Skyline Growth in Your City since the 1960s

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by CaliNative

Austin may challenge Houston and Dallas eventually. I don't understand why San Antonio lags in skyscrapers. It is a big city, and a charming one too. Plus my mom was born there, so I have a warm spot in my heart for it. Perhaps San Antonians prefer suburban houses to hi rise living. Most new skyscraper construction in most cities is residential or hotel rather than office. San Antonio has a few hotel towers

San Antonio has taken a remarkably different approach to urban development, one that is more European in some respects and has the potential to pay off long-term with respect to the skyline.

Downtown San Antonio is a tourist trap, largely devoid of life outside of that. The city and county are making efforts to change that dynamic with a second water-level pedestrian promenade downtown similar to the Riverwalk along San Pedro Creek, and developers have been working hard to densify the ring of neighborhoods surrounding downtown with 3-7 story residential in addition to new, local entertainment districts:

• Pearl Brewery and multiple adjacent large-scale master-planned urban developments, adding thousands of units and multiple highrises, with thousands more to come, situated along the northern residential extension of the riverwalk.

• LoneStar Brewery, development plans and owners keep shifting, but the writing is on the wall that this large parcel just south of downtown along the southern residential extension of the riverwalk will mirror what has happened at the Pearl.

• Southtown, the area surrounding LoneStar has already been filling up piecemeal with urban residential for a decade now. At least 1,500 units.

• Eastside: lots of stuff cooking here, Sunset Station is now surrounding by urban residential with some under construction and more to come. Developers are intent on turning this area into the local nightlife district, which does not currently exist in San Antonio. There are multiple large parcels, with development projects actively in the works.

• Westside: the massive UTSA expansion downtown that will eventually span from San Pedro Creek all the way under and across the interstate to the railroad tracks, complete with student housing, office space, research space, meeting space, collaborative space, and of course classroom space has already started. There is also the new federal courthouse along San Pedro Creek and multiple large transit-oriented projects on the works along VIA’s Centro Plaza.

Again, all of what’s above will created a cohesive ring around downtown proper of mid-scale urbanism 10-15 blocks deep. Outside of that inner ring, San Antonio is also experiencing a “missing middle” boom of townhomes, rowhomes, and similar dense single-family home structures and has taken great pains over the last few years to open up options for homeowners to develop their land with ADUs. The neighborhoods filling with these are not a perfect outer ring around the mid-scale urban stuff, but there is enough activity that San Antonio’s underlying land prices are some of the fastest rising in Texas. Developers want in on this action.

• Short-term (5-10 years), I think that San Antonio continue to see all of the above trends continue with perhaps the occasional resident skyscraper along the Riverwalk downtown, and perhaps a few more office-to-res conversions. Hotels will continue along the Riverwalk, around the Alamo, and adjacent to the Convention Center.

• Medium-term (15-20), I think that San Pedro Creek begins to have residential towers lining it and to see the Pearl and Broadway corridor area start to become an approximation of an Uptown with larger highrises and office structures. I also expect to see a student highrise district emerge along Frio Street.

• Longer-term (25+), I expect to see land values in downtown proper rise significantly. As developable land surrounding downtown decreases in quantity, that will be a natural outgrowth. That land will have overwhelmingly been densified on the back of residential, which is usually the easiest pathway to generating office development. At that time, San Antonio will probably be at about where Austin is now (getting its first truly major office tower).

Different strategy entirely than pretty much anywhere in the country. Probably why San Antonio has been able to keep housing costs low while the rest of the state has struggled.

[plinko]

^Phoenix only had one building over 200ft tall in 1960 (the Westard HO at 208ft). The two 400 footers that currently top the skyline were built in 1972 (201 N Central) and 1976 (101 N Central). There are over 50 that have been built in that time between 200 and 400ft between 1960 and now. Phoenix just isn't much of a skyscraper city.

[AviationGuy]

Originally Posted by edale

Austin's skyline boom makes no sense to me. It had such a small and weak skyline forever, and then it's like the city woke up one day and learned about skyscrapers and they just started sprouting all over the place. Still feels like a sleepy small city despite the high rise boom, which I guess is probably part of its charm. I don't get it though.

I don't think of it as sleepy by any means. It's a city of 1 million in the city proper, and about 2.5 million metro. Clogged streets, clogged tollways and freeways, people out and about at numerous festivals and outdoor activities. Very large student population, and West Campus is like a city in itself. At this point, I would love to live in an actual sleepy city. The crowds, traffic, noise, and everything else here drive me up the wall.

