United States City Skyline Ratings: Built, Construction, Proposed

[intheburg]

I've developed a ratings system for U.S. city skylines based on the data on this site.

The ratings are calculated as follows:

1. Heights are based on roof heights, not spire heights, because in my opinion there are too many buildings with low-impact "spires" (such as the NY Times Building). The exception is with churches, in which steeples and bell towers are almost always skyline enhancing.

2. Buildings included are residential, commercial/office, manufacturing, hotel, mixed-use, monuments, stadiums, religious, government, observation towers, etc. Generally not included are rides, smokestacks, telecom towers, bridges, etc.

3. One point is earned for every 200 feet in height built. 3/8 of a point is added for every 200 feet in height under construction. 1/8 of a point is added for every 200 feet with a firm enough proposal to have been included in the public database on this site. So, for example, a 500 foot building that is completed earns 2.5 points, whereas a 500 foot building currently under construction earns 0.94 points and a 500 foot proposed building earns 0.31 points. The idea here is to rate cities not only on their current skylines but also on the direction that their skylines are realistically moving toward. Using the 1:3:8 ratio is arbitrary, but I think sensible. I wanted to give considerable points to a building that is under construction, but not quite half of what a completed building would earn. I considered given proposed buildings only a tenth of the points of a completed building of the same heigth, rather than an eighth of the points, but the goal of the ratings system is to differentiate between cities that have created some buzz with proposals as opposed to cities that are so dead that there aren't even any proposals out there. So, I wanted to give enough points to proposals to have an impact on the rating without giving too many points for buildings that haven't actually started to be built and may never be (of course I very much realize that some proposals are firmer than others).

4. As proposals become stale, they are removed from the ratings data set. As built buildings are destroyed, they are removed from the ratings data set. If construction on a site goes "on hold", it is included with proposals and not with construction. So the calculations are not based on every building that has ever been built or proposed for a particular city, but rather only the buildings that currently are standing, currently under construction, or currently listed as proposed. Some cities, like New York and Chicago, have many, many buildings that once stood at over 150ft but which no longer exist. Those destroyed buildings are not part of their rating.

5. I only include buildings that are at least 150 feet in height. This, too is completely arbitrary. If I included every building that is at least 120 feet or at least 100 feet in height, the city calculations would change considerably, most especially for Washington DC. The reason I put a floor at 150 is partly because I fear that a lot of buildings under 150 don't make it into the database in the first place, and secondly because expanding below 150 means a lot more small towns and suburbs need to be included, which gets unwieldy. Perhaps if I get up the energy I'll expand the list down to 120 feet, which would greatly boost DC's rating, and would necessitate the addition of over 1,500 buildings just in NYC alone!

6. There are 634 U.S. cities which currently have at least one building in the database with a listed roof height of at least 150 feet completed, under construction, or proposed. Using this ratings system, the current U.S. city with the most points is, of course, New York, with 5201.53 points. The 634th city is Des Plaines, IL, which has 0.10 points, because it currently has one proposed building with a roof height of 154 feet, and no completed or under-construction buildings.

7. Keep in mind the ratings are based on city limits. New York City is inclusive of the five boroughs, but not Jersey City and other suburbs, which are separate. Separately, I have spreadsheets with combined calculations for metros and for regions of the country. For example, South Florida is quite the powerhouse, but the ratings points for the region are split among a few dozen municipalities, with of course Miami itself earning the most.

8. I would attach a spreadsheet or PDF showing calculations for all 634 cities to this post if I knew how to do that on this site. In the meantime, here are the top 10, with details:

New York City
5201.53 points

• 1,011,246 feet of completed buildings at 150 feet or more (4083 buildings)
• 52,851 feet of 150ft+ buildings under construction (108 buildings)
• 73,933 feet of 150ft+ buildings proposed (152 buildings)

Chicago
1558.08 points

• 306,044 feet of completed buildings at 150 feet or more (1022 buildings)
• 6,160 feet of 150ft+ buildings under construction (14 buildings)
• 26,095 feet of 150ft+ buildings proposed (59 buildings)

Los Angeles
536.78 points

• 102,081 feet of completed buildings at 150 feet or more (414 buildings)
• 7,588 feet of 150ft+ buildings under construction (18 buildings)
• 19,433 feet of 150ft+ buildings proposed (56 buildings)

