New tallest in your city?

[Martin Mtl]

This looks insane. Bravo SF!

Originally Posted by homebucket

Won't exceed Salesforce Tower but this is our current tallest building under construction:

Oceanwide Center (50 First St) - 910 ft - 61 floors
Foster + Partners

[Buckeye Native 001]

Originally Posted by LA21st

My post was more about the 333 S. Figueroa proposal, which will be taller than the Library Tower as well.
I never actually said Korean Air was the tallest.

Right, and I apologize for my rant.

[LA21st]

No worries at all.

I know what you mean.

I should've been clearer on my initial post.

[Austin55]

This list may not be complete but here are the US cities with at least 1 150 meter tower that have had their tallest since before 1990

St. Louis - 1989
San Antonio - 1988
Kansas City - 1988
Little Rock - 1986
Dallas - 1985
Seattle - 1985
Denver - 1984
Fort Worth- 1983
Houston - 1982
Boston - 1976
Tulsa - 1976
Chicago - 1974
Buffalo - 1974
Columbus - 1973
Milwaukee - 1973
Minneapolis - 1973
Portland - 1972
New Orleans - 1972
Pittsburgh - 1970
Albany - 1966

[KevinFromTexas]

Originally Posted by Austin55

This list may not be complete but here are the US cities with at least 1 150 meter tower that have had their tallest since before 1990

St. Louis - 1989
San Antonio - 1988
Kansas City - 1988
Little Rock - 1986
Dallas - 1985
Seattle - 1985
Denver - 1984
Fort Worth- 1983
Houston - 1982
Boston - 1976
Tulsa - 1976
Chicago - 1974
Buffalo - 1974
Columbus - 1973
Milwaukee - 1973
Minneapolis - 1973
Portland - 1972
New Orleans - 1972
Pittsburgh - 1970
Albany - 1966

We really shouldn't be counting the Tower of the Americas as a building, at least not in the usual definition. Also, there is no way the Marriott Rivercenter is 546 feet as has been reported before. I saw an old height years ago for it of 441 feet which seems much more likely. Still, I've been able to measure the Weston Centre at 455 feet, or 138 meters, and I think the spires for the Marriott Rivercenter are a little higher than that.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Austin55

This list may not be complete but here are the US cities with at least 1 150 meter tower that have had their tallest since before 1990

St. Louis - 1989
San Antonio - 1988
Kansas City - 1988
Little Rock - 1986
Dallas - 1985
Seattle - 1985
Denver - 1984
Fort Worth- 1983
Houston - 1982
Boston - 1976
Tulsa - 1976
Chicago - 1974
Buffalo - 1974
Columbus - 1973
Milwaukee - 1973
Minneapolis - 1973
Portland - 1972
New Orleans - 1972
Pittsburgh - 1970
Albany - 1966

Hartford - 1980
Detroit - 1977
Baltimore - 1973



also, there are A LOT of US cities that got their most recent new tallest in 1990 or shortly thereafter before the big commercial real estate crash of the early 90s:

atlanta, charlotte, jacksonville, tampa, nashville, louisville, indianapolis, cleveland, des moines, san diego

[DCReid]

Originally Posted by mhays

The late 80s were a much better time for architecture than the 70s and early 80s. Houston and Denver are examples of getting the short end of the stick, with their construction peaking in the oil boom peaking in the early 80s. I do love pointy towers like the big ones in Atlanta, Charlotte, and Cleveland.

I love the steeple chase BofA towner in Houston. In the early 80s, Houston was supposed to get a 1400 sf pointy tower like the Philly Liberty Square but then its economy crashed with the oil bust. Philly got it instead. NYC got some awful towers in the 70s and early 80s, especially compared to Chicago

https://www.bing.com/images/search?q...+Tower+Houston

[JManc]

Originally Posted by DCReid

I love the steeple chase BofA towner in Houston. In the early 80s, Houston was supposed to get a 1400 sf pointy tower like the Philly Liberty Square but then its economy crashed with the oil bust. Philly got it instead. NYC got some awful towers in the 70s and early 80s, especially compared to Chicago

https://www.bing.com/images/search?q...+Tower+Houston

NYC is getting some awful ones now. Vanderbilt and Hudson Yards are nice but not digging the current trend otherwise.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by JAYNYC

NYC needs to add lots of height between roughly 23rd street down to Canal. When viewing the skyline from Hudson County, theres an extremely noticeable gap that spans that entire stretch between Chelsea and the Financial District.

And yeah, the pencils along Central Park South are horrendous.

Is there a reason for dramatic drop off? Nimbyism?

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by JManc

Is there a reason for dramatic drop off? Nimbyism?

Yes. All of the West Village is designated as a historic district.

[DCReid]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Yes. All of the West Village is designated as a historic district.

Glad to hear that. Though I love tall NYC buildings, it is refreshing to see the sky in Manhattan after blocks and blocks of canyons. It's actually kind of neat.

[Larkspirit]

The reason for the lack of skyscrapers in the stretch between Midtown and Downtown Manhattan is that the bedrock necessary to sustain skyscraper weights there lies much further down under the soil and is much more expensive to reach and prep.

So it's cheaper to build where the geology already supports massive buildings.

