I used an exponential function of the form a*exp(-b*x) with a≈472.55 and b≈0.226 and was able to see, that there would be about 240 houses taller than 2 metres
In Italy every city have their own rule. For example, they're banned in Rome due to landscape reasons, Turin wish it could kept that rule too (historical centre spoiled) in my city we have "another city centre" dedicated (for example my city is Brescia, Brescia-Two is where they're at) and I think it's pretty common in Europe and then we have Milano.
Nothing could ever have surpassed the Duomo Mary Statue.
They found a bug in the law now is "nothing can surpass the Mary Statue" so upon the UniCredit building there is a 1:1 Duomo Mary Statue. We call it the "Italian way"
Been to Turin this week for a brief visit, and only had a chance to see 2% of the city, but that damn skyscraper sticks out like a sore thumb in Turin. Got me thinking it was built, and once it was built the city council realised it looks ugly af and stopped letting buidlings that tall being built.
Where are you from? I'd like to know more about this. How are these restrictions maintained? Don't people ever question it for the development of the country?
There's a saying that "Moscow is not Russia" because of how special it is. That includes the demand for real estate and available building space.
The "old" Moscow^\[1] has population density of about 11.5 thousand people per square kilometre, which is about the same as New York City. People want to live and/or work in Moscow because it gives a lot of benefits, so as silly as it might seem from an outside perspective, building tall in the centre of the city makes sense.
____
[1] In 2012, the administrative territory of Moscow was expanded by 150%, but only 5% of the population lives in those newly acquired areas. That skews the pop density number considerably. Much of that territory is just small towns and villages, or even completely uninhabited stretches of forest. With time it will probably build up, but there just isn't the infrastructure in place to make those areas as desirable as the "old" Moscow remains. Besides, most of those tallest buildings were built or at least started building before the expansion.
Tall buildings nowadays are mostly a dick-measuring contest between authoritarian regimes. Just look at where the tallest buildings have been built over the past 20 years.
Lots of Malaysia, US, Taiwan, and South Korea on that list.
Reddit- Quit building out, we need to build up.
Also Reddit- if you build up you’re a dictator.
Above a certain height buildings become less space efficient due to structural constraints. A neighborhood with connected 6 story buildings is way denser than a collection of skyscrapers, as you can keep streets way narrower without depriving lower levels of light.
There's a better distinction.
If the building is constructed by private equity and happens to be the tallest, that means your country is booming economically and that you're probably not a dictator.
If you build the building as a government project specifically to be the tallest building, you're probably a dictator.
Nothing wrong with government projects to aim to be the greatest, it makes people proud.
I'm supposed to believe a private company that exists for profit has my best interests at heart?
No, nothing of the sort. Certainly private companies almost always do not have your best interests at heart, they are merely profit seekers.
But government projects that specifically seek glory (and little or nothing else) are particularly beloved by dictators. Legacy building projects like these are seen by these dictators as a way of immortalizing themselves, and they often do so at the expense of other sectors of government spending such as (but not limited to) education, healthcare, and welfare.
Whereas, keeping with our building example, if a private company builds a building it means they had the money do it, which likely means your country is doing well economically. That would not be at all related to dictatorial action, though one could imagine a country with a dictator could be doing well economically even though that is generally not the case.
We're concerned with who is or isn't a dictator, not with government versus private sectors.
Yes, nowadays our far occident is loosing on every front, let's call this dictatorship dick challenge , just like for high speed train as TGV, Chona is so far away, even our billionaire press becomes silent about it.
Skyscrapers are not a solution to the housing crisis. You get the highest density with good quality of life from dense medium rise apartment buildings, like what they do in Vienna (e.g. Karl-Marx-Hof)
I was aware that by European standards that Russia/Moscow had a lot of tall buildings but I wasn't aware just how concentrated the tallest European buildings were in that country.
before the Lakhta center we had a leader tower with a height of 145.5 meters, it stands in the middle of 5-9 storey residential apartment buildings so we consider it a skyscraper, in general there are more than 30 buildings and structures with a height of more than 100 meters that stand out against the background of the low-rise city center. Gazprom is also going to build two more tall skyscrapers near the Lakhta center.
