HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #101  
Old Posted Sep 5, 2020, 6:20 AM
Steely Dan's Avatar
Steely Dan Steely Dan is online now
devout Pizzatarian
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Lincoln Square, Chicago
Posts: 29,634
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Dan View Post

US 700'+ skyscrapers built before 2000: 93

NYC - 28 (includes 3 towers that have since been destroyed/demolished)
Chicago - 12
Houston - 10
Los Angeles - 8
Atlanta - 5
Dallas - 5
Seattle - 4
Philadelphia - 4
Minneapolis - 3
Cleveland - 2
San Francisco - 2
Pittsburgh - 2
Boston - 2
Denver - 2
Charlotte - 1
Miami - 1
Detroit - 1
Indianapolis - 1
Jersey City - 0
Atlantic City - 0
Austin - 0
Oklahoma City - 0
Mobile - 0



US 700'+ skyscrapers built since 2000: 97

NYC - 55
Chicago - 16
Miami - 6
Jersey City - 4
Philadelphia - 3
San Francisco - 3
Houston - 2
Los Angeles - 1
Seattle - 1
Boston - 1
Charlotte - 1
Austin - 1
Oklahoma City - 1
Mobile - 1
Atlantic City - 1
Atlanta - 0
Dallas - 0
Minneapolis - 0
Cleveland - 0
Pittsburgh - 0
Denver - 0
Indianapolis - 0
Detroit - 0


data source: CTBUH


Revisiting these numbers, comparing pre-2000 to post-2000, NYC has gone absolutely bonkers, and Chicago is solidly hanging in the #2 spot, adding even more 700 footers upon its already impressive collection.

But after those two.......

On the pre-2000 list, the next 5 cities (Houston, LA, Atlanta, Dallas, and Seattle) combined to build 32 towers over 700' in the 25 years between 1971 and 1996, but in the 25 years since then, those same 5 cities have only combined to construct 4 such towers (2 in Houston, 1 in LA, and 1in Seattle).

that's the difference. All those 700 footers that used to be built around the nation, they're now all happening in new York.
__________________
"Missing middle" housing can be a great middle ground for many middle class families.

Last edited by Steely Dan; Sep 5, 2020 at 1:46 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #102  
Old Posted Sep 5, 2020, 6:41 AM
chris08876's Avatar
chris08876 chris08876 is online now
NYC/NJ/Miami-Dade
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Riverview Estates Fairway (PA)
Posts: 45,694
Those damn office parks with their millions upon millions of square feet that could be in tower form.

Although with some of those cities, residential could easily swing those numbers upwards if they dive into that functionality. I'd wager a good portion of towers in that range or greater for those cities are office or mixed used (some hotel portion + office).

I'd like to see more residential functionality (Miami for example, builds those tall residential like weeds).

I despise office parks. I had a client the other day based in one of them, out in Edison NJ, and while it was nice inside the complex, it just sucks outside. Parking lots galore.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #103  
Old Posted Sep 5, 2020, 5:13 PM
LosAngelesSportsFan's Avatar
LosAngelesSportsFan LosAngelesSportsFan is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 7,838
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Dan View Post
Revisiting these numbers, comparing pre-2000 to post-2000, NYC has gone absolutely bonkers, and Chicago is solidly hanging in the #2 spot, adding even more 700 footers upon its already impressive collection.

But after those two.......

On the pre-2000 list, the next 5 cities (Houston, LA, Atlanta, Dallas, and Seattle) combined to build 32 towers over 700' in the 25 years between 1971 and 1996, but in the 25 years since then, those same 5 cities have only combined to construct 4 such towers (2 in Houston, 1 in LA, and 1in Seattle).

that's the difference. All those 700 footers that used to be built around the nation, they're now all happening in new York.
We have a bunch of proposals for 700 for plus in downtown LA now, including one under construction.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #104  
Old Posted Sep 5, 2020, 8:05 PM
LA21st LA21st is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 6,991
Even with the covid, I think some of those proposals will go through. They're mostly residential, which the city will still desperately need.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #105  
Old Posted Sep 5, 2020, 8:17 PM
Steely Dan's Avatar
Steely Dan Steely Dan is online now
devout Pizzatarian
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Lincoln Square, Chicago
Posts: 29,634
Quote:
Originally Posted by LosAngelesSportsFan View Post
We have a bunch of proposals for 700 for plus in downtown LA now, including one under construction.
I was going off the CTBUH database, which doesn't have any towers over 700' listed as U/C for LA.

