How is Melbourne building more towers than California right now?

[mello]

What is driving this incredible boom in Melbourne that will look like a mini Chicago when the current UC buildings are finished?

People obviously know what the big industries are in LA and San Francisco but remember that San Diego has thriving Bio Tech, Aerospace/Defense Contractor, and Pharma/Medical research industries. So California being the worlds 5th largest economy and massive tech hub vs. Melbourne a metro in Australia with 5.2 million or so

Both places have high land costs, materials for construction are just as expensive in Oz I assume, and rents or mortgages for high rise accommodation are very high for average residents. So is Melbourne booming due to Chinese or other Asians parking money their? What are the industries pushing the commercial office space growth?

Does Australia have some booming tech sector, where are all the high paying jobs coming from to push the demand for all of these projects? Is it simply finance and mining? Pardon my ignorance about the Australian economy I just find it funny that this city is blowing away SF, LA, and SD combined.

So we have examples of foreign money and speculation pushing a boom: Vancouver, Miami. (Miami also a retirement and lifestyle destination in Winter) We have true organic high wage growth jobs rushing in to a city facilitating a boom: Seattle. Where does Melbourne fit in this paradigm?

[Crawford]

Highrise construction has little relationship with wealth/prosperity. Vancouver is probably building more towers than LA or SF, but has a smaller economy than Columbus, Indy or Tampa.

Also, while I haven't been following Melbourne construction, I seriously doubt it will rank with Chicago anytime in our lifetimes. Chicago has a crapload of towers.

[Steely Dan]

i don't know, how is stagnant-ass chicago building more skyscrapers than the entire BOOMING state of texas (or california for that matter)?


some cities just seem to have skyscrapers in their DNA.

[mello]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

i don't know, how is stagnant-ass chicago building more skyscraper than the entire BOOMING state of texas (or california for that matter)?


some cities just seem to have skyscrapers in their DNA.

I'm asking how do these things pencil out in Melbourne? Chicago is the third largest metro area in the worlds largest economy and a giant financial hub so I can see why it continues to construct towers. Commodities exchanges, insurance companies, general finance, etc fuel the boom. I'm asking does Melbourne have any of these things? How can Chicago be "stagnant" if people are buying or leasing these new expensive high rise units it must still be producing some high paying jobs for people to be able to pay to live in them...

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by mello

I'm asking how do these things pencil out in Melbourne? Chicago is the third largest metro area in the worlds largest economy and a giant financial hub so I can see why it continues to construct towers. Commodities exchanges, insurance companies, general finance, etc fuel the boom. I'm asking does Melbourne have any of these things? How can Chicago be "stagnant" if people are buying or leasing these new expensive high rise units it must still be producing some high paying jobs for people to be able to pay to live in them...

Chicago isn't building highrises because it's a "giant financial hub" (it isn't) or the third largest metro area. It's building because the core is desirable/successful and the city is pro-development. Chicago has pretty much always built lots of core highrises. Wealth and commerce are concentrated in the core.

Melbourne doesn't need to be particularly wealthy or successful to build tons of highrises. Generous zoning coupled with population growth could be enough. And Australia is a huge hedge for Chinese nationals, even moreso than Canada.

[Obadno]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Chicago isn't building highrises because it's a "giant financial hub" (it isn't) or the third largest metro area. It's building because the core is desirable/successful and the city is pro-development. Chicago has pretty much always built lots of core highrises. Wealth and commerce are concentrated in the core.

Melbourne doesn't need to be particularly wealthy or successful to build tons of highrises. Generous zoning coupled with population growth could be enough. And Australia is a huge hedge for Chinese nationals, even moreso than Canada.

Agreed, Plenty of extremely wealthy European and North American cities that have low heights. I mean Amsterdam, Paris, Berlin etc

Sometimes its zoning recs sometimes its just culturally lower heights are favored.