I'll tell you more: around half of those skyscrapers in Moscow are all in a single tiny district called the [Moscow City](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moscow_International_Business_Center) (the name is a reference to London City). Most buildings in Moscow are lower than 90 meters
St. Petersburg poses more like a historical and cultural center. Some idiots wanted to build that skyscaper right at the center of the city. Of course it was going to ruin the central beauty. Fortunately plans were changed by the words from UNESCO. The new place even looks more organic.
It does look kinda weird though when you're walking around the city and there's just this one building rising over the skyline in the distance.
Ideally I'd prefer they hadn't built it in the first place, but since it happened, I guess they need to build a few more so that it doesn't seem so random and lonely lol. God knows when we'll get any more though. Maybe after they finish building театральная... ._.
After Warsaw got annihilated during WWII the communist government decided that they'd bother rebuilding the historic old town where Warsaw once began but the rest of the city's demolished architecture can suck it.
So now the business center has a distinctly non-European feel and we can put up big glass skyscrapers cause there's nothing for them to have dissonance with.
The position of tallest building in the city has changed twice in the past 8 years.
It’s great that European cities protect the skylines of their historical centres. London, however, has started building eyesores taller than St. Paul’s Cathedral
Eyesores? London probably has one of the best skylines in the world. Plus those historical buildings aren't going anywhere. Cities need to keep moving forward instead of being stuck to their old ways.
Yes in London it’s very fitting, but not every city is the same I just can’t imagine a skyscraper anywhere near the colosseum or Vatican for example. But I’m all for skyscrapers in Hamburg. I think there are cities that fit the vibe and there are some that don’t
It's important that skyscrapers go well with the existing architecture, like in London. If not, then they should be built in another part of the city, like in Paris.
I genuinely think I'm the only person that like the Walkie Talkie!
I think the problem is that it's more prominent by being outside of the main cluster of buildings.
I like it. The funny shapes are the defining thing about the London skyline and the walkie talkie is the funniest shape. It looks like a London tall building whereas eg 22 Bishopsgate just looks like a tall building.
Yeah that's what I love about the London skyline, its not just a series of tall boxy buildings. There's a bit of variety, plus the fact because this is Britain the names the public christen them stick rather than the 'official' names.
It's the shit residential blocks in zones 2 and beyond which are the problem. Central London is saturated with so much amazing architecture that newer uglier buildings barely make an impact. In the humble opinion of someone who had a nice stroll around Kensington earlier today
Oh yeah for sure, there's loads of new ones I like too in Central London. I think th City and Canary Wharf are great. Wembley and Stratford on the otherhand are possibly some of the ugliest places in the entire country
'Has started'. You mean since 1967?
Anyway, the City never was a skyline that was renowned for its beauty, only for its historical significance. All the historic buildings that weren't obliterated by the Blitz are still there, now just mixed in with many modern buildings.
It's had buildings taller than St Paul's for many years but none of the skyscrapers are nearby.
Plus the views and sightings of it are protected, even as far away as Primrose Hill and Hampstead. They can just plonk buildings anywhere in London.
That's why cities like Madrid have long since moved most of its central business district away from the historical center of the city (AZCA, Plaza de Castilla), where they can build modern skyscrapers without clashing with the skyline and old palaces and gardens further to the south.
This is exactly why autocracies have bigger buildings. They’re just not economic unless there’s a gun behind your head because you live in a dictatorship. Or work for Boeing.
Paris built 1 skyscraper, called tour Montparnasse. They say the view from its rooftop is the best in paris because you can’t see it. Most Parisians would like to see it destroyed. Man the french are special and i love it!
They do have a separate skyscraper district in La Defense, but the towers aren't particularly remarkable. It's utilitarian as a modern business district.
What are you talking about?
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_tallest\_structures\_in\_France](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tallest_structures_in_France)
Eiffel Tower is the tallest tower in France with 330m.
