Why didn't Brazilians build more skyscrapers? The tallest building in Brazil right now is barely 230m tall. Yes...

We don't need skyscrapers, and there are several reasons for that. Probably the biggest one is that we aren't verticalized enough to warrant one. São Paulo is the most verticalized city in the country, and there are still neighborhoods that don't have a single building over 4 stories tall. We have absolutely no reason to build anything with over 25 floors. If you want to see a cool building, look up edifício Copan

I think so, a lot of people would pay a lot to live in a well located place in São Paulo.

I don't know. When someone start doing it everyone will copy. A big investment is needed tho.

The tallest skyscraper in Brazil is over 280m, taller than the KOI Tower in Monterrey.
Brazil screwed up with Sao Paulo by building seas of ugly and dwarf buildings, but now it has an exclusive city for skyscrapers like Balneario Camboriú.

But there was a period during the last decades of the 2000s where there was a good growth right?

I'm just wondering.

You still have La Defense, which is exactly the kind of area I'm wondering about and would have expected to exist in a city as big as São Paulo

Thanks for the answer user. I guess I don't know São Paulo good enough as all pics you find about this city on the Internet are similar to the one I posted in the OP, so what you said makes sense. Copan is a cool building, I know it.

I meant to say the last decades of the 1900s

pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lista_dos_arranha-céus_mais_altos_do_Brasil

Just realized that most of the new building are not in São Paulo or Rio, they must have banned them.

You seem to be very well informed and specifically focused on skysrapers. Are you an architect or somrehing like this ? Or an architecture-shit fanatic?

Could Brazil have a skyscraper of more than 300 m?

>All these high rises in Camboriu
Lmao. You might not believe me but by parents often joke about how once they had a chance to buy a small empty plot of land by the sea in there for 40.000 US dollars, but instead they decided to invest the money in our own house. Haha what it could have been.... fuck.

Could your penis grow more than 14,5 cm?

I just like skyscrapers a lot, I'm kind of autistic for them. I know not everyone likes them and I agree they should be kept far away from historica centers, but still wish they were more common in Europe too.

If we legalized gambling we would have a bunch of huge tower cassinos.
I belive it will happen, being tall is great for marketing.

Skyscrapers are ugly Budapest was unironically correct in banning all buildings being taller than 96 m.

In Sao Paulo Are the height restrictions mainly due to the airport that you keep within your urban area or is it for other reasons?

actually as a european fellow, I do understand you.
I think skyscraper should be allowed in European cities, they do can integrate the old Euro-cities skyline, like in London, for example.
Also, facing the popular opposition about skycrapers, maybe European cities can build them in the 'periphery/outskirt', like in Paris (la défense)... But maybe it's just a bad option. Honestly it's hard to make everyone agree, people who want to keep the 'historical' aspect of the city, and people who want more modernity. Hard to decide. What do you think about that, guy?

Brazil traded a decent amount of really tall buildings for lots and lots of sorta tall buildings.
It looks like shit

In my opinion Paris took the right approach to skyscrapers (Montparnasse aside), with all skyscrapers concentrated in one far away but still meaningful place respective to the rest of the city center. London is also becoming an amazing sight with its severa clusters (the City, Canary Wharf, etc) but as far as I know it's also getting a much harsher backlash from the society who fear London will end up "becoming Hong Kong", so I still would rather prefer what Paris did (though, I'm not aware about what do Parisians think about La Defense. Do they like it? Would they rather ban any further skyscraper construction?).

Thankfully this seems to be also the approach Madrid is taking (pic related), with several new skyscrapers very recently approved for construction (which sadly will probably be delayed a few years due to this whole coronavirus shit). I think we can have the best of both worlds.

Attached: madrid_nuevo_norte.jpg (2000x1050, 602.65K)

The former. At least that's the "official" reason.

This policy seems to me too arbitrary for the financial capital of Brazil, a huge city with the complete space for a coexistence between the air space necessary for the simultaneous operation of the 2 airports of the city, the orography and a small sector where the large skyscrapers.
There are excellent examples worldwide of this coexistence between air traffic and altitude.

>I'm not aware about what do Parisians think about La Defense. Do they like it?
most think that concentrating buildings (skysrapers) outside of the city is the best thing to do, to keep the historical skyline of the city.
also it's the 'biggest' business district in europe, so parisians are kinda proud of it.
but yah, basically, the law say 'no skycraper in the capital'.

>Thankfully this seems to be also the approach Madrid is taking
what is the name of the (or the several) district(s) in Madrid who will receive the new skyscrapers?
I'm very enthusiastic about new skyscrapers building in european countries.

I agree. But people don't seem to care, so nothing happens.