HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #81  
Old Posted Sep 3, 2020, 3:06 AM
Zapatan's Avatar
Zapatan Zapatan is offline
DENNAB
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: NA - Europe
Posts: 6,042
Quote:
Originally Posted by LA21st View Post
I think it's possible with LA. When that purple line extension is complete, there's going to be alot of demand around the 7th st metro center .
There's already a 2-3 1,000 ft proposals on Figueroa.
Yea, I'm not sure how close 9th & Figueroa Tower got to being built but that was really close to 400 meters.

Quote:
Outside of NYC and Chicago, SF and LA are probably the only cities with enough of the combination of wealth and hubris to build a 400+ meter building. Unfortunately in SF's case it'll never happen due to extremely powerful NIMBYs and the fact it's in an earthquake zone. LA has the earthquake factor too but might have a shot though since it doesn't seem like the NIMBY's are as powerful down there.
SF is a stretch but Salesforce is arguably the highest roof in the country outside of NY and Chicago, maybe someday SF will hit the 350 mark, there aren't many empty lots to pull it off though.

Quote:
The U.S. for the most part has seen a great increase in general height, but between 1980 and 1999, it actually wasn't NYC fueling much of this, but several U.S. cities spread out over the nation.
Right, that's when a lot of ~1000 footers went up in places like LA, Houston, Atlanta etc.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #82  
Old Posted Sep 3, 2020, 3:20 AM
chris08876's Avatar
chris08876 chris08876 is offline
NYC/NJ/Miami-Dade
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Riverview Estates Fairway (PA)
Posts: 45,694
I kinda see it a plus though when a lot of cities are building 100+ meters. Like what's been going on in Seattle for the last 5 or so years is very impressive. Tons of towers 330 to 460 ft.

SF went through a large skyline expanding boom 2010 onward.

Chicago 2006 onward made significant strides.

One of the biggest jumps I feel in the last 20 years has been Miami-Dade, Broward, Palm Beach. I mean if we look at comparisons, especially for Miami, it went from little to a high rise powerhouse.

I wish Texas would build more in the form of high rises or skyscrapers. So many new residents, but the mindless sprawl continues. Would be nice to kinda limit the car dominated nature of its metros.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #83  
Old Posted Sep 3, 2020, 5:56 AM
mhays mhays is offline
Never Dell
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 19,748
Seattle's towers have often been just under 440', per the land use code in the fastest-growing areas. Now in the same areas they're typically just under 484' due to a 10% increase in allowable height.

We do have a lot of 330' areas such as First Hill, which has five going up at that height.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #84  
Old Posted Sep 3, 2020, 1:35 PM
chris08876's Avatar
chris08876 chris08876 is offline
NYC/NJ/Miami-Dade
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Riverview Estates Fairway (PA)
Posts: 45,694
^^^^

I wonder if they would consider further modifying the land code. The prices in Seattle are through the roof, would be nice to have many more units to ease some of the demand, maybe with an affordable component.

But no complaints on my end. Whats been going on in crane city (Seattle) has been very uplifting. Its like the whole city is u/c.

Bellevue is also a nice sleeper tower that has seen some nice infill. I'd like to see more there as well.

Its just one of those things that bothers me with a lot of West Coast cities, their potential that is hindered by highly aggressive NIMBY's (a virulent strain of Bubonic NIMBY's) and lackluster zoning.

Maybe that will change, but Seattle has been doing good work.

With respect to 400m, I think Los Angeles could pull it off. In fact, I think Los Angeles could be a skyscraper capital if it really wanted to. So much land, so much potential, but sadly hindered by a plethora of internal issues that stifle development potential. Oh well...! We shall see. If not Los Angeles, maybe Miami.

Miami is similar to NYC in that the demand for tall residential, investment towers... will always be there so long as the city remains on land. Location, Location, Location!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #85  
Old Posted Sep 3, 2020, 2:10 PM
chris08876's Avatar
chris08876 chris08876 is offline
NYC/NJ/Miami-Dade
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Riverview Estates Fairway (PA)
Posts: 45,694
Just some more data crunching: 2000 to 2020: Built and/or u/c. All for 100m+ for the last 20 years.


South Florida:

1) Miami: 102
2) Sunny Isles Beach: 27
3) Miami Beach: 13
4) Hallandale Beach: 3
5) Hollywood: 5
6) Fort Lauderdale: 8

Texas:

1) Houston: 45
2) The Woodlands and Galveston: 2 Each
3) San Antonio: 2
4) Austin: 29
5) Dallas 12

Seattle Metro:

1) Seattle: 48
2) Bellevue: 7

California:

1) Los Angeles: 29
2) San Francisco: 33
3) Sacramento: 3

Nevada:

1) Las Vegas: 37!