But they do list 960 W 7th as being U/C, and they have it as being 695' tall, which is close enough.

That's the problem with arbitrary cut-offs.....


But yeah, lots of very exciting proposals for big towers in LA. Let's hope some of those start popping one of these years to cement LA being back for real in the skyline construction game. Wilshire Grand was a great start!
__________________
"Missing middle" housing can be a great middle ground for many middle class families.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #106  
Old Posted Sep 5, 2020, 9:19 PM
Austin55's Avatar
Austin55 Austin55 is offline
__________
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Fort Worth
Posts: 4,997
You can rule out Dallas due to airport proximity as well. Unless it were to happen outside downtown.

https://www.arcgis.com/home/webmap/v...0967a8c16cbdb8
__________________
Fort Worth Urban Development
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #107  
Old Posted Sep 6, 2020, 1:14 AM
SIGSEGV's Avatar
SIGSEGV SIGSEGV is offline
He/his/him. >~<, QED!
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: Loop, Chicago
Posts: 5,991
Quote:
Originally Posted by chris08876 View Post
Those damn office parks with their millions upon millions of square feet that could be in tower form.

Although with some of those cities, residential could easily swing those numbers upwards if they dive into that functionality. I'd wager a good portion of towers in that range or greater for those cities are office or mixed used (some hotel portion + office).

I'd like to see more residential functionality (Miami for example, builds those tall residential like weeds).

I despise office parks. I had a client the other day based in one of them, out in Edison NJ, and while it was nice inside the complex, it just sucks outside. Parking lots galore.
Office Parks are the worst. Basically unservable with public transit. Have to get in a car to grab lunch, and SO MUCH TRAFFIC to get to them.
__________________
And here the air that I breathe isn't dead.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #108  
Old Posted Sep 6, 2020, 5:09 AM
LosAngelesSportsFan's Avatar
LosAngelesSportsFan LosAngelesSportsFan is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 7,838
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Dan View Post
I was going off the CTBUH database, which doesn't have any towers over 700' listed as U/C for LA.

But they do list 960 W 7th as being U/C, and they have it as being 695' tall, which is close enough.

That's the problem with arbitrary cut-offs.....


But yeah, lots of very exciting proposals for big towers in LA. Let's hope some of those start popping one of these years to cement LA being back for real in the skyline construction game. Wilshire Grand was a great start!
Hmm, I guess it might be 695 feet... It's a 64 story residential tower so that may make sense
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #109  
Old Posted Sep 6, 2020, 4:49 PM
SFBruin SFBruin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 1,189
Quote:
Originally Posted by mhays View Post
Seattle would never allow it. Nor would the FAA in the most likely area, where a 1,000' tower is running into limits.
I played around with it in my head, and I think that the best place for a supertall in the Seattle skyline would be right behind the new Rainier Square development in the middle of the skyline.



Do you know what the height limits are in this part of downtown Seattle?

Last edited by SFBruin; Sep 6, 2020 at 5:48 PM. Reason: Word choice.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #110  
Old Posted Sep 6, 2020, 6:56 PM
mhays mhays is offline
Never Dell
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 19,748
Unfortunately, you can't go above 605' north of Union Street, which is along the left side of Rainier Square and Two Union.

Here's a zoning map. The areas south of Union show "U" in their designations, which means commercial space is subject to floor area ratio (FAR) limits (which are pretty restrictive) but you can go as tall as the FAA guidance allows. To get very tall, practically, you need residential, which isn't subject to FAR. The rest of the maps.

North of Union you see a lot of areas where commercial has one limit and residential has another, for example "DOC-2 500/300-550." This means residential buildings can have habitable floors up to 550', not counting the extra 10% for architecture, mechanical systems, and amenity space. Commercial towers can be 500' plus a little room for architecture and mechanical. The smaller figure is if you don't go for bonuses, or something like that.

Likewise, a lot of areas allow residential to 440'+44'. Six of those are underway. Much of this decade's wave was in those areas when it was zoned 400'+40', with the first under the new height starting in May 2019.
Reply With Quote
     
     
End
 
 
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 3:36 PM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

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