Im sure nobody would Argue that Manila is a center of global Finance but its the densest city in the world.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by mello

How can Chicago be "stagnant" if people are buying or leasing these new expensive high rise units it must still be producing some high paying jobs for people to be able to pay to live in them...

chicago is "stagnant" relative to most other major US cities on the metrics of population and economic growth.

it's still growing (slowly), but nothing at all like the BOOM that the texas cities are experiencing, for instance.

and yet chicago continues to build tall towers like few other cities in the country do. like i said, it must be in the city's DNA.

[tayser]

There's a couple of reasons, and mostly residential that's U/C but now something like 14 hotels and a smattering of commercial towers. Melbourne has some of the highest net office absorption in the country but adjacent CBd precincts attract lower-rise office buildings (and there's 50-100 years worth of inner-city land to things relatively short for offices if the current trend of bigger floorplates continues).

From the 1980s onwards, the City of Melbourne (local municipality that covers the CBD and the immediate areas) was a dead zone and policies started changing on a range of things: commercial building conversions to residential, overall encouragement for residential spaces in the city, lane clean ups and open spaces in them to small retail/eating/drinking establishments. Long story short: the council has successfully altered the very fabric of the centre of the city over many decades, making it attractive not just for commercial development.

Big buildings ultimately are signed off by the Minister for Planning - a state-based role, not a council one. When Liberals (centre-right) are in power, they're your fairly typical centre-right type of government: less regulation, very business-friendly etc and that was typified by the Planning Minister from 2010-2014 who was pretty much responsible for ticking off nearly all the buildings that have either recently completed or still under construction. A Labor government has been in power and they've introduced many different things (Minister still signs off on big projects - those with a GFA more than 25,000sqm - but councils have a greater say).

Australia is quite open to foreign investment (we've been net capital importers since James Cook sailed up the east coast in the 1770s) and many of the residential towers that have been recently completed or under construction would have decent-sized foreign-buyer components but not all. Like what Vancouver's been going through, government here recognises that opening the tap full is not necessarily the best idea and there's been a range of measures at the federal and state level to slow things down (Fed: foreigners cannot buy exiting property anymore, only off the plan, state: tax on foreign purchases/unused apartments lying dormant).

Population growth: Melbourne has been for the past 8 or 9 in the past 10 years been the city seeing the highest population growth (~80,000-100,000 average per year over a decade - it was 120,000 for the financial year ending June 2018). People have to live somewhere.

In summary: local councils seeing benefit of policy changes decades after they were first conceived, state governments at various times opening and closing the tap for new central city development through the planning Ministry and a stable Asian-timezone country that accepts foreign investment all combine to tell, for the most part, the story of what you see under construction / what has been under construction recently.

This list is 99% inner-city but there's also a story of Melbourne's suburbs - the inner and middle-rings mainly - densifying as well. Public transport projects in the pipeline will go along way to making sure suburban development will be just as attractive from 2030 onwards (see Suburban Rail Loop in the Melbourne PT thread).

db2 on SSC keeps tabs on this list, this is it from October this year - sorry, no imperial measurement (100m = 328 feet, 150m = ~500 feet, 200m = ~650 feet, 250m = 820 feet, 300m = 984 feet):

Originally Posted by db2

Updated height list. Lots of news and action the last couple of days (West Side Place, 435 Bourke). I have done my best to produce an accurate height list for Melbourne town.

• Red, proposed tower, not yet approved
• Purple, approved tower, but project being flipped or project in trouble
• Green, approved tower, not yet under construction
• Blue, under construction,
• Black, completed tower.
• ~ symbol means approximate height, exact height unknown or in dispute.