Chicago Land:

1) Chicago: 136

North East:

1) NYC: 341
2) Jersey City: 31
3) White Plans: 4
4) Fort Lee: 3
5) Philly: 20
6) Boston: 19


Bonus:

1) Toronto, CA: 237!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #86  
Old Posted Sep 3, 2020, 2:46 PM
Steely Dan's Avatar
Steely Dan Steely Dan is offline
devout Pizzatarian
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Lincoln Square, Chicago
Posts: 29,634
Quote:
Originally Posted by chris08876 View Post
Chicago Land:

1) Chicago: 136

yep, Chicagoland is an extremely centralized highrise metro area.

In fact, suburban Chicago only has two highrises that surpass 100m, and they were both built back in the late 80s.

outside of a few small clusters, suburban Chicago doesn't really do highrises.

Hell, outside of downtown and the lakefront, Chicago itself doesn't really do highrises either (probably 90% of the city is 4 stories or less).
__________________
"Missing middle" housing can be a great middle ground for many middle class families.

Last edited by Steely Dan; Sep 3, 2020 at 3:09 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #87  
Old Posted Sep 3, 2020, 3:47 PM
Boisebro's Avatar
Boisebro Boisebro is offline
All man. Half nuts.
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Boise, Idaho
Posts: 3,564
Back on topic, the next 400m building in the US might end up being in someplace rather unconventional.

Such as Las Vegas.

Because it's Las Vegas.

And Las Vegas does what Las Vegas does.
__________________
“Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness.”―Mark Twain
“The world is a book, and those who do not travel read only one page.”―Saint Augustine
“Travel is the only thing you buy that makes you richer.”―Anonymous
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #88  
Old Posted Sep 3, 2020, 3:56 PM
chris08876's Avatar
chris08876 chris08876 is offline
NYC/NJ/Miami-Dade
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Riverview Estates Fairway (PA)
Posts: 45,694
For all its sprawl, the US is still a nation that pumps out and has a high number of skyscrapers. We will probally be #2 in total of sheer amount going forward as I don't see us ever eclipsing China, nor will we, just not possible.

But... #2 is still okay.

Just for comparison:

1) United States: Completed

# of 300m+ buildings: 25
# of 200m+ buildings: 210
# of 150m+ buildings: 807

2) China: Completed #1 in rankings by far

# of 300m+ buildings: 85
# of 200m+ buildings: 754
# of 150m+ buildings: 2,177

3) UAE - #3 in rankings

# of 300m+ buildings: 28
# of 200m+ buildings: 118
# of 150m+ buildings: 253

Japan being 4th.

But than the cut off is real deep. Really bottoms out in terms of numbers for other lands.

Just makes me wonder what it would be like if we didn't sprawl so much. If our metros were smaller but more centralized.

The U.S. does have a lot of prospects in the pipeline (not 100% complete but food for statistical curiosity). Something like 262 proposals nationwide exceeding 100m+.

So we are pumping them out one way or another.

Super tall wise, we'll pretty much be #2. Presently 25 towers over 300m, and 28 for UAE, but once we factor in towers presently u/c that are super talls, we'll be #2 with super talls.

100m+, we are still #2 by a long shot, as the drop off for nations ranking 3-10 is significant.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #89  
Old Posted Sep 3, 2020, 4:03 PM
mhays mhays is offline
Never Dell
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 19,748
Quote:
Originally Posted by chris08876 View Post
^^^^

I wonder if they would consider further modifying the land code. The prices in Seattle are through the roof, would be nice to have many more units to ease some of the demand, maybe with an affordable component.

But no complaints on my end. Whats been going on in crane city (Seattle) has been very uplifting. Its like the whole city is u/c.

Bellevue is also a nice sleeper tower that has seen some nice infill. I'd like to see more there as well.

Its just one of those things that bothers me with a lot of West Coast cities, their potential that is hindered by highly aggressive NIMBY's (a virulent strain of Bubonic NIMBY's) and lackluster zoning.

Maybe that will change, but Seattle has been doing good work.
Yes, definitely. Seattle and Bellevue restrict growth way too much. That's why every project goes to the limits of what's allowed, and it's why developable land is so expensive. That 1/3- or 1/2-acre site that allows a 44-story apartment will go for well into the four figures per square foot and it doesn't need to be that way. Further, we charge all sorts of fees, adding millions more to every project.

