What U.S. cities have built the most tall buildings since 2010?

[chris08876]

One city to keep an eye on, with respect to 400-500 ft, is Fort Lauderdale. Up and coming when it comes to the pipeline and projects getting ready to start.

[MolsonExport]

Originally Posted by SFBruin

Iirc, they leave Jacksonville, FL off of these lists, so that other cities don't feel bad.

It figures.

[DZH22]

Boston has 8 completed, 3 more topped out and visually near completion, and 1 more out of the ground and growing.

[sentinel]

Originally Posted by mhays

That's one opinion, albeit an oft-quoted one and one with actual industry professionals behind it.

Well I would assume that the "one with actual industry professionals behind it" would be the best source. And it's not just industry professionals, the organization itself is considered to be the de facto authority worldwide on what and how to define skyscrapers, official height definitions and counts, etc.

[bilbao58]

Originally Posted by Phil McAvity

Yup, that's why I as a proud Canuck mentioned Taranna...

I remember people up there also pronouncing it Tronno.

[Metro-One]

Metro Vancouver run down:

Vancouver proper:
Built: 12
U/C: At least 7

Burnaby:
Built: 21 + 3 possible (these three are around 400ft and don’t have an official height posted)
U/C: At least 22

Surrey:
Built: 4 + 1 possible
U/C: At least 5 (Surrey especially has many holes in its data on this site)

Coquitlam:
Built: 2
U/C: 6

New Westminster:
Built: Possibly 1
U/C: 2

So a total of 39 to 44 completed since 2010

At least 37 more currently U/C

Many many more proposed in Metro Vancouver.

So not bad for a metro area of 2.8 million (3.2 million if using more American style boundaries for defining a metro area.)

[Altoic]

Miami

1. Panorama Tower - 868 FT - 85 Floors - Completed 2017
2. The Brickell Flatiron - 736 FT - 65 Floors - Completed 2019
3. Paramount Miami Worldcenter - 698 FT - 60 Floors - Completed 2019
4. One Thousand Museum - 699 FT - 60 Floors - Completed 2019
5. Wells Fargo Building - 652 FT - 47 Floors - Completed 2010
6. Elysee - 643 FT - 57 Floors - Completed 2021
7. One Paraiso - 600 FT - 53 Floors - Completed 2018
8. SLS Brickell - 597 FT - 52 Floors - Completed 2016
9. SLS Lux Brickell - 594 FT - 57 Floors - Completed 2018
10. Society Biscayne (Elser) - 571 FT - 49 Floors
11. Downtown 1st - 557 FT - 58 Floors
12. ParaisoBay - 548 FT - 55 Floors - Completed 2017
13. GranParaiso - 551 FT - 55 Floors - Completed 2018
14. Biscayne Beach - 550 FT - 52 Floors - Completed 2017
15. Solitair Brickell - 550 FT - 49 Floors - Completed 2018
16. Brickell Heights North Tower - 549 FT - 52 Floors - Completed 2017
17. Aria on the Bay - 535 FT - 53 Floors - Completed 2018
18. Brickell Heights South Tower - 528 FT - 52 Floors - Completed 2017
19. Rise - 518 FT - 45 Floors - Completed 2016
20. EAST - 515 FT - 41 Floors - Completed 2016
21. Brickell House - 509 FT - 48 Floors - Completed 2014
22. Parkline South - 505 FT - 33 Floors - Completed 2019
23. Reach - 502 FT - 44 Floors - Completed 2016
24. JW Marriot Maquis Miami - 502 FT - 41 Floors - Completed 2010
25. Avant at Met Square - 502 FT - 46 Floors - Completed 2018
26. 1450 Brickell - 500 FT - 34 Floors - Completed 2010
27. Paraiso Bayviews - 500 FT - 44 Floors - Completed 2018
28. Downtown 5th East - 495 FT - 53 Floors - Completed 2021
29. Downtown 5th West - 495 FT - 53 Floors - Completed 2021
30. Bezel at Miami Worldcenter - 494 FT - 42 Floors - Completed 2021
31. The Bond at Brickell - 491 FT - 44 Floors - Completed 2015
32. Brickell World Plaza - 484 FT - 40 Floors - Completed 2011.
33. Parkline North - 476 FT - 30 Floors - Completed 2019
34. 1100 Millecento - 470 FT - 42 Floors - Completed 2015
35. Melody - 467 FT - 36 Floors - Completed 2016
36. Icon Bay - 448 FT - 42 Floors - Completed 2015
37. Caoba - 442 FT - 43 Floors - Completed 2018
38. Centro Lofts - 428 FT - 36 Floors - Completed 2015
39. Cascade The Link at Douglas - 410 FT - 36 Floors
40. X Miami - 409 FT - 36 Floors - Completed 2018
41. Canvas - 403 FT - 37 Floors - Completed 2018

