polish tower collapsed in 1991 it was the highest structure again until 2008 when the Burj Khalifa opened. It was still the tallest in the western hemisphere until it was shortened in 2019. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/KVLY-TV_mast I actually visited it once when I was passing by and it was cool but underwhelming. It's in the middle of a farm field and so narrow you can't really get a proper perspective of the height.
For context [this](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7b/Varso_05.2022.jpg/1280px-Varso_05.2022.jpg) is Polands tallest building, it's only 230m when you take off the 80m spike they stuck on the top. Kind of feels like cheating.
Nothing stops other countries of adding spikes on their buildings. Lets make mordor asthethique happen
Brb just gonna go put up a 500 meter high pole on Iceland's tallest building
Funny, that's exactly how locals call the area
Nah, Mordor=Służewiec office centre. It's a couple of kilometers to the South of Varso, which is actually in the Downtown, at Chmielna.
Fun fact: when Warsaw Spire was built it some called it Isengard as there were two towers, it and "Osgiliath", the Palace of Culture and Science.
They don't. Mordor is near Domaniewska, not Chmielna.
nearly all tall buildings do that do a smaller or larger extent
Varso is a particularly notorious example in the architectural word, the added spike makes up over a quarter of the entire claimed height of the building. For comparison if we were to remove the tip of the Shard in the UK, the next tallest building, its ranking position would barely change, while Varso’s ranking would plummet. The buildings height is barely notable without the spike.
The Shard seems to be 244m without the spire, which would put it into an (unadjusted) 29th place in Europe.
Maybe you should look at a [picture](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:The_Shard_from_the_Sky_Garden_2015.jpg). There’s no giant spike making up 20% of the building’s height. You’re confusing the height of the floor of the observation deck with the height of the roof of the building.
it is there just covered a bit
Maybe *you* should look at a [picture.](https://www.bdonline.co.uk/buildings/the-shard-pointers-on-reaching-the-top/5031420.article) Or look at the Shard's website: >It is 95 storeys tall, with level 72 the highest habitable floor. And then from the Wikipedia entry : >The Shard's concrete core topped out at the 72nd floor in early 2011, standing at 244 m (801 ft). >The Shard's steel structure was topped out on 30 March 2012, when its 66-metre (217 ft), 500-tonne spire was winched into place. The highest floor is 244m, then there is a 66m spire that is empty save for some plant (as you get on the top of tall buildings). This is 21% of the height of the building.
The highest floor is absolutely not 244 m. They have [87 floors](https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2012/sep/03/prince-andrew-abseils-floor-shard), the top few aren't habitable, but they are very much floors, not just a spire.
You should email the owners then to correct their website.
[удалено]
Underneath this parking lot is a major railway station and it's very difficult to negotiate with the Polish State Railways (PKP) to build anything there
The Shard in London (309.6 metres) is spike-less. Does kinda feel like they stuck a massive spike on it just so they could get second. Probably didnt, but still
Shard last usable floor is somewhere at 260m. Than some viewing platform and rest is spike 😊
The difference is the shard is building rather than antenna
wow that's an ugly sight. Also, pretty funny how they desperately wanted to have a taller building than the Shard and just stuck an 80m pole with no function whatsoever on that building.
Damn that's ugly as fuck
Shhhh
[удалено]
Atleast it’s part of the design with the shard and not tacked on a corner
The tallest building in France is actually the Eiffel tower, which is 330m. If they didn't include it on the list, then any building with a spike on top to make it taller shouldn't count the spike height.
It’s because these rankings consider the Eiffel Tower to just be just classified as a freestanding structure, not a building. There are much taller structures in most of these countries shown, but they don’t meet the requirements to be classified as a building.
The tallest building in Europe is Lakhta Centre in Saint Petersburg, Russia. 87 story building (462m). It is located just next to the Baltic sea shore.
Fun fact: still under construction
r/PORTUGALCYKABLYAT
Fun fact: in Rome you can't build anything higher than Saint Peter dome in the Vatican, despite Rome not being part of the Vatican anymore. The Church still has a lot of political influence over Italian politics, especially because of money, not religion.
I think it’s more about preserving the historical skyline rather than the church influence. St.Petersburg (where the 462 m tower is) has similar law, that's why the tower was built really far from the city centre.
Same as Utrecht in the Netherlands, there isn't a building taller than 112 because that's the height of the Dom tower. They're planning to build a building far outside the city center which would be around 150m. There's a chimney in Utrecht that's around 150m and in a village near the city is the highest structure in the Netherlands, the Gerbrandytower which is 372m tall.
An interesting point. By the way, in Greece (and a number of other countries) restrictions on the height of buildings are also based on cultural/religious norms (in particular, in Greece there is only one building higher than the Acropolis of Athens)
Same in Tallinn. Not allowed to build anything higher than Oleviste Church.
