North American Regional Skyscraper Concentration

[SFBruin]

I'm surprised that Minneapolis does not have one building in the top 20 for the Midwest.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by SFBruin

I'm surprised that Minneapolis does not have one building in the top 20 for the Midwest.

As recently as 2008, Minneapolis would have had 3 towers in the Midwest's top 20 skyscrapers, but Chicago has been on a skyscraper construction tear over the past decade+ (10 new towers over 800' tall), and has been bumping other Midwest cities' towers down the list.

We recently had high hopes that Detroit could start to rebalance things at least little bit in the Midwest with the Hudson Tower project, but unfortunately it sounds like that one will not end up as tall as had at one time been hoped.

I still have to believe that Minneapolis will one day get a 900+ foot tower to "top off" its current skyline of the three kings. Let's hope that day comes sooner rather than later.

[Pedestrian]

LA wins in the west by putting spires on their buildings. If we put spires on ours . . . .

[Cory]

Originally Posted by Pedestrian

LA wins in the west by putting spires on their buildings. If we put spires on ours . . . .

There’s only one building. The ironic thing is SF’s three tallest have a roof height that is very different from their total height.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Pedestrian

LA wins in the west

yes, by most numerical analyses, LA has the largest skyline in the west, but it's not an order of magnitude larger than its regional competition, which goes back to the original point of this thread.

SF and seattle are not terribly far behind LA in the skyline size department, which is in stark contrast to the northeast and midwest where NYC and chicago utterly dominate their respective regions in terms of skyline size.

just look at this quick analysis below (which includes U/C towers) comparing the west to the midwest.


The West:

Skyscrapers over 900':
LA - 2
SF - 2
Seattle - 1

Skyscrapers over 700':
LA - 9
SF - 5
Seattle - 5
Denver - 2

Skyscrapers over 500':
LA - 28
SF - 25
Seattle - 20
Las Vegas - 15
Denver - 8
Portland - 4
San Diego - 1





The Midwest:

Skyscrapers over 900':
Chicago - 9
Cleveland - 1

Skyscrapers over 700':
Chicago - 28
Minneapolis - 3
Cleveland - 2
Detroit - 1
Indianapolis - 1

Skyscrapers over 500':
Chicago - 125
Minneapolis - 10
Detroit - 7
Columbus - 5
Cleveland - 4
Indianapolis - 3
Cincinnati - 3
Milwaukee - 3
St. Louis - 3
Kansas City - 2
Omaha - 1
Des Moines - 1


source: CTBUH

[pj3000]

Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere

Detroit’s skyline is pretty tall and dense.. not the area surrounding downtown, but the immediate downtown blocks at least are quite dense.

Kinda, but not really. For Detroit's historical size and prominence, one would expect the city to have developed a heftier (taller and more densely-clustered skyline). It was a top 10 largest US city from 1910-2000, and a top 5 largest from 1920-1970/80. Yet, it didn't even get a 700-footer until the late 1970s. While it has beautiful examples of Art Deco era skyscrapers from the 1920s, most of them are under 500 ft. and the city really didn't build very tall at all after that (the 60s-70s era buildings are generally in the 300ft range... and Detroit basically did nothing in the 1980s skyscraper era during which so many cities remarkably changed their skylines).

Like all Great Lakes cities, it formed a strong core, but still spread out rapidly because of available flat land... and Detroit is probably the poster child for this, with its auto industry prominence and its resultant suburban nodes featuring tall buildings. Just based on historical population figures and national prominence, cities like Detroit and Cleveland should feature taller and more dense skylines... but we understand that numbers don't tell the whole story.

[westak]

Originally Posted by BigDipper 80

Everyone hears that "both of our buildings" quip about Cleveland and assume it has a tiny skyline, but it's got a surprising amount of height and heft, especially for a city that's (currently) smaller than Wichita Kansas.

Are you serious?

[Crawford]

Detroit, even when it was an incredibly wealthy boomtown, never really developed a huge/important core. It was unusually sprawly/autocentric even in the early 20th century, and didn't get too many apartment districts and the like.

The grandest highrise in Detroit isn't downtown. The largest highrise isn't downtown. Both Fisher Bldg and Cadillac Place are in New Center. Detroit was never a major banking/corporate/law center, not even on the level of a Cleveland. The giant auto HQ weren't downtown until GM relocated to RenCen.

