US skyscraper milestone: closing in on 100 towers over 800' tall

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by plinko

I don’t think any other US city has more than 5.

I think that's correct.

In the Midwest, Columbus has 5, and Cleveland soon will with the new U/C Sherwin Williams HQ tower, but the only cities in this region with more than 5 are Chicago (128), Minneapolis (10), and Detroit (8).

[Lobotomizer]

Including the 7 buildings completed 500' or greater in Austin, there are currently 4 more under construction including a new tallest at 876'.

2022 should see several more break ground as well, hopefully including the tallest in Texas at 1022'.

The skyline will be quite impressive in a few years for a metro of 2.5 million or so.

[iheartthed]

It's interesting how L.A. has not managed to keep pace with Chicago despite bypassing it in population decades ago. It's also way more expensive than Chicago.

[MAC123]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

It's interesting how L.A. has not managed to keep pace with Chicago despite bypassing it in population decades ago. It's almost way more expensive than Chicago.

Urban sprawl + highly active earthquake area. But they're starting to come around.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

It's interesting how L.A. has not managed to keep pace with Chicago despite bypassing it in population decades ago. It's almost way more expensive than Chicago.

Highrise construction doesn't really seem related to land values, or desirability. It's more cultural/regulatory environment.

And just a subjective observation, but to me, living in a highrise in LA largely defeats the purpose of living in LA. The inside-outside living, the peacefulness, the inward-living, etc. It isn't a communitarian environment, at least not for those who can afford otherwise.

[fleonzo]

Originally Posted by SFBruin

I think that SF is the third largest skyline in the US, though it's in some dispute with Philadelphia and Houston.

Maybe LA too.

I would have thought it was Miami....??

[JManc]

Originally Posted by homebucket

SF has some advantage here due to its topography. Some towers appear taller than they really are due to the fact they sit on hills. One Rincon Hill (641 ft) sits on a 100 ft tall hill so from afar it has the appearance of a 740 footer. 555 California also sits at 35 ft so it has the appearance of being at 814 ft. The Nob Hill hotels and Russian Hill residential towers also have more prominence as well since they’re at the very top of their hills, so it helps extend the skyline in a way.

is that the case with Salesforce because it seems much taller than Transamerica? I think there's only about 150' difference between the two in actuality.

[craigs]

Originally Posted by homebucket

If we examine this 2nd tier of skyscraper cities, here is the breakdown of completed buildings of at least 500 ft. I thought I'd look up some others too in addition to the ones you listed.

Miami 56 (!)
Houston 36 (this includes 8 non-downtown buildings)
Los Angeles 28 (this includes 6 non-DTLA buildings)
San Francisco 24
Seattle 21
Boston 21
Dallas 19
Atlanta 17
Philadelphia 14
Pittsburgh 10
Minneapolis 10
Austin 7
Charlotte 7
Detroit 7
Cleveland 4
Oklahoma City 2

It appears that Miami by far is the 3rd largest skyline in the US, followed by Houston, LA, and SF. Philadelphia is surprisingly low despite having an impressive looking skyline. Maybe because it's more top heavy? It doesn't seem like they have very many towers below 600 ft (unless Wikipedia is very off), yet the skyline still appears quite dense. Very interesting phenomenon. Austin will likely jump to the top half of this list in the next 5-10 years.

If you're using Wikipedia, their LA list contains 31 towers over 500'.

Originally Posted by iheartthed

It's interesting how L.A. has not managed to keep pace with Chicago despite bypassing it in population decades ago. It's also way more expensive than Chicago.

It's hardly surprising. Chicago is internationally noted for pioneering the skyscraper form, for building so many of them from the very start, and for continuing to build so many even now. Los Angeles has historically been about horizontal growth--deliberately--and was never nationally or internationally renowned for skyscrapers. LA obviously has skyscrapers, but that's not what LA is about. The energy is elsewhere.

Originally Posted by Crawford

Highrise construction doesn't really seem related to land values, or desirability. It's more cultural/regulatory environment.

It's also not necessarily about population size or growth, as seen by the fact that Miami has the third largest collection of 500' towers in the nation despite being the focal point of the nation's 11th largest CSA.

And just a subjective observation, but to me, living in a highrise in LA largely defeats the purpose of living in LA. The inside-outside living, the peacefulness, the inward-living, etc. It isn't a communitarian environment, at least not for those who can afford otherwise.

I agree. For better and for worse, LA was self-consciously built to be a different kind of big city than the older ones back east.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

It's interesting how L.A. has not managed to keep pace with Chicago despite bypassing it in population decades ago. It's also way more expensive than Chicago.

Even more interesting than LA to me, is the slowdown in the southeast and southcentral. Back in the 80s building boom, oil money in Houston/Dallas and bank merger money in Atlanta/Charlotte led to the construction of a total of nine 800-footers in those 4 cities over the course of a decade or so! Truly one of the biggest regional building booms of big towers in US history. And in the 3 decades since, nothing of that height in those 4 cities.

[chris08876]

If LA could somehow jump on the residential game and build residential towers, maybe it would rise in the rankings.