+ U/C

1. Waldorf Astoria - 1041 FT - 100 Floors
2. Okan Tower - 902 FT - 70 Floors
3. Aston Martin Residences - 816 FT - 66 Floors
4. 1 Southside Park Tower 1 - 754 FT - 64 Floors
5. 1 Southside Park Tower 2 - 754 FT - 64 Floors
6. 830 Brickell Ave - 724 FT - 55 Floors
7. E11even Tower 1 - 699 FT - 65 Floors
8. Legacy Tower - 681 FT - 55 Floors
9. Missoni Baia - 646 FT - 57 Floors
10. Aria Reserve South - 649 FT - 62 Floors
11. Aria Reserve North - 649 FT - 62 Floors
12. Miami River Phase 1 - 640 FT - 54 Floors
13. Una Residences - 613 FT - 47 Floors
14. Natiivo - 588 FT - 51 Floors
15. Miami World Tower 1 - 579 FT - 53 Floors
16. Civil Courthouse - 474 FT - 23 Floors
17. Nema Miami Tower 1 - 428 FT - 39 Floors
18. 501 First - 427 FT - 40 Floors
19. Caoba Tower Two - 413 FT - 40 Floors

[mhays]

Originally Posted by sentinel

Well I would assume that the "one with actual industry professionals behind it" would be the best source. And it's not just industry professionals, the organization itself is considered to be the de facto authority worldwide on what and how to define skyscrapers, official height definitions and counts, etc.

Sort of. They're the only player and they make an honest attempt. But it's still debatable stuff. And still just one set of criteria on a topic that's often subjective.

My city's tallest building is an example: Most workers enter on the downhill side because that's where the transit is. But they count its height from the uphill side because that's the grander entrance.

Another is how they define spires. Is Petronas really taller than Willis? Willis appears taller in every visual way, including by far the highest roof. But CTBUH counts Petronas' spires, while not counting Willis' antennas. The choice to include spires and differentiate between one type of pointy thing and another is highly subjective.

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally Posted by BnaBreaker

With all due respect to our excellent diagram and the great artists that populate it with their work, the SSP diagram is a pretty poor resource for information of this kind, simply because in order for a building to be included there an artist has to have actually taken the time and made the effort to actually draw it.

You never clicked on the database as the vast majority of structures in it have no drawings. US development coverage has been pretty bad. About any 10 storey building before 2005 should be there.

[Phil McAvity]

Originally Posted by Altoic

Miami

For some reason Miami was by far the city hit hardest by the 2008-9 recession because I remember ~15 years ago the city had incredible plans to build countless skyscrapers which would have easily made it the third best skyline in America but practically all of them got cancelled

Originally Posted by sentinel

Well I would assume that the "one with actual industry professionals behind it" would be the best source. And it's not just industry professionals, the organization itself is considered to be the de facto authority worldwide on what and how to define skyscrapers, official height definitions and counts, etc.

Show me where they define the word "skyscraper"

Originally Posted by mhays

Sort of. They're the only player and they make an honest attempt. But it's still debatable stuff. And still just one set of criteria on a topic that's often subjective.

My city's tallest building is an example: Most workers enter on the downhill side because that's where the transit is. But they count its height from the uphill side because that's the grander entrance.

Another is how they define spires. Is Petronas really taller than Willis? Willis appears taller in every visual way, including by far the highest roof. But CTBUH counts Petronas' spires, while not counting Willis' antennas. The choice to include spires and differentiate between one type of pointy thing and another is highly subjective.

Exactly

This is the problem i've always had with the CTBUH-for some reason ornamental features like Petronas' spires are included but functional features like Willis' antennae aren't. The icing on the cake is that Willis has 22 more floors than Petronas, that fact alone should have made them reconsider their criteria. Another example is the Wilshire Grand in LA which is clearly the second tallest building in the city:

[DZH22]

Originally Posted by BnaBreaker

With all due respect to our excellent diagram and the great artists that populate it with their work, the SSP diagram is a pretty poor resource for information of this kind, simply because in order for a building to be included there an artist has to have actually taken the time and made the effort to actually draw it.

This isn't true. The search form defaults to "All Buildings" and that has to be switched to "Only drawn buildings" for your scenario to happen.

Here's an example screenshot from the diagrams page, using the Boston area.

example by David Z, on Flickr

[WhipperSnapper]

IMHO, A functional attachment not part of the architectural design shouldn't be counted as an architectural element. It exists for its function. It will be replaced or removed when the function requires it. I'm pretty sure the antenna on the Sears Tower were erected years after completion. Those original antenna no longer exist too having been replaced with taller and taller antennae. Height denoted in metres or feet is a measurement. It's not meant as a visual impact representation which would be too subjective.