It does have quality, though. It's no worse than third or fourth on earth in terms of prewar highrises. NYC, Chicago, maybe Philly, then Detroit.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by pj3000

For Detroit's historical size and prominence, one would expect the city to have developed a heftier (taller and more densely-clustered skyline). It was a top 10 largest US city from 1910-2000, and a top 5 largest from 1920-1970/80. Yet, it didn't even get a 700-footer until the late 1970s.

here's a list of US cities ordered by the year they first got a 700 footer:

NYC - 1909
cleveland - 1930
boston - 1964
chicago - 1969
SF - 1969
pittsburgh - 1970
houston - 1971
LA - 1973
minneapolis - 1973
dallas - 1974
atlanta - 1976
detroit - 1978
miami - 1984
denver - 1984
seattle - 1985
philly - 1987
indianapolis - 1990
charlotte - 1992
mobile - 2007
oklahoma city - 2012
atlantic city - 2012


so perhaps detroit was a touch late to the 700' club, but it wasn't that far out of line with most of its peers.

only NYC and cleveland truly jumped out way ahead of everyone else on that particular score.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by pj3000

Kinda, but not really. For Detroit's historical size and prominence, one would expect the city to have developed a heftier (taller and more densely-clustered skyline). It was a top 10 largest US city from 1910-2000, and a top 5 largest from 1920-1970/80. Yet, it didn't even get a 700-footer until the late 1970s. While it has beautiful examples of Art Deco era skyscrapers from the 1920s, most of them are under 500 ft. and the city really didn't build very tall at all after that (the 60s-70s era buildings are generally in the 300ft range... and Detroit basically did nothing in the 1980s skyscraper era during which so many cities remarkably changed their skylines).

Like all Great Lakes cities, it formed a strong core, but still spread out rapidly because of available flat land... and Detroit is probably the poster child for this, with its auto industry prominence and its resultant suburban nodes featuring tall buildings. Just based on historical population figures and national prominence, cities like Detroit and Cleveland should feature taller and more dense skylines... but we understand that numbers don't tell the whole story.

I think Detroit's skyline was/is pretty dense, but it just lacks supertalls. Philadelphia lacked supertalls until the 1990s, so I would hesitate to make this Detroit or Great Lakes specific phenomenon. You could say that a lot of places are building supertalls that have no business doing so.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

so I would hesitate to make this Detroit or Great Lakes specific phenomenon.

it's definitely not a great lakes specific thing, as chicago and toronto so aptly demonstrate. they have the 2nd and 3rd largest skylines on the continent after NYC.

being on a great lake certainly does not preordain a city to have a smaller skyline than it otherwise would. there must be other factors at work here.

[softee]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

here's a list of US cities ordered by the year they first got a 700 footer:

NYC - 1909
cleveland - 1930
boston - 1964
chicago - 1969
SF - 1969
pittsburgh - 1970
houston - 1971
LA - 1973
minneapolis - 1973
dallas - 1974
atlanta - 1976
detroit - 1978
miami - 1984
denver - 1984
seattle - 1985
philly - 1987
indianapolis - 1990
charlotte - 1992
mobile - 2007
oklahoma city - 2012
atlantic city - 2012

Toronto - 1967

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by softee

Toronto - 1967

oh yeah, canada looks like this for year of first 700 footer:

toronto - 1967
calgary - 1984
montreal - 1992
edmonton - 2019

[pj3000]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

here's a list of US cities ordered by the year they first got a 700 footer:

NYC - 1909
cleveland - 1930
boston - 1964
chicago - 1969
SF - 1969
pittsburgh - 1970
houston - 1971
LA - 1973
minneapolis - 1973
dallas - 1974
atlanta - 1976
detroit - 1978
miami - 1984
denver - 1984
seattle - 1985
philly - 1987
indianapolis - 1990
charlotte - 1992
mobile - 2007
oklahoma city - 2012
atlantic city - 2012


so perhaps detroit was a touch late to the party, but it wasn't that far out of line with most of its peers.

only NYC and cleveland truly jumped out way ahead of everyone else on that particular score.

Good research. Yeah, perhaps the 700-footer example isn't a very good one. But considering that Detroit was the 4th or 5th largest city in the country, for around 7 decades, I'd think it would have a more height in its skyline, based on that fact alone. I mean, until Ren Center was built in the late 70s, Detroit only had one building over 500 feet tall. But then again, Detroit built a lot of incredible 400-footers in the 1920s. It just didn't build very tall after than until Ren Center around 60 years later.

But then again, Cleveland had the Terminal Tower as a complete outlier... with the rest of its contemporary buildings only being in the 200-foot tier for the most part (only one other bldg is over 300 ft from the period).

* Philly can probably removed from this list due to artificial influence (i.e., the "gentlemen's agreement height restriction in effect until One Liberty was finished in 1987); the city would have undoubtedly built much taller than City Hall back in the 1920s/30s had it not bee adhered to

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

being on a great lake certainly does not preordain a city to have a smaller skyline than it otherwise would. there must be other factors at work here.

I also meant to say that Detroit and Cleveland don't necessarily have smaller skylines than they otherwise would. Those cities, in their peak, had some of the largest skylines of that era. But 3M to 5M person cities that have come of age in the postwar era built more skyscrapers than was common for prewar cities in that band. We're evaluating the skylines through year 2020 eyes.

NYC and Chicago are actually outliers. By American megacity standards, Los Angeles has a very small skyline. By the standards of a city that came of age in the prewar era, it's pretty average.

[pj3000]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

I think Detroit's skyline was/is pretty dense, but it just lacks supertalls. Philadelphia lacked supertalls until the 1990s, so I would hesitate to make this Detroit or Great Lakes specific phenomenon. You could say that a lot of places are building supertalls that have no business doing so.