[chris08876]

Long Island City, 2010 vs 2020. Lots of change in 10 years. And much more slated to rise or rising in LIC.

Prior to 2010, bulk of the area had warehouses. Was not what it was now. 1000's of units have risen and 5000+ units planned.



Credit: https://www.reddit.com/r/pics/commen...m_window_2010/

[KevinFromTexas]

400+ feet in Austin.

Austin saw its first 400 footer in 1984. The American Center was the tallest for 20 years until 2004 when the Frost Bank Tower was built, which itself became our first 500 footer. Since then, the One American Center has been surpassed in height 21 times. That's with what's been completed, but there are at least 19 more that will be taller. It took 20 years for that building to be surpassed in height, and in the last 18 years, it stands to drop to our 40th tallest building.

Austin has also seen a new tallest building since the One American Center was built in 1984 in the years 2004, 2008, 2010, 2019, and will see a new tallest again in 2023 and 2025 with two more that are under construction at the moment, including one that will be the tallest in Texas.

Austin also now has 22 completed buildings over 400 feet, which means we have more 400 footers than any other location in Texas outside of Houston and Dallas. All of the rest of Texas has 15 buildings over 400 feet, including buildings in Fort Worth, San Antonio, The Woodlands, Corpus Christi, Amarillo, and South Padre Island. With everything that has been built and what is under construction and proposed, Austin could end up with at least 54 buildings over 400 feet. I'm not sure how that stacks up against Houston and Dallas, but it's gotta be getting close.

New 400 footers in Austin by year.

1984 - 1
2004 - 1
2008 - 1
2009 - 2
2010 - 3
2015 - 2
2016 - 1
2017 - 1
2018 - 1
2019 - 3
2020 - 1
2021 - 2
2022 - 3
Total: 22

Under construction: 9
Proposed: 23

[CaliNative]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

additionally, US Steel Tower remained one of the 10 tallest buildings on the planet outside of NYC and Chicago all the way until the late '80s when the explosive growth in 800+ foot towers really started to take off, both in North America and over in Asia.



as for Chicago, these kinds of tabulations are always a bit blurry because the stats are never 100% accurate/complete for buildings as low as 400', but the below is close enough for government work:

Chicago 400+ footers 1960: 24 (2nd most on the planet after NYC at the time)

Chicago 400+ footers today: 235 (includes U/C)

source: SSP diagrams


so roughly a 10x increase!



also, Chicago's tallest building in 1960 was the 605' tall art deco masterpiece, the CBoT Building, and today it doesn't even rank as one of the 50 tallest buildings in the the city (it's currently #54, and falling).

Did Chicago have some sort of height limit prior to the 1960s? Curious that nothing taller than about 600' wasn't built until John Hancock went up. If Cleveland built the 750' Terminal Tower in the 1920s, curious Chicago didn't build something at least as tall back then, especially considering the rivalry with NYC.

[CaliNative]

Originally Posted by wwmiv

San Antonio has taken a remarkably different approach to urban development, one that is more European in some respects and has the potential to pay off long-term with respect to the skyline.

Downtown San Antonio is a tourist trap, largely devoid of life outside of that. The city and county are making efforts to change that dynamic with a second water-level pedestrian promenade downtown similar to the Riverwalk along San Pedro Creek, and developers have been working hard to densify the ring of neighborhoods surrounding downtown with 3-7 story residential in addition to new, local entertainment districts:

• Pearl Brewery and multiple adjacent large-scale master-planned urban developments, adding thousands of units and multiple highrises, with thousands more to come, situated along the northern residential extension of the riverwalk.

• LoneStar Brewery, development plans and owners keep shifting, but the writing is on the wall that this large parcel just south of downtown along the southern residential extension of the riverwalk will mirror what has happened at the Pearl.

• Southtown, the area surrounding LoneStar has already been filling up piecemeal with urban residential for a decade now. At least 1,500 units.

• Eastside: lots of stuff cooking here, Sunset Station is now surrounding by urban residential with some under construction and more to come. Developers are intent on turning this area into the local nightlife district, which does not currently exist in San Antonio. There are multiple large parcels, with development projects actively in the works.

• Westside: the massive UTSA expansion downtown that will eventually span from San Pedro Creek all the way under and across the interstate to the railroad tracks, complete with student housing, office space, research space, meeting space, collaborative space, and of course classroom space has already started. There is also the new federal courthouse along San Pedro Creek and multiple large transit-oriented projects on the works along VIA’s Centro Plaza.

