HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #41  
Old Posted Dec 12, 2021, 5:47 AM
homebucket homebucket is offline
A Man In Dandism
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: The Bay
Posts: 8,691
Quote:
Originally Posted by craigs View Post
You don't have to count them if you don't want to, but they are topped out and floodlit at night. I'm pretty sure they're sealed as well. In any case, they are a strong presence on the downtown skyline, as shown in this pic from late October:
Oh yeah I don’t disagree they have a significant impact on the skyline, but for the sake of consistency with the other cities, I had to exclude Oceanwide.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #42  
Old Posted Dec 12, 2021, 6:06 AM
Steely Dan's Avatar
Steely Dan Steely Dan is offline
devout Pizzatarian
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Lincoln Square, Chicago
Posts: 29,605
Quote:
Originally Posted by DCReid View Post
Yes, oddly Austin and OKC are or have built a taller tower than Hoston and Dallas since 2000.
Actually, Austin's 875' tall 6th & Guadalupe tower currently U/C will be the tallest tower to be built in Texas, and the first 800+ footer built in the state, since the 921' tall Dallas BofA was built way back in 1985!

But yeah, the big skyscraper moves that OKC and Austin are making do have a bit of an "underdog" feeling to them; little brothers proving themselves to their older siblings kinda thing.
__________________
"Missing middle" housing can be a great middle ground for many middle class families.

Last edited by Steely Dan; Dec 12, 2021 at 6:17 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #43  
Old Posted Dec 12, 2021, 6:28 PM
Steely Dan's Avatar
Steely Dan Steely Dan is offline
devout Pizzatarian
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Lincoln Square, Chicago
Posts: 29,605
Quote:
Originally Posted by homebucket View Post
For DTLA, it'll have to be residential. For some reason, they don't build a lot of office towers. If you take out Wilshire Grand, which is a mixed use tower with office and hotel, their last office tower built was almost 30 years ago, in 1992.
I don't think the bolded is true, as the CTBUH database shows 2 office towers at least 100m tall that have been built over the past 3 decades, one in 1995, and one in 2003.

Still though, that's only two significant office towers built in the nation's 2nd largest city over the course of 30 years, and none for nearly 20 years now. That's just a wildly unexpected stat to me.
__________________
"Missing middle" housing can be a great middle ground for many middle class families.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #44  
Old Posted Dec 12, 2021, 6:31 PM
homebucket homebucket is offline
A Man In Dandism
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: The Bay
Posts: 8,691
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Dan View Post
I don't think the bolded is true, as the CTBUH database shows 2 office towers at least 100m tall that have been built over the past 3 decades, one in 1995, and one in 2003.

Still though, that's only two significant office towers built in the nation's 2nd largest city over the course of 30 years, and none for nearly 20 years now. That's just a wildly unexpected stat to me.
I believe the 2003 one is in Century City not DTLA. Not sure about the 1995 one.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #45  
Old Posted Dec 12, 2021, 6:42 PM
Steely Dan's Avatar
Steely Dan Steely Dan is offline
devout Pizzatarian
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Lincoln Square, Chicago
Posts: 29,605
Quote:
Originally Posted by homebucket View Post
I believe the 2003 one is in Century City not DTLA. Not sure about the 1995 one.
You're right.

I'm so Chicago-centric that I sometimes forget skyscrapers are built in non-downtown locations in other cities.

- Constellation Place (490 ft.) built in 2003 is indeed located in Century City.

- The MTA Building (398 ft.) built in 1995, is downtown, but it's kinda peripheral in back of Union Station's train platforms.


That's it for office-only towers over 100m built in LA since 1992.

To put that into perspective, NYC has built 48 such towers in that time frame, and Chicago has built 18 of them.
__________________
"Missing middle" housing can be a great middle ground for many middle class families.

Last edited by Steely Dan; Dec 12, 2021 at 7:21 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #46  
Old Posted Dec 12, 2021, 6:43 PM
The North One's Avatar
The North One The North One is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 5,486
Quality >>> Quantity
__________________
Spawn of questionable parentage!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #47  
Old Posted Dec 12, 2021, 9:10 PM
DCReid DCReid is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,041
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Dan View Post
You're right.

I'm so Chicago-centric that I sometimes forget skyscrapers are built in non-downtown locations in other cities.

- Constellation Place (490 ft.) built in 2003 is indeed located in Century City.

- The MTA Building (398 ft.) built in 1995, is downtown, but it's kinda peripheral in back of Union Station's train platforms.


That's it for office-only towers over 100m built in LA since 1992.