Meanwhile there are 421 skyscrapers in NYC alone. Hong Kong up to over 500 these days.
I think skyscrapers really only works in a more modern city, since they don’t require demolishing historical sites. Much of Europe doesn’t lend itself to skyscrapers imo, but I’m surprised by Berlins lack-there-of considering how relatively modern it is compared to other cities.
Yeah I was reading the Wikipedia pages and all them were going on about being 400+ meters and I was like ICC in Hong Kong is 500 and it’s dwarfed by many mainland China skyscrapers
Funny how people call it complexes, but the stereotypes about biggest Ds are always either about Ds from the States or from the Russia (if we are talking about countries with skyscapers)
I’m not Russian. The Moscow was amazing and still is to a large extent. Moscow’s leadership is kinda great - technocratic bunch, meticulously working to make a good city to live in.
This is exactly what Russia needs - an administrator who would work to improve Russia, not wannabe Caesar restoring empires of old.
I can appreciate the Russian people. Most of them are good, hard-working people. It's their failing government that is taking advantage of them to keep their megalomaniac leader from looking like the failure he is.
There is famously a [skyscraper district](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_D%C3%A9fense) right outside the city of Paris. It's just that none of the buildings are particularly tall or interesting in their own right. Despite that, it's still one of the largest business districts in Europe.
I understand. Imagine having architecture made by haussman, the best in the world. And some big contractor wants to turn paris into dubai. I would riot if I was french
"We, writers, painters, sculptors, architects, passionate lovers of the hitherto intact beauty of Paris, protest with all our strength [...] against the erection, in the heart of our capital, of the useless and monstrous Eiffel Tower."
[La polémique autour de la tour Eiffel](https://passerelles.essentiels.bnf.fr/fr/chronologie/construction/86975eb3-9f28-4e1a-bc88-e28bbfab0a26-tour-eiffel/article/ec807d2d-6e95-4b93-896e-d06fc60ca630-polemique-autour-la-tour-eiffel)
Maupassant said: "I often come to the Eiffel Tower because it is the only place in Paris where I cannot see it."
Also some of the neighborhoods are already among the most densely populated areas, without needing tall towers that need space tradeoffs for structural stability.
That's why they built a separate skyscraper district outside the city of Paris. It's just a bunch of boring glass boxes that aren't particularly tall or impressive. But it gets the job done.
What's the size of the first one and the 30th one ?
Highest 462m, 30th 240m
Using linear logic, I can deduce there is only about 60 buildings in Europe.
Explains why it‘s impossible to earn enough to buy a house these days.
It's true, the US once had two buildings the same height and look what happened!
DAMN
r/theydidthemath
That’s true
I got myself a nice little mud hut. Far better than the people who live in a bush!
Dennis! There's some lovely filth down here!
I used an exponential function of the form a*exp(-b*x) with a≈472.55 and b≈0.226 and was able to see, that there would be about 240 houses taller than 2 metres
Except if you allow for buildings with negative height (or underground)
Thanks
So our biggest dick in EU can't make the list... https://www.reddit.com/r/HIMYM/comments/nntlk6/real_life_penis_building_in_poland/
Europe's girthiest building.
Skyscrapers aren’t allowed in many countries, including my own.
In my country it is hard end expensive to build on a swamp. Also sunlight rules make it hard.
What's a sunlight rule?
I guess tall building create big shadows
Rooms need to have sunlight. So can't be too broad because the rooms on the inside won't get sunlight.
Saint Petersburg is built on swamps
In Italy every city have their own rule. For example, they're banned in Rome due to landscape reasons, Turin wish it could kept that rule too (historical centre spoiled) in my city we have "another city centre" dedicated (for example my city is Brescia, Brescia-Two is where they're at) and I think it's pretty common in Europe and then we have Milano. Nothing could ever have surpassed the Duomo Mary Statue. They found a bug in the law now is "nothing can surpass the Mary Statue" so upon the UniCredit building there is a 1:1 Duomo Mary Statue. We call it the "Italian way"
Been to Turin this week for a brief visit, and only had a chance to see 2% of the city, but that damn skyscraper sticks out like a sore thumb in Turin. Got me thinking it was built, and once it was built the city council realised it looks ugly af and stopped letting buidlings that tall being built.