Bellevue, BTW, has its first 600' tower underway, the first of what should be a wave with seven others planned. Instead of today's 450' flat top, it will have a 600' flat top. Sure would be nice if they at least let architectural features go higher.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #90  
Old Posted Sep 3, 2020, 4:43 PM
iheartthed iheartthed is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: New York
Posts: 9,782
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boisebro View Post
Back on topic, the next 400m building in the US might end up being in someplace rather unconventional.

Such as Las Vegas.

Because it's Las Vegas.

And Las Vegas does what Las Vegas does.
Las Vegas also has airport proximity issues.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #91  
Old Posted Sep 3, 2020, 4:57 PM
Boisebro's Avatar
Boisebro Boisebro is offline
All man. Half nuts.
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Boise, Idaho
Posts: 3,564
Quote:
Originally Posted by iheartthed View Post
Las Vegas also has airport proximity issues.

I didn't say it needed to be built on the strip.

Or downtown, for that matter. Or anywhere near the airport.

It's Vegas. They don't conform to the norm. They could build it on top of Mt Charleston just to be Vegas.
__________________
“Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness.”―Mark Twain
“The world is a book, and those who do not travel read only one page.”―Saint Augustine
“Travel is the only thing you buy that makes you richer.”―Anonymous
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #92  
Old Posted Sep 3, 2020, 8:12 PM
Steely Dan's Avatar
Steely Dan Steely Dan is offline
devout Pizzatarian
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Lincoln Square, Chicago
Posts: 29,634
Quote:
Originally Posted by chris08876 View Post
1) Los Angeles: 29

2) Jersey City: 31
That is kind of amazing. Little old JC has had one hell of a building boom.

In fact, JC, all by itself, now has a larger skyline than any Midwest city not named Chicago. Think about that for a second.

Who would have ever guessed that 20 years ago?
__________________
"Missing middle" housing can be a great middle ground for many middle class families.

Last edited by Steely Dan; Sep 3, 2020 at 8:32 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #93  
Old Posted Sep 3, 2020, 8:31 PM
chris08876's Avatar
chris08876 chris08876 is offline
NYC/NJ/Miami-Dade
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Riverview Estates Fairway (PA)
Posts: 45,694
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Dan View Post
That is kind of amazing. Little old JC has had one hell of a building boom.

Who would have ever guessed that 20 years ago?
Its gone a long way, and lots in the pipeline. So we should have many more towers rising, and in high frequency.

Pier 6's redevelopment in JC will have 3x33 floor towers, 51 and 39 floors. Plans recently filed as of this summer. Few other towers in the pipeline. Several in 20-30 floor range.


Credit: Erik McGregor/LightRocket via Getty Images (Modified)


Via Earthcam today:




Urban Ready living still awaits Phase II and III, and Journal Squared is adding another tower in Phase III.



List below via SSP user "C":

Under Construction
25 Columbus (The Charlotte) | residential/school | 57 floors | under construction
33 Park II | residential | 44 floors | under construction
331 Marin Boulevard I | residential | 41 floors | under construction
351 Marin Boulevard II | residential | 38 floors | under construction
88 Regent St | residential | 32 floors | under construction
700 Washington Boulevard I | residential | 24 floors | under construction
289 Jordan Ave | residential | 16 floors | under construction
87 Newkirk St | residential | 14 Floors | under construction
700 Washington Boulevard II | residential | 12 floors | under construction


Approved
444 Washington Boulevard | residential | 70 floors | approved
Urban Ready Living II | residential | 69 floors | approved
242 Hudson Street (Harbourside XIII) | residential | 68 floors | proposed
Urban Ready Living III | residential | 65 floors | approved
Journal Squared Tower III | residential | 60 floors | approved
560 Marin Blvd | residential | 59 floors | approved
580 Marin Blvd | residential | 57 floors | approved
808 Pavonia I | residential | 57 floors | approved
808 Pavonia II | residential | 51 floors | approved
Provost Square III | mixed-use | 33 floors | approved
414 Hoboken Avenue (Bergen Arch Plaza I) | residential | 28 floors | approved
414 Hoboken Avenue (Bergen Arch Plaza II) | residential | 28 floors | approved
622 Summit | residential | 27 floors | approved
630-632 Newark Ave | mixed use | 27 floors | approved
Emerson Lofts I | residential | 26 floors | approved
Journal Square Urby | residential | 25 floors | approved
32 Oakland | residential | 14 floors | approved
345 Baldwin | residential | 13 floors | approved
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #94  
Old Posted Sep 3, 2020, 9:13 PM
iheartthed iheartthed is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: New York
Posts: 9,782
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Dan View Post
That is kind of amazing. Little old JC has had one hell of a building boom.

In fact, JC, all by itself, now has a larger skyline than any Midwest city not named Chicago. Think about that for a second.