Order by height above street to roof

• Green Spine East ~356m
• Australia 108 317m
• Eureka Tower 297m
• Aurora Melbourne Central 271m
• West Side Place Tower A 269m
• Prima Pearl 254m
• Green Spine West ~252m
• Rialto 251m
• Queens Place South 251m
• Queens Place North 250m
• Premier Tower 249m
• Victoria One 247m
• West Side Place Tower D 240m
• Swanston Central 237m
• 640 Bourke St 235m
• 55 Clarke St 234m
• Shangri-La by the Gardens 232m
• Melbourne Square T2 231m
• West Side Place Tower C ~230m
• Vision Apartments 229m
• Bourke Place 224m
• 568 Collins 224m
• 120 Collins 220m
• Sapphire by the Gardens 219m
• Light House 218m
• 380 Melbourne 217m
• 158 City Rd 216m
• West Side Place Tower B 211m
• Aspire Melbourne 211m
• Melbourne Central 211m
• 435 Bourke St 210m
• UNO Melbourne 210m
• 88 Melbourne 209m
• 280 Queen St ~207m
• Freshwater Place North 205m
• Eq. Tower 202m
• Melbourne Grand 198m
• Empire Melbourne 197m
• 101 Collins 195m
• Telstra Corp 193m
• Home Southbank 193m
• 80 Collins St North 190m
• 80 Collins St South 190m
• Collins House 190m
• 140 King St 188m
• 268 City Rd 187m
• Abode 318 187m
• 600 Collins St 186m
• Collins Place Sofitel 185m
• Collins Place ANZ 185m
• Melbourne Square T3 179m
• Capital Grand 178m
• 183 A'Beckett St 178m
• Sol Invictus 178m
• Scape Franklin ~175m
• 405 Bourke St 173m
• Avant 172m
• 385 Bourke St 168m
• 63 Exhibition St 171m
• Victorian Police Centre 171m
• Upper West Side Manhattan 170m
• Zen Apartments 168m
• Platinum Tower 167m
• 35 Spring St 166m
• Upper West Side The Fifth 166m
• Southbank Place 166m
• Focus Apartments 166m
• Casselden Place 166m
• Olderfleet 165m
• Ernst & Young Plaza 165m
• SX South Tower 163m
• 530 Collins St 162m
• ANZ Headquarters 162m
• 478 Elizabeth St 161m
• Verve Apartments 159m
• Palladium Tower ~158m
• Wesley Place ~156m
• 87 Queensbridge St 156m
• Paragon 155m
• 500 Bourke St ~154m
• Southbank Central 153m
• Optus Centre 153m
• Crown Towers 153m
• 140 William St 153m
• Collins Square Tower 2 152m
• Marriott Southbank 151m
• Shadow Play 151m
• Aurum on Clarendon 151m
• Urban Workshop 150m
• 555 Collins ~149m
• Melbourne Quarter Tower 147m
• Scape Melbourne 146m
• Collins Arch 146m
• Melbourne Quarter East Tower 143m
• Fulton Lane South 142m
• Melbourne Quarter West Tower 141m
• Marina Tower 140m
• The Peak 140m
• 202 Normanby Rd 140m
• Voyager Yarra's Edge 138m
• VU Tower 135m
• Victoria Market Munro 133m
• Atira at LaTrobe St 131m
• 17 Spring 128m
• Two Melbourne Quarter 128m
• Ibis & Novotel Hotel 125m
• 567 Collins St 125m
• Conservatory 124m
• 295 City Road 123m
• 386 William 121m
• 14 Russell St 120m
• Collins Square Tower 5 111m

[Obadno]

I would Also like to call everyone attention to the climate around Perth

It is a Mediterranean climate bigger than all of southern California which is home to 25 million people or so? Perth only is home to 2ish million with another 500k or so spread out over the entire western 1/3 of the Continent.

Perth and that entire region of Southwest Australia could house many many many millions of people comfortably

[JManc]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

i don't know, how is stagnant-ass chicago building more skyscrapers than the entire BOOMING state of texas (or california for that matter)?


some cities just seem to have skyscrapers in their DNA.

Chicago is building a crap ton of residential and Chicago is far more centralized than any Texas city which makes downtown/ highrise living far more appealing. I'd live in downtown Chicago which is vibrant and active but not Houston or Dallas. Austin yes and not coincidentally, has a highrise boom. Neither Chicago or Texas are building a lot of tall commercial towers that I know of.