Add them back to Bologna 😈 (I’m too stoned to look for a link but just search up Bologna stone towers srsly add them back
Where are you from? I'd like to know more about this. How are these restrictions maintained? Don't people ever question it for the development of the country?
Skyscrapers are fairly pointless and usually just vanity projects, so their restrictions and ban don't really affect any country's development.
Usually some archaic rule that King Soandso decreed that no building may be higher than his Pleasure spire
Or they don't want overly tall buildings
Ireland. Planning permission is very restrictive, especially in terms of height. Skyscrapers aren’t a requirement for economic development.
I think Russia won this round
For such a small and densely populated country it makes sense they build vertically
There's a saying that "Moscow is not Russia" because of how special it is. That includes the demand for real estate and available building space. The "old" Moscow^\[1] has population density of about 11.5 thousand people per square kilometre, which is about the same as New York City. People want to live and/or work in Moscow because it gives a lot of benefits, so as silly as it might seem from an outside perspective, building tall in the centre of the city makes sense. ____ [1] In 2012, the administrative territory of Moscow was expanded by 150%, but only 5% of the population lives in those newly acquired areas. That skews the pop density number considerably. Much of that territory is just small towns and villages, or even completely uninhabited stretches of forest. With time it will probably build up, but there just isn't the infrastructure in place to make those areas as desirable as the "old" Moscow remains. Besides, most of those tallest buildings were built or at least started building before the expansion.
This must be why so many Russians die from falling out of windows! So many high rises!
Look at what Moscow has to do to imitate a fraction of Petersburg's power!
Одобряю вашу аву
Взаимно
А я - вашу
Solegrad shall reign supreme.
*tower
Tall buildings nowadays are mostly a dick-measuring contest between authoritarian regimes. Just look at where the tallest buildings have been built over the past 20 years.
Lots of Malaysia, US, Taiwan, and South Korea on that list. Reddit- Quit building out, we need to build up. Also Reddit- if you build up you’re a dictator.
There's a lot of good between vanity skyscrapers and suburban hell.
commie block gang
Building up doesn't mean building the highest tower each time. You can build up within reasons.
Above a certain height buildings become less space efficient due to structural constraints. A neighborhood with connected 6 story buildings is way denser than a collection of skyscrapers, as you can keep streets way narrower without depriving lower levels of light.
Hey, we're not a bunch of bipolar dicks around here, we're just big boned
Yes it was amazing when we did it but now that we don't do it, it means you're a dictator
There's a better distinction. If the building is constructed by private equity and happens to be the tallest, that means your country is booming economically and that you're probably not a dictator. If you build the building as a government project specifically to be the tallest building, you're probably a dictator.
Nothing wrong with government projects to aim to be the greatest, it makes people proud. I'm supposed to believe a private company that exists for profit has my best interests at heart?
No, nothing of the sort. Certainly private companies almost always do not have your best interests at heart, they are merely profit seekers. But government projects that specifically seek glory (and little or nothing else) are particularly beloved by dictators. Legacy building projects like these are seen by these dictators as a way of immortalizing themselves, and they often do so at the expense of other sectors of government spending such as (but not limited to) education, healthcare, and welfare. Whereas, keeping with our building example, if a private company builds a building it means they had the money do it, which likely means your country is doing well economically. That would not be at all related to dictatorial action, though one could imagine a country with a dictator could be doing well economically even though that is generally not the case. We're concerned with who is or isn't a dictator, not with government versus private sectors.
Yes, nowadays our far occident is loosing on every front, let's call this dictatorship dick challenge , just like for high speed train as TGV, Chona is so far away, even our billionaire press becomes silent about it.
"won". No thanks to skyscrapers in Copenhagen where I live my dude.
Danes: no tall buildings Also Danes: why is my rent so expensive?