Houston
514.03 points

• 96,143 feet of completed buildings at 150 feet or more (342 buildings)
• 11,086 feet of 150ft+ buildings under construction (39 buildings)
• 20,045 feet of 150ft+ buildings proposed (67 buildings)

San Francisco
433.78 points

• 82,615 feet of completed buildings at 150 feet or more (299 buildings)
• 6,817 feet of 150ft+ buildings under construction (19 buildings)
• 12,682 feet of 150ft+ buildings proposed (33 buildings)

Miami
433.41 points

• 74,339 feet of completed buildings at 150 feet or more (246 buildings)
• 18,538 feet of 150ft+ buildings under construction (40 buildings)
• 43,126 feet of 150ft+ buildings proposed (71 buildings)

Honolulu
406.94 points

• 79,588 feet of completed buildings at 150 feet or more (315 buildings)
• 2,925 feet of 150ft+ buildings under construction (8 buildings)
• 5,628 feet of 150ft+ buildings proposed (16 buildings)

Philadelphia
371.71 points

• 70.952 feet of completed buildings at 150 feet or more (271 buildings)
• 4,940 feet of 150ft+ buildings under construction (13 buildings)
• 12,302 feet of 150ft+ buildings proposed (42 buildings)

Dallas
340.78 points

• 65,844 feet of completed buildings at 150 feet or more (243 buildings)
• 2,435 feet of 150ft+ buildings under construction (9 buildings)
• 11,192 feet of 150ft+ buildings proposed (31 buildings)

Atlanta
336.44 points

• 65,096 feet of completed buildings at 150 feet or more (214 buildings)
• 3,150 feet of 150ft+ buildings under construction (11 buildings)
• 8,082 feet of 150ft+ buildings proposed (20 buildings)

9. Here are the ratings points for other cities that have a current rating of at least 10 points. Cities in bold have at least one 150ft+ building currently under construction. Cities in normal font have at least one 150ft+ buillding proposed, but none currently under construction. Cities in italics have no 150ft+ buildings currently under construction or proposed.

Boston 297.35
Seattle 284.78
Las Vegas 233.28
Denver 194.72
Minneapolis 194.55
Detroit 159.03
Pittsburgh 153.77
San Diego 152.53
Baltimore 138.33
Miami Beach 136.82
Arlington 133.54
St. Louis 133.51
Jersey City 132.89
Fort Lauderdale 128.74
Portland, Oregon 122.66
Austin 114.92
Cleveland 109.31
New Orleans 106.42
Cincinnati 105.59
Kansas City 104.16
Sunny Isles Beach 102.93
Charlotte 97.97
Milwaukee 95.21
Aventura 93.60
Washington DC 91.09
Indianapolis 85.42
Newark 83.20
Nashville 82.33
Columbus, Ohio 81.76
Orlando 79.10
Phoenix 77.68
San Antonio 73.78
Tampa 72.78
Atlantic City 68.34
Buffalo 66.03
St. Paul 57.67
Richmond 56.91
Louisville 55.12
Oakland 54.54
Tulsa 52.44
Oklahoma City 52.31
Jacksonville 51.92
Fort Worth 51.81
Alexandria 51.74
Myrtle Beach 48.00
Memphis 47.26
Bellevue 46.99
Salt Lake City 46.77
Long Beach 45.85
Omaha 46.02
Sacramento 45.70
Hartford 43.16
Cambridge 40.63
San Jose 40.08
Birmingham 39.95
Hallandale Beach 39.87
West Palm Beach 39.31
Albany 38.01
Riviera Beach 37.76
Winston-Salem 36.64
Rochester 34.61
Irvine 34.32
Coral Gables 34.32
Fort Lee 33.30
Hollywood FL 32.83
St. Petersburg 32.46
Vinings 31.81
Wilmington 31.79
Sandy Springs 30.42
Des Moines 30.10
Stamford 29.78
New Haven 28.12
Harrisburg 28.05
Clayton 27.83
Columbia, SC 27.79
Reno 27.68
Providence 27.59
Dayton 26.15
Syracuse 25.77
Raleigh 25.50
Clearwater 24.20
Boca Raton 24.18
Bethesda 23.94
Tysons Corner 23.64
White Plains 23.61
Silver Spring 23.57
Little Rock 23.53
Yonkers 22.84
Southfield MI 22.65
Toledo 22.56
Sarasota 23.11
Norfolk 21.31
Tacoma 21.07
Irving 20.58
Glendale 20.45
Fort Myers 19.53
Ocean City MD 19.41
Bloomington MN 19.04
Albuquerque 18.41
Orange Beach 18.21
North Bethesda 18.13
Corpus Christi 18.03
Pompano Beach 17.94
Grand Rapids 17.43
Shreveport 17.35
Lexington 17.06
Gulf Shores 16.95
Chattanooga 16.78
Spokane 16.36
Bal Harbour 16.80
Virginia Beach 15.62
Madison 15.50
Anchorage 15.43
Bailey's Crossroads 15.20
Mobile 15.07
Towson 15.03
Rochester MN 14.94
Boise 14.38
Lansing 14.00
Kendall 13.99
Midland 13.97
Reston 13.84
Akron 13.38
Daytona Beach 13.07
Charleston WV 13.06
Hackensack 12.97
Greensboro 12.87
Chevy Chase 12.30
Springfield MA 12.11
Dunwoody 12.09
Waimalu 12.02
El Paso 11.85
Greenwood Village 11.80
Lauderdale by the Sea 11.72
Hoboken 11.69
Laughlin 11.67
Worcester 11.59
Santa Monica 11.56
Knoxville 11.81
Evanston 10.93
Covington 10.57
West Hollywood 10.55
Galveston 10.29
Schaumburg 10.21
Burbank 10.13
Baton Rouge 10.00