In Australia, people live in highrises to escape from all the scary animals that want to kill them.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by JManc

Neither Chicago or Texas are building a lot of tall commercial towers that I know of.

In the current building cycle going back to 2017, Chicago has built 10 buildings over 150m, with another 7 U/C, and 3 more due to start any week now, for a total of 20.

6 of them (30%) are commercial office towers.

6 commercial office towers over 150m would be an absolute BOOM of such towers in any US city not named NYC.


Additionally, in the early 2000s boom leading up to the great recession, Chicago built a total of 10 new office towers over 150m. So, that's 16 new office towers over 150m so far this century, more than any US city outside of New York.


21st Century 150m+ Office Towers in Chicago:

1. Salesforce Tower -- 254.6m / 835' - 2023 - starts Q1 2020
2. 110 N Wacker ----- 249.0m / 817' - 2020 - U/C
3. 300 N LaSalle ----- 239.1m / 785' - 2009
4. BCBS Tower ------- 226.7m / 744' - 2010
5. River Point --------- 223.0m / 732' - 2017
6. BMO Tower -------- 221.7m / 727' - 2022 - site demo
7. 150 N Riverside --- 220.8m / 724' - 2017
8. 111 S Wacker ----- 207.6m / 681' - 2005
9. 71 S Wacker ------- 207.1m / 679' - 2005
10. UBS Tower ------- 198.6m / 652' - 2001
11. 155 N Wacker --- 194.6m / 638' - 2009
12. 353 N Clark ------ 190.0m / 623' - 2009
13. Citadel Center --- 176.8m / 580' - 2003
14. One S Dearborn - 173.9m / 571' - 2005
15. CNA Center ------ 157.7m / 517' - 2018
16. 191 N Wacker --- 157.4m / 516' - 2002

[LA21st]

Originally Posted by JManc

Chicago is building a crap ton of residential and Chicago is far more centralized than any Texas city which makes downtown/ highrise living far more appealing. I'd live in downtown Chicago which is vibrant and active but not Houston or Dallas. Austin yes and not coincidentally, has a highrise boom. Neither Chicago or Texas are building a lot of tall commercial towers that I know of.

In Australia, people live in highrises to escape from all the scary animals that want to kill them.

Chicago's building a good amount of office towers, especially in the last 6 years. Wacker around Randolph st/the River area is more built up when I left in 2013.

[Zapatan]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

i don't know, how is stagnant-ass chicago building more skyscrapers than the entire BOOMING state of texas (or california for that matter)?


some cities just seem to have skyscrapers in their DNA.

True, the US doesn't doesn't really build that many skyscrapers outside of NY or Chicago, they exist obviously, even some 300+ meter ones, but when you take into account how massive the USA is, it measures up poorly compared to places like Australia, maybe Canada and definitely the UAE.

Australia and Canada have 25-35 million people, UAE has around 10. Considering the USA has 330 million, I'd expect a lot more honestly.

Ideally places like Houston/Dallas/LA would have several 3-350 meter buildings by now.

[Nite]

Originally Posted by Zapatan

True, the US doesn't doesn't really build that many skyscrapers outside of NY or Chicago, they exist obviously, even some 300+ meter ones, but when you take into account how massive the USA is, it measures up poorly compared to places like Australia, maybe Canada and definitely the UAE.

Australia and Canada have 25-35 million people, UAE has around 10. Considering the USA has 330 million, I'd expect a lot more honestly.

Ideally places like Houston/Dallas/LA would have several 3-350 meter buildings by now.