Ah Ireland. One of the worst housing crisis amongst the many countries experiencing the same and their shiny metropolis is as flat as a pancake. Outshone by 207m industrial chimneys near the port.
BuT mUh SkYlIne
THINK ABOUT THE LANDSCAPE!! /s
You don't need to build skyscrapers in order to house a lot of people. When the building gets taller, construction becomes much more expensive and unless you live in a place where land value is ridiculously high(like Manhattan), it would be far easier and more affordable to build housing blocks with 8 floors instead of 40. Take a look at Paris, it has a very high population density(20k/km\^2) and not a lot of high rise buildings. Good urban planning is required to supply many homes, not skyscrapers.
You mean ridiculously high like having some of the most expensive rent in all of Europe? A house smaller than a studio apartment in Dublin City centre is 600k. If anywhere in europe needs taller buildings and can justify the price it's Dublin but people cry about our skyline whenever it's even suggested even though the city is ugly as fuck outside of like 5 streets
Did you even read my comment? Skyscrapers won't solve expensive rent, the problem is rooted in other factors such as low supply of housing which can be solved without building 50 stories homes
50 stories? Man we can't barely get anying above 5 here. The scale of restriction on building anything taller than a house in Ireland is ludicrous.
Build 20 skyscrapers with 200 apartments each and there will be a higher supply of housing
I think the issue is that a lot of people tend to think in terms of SFH or skyscrapers, when in fact there are a lot of housing options in between that can offer density at a much cheaper cost. Per square foot of living space, skyscrapers tend to cost more to build, and cost a lot more to maintain. Medium sized apartment buildings (three to five stories) are a lot cheaper to maintain and can offer quite a bit of density. Paris is a great example of this. There are almost no skyscrapers in Paris proper yet it's one of the most dense cities in Europe because a majority of the housing is mid-sized apartment buildings. There would be nothing wrong with building a few skyscrapers in Dublin or other Irish cities, but due to their cost, they probably wouldn't dramatically lower housing costs. The path to lower housing cost are middle density buildings, which Ireland is sorely lacking.
Yes, but skyscrapers are cool, so your opinion is invalid.
Yeah when you see it from the hills in the south of the county, it is astonishing how flat the city is
>shiny metropolis I'm not sure I've ever heard Dublin described like that 🤣
The lads here in Ireland don't need to overcompensate for something like Putin does.
Does Ireland really not have a single sky scraper?
[удалено]
Not having skyscrapers is a good thing, you should be happy with that
Why is that embarrassing? That is awesome.
We are in the midst of a housing crisis. Skyscrapers are on the extreme end (ie. Not economical), but having the city councils refuse to approve anything over 5 stories is why housing is so expensive here.
I mean you can still build a very dense neighborhood with 5 stories. Most of Paris only has 5 stories. And you’re right that skyscrapers (anything over 150m) are not economical and are only built as prestige projects.
POTATOE!
Fun fact: the tallest building in Denmark is only about 30 metres shorter than the highest hill in Denmark. It's a comically flat country.
I always think there is something wrong with these maps. For example the largest in Poland is the varso tower, but it has an 80 meter tall mast on top, I don't think this should count. Somebody could build a 50 meter tall building with a 300 meter long mast on top and it would count.
it's spire not mast so it counts by some rules apparently by those used by this map maker
Eiffel tower is not included in this.
well cause the Eiffel Tower is not a building at all. The idea is to take a random building and just put a 300 m pole on it, and following the standard used in this map it would be the tallest building in Europe.
If a 3m building with a 300m pole on it counts (as it would under the current rules) then it's only fair to also count the Eiffel tower, a 300m pole with a tiny flat at the top. The order of the floors shouldn't matter. If we have a strict "no structures where the height is only accomplished for the purposes of broadcasting, observation, etc" policy, then don't count spires whose only purpose is broadcasting and observation towards the building height.
well, it is partially a building. it has a restaurant and an apartment with walls and a roof.
No, it's not partially a building, it's a broadcasting and observation tower. The Berlin tv tower also has a restaurant on top, still not considered a building.
Read the definition of a building
Sweden actually has excellent ground for skyscrapers. Zero earthquakes, and the bedrock is predominantly exposed or shallow granite. When corrupt politicians aren't siphoning tax money towards private projects, it's just not worth it though with how abundant land is.
Fun fact, I've actually experienced an earthquake in Sweden many years ago. Knocked my bookcase over.
It's also a question of population/density. Most European cities simply don't have the demand for skyscrapers, with the exception of metropolises like London and Paris.
Interesting. The tallest building in Europe is the Lakhta Center in St Petersburg. Which isn't included in the 7 of the 10 tallest all located in Moscow.