[intheburg]

Here are the regional totals based on the ratings system outlined in the previous post.

New York City Metro
5698 points

• 1,105,581 feet of completed buildings at 150 feet or more (4493 buildings)
• 58,685 feet of 150ft+ buildings under construction (124 buildings)
• 96,758 feet of 150ft+ buildings proposed (216 buildings)

For these purposes, the metro includes includes northern NJ and everything along the Metro North and LIRR lines, up to and including New Haven. It accounts for 30.6% of the total nationwide points. Also, impressively, the NYC metro currently accounts for 36.2% of all feet currently under construction in buildings of at least 150ft, which means that NYC Metro's share of the nationwide total will increase in upcoming years. There's much to say about the building boom, especially in the category of supertalls, but little that hasn't already been said by JR Ewing. Bottom line: NYC's skyline is huge and apparently only getting started.

Midwest/Plains (but not Chicagoland)
1907 points

• 377,323 feet of completed buildings at 150 feet or more (1570 buildings)
• 4,463 feet of 150ft+ buildings under construction (14 buildings)
• 19,283 feet of 150ft+ buildings proposed (68 buildings)

For these purposes, the Midwest/Plains includes a huge area stretching from Pittsburgh through Ohio and the great lakes states and into the plains to the Dakotas, Nebraska, Kansas, and Oklahoma. It is bordered on the south by the Ohio River, the southern border of Missouri and the southern border of Oklahoma. Essentially, it includes what are commonly called the great lakes and the plains states, but includes Pittsburgh also, given Pittsburgh's location at the head of the Ohio River. But it does not include Chicagoland, which is its own world. The Midwest accounts for 10.24% of all nationwide points, but only accounts for 2.8% of all feet currently under construction in buildings of at least 150ft, which means that the Midwest's share of the nationwide total will likely be surpassed by the Northeast in the not too distant future. The Midwest not only struggles in terms of overall population growth, but has also heavily embraced suburban sprawl, of course. Still, we'll see what happens in places like Milwaukee, Cleveland and Kansas City. There's lots of potential for significant skyline enhancement.

Northeast (but not including NYC Metro)
1875 points

• 367,068 feet of completed buildings at 150 feet or more (1649 buildings)
• 9,688 feet of 150ft+ buildings under construction (29 buildings)
• 34,055 feet of 150ft+ buildings proposed (116 buildings)

For these purposes, the Northeast includes all of New York State and New England except for those counties that are serviced by Metro North and Railroad and the LIRR. It includes central and southern New Jersey and central and eastern Pennsylvania. It includes Delaware, Maryland, DC and the Virginia suburbs of DC. It does not include the NYC Metro, which is its own world. The Northeast accounts for 10.07% of all nationwide points and 6.0% of all feet currently under construction in buildings of at least 150ft, which means that the Northeast's share will fall a bit in the next few years, but not as fast as the Midwest's share (and therefore might surpass the Midwest). Longer term, the East has a lot of potential, especially if at least a couple dozen of the currently proposed buildings actually break ground within the next couple of years.