Who would have ever guessed that 20 years ago?
Downtown Brooklyn is about a decade behind J.C., but it's on the same trajectory.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #95  
Old Posted Sep 3, 2020, 9:14 PM
Echostatic's Avatar
Echostatic Echostatic is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2018
Location: ATX
Posts: 1,360
Quote:
Originally Posted by chris08876 View Post
Just some more data crunching: 2000 to 2020: Built and/or u/c. All for 100m+ for the last 20 years.


Texas:

1) Houston: 45
2) The Woodlands and Galveston: 2 Each
3) San Antonio: 2
4) Austin: 29
5) Dallas 12
It brings me more joy than it should that Austin more than doubles Dallas in this regard.
__________________
It can be done, if we have the will.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #96  
Old Posted Sep 3, 2020, 11:56 PM
Investing In Chicago Investing In Chicago is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Posts: 1,592
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Dan View Post
That is kind of amazing. Little old JC has had one hell of a building boom.

In fact, JC, all by itself, now has a larger skyline than any Midwest city not named Chicago. Think about that for a second.

Who would have ever guessed that 20 years ago?
I have a theory that all high rises/skyscrapers in NYC (JC, Brooklyn, LIC) OUTSIDE of MANHATTAN combined would produce the 2nd largest skyline in the Country (behind Manhattan), not certain it would surpass Chicago in numbers (obviously not on height or quality) but it would be close.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #97  
Old Posted Sep 4, 2020, 12:41 AM
Steely Dan's Avatar
Steely Dan Steely Dan is offline
devout Pizzatarian
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Lincoln Square, Chicago
Posts: 29,634
Quote:
Originally Posted by Investing In Chicago View Post
I have a theory that all high rises/skyscrapers in NYC (JC, Brooklyn, LIC) OUTSIDE of MANHATTAN combined would produce the 2nd largest skyline in the Country (behind Manhattan), not certain it would surpass Chicago in numbers (obviously not on height or quality) but it would be close.
The data reliability for lower height thresholds is often pretty terrible for comparison purposes, but in terms of 500 footers (which the data is pretty consistent for in the US), it's not close yet.

According to CTBUH & wikipedia, here's what I could find for 500 footers (including U/C).

Chicago: 126

Outer Boroughs: 35
Jersey City: 14
Brooklyn: 11
Queens: 10



Still, 35 500 footers is good enough to put the Outer Boroughs at a Houston or LA level.
__________________
"Missing middle" housing can be a great middle ground for many middle class families.

Last edited by Steely Dan; Sep 4, 2020 at 1:53 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #98  
Old Posted Sep 4, 2020, 1:00 PM
thoughtcriminal thoughtcriminal is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2020
Location: philadelphia
Posts: 467
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Dan View Post
The data reliability for lower height thresholds is often pretty terrible for comparison purposes, but in terms of 500 footers (which the data is pretty consistent for in the US), it's not close yet.

According to CTBUH & wikipedia, here's what I could find for 500 footers (including U/C).

Chicago: 126

Outer Boroughs: 35
Jersey City: 14
Brooklyn: 11
Queens: 10
does Jersey City know it's been annexed by NYC?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #99  
Old Posted Sep 4, 2020, 1:25 PM
Steely Dan's Avatar
Steely Dan Steely Dan is offline
devout Pizzatarian
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Lincoln Square, Chicago
Posts: 29,634
Quote:
Originally Posted by thoughtcriminal View Post
does Jersey City know it's been annexed by NYC?
It's common parlance on SSP to refer to Hudson County, NJ as the de facto "6th borough".

But yes we are all well aware that it is not actually an incorporated part of NYC.

And with 675,000 people on 46 sq. miles of land, it's probably the most urban large-scale piece of land in the US that is not part of a major city.

And now it is growing a very serious big-boy skyline to match. JC's skyline has a shot at being top 10, all by itself, if it continues to grow as it has.
__________________
"Missing middle" housing can be a great middle ground for many middle class families.

Last edited by Steely Dan; Sep 4, 2020 at 1:39 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #100  
Old Posted Sep 4, 2020, 2:27 PM
chris08876's Avatar
chris08876 chris08876 is offline
NYC/NJ/Miami-Dade
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Riverview Estates Fairway (PA)
Posts: 45,694
Kinda why I've been saying that JC has good odds with 400m. With 99 Hudson, it was almost a super tall, but given the spill over effect given its proximity to NYC, its bound to happen. It'll get a 300m tower in due time, its very close.

I'd really to see Newark NJ have a boom on the level of JC. Its seen some nice additions, but not at a feverish rate. Its overdue for a skyscraper boom.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 9:24 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.