Many think skyscrapers have to just be office but they could also swell the numbers if they are residential in nature, especially areas with high demand.

[homebucket]

Originally Posted by JManc

is that the case with Salesforce because it seems much taller than Transamerica? I think there's only about 150' difference between the two in actuality.

I believe Salesforce should be at or near sea level, so Salesforce should be 217 ft taller (1070-853) than Transamerica. Transamerica is also pretty skinny at the top so that probably helps create an illusion that it's a lot shorter. The 48th floor is just a little over 2500 sq ft.

Here's a photo I took looking down Fremont. There's a gentle incline from Howard to Folsom, and then after Folsom the grade starts to pick up significantly up to Harrison.


On Google Streetview:
https://goo.gl/maps/QvUn4HarCVbv9nJf8

[homebucket]

Originally Posted by craigs

If you're using Wikipedia, their LA list contains 31 towers over 500'.

I took out the 3 Oceanwide towers since they're technically not completed yet, although they are topped out.

[homebucket]

Originally Posted by chris08876

If LA could somehow jump on the residential game and build residential towers, maybe it would rise in the rankings.

Many think skyscrapers have to just be office but they could also swell the numbers if they are residential in nature, especially areas with high demand.

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.

[DCReid]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

Even more interesting than LA to me, is the slowdown in the southeast and southcentral. Back in the 80s building boom, oil money in Houston/Dallas and bank merger money in Atlanta/Charlotte led to the construction of a total of nine 800-footers in those 4 cities over the course of a decade or so! Truly one of the biggest regional building booms of big towers in US history. And in the 3 decades since, nothing of that height in those 4 cities.

Yes, oddly Austin and OKC are or have built a taller tower than Hoston and Dallas since 2000. Concerning LA, I am little surprised that Century City is not seeing the wave of high rises that downtown is. LA people do favor living in the hills, so I would also think more than few might also favor high rises in the future as there are only so many hills and cliffs to build on.

[LA21st]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

It's interesting how L.A. has not managed to keep pace with Chicago despite bypassing it in population decades ago. It's also way more expensive than Chicago.

LA also got off to a late start because of earthquake issues. They didn't really start building up until the late 60s.

I think at some point LA will take the 3 spot for good maybe in the 2030s or 2040s.

[LA21st]

Originally Posted by DCReid

Yes, oddly Austin and OKC are or have built a taller tower than Hoston and Dallas since 2000. Concerning LA, I am little surprised that Century City is not seeing the wave of high rises that downtown is. LA people do favor living in the hills, so I would also think more than few might also favor high rises in the future as there are only so many hills and cliffs to build on.

Century City isn't doing bad. It's added 3 40 story buildings in the last few years. I think as the purple line gets closer, you'll see more of a highrise explosion. There's already a ton of 30-45 story proposals on Wilshire between downtown and Beverly Hills.

I expect Hollywood, Koreatown, Wilshire, and Century City to really boom this decade. Developers have only been thinking consistently "big/taller" in LA recently, like the last 5-7 years. If you look at the newest downtown LA update, most of the talller proposals are in the last 3 years or so. Nobody thought there would be 40-60 story proposals in the Arts District in 2009 or South Park would become LA"s version of Streeterville. They were still building 5-7 story buildings there, now they're 40-60 stories.

[LA21st]

Originally Posted by homebucket

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 you'll see alot of office towers built anymore, period. Covid has changed things.

[dave8721]

Originally Posted by fleonzo

I would have thought it was Miami....??

Depends how you define "largest skyline", if its most buildings over say 15 stories than Miami is 3rd by a pretty wide margin. If you ignore city limits and go metro vs metro, than the real competition would be South Florida vs Chicago for 2nd (in total over 12 stories), with Chicagoland being #2 by an ever shrinking margin.

[dave8721]

Originally Posted by homebucket

If we examine this 2nd tier of skyscraper cities, here is the breakdown of completed buildings of at least 500 ft. I thought I'd look up some others too in addition to the ones you listed.

Miami 56 (!)
Houston 36 (this includes 8 non-downtown buildings)
Los Angeles 28 (this includes 6 non-DTLA buildings)
San Francisco 24
Seattle 21
Boston 21
Dallas 19
Atlanta 17
Philadelphia 14
Pittsburgh 10
Minneapolis 10
Austin 7
Charlotte 7
Detroit 7
Cleveland 4
Oklahoma City 2

It appears that Miami by far is the 3rd largest skyline in the US, followed by Houston, LA, and SF. Philadelphia is surprisingly low despite having an impressive looking skyline. Maybe because it's more top heavy? It doesn't seem like they have very many towers below 600 ft (unless Wikipedia is very off), yet the skyline still appears quite dense. Very interesting phenomenon. Austin will likely jump to the top half of this list in the next 5-10 years.

Sunny Isles Beach has 14 over 500 feet and 9 over 600 feet. Jersey City has 13 over 500 feet.

[craigs]

Originally Posted by homebucket

I took out the 3 Oceanwide towers since they're technically not completed yet, although they are topped out.

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:

Los Angeles Skyline October 2021 - EXPLORED (10-31-2021) by Kelvin Cheng, on Flickr