To put that into perspective, NYC has built 48 such towers in that time frame, and Chicago has built 18 of them.
Even though LA is the second largest metro and city, it is not a huge corporate HQ center like Chicago and NYC. I can think of only one major corporation hq there, Disney, and Disney is not downtown. Lack of new skyscrapers in a place like DFW is probably more surprising given the number of corporations and hq relocations there. But then again, the hq corporations and their supportive services (like legal, financial) tend to prefer the suburbs in Dallas, not the downtown.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #48  
Old Posted Dec 12, 2021, 10:03 PM
Doady's Avatar
Doady Doady is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 4,700
Dallas-Fort Worth has little transit, one of the worst transit mode shares in the country. So still too much demand for parking to get rid of those above ground lots and garages and build skyscrapers economically, especially in close proximity to each other. For a company to spend a premium for office space in downtown, it had better be worth it, and at the same time more transit can reduce that premium.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #49  
Old Posted Dec 12, 2021, 10:08 PM
Lobotomizer's Avatar
Lobotomizer Lobotomizer is offline
Frontal Lobe Technician
 
Join Date: Jul 2021
Posts: 339
Doesn't DFW have the largest light rail network in the United States with one of highest passenger counts?

I know on a per mile basis it's not performing at an impressive level, but I think saying it has little to no transit is absolutely false.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #50  
Old Posted Dec 12, 2021, 10:18 PM
Zapatan's Avatar
Zapatan Zapatan is offline
DENNAB
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: NA - Europe
Posts: 6,009
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Dan View Post
According to the CTBUH database, Chicago has:

7 towers over 300m, with none U/C

122 towers over 500 ft., with 6 more U/C
If we measure by meters Chicago has closer to 140 150m buildings (since 150m is 492 feet)

That's insane, only NY and a few Asian cities beat / match Chicago
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #51  
Old Posted Dec 12, 2021, 10:23 PM
Crawford Crawford is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NYC/Polanco, DF
Posts: 30,497
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lobotomizer View Post
Doesn't DFW have the largest light rail network in the United States with one of highest passenger counts?

I know on a per mile basis it's not performing at an impressive level, but I think saying it has little to no transit is absolutely false.
Dallas does have the largest light rail system, but the ridership is minimal.

Dallas metro transit ridership is about as close to 0 as you can get for a major metropolis. So, functionally, it basically has no transit. When you have like 1-2% transit share, you don't have transit.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #52  
Old Posted Dec 12, 2021, 10:27 PM
MAC123 MAC123 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2021
Location: Deadend town, Flyover State.
Posts: 1,062
I haven't seen how DFW's light rail system is designed, but I'm going to assume badly. It doesn't matter if you put a bunch of mass transit down if you don't plan properly. If you build a 1 mile light rail line (just for an example) but people's jobs are still 3 or 4 miles away then you might as well have built nothing at all.
But then again like I said I haven't seen DFW's system so maybe there are just other problems that I don't know about.
__________________
NYC - 20 Supertalls (including UC)
NYC - Future 2035 supertalls - 45 + not including anything that gets newly proposed between now and then (which will likely put it over 50)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #53  
Old Posted Dec 12, 2021, 10:27 PM
mhays mhays is offline
Never Dell
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 19,736
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lobotomizer View Post
Doesn't DFW have the largest light rail network in the United States with one of highest passenger counts?

I know on a per mile basis it's not performing at an impressive level, but I think saying it has little to no transit is absolutely false.
To define "a lot" of transit, I'd also measure the quantity of bus service. And the speed of the various bus and train lines, including any transit lanes. Even stuff like bus stop shelters.

I don't have the data to judge DFW on these things. But their commute share even by US standards should be at least two or three times what it is.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #54  
Old Posted Dec 12, 2021, 10:54 PM
Nouvellecosse's Avatar
Nouvellecosse Nouvellecosse is offline
Volatile Pacivist
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Nova Scotia
Posts: 8,968
I think a city deserves some credit for making the attempt to provide the service even if it isn't used as much as we'd like. It's also hard to correlate that with downtown office development since ostensibly it got most of the office towers it does have without high transit usage either. Unless when the towers were built in the 80s and 90s it had much higher ridership numbers then.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Crawford View Post
Dallas does have the largest light rail system, but the ridership is minimal.

Dallas metro transit ridership is about as close to 0 as you can get for a major metropolis. So, functionally, it basically has no transit. When you have like 1-2% transit share, you don't have transit.
Yeah... I mean I get the idea that transit usage rates make a decent proxy for transit quality but that just sounds a bit odd. I mean, we don't see to do that for other things. Like, "If you have a nice house but you're rarely home, you don't have a house". Or, "If you have a car but you don't drive much, you don't have a car".

