HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #81  
Old Posted Jul 3, 2020, 9:24 PM
Austin55's Avatar
Austin55 Austin55 is offline
__________
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Fort Worth
Posts: 4,997
I've tried to put together a spreadsheet showing the average age of the ten tallest buildings in various US and Canadian cities.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets...it?usp=sharing

Canadian suburban cities, Austin, Miami, and Las Vegas perform very well.
__________________
Fort Worth Urban Development
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #82  
Old Posted Jul 3, 2020, 10:13 PM
Atlas's Avatar
Atlas Atlas is online now
Space Magi
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Salt Lake City
Posts: 1,816
Quote:
Originally Posted by Austin55 View Post
I've tried to put together a spreadsheet showing the average age of the ten tallest buildings in various US and Canadian cities.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets...it?usp=sharing

Canadian suburban cities, Austin, Miami, and Las Vegas perform very well.
Nice list, but I noticed you included future buildings for some cities and not for others. Salt Lake City should have at least three new buildings in its top 10 by 2024, including two that could potentially be the tallest in the city. Those would bring the average to 2003 instead of 1992.7. I also know that Phoenix has a few taller buildings coming down the pipeline too.
__________________
r/DevelopmentSLC
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #83  
Old Posted Jul 3, 2020, 10:54 PM
memester memester is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2020
Posts: 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by JAYNYC View Post
This list could go on and on. It's subjective, but definitely not limited to Boston or Philly.

LA, San Jose, Phoenix, San Antonio, Milwaukee, Salt Lake City, Orlando, etc.

Only a handful of US city skylines are impressive; most are either a.) what one might expect relative to their respective city's size or b.) underwhelming.
The proximity of the San Jose airport will always keep SJ's skyline from looking impressive.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #84  
Old Posted Jul 4, 2020, 11:55 PM
Austin55's Avatar
Austin55 Austin55 is offline
__________
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Fort Worth
Posts: 4,997
Quote:
Originally Posted by Atlas View Post
Nice list, but I noticed you included future buildings for some cities and not for others. Salt Lake City should have at least three new buildings in its top 10 by 2024, including two that could potentially be the tallest in the city. Those would bring the average to 2003 instead of 1992.7. I also know that Phoenix has a few taller buildings coming down the pipeline too.
One thing to note is that it only includes Under Construction structures. It is probably fairly outdated for several cities as I actually started it maybe a year ago, and I've only used SSP so if things are not updated there I've missed them.
__________________
Fort Worth Urban Development
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #85  
Old Posted Jul 5, 2020, 11:46 PM
Steely Dan's Avatar
Steely Dan Steely Dan is offline
devout Pizzatarian
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Lincoln Square, Chicago
Posts: 29,636
Quote:
Originally Posted by Austin55 View Post
I've tried to put together a spreadsheet showing the average age of the ten tallest buildings in various US and Canadian cities.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets...it?usp=sharing

Canadian suburban cities, Austin, Miami, and Las Vegas perform very well.
cool data, thanks for compiling it!

i kinda like how chicago's current top 10 tallest skyscrapers (or at least soon to be once One Chicago tops out early next year) break down into thirds, with one outlier.

since skylines are generally defined by their very tallest buildings, it gives the city a nice balance of new and old way up in the sky.

and IMO, all of them are good to great examples of the prevailing design styles of their time, with lone exception of 311 S wacker (too over-the-top for my tastes).



early '70s building boom:

hancock - 1969
aon - 1973
sears - 1974



late '80s building boom:

franklin center - 1989
2 pru - 1990
311 S wacker - 1990



late '00s building boom:

trump - 2009



the current building boom:

NEMA - 2019
vista - 2020
one chicago - 2021
__________________
"Missing middle" housing can be a great middle ground for many middle class families.