Again, all of what’s above will created a cohesive ring around downtown proper of mid-scale urbanism 10-15 blocks deep. Outside of that inner ring, San Antonio is also experiencing a “missing middle” boom of townhomes, rowhomes, and similar dense single-family home structures and has taken great pains over the last few years to open up options for homeowners to develop their land with ADUs. The neighborhoods filling with these are not a perfect outer ring around the mid-scale urban stuff, but there is enough activity that San Antonio’s underlying land prices are some of the fastest rising in Texas. Developers want in on this action.

• Short-term (5-10 years), I think that San Antonio continue to see all of the above trends continue with perhaps the occasional resident skyscraper along the Riverwalk downtown, and perhaps a few more office-to-res conversions. Hotels will continue along the Riverwalk, around the Alamo, and adjacent to the Convention Center.

• Medium-term (15-20), I think that San Pedro Creek begins to have residential towers lining it and to see the Pearl and Broadway corridor area start to become an approximation of an Uptown with larger highrises and office structures. I also expect to see a student highrise district emerge along Frio Street.

• Longer-term (25+), I expect to see land values in downtown proper rise significantly. As developable land surrounding downtown decreases in quantity, that will be a natural outgrowth. That land will have overwhelmingly been densified on the back of residential, which is usually the easiest pathway to generating office development. At that time, San Antonio will probably be at about where Austin is now (getting its first truly major office tower).

Different strategy entirely than pretty much anywhere in the country. Probably why San Antonio has been able to keep housing costs low while the rest of the state has struggled.

The 1920s Tower Life building is a pretty imposing office skyscraper, one of the tallest in Texas when built. Thanks for the good summary of SA development trends.

[CaliNative]

Does anybody think the era of office building construction will return like it was pre covid, or not? We might go through an office lull like we had in the 1930s-1950s, before the 1960s boom started. Residential hi rise construction should continue at a healthy pace in my op., unless int. rates rise to very high levels and cause a severe recession. Hotels may slow a bit. Office conversion to residential should continue at a healthy pace.

[muppet]

London docklands

60s




80s




90s




2010










2020s

[Yuri]

Canary Wharf is so impressive. It seems it was only yesterday Canada One (?) dominated it. Now we can barely see it.

Same thing about the City. I had a Grow puzzle depicting the City, probably a late 1990’s click. The tallest was a building that is completely hidden today.

London’s rise in the past 20 years was insane.

[muppet]

Thanks man, yep there are 3 main clusters, 3 smaller ones , and 3 u/c


City Financial district, London

pre WWII, before the Blitz




1960s







80s




00s





20s - Gherkin has disappeared






u/c - everything is hunching in to dodge the protected views to the cathedral, now one of the densest skyscraper plots. Literally medieval alleys separate the buildings and private cars are effectively banned. 19 tall buildings squeeze onto this part of the plot.

[muppet]

London Vauxhall - the last district in Zone 1 without protected viewing corridors





1980s - ex industrial and neglected. The (very speculative) office block doubled as London's best underground club by the 90s where you could watch the sunrise from the dancefloors, and the abandoned building site on the right of it was Adrenaline Village, one of the vast warehouse clubs.



90s -the MI5 Building arrives, very overt for a secret agency (the architects, building for an unnamed govt project, thought it was going to house the Environment Agency).





2010s -Vauxhall has a second wind as a nightlife spot, London's secondary gay village that's starting to attract regeneration




2020s - gay village killed off by the pandemic and apps, and the developers moved in




(at left)

[tdawg]

Atlanta's core has changed remarkably since the 1960s. The city had a supertall in the mid 90s and the focus during the 2000s has been on infill, that's why you're seeing a LOT of ~30 story buildings being built between Downtown and Midtown.

Atlanta in 1963 (courtesy Floyd Jillson of the AJC):



Atlanta 2022 (Midtown, courtesy of the Midtown Alliance):



Downtown (no credit):

[lio45]

Why are those London skyscrapers right on the water? Seems to me the ability to have an industrial-style dock is completely useless for an office tower. And it’s not like that waterfront is a warm sandy beach…

[MAC123]

I'd want to see this for NYC, but I wouldn't know where to find accurate info.