The same way that someone who owns a car may live in a dense walkable area where it's very convenient to get around without a car may not drive nearly as much as someone in a low density suburb, the opposite could also be true. Someone with access to decent transit may not use it because of the abundance of automobile infrastructure combined with cultural factors such as a belief that transit is dangerous or lacking respectability.
__________________
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man." - George Bernard Shaw
Don't ask people not to debate a topic. Just stop making debatable assertions. Problem solved.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #55  
Old Posted Dec 12, 2021, 10:58 PM
JManc's Avatar
JManc JManc is offline
Dryer lint inspector
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Houston/ SF Bay Area
Posts: 37,717
Ever since the oil bust in the late 80's and the ensuing office glut, Houston and Dallas have been very risk adverse when it comes to high rises.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #56  
Old Posted Dec 12, 2021, 11:04 PM
Doady's Avatar
Doady Doady is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 4,700
DART saw big increase in ridership in 2019 after expansion of their bus service. More buses to feed into those light rail lines or provide alternative to them really helps, because even that much light rail cannot be effective in isolation. Every rail or bus line has to be part of a much larger and complete transit network.

It's great that they finally learned their mistake, but too bad their progress has been delayed by COVID. I hope they will continue expanding their bus system again in the future. Getting people onto transit and getting rid of those parking lots and garages will help a lot to build a big city like Dallas, especially with office skyscrapers. Certainly, it helped for Chicago and New York City.

Office skyscrapers probably the most demanding on parking, much more than residential skyscrapers. Residential skyscrapers are easy, but even small office towers are very expensive to build in places that don't have lots of transit, unless there is a lot of room for parking above ground. For new skyscrapers in a downtown like Dallas, both taller and closer together, they really need to increase transit ridership there a lot. Even the light rail stations downtown there have parking lots and garages beside them.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #57  
Old Posted Dec 12, 2021, 11:13 PM
mhays mhays is offline
Never Dell
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 19,736
If every desk and housing unit has a parking space, yes.

Offices before Covid were getting to five or six workers per 1,000 rentable square feet, or let's round to five with common areas included. If every worker gets parking?

Even the most suburban multifamily might be two parking spaces per unit. If units plus common areas average 1,000 square feet, that's 40% of the office total.

In urban cities, offices might be more like one space per 1,000, or none at all in NYC and some limited other cases.

But those cities wouldn't have a parking space for every unit, at least for rentals. Maybe you'll be at 0.7, or 0.3, or 0.0.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #58  
Old Posted Dec 12, 2021, 11:43 PM
Crawford Crawford is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NYC/Polanco, DF
Posts: 30,497
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse View Post
Yeah... I mean I get the idea that transit usage rates make a decent proxy for transit quality but that just sounds a bit odd. I mean, we don't see to do that for other things. Like, "If you have a nice house but you're rarely home, you don't have a house". Or, "If you have a car but you don't drive much, you don't have a car".
I don't understand these analogies. If you own a car and never use it, yes, you're living a non-autocentric lifestyle. If a a city has a billion miles of transit and basically no ridership, yes, it's auto-oriented with no real transit.

The fact is that Dallas has essentially no transit ridership. So what does it matter how many miles of light rail, or how many bus routes? You could shut all Dallas transit down tomorrow, and it would barely register.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #59  
Old Posted Dec 13, 2021, 1:32 AM
ue ue is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 9,480
There has arguably always been a sharp drop in size and quality of skyline in the US after New York/Chicago. What the next tier cities are has changed considerably over the decades, though. For example, 80 years ago, the next tier probably would have included Cleveland, Detroit, Pittsburgh, and maybe Tulsa. Now it would include San Francisco, Los Angeles, Seattle, Miami, the Texas cities, and Philadelphia.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #60  
Old Posted Dec 13, 2021, 1:54 AM
Steely Dan's Avatar
Steely Dan Steely Dan is offline
devout Pizzatarian
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Lincoln Square, Chicago
Posts: 29,605
Quote:
Originally Posted by ue View Post
For example, 80 years ago, the next tier probably would have included Cleveland, Detroit, Pittsburgh, and maybe Tulsa.
Tulsa?

There are other US cities that would rank FAR ahead of Tulsa in the pre-war skyline size department - Philly, SF, and KC to name a few.
__________________
"Missing middle" housing can be a great middle ground for many middle class families.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
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 11:13 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

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