Last edited by Steely Dan; Jul 6, 2020 at 1:14 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #86  
Old Posted Jul 6, 2020, 1:02 PM
thoughtcriminal thoughtcriminal is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2020
Location: philadelphia
Posts: 467
Quote:
Originally Posted by JManc View Post
I like the first Comcast tower. Meh on the second one. It's just a big building with a flag pole on it getting in those extra feet on a technicality. Like the Wilshire Grand Center in LA.
...or the Empire State Building and Chrysler Building, for that matter. Both of their height numbers include their spires.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #87  
Old Posted Jul 6, 2020, 4:16 PM
Dariusb Dariusb is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Belton, TX
Posts: 1,125
Quote:
Originally Posted by memester View Post
The proximity of the San Jose airport will always keep SJ's skyline from looking impressive.
Do you think that because of downtown San Jose's location, taller buildings could be built in other areas of the city?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #88  
Old Posted Jul 6, 2020, 7:39 PM
MayDay's Avatar
MayDay MayDay is offline
Member of SSP since 1997
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Cleveland, Ohio
Posts: 7,106
Quote:
Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere View Post
^ nope. Not hard to build skyscrapers without bedrock these days. The reason the buildings are shorter are because of zoning.
Operative words - these days. Historically for Cleveland, that was an issue because if you wanted to build anything substantial, you have about 200-250 feet (60-70M) of glacial till to excavate and then have to construct caissons back up to support the building.

No new tallest in the works, but rumors are putting the proposed Sherwin-Williams headquarters could be in the 600-700 foot range. The even better news is the site is one of the worst “parking craters” in downtown. No rendering yet so here’s hoping.

Our tallest recent addition is the Lumen apartment tower at 396 feet.

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #89  
Old Posted Jul 8, 2020, 12:28 AM
Steely Dan's Avatar
Steely Dan Steely Dan is offline
devout Pizzatarian
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Lincoln Square, Chicago
Posts: 29,636
Quote:
Originally Posted by MayDay View Post
Operative words - these days. Historically for Cleveland, that was an issue because if you wanted to build anything substantial, you have about 200-250 feet (60-70M) of glacial till
Wow, that's some deep bedrock. As a fellow great lakes city, Chicago is in a very similar boat to Cleveland with LOTS of glacial till (various soggy clays and sands) before you get down to our dolemite bedrock.

But in Chicago's case, bedrock is typically about 100' below grade, going down as deep as nearly 200' in some spots. I believe that the Hancock Center still holds the record for the deepest rock caissons ever sunk in the city at ~190' deep.

Still, even with its terrible soils for skyscraper bearing, Chicago was the second city on the planet to ever erect supertall skyscrapers. Chicago actually pioneered most of what we know today as drilled shaft foundations, or "caissons" as they're called in the Chicago construction industry.

Unlike Manhattan, Chicago wasn't gifted with solid rock to build upon just below the surface, but as the old adage goes, "where there's a will, there's a way."
__________________
"Missing middle" housing can be a great middle ground for many middle class families.

Last edited by Steely Dan; Jul 8, 2020 at 12:08 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #90  
Old Posted Jul 8, 2020, 5:10 AM
mhays mhays is online now
Never Dell
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 19,750
Basically nothing in Seattle goes to bedrock. I guess we have better soils than some places.

Since our parking is mostly below-grade, any building with a mainstream parking ratio will (so I hear) be lighter than the soil removed to build it. For example the Columbia Center, at 76 stories with below-grade parking for 764 cars.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #91  
Old Posted Jul 8, 2020, 9:16 AM
Marshal Marshal is offline
perhaps . . .
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 1,484
Quote:
Originally Posted by mhays View Post
Basically nothing in Seattle goes to bedrock. I guess we have better soils than some places.

Since our parking is mostly below-grade, any building with a mainstream parking ratio will (so I hear) be lighter than the soil removed to build it. For example the Columbia Center, at 76 stories with below-grade parking for 764 cars.
That's interesting. Something I have never thought of before. The weight of any structure must be less than the bearing capacity of the material beneath it. That's obvious. But does parking typically require the removal of even more material than structural bearing would require. I'm not sure. All of a building's weight is born on footings that typically cover a small percentage of the excavation area - so the bearing capacity/load calculation is based only on the area of that interface. My guess is that the weight of soil excavated is most often less than . . . . or, not . . .
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #92  
Old Posted Jul 8, 2020, 3:37 PM
mhays mhays is online now
Never Dell
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 19,750
I'm talking about below-grade parking. Soil is replaced by mostly air.

