And it's based on estimates that we already know are off and are too high for Phoenix and too low for new York. And even if it were correct this thread is about high-rise building and not population.

+1. The numbers used for this calculation are based of of US Census Bureau "estimates" that have already proven to be wrong based on 2020 physical counts which have only been released for states, but not counties.

The states with the largest underestimates were largely urban and blue. i.e. NY, NJ, PA, etc.

We'll see what happens when county level numbers are released, but I can tell you NYC and Philly will have population numbers that are far higher than the "estimates" based on the counts that have already been released for their states.

The counts aren't perfect either. But they're probably a lot closer to the truth.

We already know that NY Metro has grown more than 2% based off of the state numbers. NYS grew by 4.2% and New Jersey grew by 5.7%. About 70% of NYS is in NY Metro, and about 70% of New Jersey is also in NY Metro, so it's virtually a given that NY Metro grew by at least 4%. None of Connecticut is included in the NY Metro MSA, so the picture is pretty clear cut without considering CT, but Connecticut was by far the slowest growing of the three states in the NYC region. I think this suggests that almost all of the growth in NYS and NJ will have occurred in the urban cities.

Based on back of napkin calculations, my floor for NY Metro population growth is 4.8%.

About 2 years ago I made a spreadsheet with 109 American (and Canadian!) cities with at least one 400 foot building (and arbitrary cutoff). I then added up the age of the 10 tallest buildings in the city and divided by the total to get an average age of top ten tallest buildings by city, which feels like a decent metric for which city has built a lot. Of course, since this only includes the 10 tallest, places like Dallas, which has a lot of growth but not in the top ten, are dragged back, and cities with pre-war highrises in the top 10 tallest get knocked pretty hard.

Does it show who's building the most? Not really. Does it show who's building the most tall buildings relative to the rest of the buildings in the city? Sure.

Link to sheet.

Random stat: The average age top 10 tallest buildings in those cities is 1989

Again, the sheet is a few years old now so it's a bit out od date.

Yeah the counts aren't perfect, but they're close enough to perfect. The numbers are for MSAs and it's now July 1st, 2021, so even if I posted the exact accurate count for MSAs of 2020, it would be out of date.

Just read through this thread for the first time... Nothing too surprising; the only thing that really surprised me is the fact that Darkoshvilli is Canadian! I guess there are exceptions to every stereotype

Despite all doom and gloom Portland press, surprisingly our apartment construction boom seems to be soldiering on. There are tons of huge apartment buildings still going up all over the city. Its been 10 years it seems like. No real big towers that I know of tho. I think investors put the brakes on the four seasons hotel too.

Houston is over 400 sq miles. Miami is 83sq mi. Philly and Atlanta are around 130 +- sq miles

The vast majority of major development is in concentrated inside the loop (or just outside, Uptown) and west of downtown. Probably comparable to Atlanta and Miami. Still again, the economy isn't in the greatest shape with not only covid but a major downturn in oil and gas.

You have no idea dude. Im a moody fuck.

lol
"navel gazing"?

This really doesnt accurately show which cities are growing the most.

Phoenix,Houston,Dallas all are in the highest growth margin but all of them are more than twice and big land wise as Seattle,DC,Atlanta, SF, and Boston.

For instance if you look at Atlanta city boundaries and extended then as much as Houstons it would go well into Dunwoody,Sandy Springs,and as far as Alpharetta in the suburbs.
Even if you consider just the inner loop of Houston,a significant portion of developments are still outside the Western loop. Post Oak area and beyond

Read the post. It's about metros. This isn't about city limits.

BTW, in Seattle's case, 16.83% is far less than the core city grew, which is estimated at 25%.