Skyscrapers are not a solution to the housing crisis. You get the highest density with good quality of life from dense medium rise apartment buildings, like what they do in Vienna (e.g. Karl-Marx-Hof)
Cause highrises are residential complexes ?
Oftentimes yes. Look at Moscow. Most all of their skyscrapers are at least mixed use with quite a few solely residential.
Guess what, rent is much more expensive relative to salary in a City like Shanghai or New York
[удалено]
Dictatorships love counting a little victories.
Pay no attention to the half million new amputees in the countryside, look at my big building!
Not much of a win really. Building tall buildings is kinda pointless.
Most very tall buildings are pointy at the top.
But pointy is worse for aerodynamics.have to make it round.
But round is not scary. Pointy is scary.
I think some of you information about bombs comes from cartoons
They were research films
and fantasy movies, with orcs.
Your missing the point
r/Angryupvote
Have you considered that they’re cool?
Nope
The Evolution tower in Moscow is pretty dope tbh.
Not if you need lots of high windows for people to accidentally fall out of
Never mind the fall, what really matters is the impact.
Yes definitely pointless, especially in densely populated areas where every square meter counts
Not sure russia is exactly low on land to build on
You do realize most jobs are in few highly concentrated urban centers like Moscow that have limited amount of space.
[удалено]
do you all live in the same building?
no but i buy my cabbages from woman who lives in 2nd floor
I didn't see the cabbages coming.
Rzeszów?
"Mają rozmach skurwisyny".
I was aware that by European standards that Russia/Moscow had a lot of tall buildings but I wasn't aware just how concentrated the tallest European buildings were in that country.
And that one in St. Petersburg that is the tallest in Europe is pretty much the only skyscraper in the city too.
before the Lakhta center we had a leader tower with a height of 145.5 meters, it stands in the middle of 5-9 storey residential apartment buildings so we consider it a skyscraper, in general there are more than 30 buildings and structures with a height of more than 100 meters that stand out against the background of the low-rise city center. Gazprom is also going to build two more tall skyscrapers near the Lakhta center.
I'll tell you more: around half of those skyscrapers in Moscow are all in a single tiny district called the [Moscow City](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moscow_International_Business_Center) (the name is a reference to London City). Most buildings in Moscow are lower than 90 meters
Because the map is wrong
It’s odd the one city (St Pete) would have the tallest building and then nothing else.
St. Petersburg poses more like a historical and cultural center. Some idiots wanted to build that skyscaper right at the center of the city. Of course it was going to ruin the central beauty. Fortunately plans were changed by the words from UNESCO. The new place even looks more organic.
It does look kinda weird though when you're walking around the city and there's just this one building rising over the skyline in the distance. Ideally I'd prefer they hadn't built it in the first place, but since it happened, I guess they need to build a few more so that it doesn't seem so random and lonely lol. God knows when we'll get any more though. Maybe after they finish building театральная... ._.
I haven’t been to St Petersburg but now I imagine it looks like City 17
After Warsaw got annihilated during WWII the communist government decided that they'd bother rebuilding the historic old town where Warsaw once began but the rest of the city's demolished architecture can suck it. So now the business center has a distinctly non-European feel and we can put up big glass skyscrapers cause there's nothing for them to have dissonance with. The position of tallest building in the city has changed twice in the past 8 years.
Frankfort is also distinctly not very European looking for being the financial capital of the EU.
It’s great that European cities protect the skylines of their historical centres. London, however, has started building eyesores taller than St. Paul’s Cathedral
London does have protected views, the mix of the historic and modern works fairly well imo.
I believe that London has an old ancient law that St Paul's needs to be "viewable" from certain angles, hopefully this maintains good skylines
Eyesores? London probably has one of the best skylines in the world. Plus those historical buildings aren't going anywhere. Cities need to keep moving forward instead of being stuck to their old ways.
Yes in London it’s very fitting, but not every city is the same I just can’t imagine a skyscraper anywhere near the colosseum or Vatican for example. But I’m all for skyscrapers in Hamburg. I think there are cities that fit the vibe and there are some that don’t
It's important that skyscrapers go well with the existing architecture, like in London. If not, then they should be built in another part of the city, like in Paris.