[Klippenstein]

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper

IMHO, A functional attachment not part of the architectural design shouldn't be counted as an architectural element. It exists for its function. It will be replaced or removed when the function requires it. I'm pretty sure the antenna on the Sears Tower were erected years after completion. Those original antenna no longer exist too having been replaced with taller and taller antennae. Height denoted in metres or feet is a measurement. It's not meant as a visual impact representation which would be too subjective.

Just because the height can change doesn’t mean it’s not the height. IMO, top of the flagpole and top of the antennae is one way of comparing and highest occupied floor or roof height is the other way. The latter of the 2 being the one that should be given the most weight when it comes to buildings. If considering the architectural pinnacle then communications/observation tower heights are just as valid in that category IMO.

[WhipperSnapper]

The point was that an antenna's specs are determined by its function. It usually isn't an ornamental architectural feature envisioned by the design architect. They are typically erected by third party communication companies that lease space from the building owners. I agree that an antenna shouldn't be included in an architectural height stat. Just because an antenna is excluded from architectural height doesn't mean it is not counted in all building height categories.

The default setting in the skyscraperpage database is pinnacle height which includes antennae with spires.

[Phil McAvity]

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper

The point was that an antenna's specs are determined by its function. It usually isn't an ornamental architectural feature envisioned by the design architect. They are typically erected by third party communication companies that lease space from the building owners. I agree that an antenna shouldn't be included in an architectural height stat. Just because an antenna is excluded from architectural height doesn't mean it is not counted in all building height categories.

The default setting in the skyscraperpage database is pinnacle height which includes antennae with spires.

But the reason things like antennae should be added to the height is because you can see them from the street just as you can architectural features

[Zapatan]

One city to keep an eye on, with respect to 400-500 ft, is Fort Lauderdale. Up and coming when it comes to the pipeline and projects getting ready to start.

True but this is just greater Miami basically...

Maybe it's just me but I like to count metros as one



I feel like there should be way more skyscraper construction going on the US, hopefully in the next 5-10 years we get back into the skyscraper game.

I got excited for all of the projects in LA and Chicago (and other cities) that were supposedly "moving forward", including the new tallest / second tallest. Yet nothing, we wait for years and most of these totally feasible projects go nowhere.

At least NY, Austin and Miami have at least some buildings of decent height U/C.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Zapatan

I got excited for all of the projects in LA and Chicago (and other cities) that were supposedly "moving forward", including the new tallest / second tallest. Yet nothing, we wait for years and most of these totally feasible projects go nowhere.

huh?

chicago is just coming out of its biggest "big tower" building boom ever, and the largest one in the history of the US outisde of NYC.

10 new towers over 700' tall have been added to chicago's skyline over the past 6 years.



St. Regis | 1,191 FT | Studio Gang


source: https://www.skyscrapercenter.com/bui...-chicago/17137



One Chicago | 971 FT | Goettsch Partners


source: https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/sho...postcount=3385



NEMA | 896 FT | Rafael Vinoly


source: https://www.skyscrapercenter.com/bui...-chicago/21954



Salesforce Tower | 850' | Pelli Clark & Partners


source: https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/sho...postcount=2544



One Bennett Park | 836 FT | Robert A.M. Stern


source: https://www.skyscrapercenter.com/bui...ett-park/17214



110 N Wacker | 817 FT | Goettsch Partners


source: https://www.skyscrapercenter.com/bui...h-wacker/28315



1000M | 805 FT | JAHN


source: https://chicagoyimby.com/2021/02/ren...outh-loop.html



River Point | 732 FT | Pickard Chilton


source: https://www.skyscrapercenter.com/bui...ver-point/1381



BMO Tower | 727 FT | Goettsch Partners


source: https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/sho...postcount=1328



150 N Riverside | 724 FT | Goettsch Partners


source: https://www.skyscrapercenter.com/bui...iverside/15587

[Zapatan]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

huh?

chicago is just coming out of its biggest "big tower" building boom ever, and the largest one in the history of the US outisde of NYC.

10 new towers over 700' tall have been added to chicago's skyline over the past 6 years.

I know, and it's pretty impressive but several approved proposals are still going nowhere which is frustrating.

LA is more of a letdown than Chicago honestly. I thought it had potential to finally turn into a skyscraper city with some of the new proposals but corruption killed most of them, or they're just dormant.

[IluvATX]

Chicago has some very impressive buildings. At least number 2 to NYC. LA is a nothingburger.

[UrbanImpact]

Originally Posted by Zapatan

I know, and it's pretty impressive but several approved proposals are still going nowhere which is frustrating.

LA is more of a letdown than Chicago honestly. I thought it had potential to finally turn into a skyscraper city with some of the new proposals but corruption killed most of them, or they're just dormant.

Isn't it also more expensive to build in LA than Chicago due to extra seismic structural design?