I did read the post.
I quoted that post because they were referring to the Emporis data that only list city propers in regards to developments.
I wasnt focusing on the population

He should have used population data for the city propers instead for the proper context.
Notice i said "developments"
https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/sho...2&postcount=12

Elaborate please, unless you made a typo. It sounds contradictory.

re: kids table..It's funny and kinda true in some respects, but Canada is also a G7 country, so I guess it sits at the adult table sometimes.

re: Native American terminology. I watched a Joe Rogan podcast less than a year ago, and his guest was an indigenous lawyer of sorts. She consistently referred to parts of Oklahoma as "Indian lands", and referred to treaties as "Indian treaties",,She actually used the word "Indian" quite bit when she referred to her people(s)..Before the podcast aired, I actually thought that Americans in general still used "Indians" for Indigenous people tbh.

Steely can speak for himself......

But I don't see anything contradictory there.

He's saying that the U.S. is a navel-gazing country.

That's the same as saying inward-looking or self-absorbed depending on how harsh you want it to sound.

Then he's saying you don't become that way by considering others beyond your borders.......... which would be entirely logical.

Ahh you know what..You are correct! I've always took the term "navel gazing " as something else..The complete opposite of the true meaning..The things you learn daily..Thanks!

I'm not sure I still like Toronto constructing so many tall buildings. Sure, they look nice, but those elevators can be annoying to use, and maybe too crowded, especially during a pandemic. And I also have to wonder how increasing reliance on elevators fits into Canada's climate change goals. I think we can increase density without building exclusively ever taller and skinnier towers. For example, is Toronto really that much denser than Montreal? I think Toronto should take some inspiration from Montreal and all its dense low-rise and mid-rise neighbourhoods. Toronto new buildings are shinier, but Montreal's might be more livable, and also more sustainable in the long-term.

Are you suggesting a wholesale rebuild of Toronto's houses as townhouses and walk-ups? How's that going to work?

Towers work because you don't need to tear much down to provide enough room for them.

Elevators must have a miniscule effect on climate vs. the transportation impacts of not being dense.

Apparently Doady is into satire? Obviously Montreal started out much denser, but most new density there is also concentrated in towers in very constrained sites like Toronto/Vancouver rather than spread out.

Back to thread topic... many people might be unaware of Burnaby aka the continent's biggest collection of suburban skylines in a single suburb, now with more towers above 150m than downtown, and about to have 7 of the 8 tallest buildings in Metro Vancouver. 23 towers under construction, with 12 of the 20 tallest buildings under construction in the metro (only 5 are downtown)

https://i.imgur.com/8y8GrW1.png

I've heard a lot of arguments against building too many high-rise residential towers. The environmental impact of elevators is a new one though. :haha:

Why aren't most of the tallest towers in metro Vancouver downtown?

downtown has a height limit.

It's the same thing for Ottawa, and possibly soon for Hamilton. All these cities have relatively low height limits so the tallest buildings are in the suburbs where there are no such limits.

Right, but why?

Do you know what is the reasoning behind the height restrictions? I know why they have them in DC so I assume its the same reason for Ottawa but why Hamilton and other cities?

My area has height limits basically everywhere. Even the tiny area without them has tight FAR limits. The limits are very tight given our growth pressures. So nearly all projects go to the precise limit.

A shocking number of Canadian cities actually have height limits. Montreal is limited to the height of Mount Royal adjacent, Hamilton is limited to the height of the Niagara Escarpment adjacent (this is a new rule however and there are several existing buildings which exceed the limit), and Ottawa is limited to the height of the Peace Tower on the Parliament Buildings. Not sure what the rationale is for Vancouver's height limit is, but it's about 200 metres in height as the absolute maximum from what I recall.

there isn't any real clear rationale for the limits often, just a visual preference by municipal planners.

Vancouver's height limit is to protect mountain views.

^That's very similar to Honolulu's -- to protect the mountain views and the ocean views as well as Diamond Head Crater (I believe).

Seattle's exist to:

1. Make sure city views don't get in the way of city views, particularly from hillsides.

2. Make sure developers don't profit from the removal of height limits.

It's strange that we have giant development fees, and allowing extra floors could fund a lot more affordable housing for example. But screw them, because what if someone makes money and what if a rich person can only see a mile instead of two miles.