Philadelphia can't be cited in the discussion because of the height restriction until the mid-late 80s. It's not even about having supertalls, just height/lack thereof throughout the decades while certain cities were among the largest in the US.

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

it's definitely not a great lakes specific thing, as chicago and toronto, two great lakes cities, so aptly demonstrate. they have the 2nd and 3rd largest skylines on the continent after NYC.

being on a great lake certainly does not preordain a city to have a smaller skyline than it otherwise would. there must be other factors at work here.

Chicago is the major outlier.

It's not a preordained thing (in a way), and there are certainly plenty of other factors.

But there's no denying the phenomenon of Great Lakes cities having lesser skyline height in comparison to non-Lakes peer cities in the broad surrounding geographic regions. Particularly when considering that two of the top 10 largest cities in the nation from 1910-1980 (Detroit until 2000), Detroit and Cleveland, have skylines which undeniably pale in a height and density comparison to cities which were not in that size classification for nearly so long.

Think about it... if you heard that a city was one of the top 5 largest in the US from roughly 1910-1980, would you expect it to have a skyline like Detroit (with a large bulk of its tallest buildings built pre-1930 and only a single one of this group over 500 feet tall)?

How about Cleveland? A city significantly historically larger than the nearby peer cities of Pittsburgh and Cincinnati... yet boasting a skyline height inferior to both of those cities (in comparison to Cincinnati up until the 80s/90s and Pittsburgh up until present day)?

[pj3000]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

I also meant to say that Detroit and Cleveland don't necessarily have smaller skylines than they otherwise would. Those cities, in their peak, had some of the largest skylines of that era. But 3M to 5M person cities that have come of age in the postwar era built more skyscrapers than was common for prewar cities in that band. We're evaluating the skylines through year 2020 eyes.

I have to disagree with your first point. Look at the cities' tallest buildings list and their eras of development, and look at city size/rank, and look at peer cities. Both Detroit and Cleveland should be taller.

I understand your point about postwar development cities... and Detroit and Cleveland did begin to decline in the 1950s, but one would be led to believe that they would have built taller during their decades of massive growth by their population numbers and rank.

For instance, take a look at Cleveland's skyline in the 1950s and take a look at Cincinnati's or Pittsburgh's or Kansas City's... what was going on?

[MayDay]

"How about Cleveland? A city significantly historically larger than the nearby peer cities of Pittsburgh and Cincinnati... yet boasting a skyline height inferior to both of those cities (in comparison to Cincinnati up until the 80s/90s and Pittsburgh up until present day)?"

Read up on the soil conditions underneath downtown Cleveland and you'll have some insight on some significant factors that have influenced what's been built.

Probably the 80th time I've posted this in the 20+ years I've been on this forum ...

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by pj3000

But there's no denying the phenomenon of Great Lakes cities having lesser skyline height in comparison to non-Lakes peer cities in the broad surrounding geographic region

i would deny that.

there are only 5 cities in the midwest that have towers over 700' tall. here's how the numbers break down.

Chicago - 28
Minneapolis - 3
Cleveland - 2
Detroit - 1
Indianapolis - 1

3 of those 5 cities are great lakes cities, so..........

Originally Posted by pj3000

How about Cleveland? A city significantly historically larger than the nearby peer cities of Pittsburgh and Cincinnati... yet boasting a skyline height inferior to both of those cities?

cleveland has less skyline height than pittsburgh (with the exception of the very tallest building), but cincinnati doesn't have a taller skyline than cleveland.

10 tallest in pittsbugh:
1. U.S. Steel Tower --------- 841'
2. BNY Mellon Center ------- 725'
3. One PPG Place ----------- 635'
4. Fifth Avenue Place ------- 616'
5. One Oxford Centre ------- 615'
6. Gulf Tower ---------------- 582'
7. The Tower at PNC Plaza -- 544'
8. Cathedral of Learning ---- 535'
9. Three Mellon Center ------ 520'
10. K & L Gates Center ------ 511'


10 tallest in cleveland:
1. Key Tower -------------- 947'
2. Terminal Tower --------- 708'
3. 200 Public Square ------ 658'
4. Tower at Erieview ------ 529'
5. One Cleveland Center -- 450'
6. Fifth Third Center ------- 446'
7. Carl B. Stokes ----------- 430'
8. Justice Center ----------- 420'
9. Federal Building --------- 419'
10. PNC Center ------------- 410'


10 tallest in cincinnati:
1. Great American Tower -- 665'
2. Carew Tower ------------ 574'
3. PNC Tower -------------- 495'
4. Scripps Center ---------- 468'
5. Fifth Third Center ------- 423'
6. Center 600 Vine -------- 418'
7. Chemed Center --------- 410'
8. Hilton Cincinnati -------- 372'
9. Chiquita Center --------- 368'
10. PNC Center ------------ 354'

[BigDipper 80]

Pittsburgh and Cincinnati both benefit from having a relatively dense concentration of their skyscrapers. Cleveland's are more spread out around downtown, which plays into the perception of not being as tall of a skyline.