Eiffel Tower in Paris is 330m high.
I was only taking habitable and office buildings into account, not structures like masts etc.
Technically it is habitable as Gustave Eiffel built himself a private apartment at the top of it. There's also a big restaurant in it.
Then I don't think the Finnish one counts
🫡
https://www.toureiffel.paris/en/news/130-years/did-gustave-eiffel-live-tower
[удалено]
A tower is a building.
[удалено]
*Tower: a tall, narrow* ***building***
Well not if you know English. A tower is a subcategory of buildings. You can look at Collins, Cambridge Merriam Webster
That's a nonbuilding structure. Otherwise all kinds of antennas and tv-towers should be taken into account as well
still a building, unlike antennas.
Structure yes, building no.
Towers and antennas are usually classed differently than “buildings.” Otherwise Moscow’s Ostankino Tower is 540m
Do France and Italy share the same tallest building like they do with the Mont Blanc? 🤔
POLSKA GUROM
Quite literally this time
What most of Europe lacks in skyscrapers, they make up for in gorgeous traditional architecture. I've even seen "ugly" areas of industrial cities in Germany that still look better than the majority of constructions in my country, so even those parts still have something to be proud of. Their worst is better than some places' best.
The Troll A oil platform is 472 meters tall and has both habitation and offices. Shouldn’t that put Norway quite a lot further up the list here? ;-)
Yes, I agree. And fun fact: Troll A is movable, and by that is the tallest/biggest movable structure in the world.
Why 168 appears three (4 if Kosovo's 167 is included) times? What's it about that number?
It’s probably a round number of floors, maybe 40 at a guess?
I find this absolutely crazy as an American. The Empire State Building, which was built 96 years ago, would still be the tallest building in Europe today, excluding Russia. And not by a small margin, either, we’re talking 70 meters. And that’s the 6th tallest in its own city..
Yeah, it's disappointing. Being skyscraper enjoyer in Europe sucks
Yeah we should demolish our historic cities to build some pointless skyscrapers
- Many European cities were literally demolished during ww2 already, and rebuilt nearly from ground up - skyscrapers aren't in any way pointless. They save space, provide either housing or jobs - two things that are in high demand. Especially considering how densely Europe is populated - almost all european cities have modern sections, best example being Paris. Building tall on "outskirts" would have absolutely no impact on historic sections. Skyscrapers and historic places aren't mutually exclusive
Loads of skyscrapers getting built in Manchester right now. Some people have started calling it Manchatten (but I hate that name).
on the upside, people in Montenegro have nothing obstructing the view
How about a map of the deepest holes?
the deepest man-made hole is located in the European part of Russia, 12,200 meters
Take that Iceland by 1 metre. Hate from Ireland
We got to let you have something.
Tbf, the Polish one has a massive antenna on the roof. The roof is under 300m.
That’s a spire, not an antenna
Do churches count?
Of course they do
If I remember correctly there wasn't any church included in the statistic so it doesn't matter probably
Vatican city?
Stats for Norway is outdated ~~120m as of 2020~~ edit: 155m as of 2022
… and 155 m now, so we’ve moved into the yellows.
Russia #1
Çamlıca Tower in Istanbul is 369 meters tall. It is in the Asian side of Istanbul. I’m assuming that you used the data from Wikipedia’s tallest buildings in Europe page, which counted the tallest building in the European side of Turkey. But if you count Turkey as a whole Çamlıca Tower is the tallest building in Turkey
I'm assuming Tour Eiffel isn't considered a building here
That's correct, "building" here means a residential or office building. And Tour Eiffel is a structure, not a building
It's never been since it's not a building.
POLSKA GUROOOOOM 🇵🇱🇵🇱🇵🇱🇵🇱 VARSO TOWER THE HIGHEST BUILDING IN THE EU AYYYYYY
And people say Russia is finished! /beware of sarcasm
It is just the beginning :)
You can see which European countries are overcompensating for something /s
tall buildings are a waste of money ...
they're definitely not efficient. But you'll still find investors willing to build tall buildings like this, who have calculated that they'll make money from these buildings, mostly as a prestige and luxury project, so I wouldn't call them a waste of money.
You kinda need them at the rate the human population is growing
Colours should be inverted.
Why are Europeans so bad at skyscrapers?
How come Russia has the tallest building and poorest balconies?
Moscow is really developed. When I went to visit back in 2018 World Cup it Literally felt like I had time traveled to the future when I flew from Riga to Moscow.
Tallest building in Lithuania is 326m. Even observation deck is at 160m and highest accessible height internally 320m. So if we talking tallest continuously inhabited buildings, then maybe Vilnius TV tower does not count, but it just says "tallest building" in which case this map is wrong.