[Nite]

Calgary

400 ft+

1960: 0
1970: 0
1980: 9
1990: 22
2000: 24
2010: 29
2020: 39
2022: 44 (includes 2 U/C)

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by CaliNative

Did Chicago have some sort of height limit prior to the 1960s?

Not a hard number height cap, but there were limits on bulk/volume back in the day in Chicago that made the construction of taller towers more unlikely.

This entry from Wikipedia sums it up well:

Chicago altered its laws in the 1920s to allow towers to be built as part of its skyscrapers. In 1920, the maximum building height in Chicago was increased to 260 feet (79 m), and unoccupied structures on a building, such as ornamental towers, were allowed to extend up to 400 feet (120 m) high.[214] Additional changes came in 1923, with taller occupied towers being permitted for the first time, but subject to controls on overall volumes.[80] The main building of a skyscraper could be up to 264 feet (80 m) tall, and a tower could be built on up to 25 percent of the lot, but the tower could not have a volume of more than a sixth of the main block.[214] In practice, this meant that a tower could not be built more than around 20 stories tall in a typical Chicago skyscraper development.[214]

Initially, Chicago still preferred palazzo-styled buildings with large light courts in the centre, because they remained the most profitable designs.[215] The Wrigley Building, built under the 1920 law, demonstrated the effect of two ornamental towers on top of a skyscraper.[214] Under the revised law, the Straus Building and the Pittsfield Building took the palazzo design and added somewhat stunted towers on top in the early 1920s, producing profitable buildings.[216]

One of the period's most famous buildings, the Tribune Tower, emerged from a competition held by the Tribune Company in 1922 to celebrate its 75th anniversary.[217] The newspaper was one of the largest in the world and used the competition, in which members of the public were invited to influence the design of the skyscraper, to build a loyal following amongst its readership and generate free publicity.[218] The final design was determined by a competition panel largely made up of the company's appointees, who chose John Howells and Raymond Hood's tower design.[219] The resulting tower was a conservative, Gothic design and controversy about the decision broke out almost immediately: Louis Sullivan and many others criticized Howells and Hood's design as being derivative of the Woolworth Tower.[220] Regardless of its critics, the Tribune received as many as 20,000 visitors to its observation gallery when it opened in 1925.[217] The unbuilt second-place entry in the competition, a more simplified stepped-back design by Eliel Saarinen, also proved highly influential.[217]

The popularity of the older style then began to wane in favor of a greater emphasis on towers.[221] One common way of building these within Chicago's laws was to build a square main block with a central service core, and then simply place a tower on the top; the more massive the main block, the taller the tower could be.[222] The Trustees System Service Building and the Foreman State National Bank Building form good examples of this approach.[222] Alternatively, the front of the main block could be recessed, as at the Chicago Civic Opera Building or the LaSalle-Wacker Building, sacrificing volume but producing the visual effect of two high wings flanking a very tall tower.[223] The distinctive New York "setback" style was not adopted in Chicago, the only example of this style being the Palmolive Building on North Michigan Avenue.[224]

Source: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earl...o%20New%20York.

Originally Posted by CaliNative

If Cleveland built the 750' Terminal Tower in the 1920s, curious Chicago didn't build something at least as tall back then, especially considering the rivalry with NYC.

It's important to remember just how much of an outlier Cleveland's terminal tower was in its time. In the pre-war era it was by far the tallest tower in the world outside of NYC at 708' tall. And the second tallest tower in the world outside of NYC at that time was Chicago's CBoT at 605' tall.

Additionally, terminal tower made Cleveland one of the planet's most egregious "sore thumb" skylines back in the day. Terminal tower was 708' tall, and in the pre-war era the city's 2nd tallest building was only 365' tall, roughly only half the height. By comparison, Chicago had 23 towers over 400' at the time. Chicago tallest might've fallen well short of TT, but the city still had a much larger and more "complete" skyline compared to Cleveland at the time.

[muppet]

Originally Posted by lio45

Why are those London skyscrapers right on the water? Seems to me the ability to have an industrial-style dock is completely useless for an office tower. And it’s not like that waterfront is a warm sandy beach…

Erm, the water came first not the towers. The skyscrapers were built there due to the opportunity of available land, the same for many disused docklands round the world.

[KevinFromTexas]

That really is an incredible transformation of the docklands. I guess I wasn't expecting that's how Canary Wharf came about, so it's really something to see it.

[N90]

That’s such a weird place to build a business district between channels and lanes of water like that. But at the same time it’s very unique and incredibly cool too. Just so damn weird tho.