I'm being slightly flippant here. Rezones go through EISes, and there would be impacts to sewers and so on.

In Vancouver, it's more view cones from various places south of downtown looking towards the mountains, rather than an absolute height limit. Theoretically there's a few sites where you can go above 200m, but there are already office towers occupying those sites

One of the view cones... you get the idea:

https://images.dailyhive.com/2020041...ancouver-8.jpg

Looks like the answer to this question is Toronto

https://www.equipmentjournal.com/con...rane-activity/

In major cities across North America, Toronto continues to lead the pack in tower crane activity.

According to the Rider Levett Bucknall Crane Index for North America, Toronto accounts for 43 per cent of active tower cranes, followed by Los Angles, Seattle and Washington D.C., which all account for 9 per cent each of the total count.

The index, which is published by the real estate consulting firm biannually, tracks the number of operating tower cranes in 14 major cities across the United States and Canada.

Toronto has recorded a 68 per cent increase in its tower crane count since the previous index, adding 84 more cranes.

Tower crane activity has literally nothing to do with overall building activity. You can build 40-floor towers without tower cranes.

There's a 450 ft. hotel tower wrapping up construction next to my workplace. No crane was ever used.

The Crane Index Is wrong , the phoenix forum has a list of complaints with the crane count being wrong lol

Did they forget to track NYC??

Anyways, the other problem with counting cranes is that it doesn't take into account construction time. A 50 storey building may take several years to complete while a 12 storey one may take less than a year.

Many cities might not be getting tracked as well, speaking for Kitchener-Waterloo where I used to live, the SSP database is missing several buildings.

Waterloo is missing

Recently completed (and not listed in any form)
255 Sunview, 258B Sunview, 258A Sunview, 246 Lester, 256 Lester, 131 University W

U/C
239A & 239B Albert, Elora House, 460A & 460B Columbia W

Proposed
Westmount Place (down to just 1 residential tower), 316 King N, 508 Beechwood, 635 Erb St W, 12 Westhill, Kraus Flooring redevelopment (preliminary proposal of 8 high rises)

So it currently has 10 highrises U/C. Development is shifting to sister city Kitchener. SSP's database has it at 8 highrises U/C and 16 proposed which is good for a small city but at a glance, at least a few projects are missing.

That “crane index” only tracks two Canadian cities, Toronto and Calgary, and only 14 cities in total in North America.

Last time I looked metro Van has well over 150 cranes in operation. Not to mention Montreal’s current boom.

Any stat on that article is worthless due to how many major cities with high crane activity it omits.

Anyways, most US cities don't build as many highrises as Canadian cities, but still build a lot of midrise infill, as well as lowrise apartment and townhouse infill. Seattle grew by 2.1% per year between the 2010 and 2020 census for example, compared to 1.7% per year for Old Toronto between the 2011 and 2016 census.

One of these lists claimed that Portland had more cranes than New York City . At a time when there were 10 highrises under construction in downtown Brooklyn , none with tower cranes

There is nothing under construction presently in Toronto. All those lists are wrong. The only city building anything is Tyson's Corner.

The amount of low rise building in NYC is astounding and probably falls under the radar. I'm pretty sure nobody is touching the Big Apple when you factor in low rises, but who knows.

The point about population growth is good. I might guess that new shell and core construction is at least half about growth and less than half replacement/improvement.

That said, some cities focus their growth into buildings large enough to need cranes and others don't as much.

And the specifics matter. NYC uses smaller building-mounted cranes to fit tighter spaces (I'm curious about the criteria and will look more). Places like Dallas build a lot of low buildings set back from the street, so often there's room for forklifts and the occasional mobile crane to replace the need for a tower crane.

The list should be reported for what it is...certain types of cranes, and a limited list of cities. I certainly believe places like Vancouver, Miami, and New York would score high if it was more comprehensive.

It's hard to believe that any place in the western world is building more multi-family housing than NYC right now. It feels like every former gas station, mechanic shop, or vacant lot in Brooklyn has a building going up on it now.