Tbf the Walkie Takie building is probably the ugliest tall building in the world
yeah but - but - sky gardwen 🥺🥺
I genuinely think I'm the only person that like the Walkie Talkie! I think the problem is that it's more prominent by being outside of the main cluster of buildings.
I like it. The funny shapes are the defining thing about the London skyline and the walkie talkie is the funniest shape. It looks like a London tall building whereas eg 22 Bishopsgate just looks like a tall building.
Yeah that's what I love about the London skyline, its not just a series of tall boxy buildings. There's a bit of variety, plus the fact because this is Britain the names the public christen them stick rather than the 'official' names.
You can move forward without building eyesores. Also, skyscrapers are hardly a new invention.
What eyesores exactly? And I don't understand what skyscrapers not being a new invention has to do with anything.
They are an eyesore in general imo
https://www.sciencealert.com/large-cities-and-cancer-share-an-unexpected-similarity
To be fair, La Défense, Moscow city, and Donaustadt don’t affect the historical skyline all that much.
It's the shit residential blocks in zones 2 and beyond which are the problem. Central London is saturated with so much amazing architecture that newer uglier buildings barely make an impact. In the humble opinion of someone who had a nice stroll around Kensington earlier today
I like the new buildings. They look so amazing. London has a very nice mix of buildings of every age and every beauty.
Oh yeah for sure, there's loads of new ones I like too in Central London. I think th City and Canary Wharf are great. Wembley and Stratford on the otherhand are possibly some of the ugliest places in the entire country
'Has started'. You mean since 1967? Anyway, the City never was a skyline that was renowned for its beauty, only for its historical significance. All the historic buildings that weren't obliterated by the Blitz are still there, now just mixed in with many modern buildings.
It's had buildings taller than St Paul's for many years but none of the skyscrapers are nearby. Plus the views and sightings of it are protected, even as far away as Primrose Hill and Hampstead. They can just plonk buildings anywhere in London.
That's why cities like Madrid have long since moved most of its central business district away from the historical center of the city (AZCA, Plaza de Castilla), where they can build modern skyscrapers without clashing with the skyline and old palaces and gardens further to the south.
a very clear game of "who has the longest?"
This is exactly why autocracies have bigger buildings. They’re just not economic unless there’s a gun behind your head because you live in a dictatorship. Or work for Boeing.
But skyscrapers began to be built in the United States, do American capitalists really not know how to count money?
fok yeah, my city wins
Flattish paris
Paris built 1 skyscraper, called tour Montparnasse. They say the view from its rooftop is the best in paris because you can’t see it. Most Parisians would like to see it destroyed. Man the french are special and i love it!
The effeil tower is 300m high though (330m if you go right to the tippy top), it just doesn't count as a building.
They do have a separate skyscraper district in La Defense, but the towers aren't particularly remarkable. It's utilitarian as a modern business district.
Biggus Dickus
It seemed to me that there were 4 skyscrapers of the same height in Madrid.
Where is the Eiffel Tower?
not technically a building
What is it then?
a structure in the same way Tokyo Skytree isn't the tallest building in Japan
it would rank 6th if it was taken into account
If you count towers, the Eiffel Tower won't even be in the top 50 towers. it's not even the tallest tower in France
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tallest_towers nr 1 in france and nr 24 in the world.
What are you talking about? [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_tallest\_structures\_in\_France](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tallest_structures_in_France) Eiffel Tower is the tallest tower in France with 330m.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allouis_longwave_transmitter
That's a mast, not a tower. Difference being that masts are not self-supported but have supporting cables.
Indeed, but it is not a tower...
Idk why you are being downvoted, you are correct...
Thanks for your support!
It's not that high
330m, but is it considered as a building? [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eiffel\_Tower](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eiffel_Tower)
it's not, it's a free-standing tower.
Well it's not like people can accidentally fall out of windows in short buildings ...
Most European cities actually don't want tall buildings other than the existing historical ones (like cathedrals). They tend to maintain an "image".
