Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Dan
thanks for the correction. i didn't have "U/C" clicked on in the diagram i was looking at, and i don't know how i missed museum tower being completed in 2012 (oops).
in any event, that makes 18 of dallas' 20 tallest towers older than 30 years.
i believe houston would be next (out of america's largest skylines) on that metric with 17 of its 20 tallest now more than 30 years old.
for all of texas' white hot population growth over the past 3 decades, it sure hasn't translated into a lot of skyline change for its biggest cities. only austin has seen dramatic skyline change over the recent past, and much of that is due to the fact that austin didn't begin with much of a skyline at the start of this millennium.
|
In Houston, the DOWNTOWN skyline hasn't changed too much (though I can think of several 500-700' towers that have risen in the last couple of years), but the other city skylines (Galleria/Uptown, TMC, Midtown) have been exploding.
Houston has towers going up in all sorts of random places. So different than Chicago, which is nearly completely centralized in terms of its highrise environment (save for the lakefront).
But yes, when it comes to a city changing its skyline dramatically over the last decade, I think Austin probably wins. As Steely said though, it's because it really didn't have a skyline up until about a decade ago!
Aaron (Glowrock)