As per SSP, here are the stats for 150m+ under construction skyscrapers:

United States: 92
Canada: 63
UAE: 46
Australia: 32

[Zapatan]

Originally Posted by Nite

As per SSP, here are the stats for 150m+ under construction skyscrapers:

United States: 92
Canada: 63
UAE: 46
Australia: 32

Wow we really need to step up our game

The US is in the top 2-3 for 150+ meter and 300+ meter buildings globally but most were built a long time ago or are in NYC and Chicago. I'd like to see the trend spread elsewhere.

and miami.

of the 166 buildings over 150m that are U/C or recently completed (2017+) in the US according to the CTBUH, 70% of them are in metro NYC, metro miami, and chicago.

Miami is a high-rise beast, nothing crazy tall though

For that to happen (300 meter residential towers in Houston) we would need much higher re estate prices

Most capital in Houston is focused on building single and multi family middle class housing, not aeries for the global rich

True, but I didn't just mean residential, Houston already has two 300+ meter buildings, it's one of the fastest growing (and biggest) cities in the USA so I really hope we see more.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Zapatan

Miami is a high-rise beast, nothing crazy tall though

Not yet, anyway.

But yeah, if you bump the height threshold up a bit, say from 500' to 800', then it really becomes the New York & Chicago show in the US.


# of skyscrapers over 800' (including U/C) in the US: 91

NYC - 44*
Chicago - 20**
Philly - 4
SF - 4
LA - 3
Atlanta - 3
Houston - 3
Seattle - 2
Dallas - 2
Miami - 2
Cleveland - 1
Charlotte - 1
Oklahoma city - 1
Pittsburgh - 1

source: CTBUH



Over 70% (64 out of 91) of the nation's skyscrapers over 800' tall are located in just the top two cities.

And NYC is nearly at 50% all by itself.




(*) includes 99 Hudson Street across the hudson river in Jersey City

(**) includes Salesforce Tower which starts construction early in the new year.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Zapatan

True, the US doesn't doesn't really build that many skyscrapers outside of NY or Chicago

and miami.

of the 166 buildings over 150m that are U/C or recently completed (2017+) in the US according to the CTBUH, 70% of them are in metro NYC, metro miami, and chicago.


metro NYC - 66
metro miami - 35
chicago - 17
LA - 7
seattle - 7
SF - 6
boston - 5
houston - 5
austin - 4
philly - 4
minneapolis - 2
atlanta - 1
baltimore - 1
charlotte - 1
dallas - 1
denver - 1
las vegas - 1
milwaukee - 1
nashville - 1

[dc_denizen]

Originally Posted by Zapatan

True, the US doesn't doesn't really build that many skyscrapers outside of NY or Chicago, they exist obviously, even some 300+ meter ones, but when you take into account how massive the USA is, it measures up poorly compared to places like Australia, maybe Canada and definitely the UAE.

Australia and Canada have 25-35 million people, UAE has around 10. Considering the USA has 330 million, I'd expect a lot more honestly.

Ideally places like Houston/Dallas/LA would have several 3-350 meter buildings by now.

For that to happen (300 meter residential towers in Houston) we would need much higher re estate prices

Most capital in Houston is focused on building single and multi family middle class housing, not aeries for the global rich

Melbourne tho is much more American in the sense that the commieblock is not as favored there compared to Toronto. Thus the Melbourne highrises comparisons are fairer (Growing us cties tend to build more 5-6 story midrises )

[bilbao58]

Originally Posted by mello

What is driving this incredible boom in Melbourne?

Are the towers commercial or residential? Seems like so many cities with crazy high rise building booms are building mostly condos and apartments.


ETA: By the way, a Melbourne-based development company is currently building/planning multiple high rise residential properties in Houston.

[suburbanite]

California is historically a pretty low-rise state. The tech sector in the Bay Area prefers campus-style offices, and we've all heard the story about roadblocks for residential high-rises. SoCal has been growing out to cover a massive area for decades, and intensification is more spread out than cities with a strong downtown presence like Melbourne.

I imagine Melbourne is more similar to Toronto in the sense that the city is rapidly growing economically and in population, and the easy foreign money increases the scale of developments and shortens timelines so that you have a bunch of projects underway concurrently.