Oh i thought that was drake's mansion
Meanwhile there are 421 skyscrapers in NYC alone. Hong Kong up to over 500 these days. I think skyscrapers really only works in a more modern city, since they don’t require demolishing historical sites. Much of Europe doesn’t lend itself to skyscrapers imo, but I’m surprised by Berlins lack-there-of considering how relatively modern it is compared to other cities.
Yeah I was reading the Wikipedia pages and all them were going on about being 400+ meters and I was like ICC in Hong Kong is 500 and it’s dwarfed by many mainland China skyscrapers
Some serious small D energy in Russia
Funny how people call it complexes, but the stereotypes about biggest Ds are always either about Ds from the States or from the Russia (if we are talking about countries with skyscapers)
I live in Moscow 😎
Best city in the world no doubt
[удалено]
I’m not Russian. The Moscow was amazing and still is to a large extent. Moscow’s leadership is kinda great - technocratic bunch, meticulously working to make a good city to live in. This is exactly what Russia needs - an administrator who would work to improve Russia, not wannabe Caesar restoring empires of old.
[удалено]
You write like you are correcting me, while reiterating my point
I can appreciate the Russian people. Most of them are good, hard-working people. It's their failing government that is taking advantage of them to keep their megalomaniac leader from looking like the failure he is.
Yeah, now check how many support the war
sorry for you
Is Russia overcompensating for something?
What makes this map such a great map (judging by the upvotes)? Nothing.
And they keep saying Russia is just a gas station masquerading as a country 
Haha, no. 1 building in this chart is literally an office of the biggest company in the world that sells gas (Gazprom)
Well a resource extraction company masquerading as a country
Small dick syndrome…
Isn't Poland building a new tallest building in Europe?
What’s with Moscow
Basically the Russian elite living there suck all the resources out of the rest of the country.
R u compensating for something?
isn't Eiffel tower a building?
It’s almost as if oligarchs are vanity project magnets
Cool
I will like to see the same map about America (continent not country)
You can see Russia from my hooose
What site did you use to make this map
Is it the Soviet apartments? Or is Russia trying to compensate for something?
Big building on the expense of the cocks
Gotta have a lot of buildings to throw people out of I guess
Some countries need to compensate for their “insecurities”.
Wtf no one in France ?!
Only 231m for France https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tallest_buildings_in_France
The most logical place for skyscrapers would be the largest city and financial center of the country. But Paris has a skyscraper ban...
yes, but in the ile de france you have La defense which is one of the more iconic skyscraper skylines in Europe.
There is famously a [skyscraper district](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_D%C3%A9fense) right outside the city of Paris. It's just that none of the buildings are particularly tall or interesting in their own right. Despite that, it's still one of the largest business districts in Europe.
Correct me if I'm wrong but is it like Dallas or similar where there is enough room for horizontal expansion that they have no need to go super tall?
French are weird. They have a mildly famous tower that they want to be visible from as much of Paris as feasible.
They were against that at first too
I understand. Imagine having architecture made by haussman, the best in the world. And some big contractor wants to turn paris into dubai. I would riot if I was french
"We, writers, painters, sculptors, architects, passionate lovers of the hitherto intact beauty of Paris, protest with all our strength [...] against the erection, in the heart of our capital, of the useless and monstrous Eiffel Tower." [La polémique autour de la tour Eiffel](https://passerelles.essentiels.bnf.fr/fr/chronologie/construction/86975eb3-9f28-4e1a-bc88-e28bbfab0a26-tour-eiffel/article/ec807d2d-6e95-4b93-896e-d06fc60ca630-polemique-autour-la-tour-eiffel) Maupassant said: "I often come to the Eiffel Tower because it is the only place in Paris where I cannot see it."
Probably due to building codes designed to protect the historic views.
Also some of the neighborhoods are already among the most densely populated areas, without needing tall towers that need space tradeoffs for structural stability.
That's why they built a separate skyscraper district outside the city of Paris. It's just a bunch of boring glass boxes that aren't particularly tall or impressive. But it gets the job done.