The answer is New York, then Toronto. Then #3 is probably Miami.

Everytime I think the supertalls are taking a pause, another one starts rising in NY.

How many Western cities have built 14 supertalls in a decade (with another 1,400' now beginning its ascent)? New York is on another level.

Built since 2010:

1. 3 World Trade Center - 1,079 (2018)
2. 9 DeKalb Avenue - 1,073 (2022)
3. 30 Hudson Yards - 1,270 (2019)
4. 35 Hudson Yards - 1,000 (2019)
5. 50 Hudson Yards - 1,011 (2022)
6. 53W53 - 1,050 (2019)
7. 111 West 57th Street - 1,428 (2021)
8. 270 Park Avenue - 1,425 (2024) *U/C*
9. 432 Park Avenue - 1,397 (2015)
10. Central Park Tower - 1,550 (2020)
11. One57 - 1,004 (2014)
12. One Manhattan West - 996 (2019)
13. One Vanderbilt - 1,401 (2020)
14. One World Trade Center - 1,776 (2014)
15. The Spiral - 1,041 (2023)

18 supertalls + 1U/C = 19. New York had 2(!) as recently as 2007.

And on the development pipeline we have:

1. 15 Penn Plaza - 1,270
2. 41 West 57th Street - 1,100
3. 175 Park Avenue - 1,646
4. 247 Cherry - 1,013
5. 343 Madison Ave - 1,050
6. 350 Park Avenue - 1,450
7. 520 5th Ave - 995
8. 740 Eighth Ave - 1,120
9. Tower Fifth - 1,556

That's 28 supertalls. Add in 1-2 new surprises announced in the next 2-3 years (including some mystery/stale proposals that could still materialize, like 265 West 45th) and 30+ supertalls by 2030 is highly likely imo.

No one else in North America, or the West for that matter, comes close.

And yes I'm ignoring all those 700-984' skyscrapers that New York keeps building in droves. Those get lost in the skyline nowadays so while they're still noteworthy in every other Western city, in New York, they barely get a passing glance.

This can very easily be calculated. What's the NYC proper building permit/housing starts data?

I use this link to find the information for New Jersey.
https://nj.gov/labor/lpa/industry/bp/bpmun/bpjul21.htm

For Jersey City, 1,341 units have received building permits from the start of the year until July 2021. For past years:
2020 - 3,552
2019 - 4,675


What's the numbers for NYC proper? Canada will have a different methodology, but any numbers for Toronto or Vancouver?

Toronto (CMA) for 2020 *** Edit 38,587 housing starts. (thanks to @MonkeyRonin for pointing that out)
That excludes Hamilton/Burlington, and Whitby/Oshawa.

So Oakville to Ajax, north to Bradford area.

https://www03.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/hmip-p...hyName=Toronto

Is it possible to obtain city proper numbers instead of metro areas?
-edit-

The link was very helpful. I count 20,982 for Toronto when copying and pasting into Excel for 2020.
Anyone have the number for NYC?

Not sure if they're exactly comparable (housing starts vs. building permits), but New York is here: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/NEWY636BPPRIV

+55,875 in the past 12 months for the MSA.

Others:
Boston MSA: +16,570 (https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/BOST625BPPRIV)
Dallas MSA: +51,005 (https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/DALL148BP1FH)
Houston MSA: +53,702 (https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/HOUS448BP1FHSA)
Philadelphia MSA: +20,900 (https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/PHIL942BPPRIV)
Washington MSA: +27,609 (https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/WASH911BPPRIVSA)

Note, these are September 2020-August 2021. Not 2020. So slightly different than the Canadian numbers posted above.

Not entirely comparable. Housing starts are strictly new residential units; whereas building permits would include renovations, additions, replacement dwellings, and non-residential construction. On the other hand, a single multi-unit building would likely entail only a single building permit, so permits aren't otherwise a great indicator of the number of housing units being added.

Also, I'm getting 38,587 housing starts (all types) for Toronto CMA in 2020, per the link above?