[Innsertnamehere]

^ nope. Not hard to build skyscrapers without bedrock these days. The reason the buildings are shorter are because of zoning.

[memester]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

Based on land values alone, you'd think that SF would at least have a Chicago-sized skyline.

But yeah, it was really slow to grow tall. Until now, that is.

It's been fun to see the SF skyline really grow to a height much more in line with the city's stature.

There were a lot of latent conditions that kept SF's skyline moderate and flat. First and foremost was zoning, the second is Prop M (annual square foot construction limits) and Prop K (sunlight ordinance for parks). In order to pay for the Transbay Terminal Replacement, the area south of market was upzoned to allow for buildings with lots of height. The zoning was planned to create a third "wave" on the skyline (TransAmerica tower and BoA Tower being the first and second 'wave' points). The second (the two propositions limit how much sq footage (Class A - light industrial (PDR) can be built in a calendar year and whether the building would reduce the amount of sunshine on nearby parks. A lot of the recent construction was permitted under Prop M allocations that were bankrolled after the dotcom bust in 2004/2005 and slowed due to the financial crisis (2008/2009). The city recently allocated the last available sq footage allotments bankrolled, so several high-rise projects proposed are looking a long delays.
The scarcity of opporunity is what drives the value of SF real estate, not the underlying land itself. Unlike other major cities, developers can't landbank a purchase and hope for a zoning variance. Also, we now have strict height and use controls for all remaining waterfront properties, which also keeps waterfront land values within a slightly lower price range.

[DCReid]

Originally Posted by memester

There a lot of latent conditions that kept SF's skyline moderate and flat. First and foremost was zoning, the second is Prop M (annual square foot construction limits) and Prop K (sunlight ordinance for parks). In order to pay for the Transbay Terminal Replacement, the area south of market was upzoned to allow for buildings with lots of height. The zoning was planned to create a third "wave" on the skyline (TransAmerica tower and BoA Tower being the first and second 'wave' points). The second (the two propositions limit how much sq footage (Class A - light industrial (PDR) can be built in a calendar year and whether the building would reduce the amount of sunshine on nearby parks. A lot of the recent construction was permitted under Prop M allocations that were bankrolled after the dotcom bust in 2004/2005 and slowed due to the financial crisis (2008/2009). The city recently allocated the last available sq footage allotments bankrolled, so several high-rise projects proposed are looking a long delays.
The scarcity of opporunity is what drives the value of SF real estate, not the underlying land itself. Unlike other major cities, developers can't landbank a purchase and hope for a zoning variance. Also, we now have strict height and use controls for all remaining waterfront properties, which also keeps waterfront land values within a slightly lower price range.

I remember the documentary on the height controversy for the Transamerica Pyramid when it was proposed in the early 70s - it was cut down in height 200 feet. Speaking of cities with a 'underdeveloped' skyline, Boston's seems small considering the size of the city. Philly's is a little smaller than expected - but was a LOT smaller before developers decided to build higher than the William Penn statute in the early 80s - now Philly is playing a little catch up.

[PhillyRising]

Originally Posted by LA21st

LA will follow next probably.
And I only see Philly with 3 over 800

There are clearly four...both Comcast Towers and Liberty 1 and Liberty 2.

The formerly named Bell Atlantic Tower and the Mellon Bank Center are close to 800 feet....so we have 4 over 800 and 2 over 700 feet.

[summersm343]

Originally Posted by PhillyRising

There are clearly four...both Comcast Towers and Liberty 1 and Liberty 2.

The formerly named Bell Atlantic Tower and the Mellon Bank Center are close to 800 feet....so we have 4 over 800 and 2 over 700 feet.

4 over 800 feet and 3 over 700 feet

There, fixed that for you

[PhillyRising]

Originally Posted by summersm343

4 over 800 feet and 3 over 700 feet

There, fixed that for you

How could I forget the FMC Tower? It's literally my favorite new tower on the skyline...I'm getting old and forgetful!

[HurricaneHugo]

San Diego won't have a new tallest anytime soon due to the 500 ft height limit due to the airport...

Tallest U/C right now is Bosa Tower at 490 ft.

Pretty soon the skyline will be sporting a flat top

[KevinFromTexas]

Originally Posted by JAYNYC

546', 441', 455' et al ... end of the day you're splitting hairs but bottom line is that skyline is just beyond atrocious.

And whose counting Tower of Americas? I believe that was completed in 1968, this list denotes something built in 1988, which I am assuming is Marriott Rivercenter.

There is a considerable difference in height between 441 feet and 546 feet when considering skyline rankings. In Austin today, it would be the difference between the Frost Bank Tower being our 3rd tallest versus our 5th tallest as it is at the moment, and with 5 more towers under construction that will pass it up so that it ends up being the 10th tallest.

Eventually, in just a few years, the Frost Bank Tower will be our 22nd tallest. If it had been 105 feet taller, it would still be 9th tallest after all those new towers. Which is still crazy to think about, but it's better than being the 22nd tallest which would nearly bump it off the page on some lists.

Also, Austin55's list was including buildings that had been completed since before 1990, which squarely includes the Tower of the Americas since it was built in 1968. I do agree that it shouldn't be counted, and that was the point of my post. Some people do include it, but I don't consider it to be a building in the traditional sense even if I do love it and am envious of San Antonio for having it.