Here's another factor. When building into the water table or in certain springy soils like peat, buoyancy is a big factor...you need to keep the building from pushing up. So you can anchor the building with certain types of piles, and/or focus on adding enough weight. In the meantime you're cutting off water on the perimeter. For a sidewalk you can use geofoam to equalize the weight you're adding vs. concrete.

I'm not a technical person, just a marketing guy for a construction firm, so this is all approximated.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #93  
Old Posted Jul 15, 2020, 1:41 PM
MolsonExport's Avatar
MolsonExport MolsonExport is online now
The Vomit Bag.
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Otisburgh
Posts: 44,722
ridiculous.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #94  
Old Posted Jul 15, 2020, 11:45 PM
chris08876's Avatar
chris08876 chris08876 is offline
NYC/NJ/Miami-Dade
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Riverview Estates Fairway (PA)
Posts: 45,696
In theory, for NYC, the Penn Station Districts FAR and development rights allocation offers the most realistic possibility for a mega tall or something over 600m/2000 ft.

The area above MSG holds an absurd amount of development rights.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #95  
Old Posted Jul 16, 2020, 12:29 AM
MolsonExport's Avatar
MolsonExport MolsonExport is online now
The Vomit Bag.
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Otisburgh
Posts: 44,722
why on earth does DC need a tall tower? that is, besides the Washington Monument?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #96  
Old Posted Jul 17, 2020, 5:09 AM
DZH22 DZH22 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Boston
Posts: 1,445
Not quite the tallest, but Boston added a new building to rival the 2nd tallest, and is within a few feet in either direction. The somewhere between 742'-756' 1 Dalton (Four Seasons):

Not my pic, can't share directly but incredible view of it.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/838980...in/dateposted/

Another one totally worth clicking into. Amazing skyline aerial.
https://i.redd.it/ihdcccpob5951.jpg

Still finishing the glazing on the west face.

IMG_9945 by David Z, on Flickr

IMG_0056 by David Z, on Flickr


To the right

IMG_1280 by David Z, on Flickr


Boston also built a new tallest for the financial district in 2016, seen to the left. It's the 4th tallest in the city overall, although was 3rd at the time. Another tower is out of the ground that will beat it by 6'.

IMG_9741 by David Z, on Flickr

Last edited by DZH22; Jul 17, 2020 at 2:02 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #97  
Old Posted Aug 9, 2020, 11:47 PM
ssiguy ssiguy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: White Rock BC
Posts: 10,659
London Ontario is currently constructing it's tallest tower. A 40 story condo downtown of 129 meters overtaking the 1992 built One London Place office tower at 113 meters. Add to this the #3,4,and 5 on the list are also downtown and are currently under construction at just over 100 meters. #6 was just completed a year ago at 97 meters and 29 stories. Also a new 35 and 29 storey downtown twin tower looks ready to start which will catapult them into a new #3 and #5 spot.

London's already impressive skyline is changing at a dizzying rate and with a whole slew of other proposals in the works. In 3 years London with just 435k in the city and 550k in the metro will have 28 buildings over 20 stories in the downtown core alone.

Last edited by ssiguy; Aug 10, 2020 at 12:05 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #98  
Old Posted Aug 10, 2020, 5:56 PM
0214685226 0214685226 is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jul 2020
Posts: 75
Quote:
Originally Posted by doglover99 View Post
Why ask, you already seem to know it all. "ridiculous"!

I think many dc urbanists would set you straight. Limits on height have hindered DC. You can go and ask one of them because without more urban housing, DC remains a corporate bore town.
I don't think height limits have hindered DC. The district seems to be doing just fine without tall buildings with strong population growth over the last 2 decades.
2000 572,000
2010 602,000
2019 706,000

A healthy city anchor creates a healthy metropolitan region as well.
2000 4.92 million
2010 5.63 million
2019 6.28 million
Reply With Quote
     
     
End
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 3:59 PM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.