South (but not including South Florida or Texas)
1806 points

• 354,905 feet of completed buildings at 150 feet or more (1464 buildings)
• 7,143 feet of 150ft+ buildings under construction (26 buildings)
• 29,079 feet of 150ft+ buildings proposed (94 buildings)

For these purposes, the South includes everything to the south of the Midwest and Northeast, including West Virginia, and to the east of Texas, except for South Florida. The South accounts for 9.70% of all nationwide points and 4.4% of all feet currently under construction in buildings of at least 150ft, which means that the South's share will likely continue to slowly drop in the next several years unless a significant number of the currently proposed 94 buildings in the region break ground, and unless some tall proposals return in cities like Atlanta, Charlotte and Nashville.

Chicagoland
1622 points

• 318,686 feet of completed buildings at 150 feet or more (1088 buildings)
• 6,160 feet of 150ft+ buildings under construction (14 buildings)
• 26,587 feet of 150ft+ buildings proposed (62 buildings)

For these purposes, Chicagoland includes includes Chicago and the Illinois and northwest Indiana suburbs. It accounts for 8.71% of the total nationwide points. Chicagoland currently accounts for just 3.8% of all feet currently under construction in buildings of at least 150ft, which means that Chicagoland's share of the nationwide total will continue to decline over the next few years. In the supertall race, Chicago has essentially dropped out, at least for the time being. By 2020, it is likely that Chicago will still have just 4 supertalls, but NYC will have gone from 3 to 12 or more.

California
1525 points

• 292,714 feet of completed buildings at 150 feet or more (1194 buildings)
• 16,448 feet of 150ft+ buildings under construction (44 buildings)
• 49,105 feet of 150ft+ buildings proposed (147 buildings)

The state of California accounts for 8.19% of all nationwide points and 10.1% of all feet currently under construction in buildings of at least 150ft, which means that California's share will likely continue to hold steady or slightly improve relative to the rest of the country over the next few years. Longer term, its hard to say.

Texas
1283 points

• 243,872 feet of completed buildings at 150 feet or more (940 buildings)
• 17,687 feet of 150ft+ buildings under construction (65 buildings)
• 48,758 feet of 150ft+ buildings proposed (160 buildings)

Texas accounts for 6.89% of all nationwide points and an impressive 10.9% of all feet currently under construction in buildings of at least 150ft, which means that in the near term, Texas's share of total points will increase. Yet, it's hard to know how much the drop in the price of oil will slow construction. It seems likely that Austin will continue to boom and that perhaps DFW will continue to boom. The big question is the Houston metro, of course. In recent years Texas cities have built themselves up with lots of mid-rise buildings in the 150-300 foot range, and a few taller high rises, with very few 700+ footers on the near horizon, if any.

South Florida
1233 points

• 228,779 feet of completed buildings at 150 feet or more (924 buildings)
• 24,433 feet of 150ft+ buildings under construction (56 buildings)
• 69,672 feet of 150ft+ buildings proposed (153 buildings)

South Florida accounts for 6.62% of all nationwide points and a whopping 15.1% of all feet currently under construction in buildings of at least 150ft, which means that in the near term, South Florida's share of total points will increase and possibly overtake Texas in the not too distant future. South Florida has an incredible 17.6% of all proposed feet in buildings of at least 150 feet, including many supertalls and near supertalls proposed for Miami. The question is whether or not they will materialize and, if so, if they retain something close to their currently proposed heights. If so, it's mathematically within reason that even with the incredible growth in NYC, South Florida's nationwide share could approach or exceed 10% in another decade or so. depending on how much growth occurs elsewhere, of course. In any case, currently South Florida is only exceeded by the NYC Metro in terms of feet under construction in 150ft+ buildings.

Coastal West (not including California)
920 points

• 176,631 feet of completed buildings at 150 feet or more (703 buildings)
• 11,919 feet of 150ft+ buildings under construction (31 buildings)
• 23,316 feet of 150ft+ buildings proposed (61 buildings)

For these purposes, Coastal West includes roughly the western third of Washington and Oregon states, plus Hawaii. It accounts for 4.94% of all nationwide points and a whopping 7.3% of all feet currently under construction in buildings of at least 150ft, which means that in the near term, this region's share will remain stable or grow modestly. The region includes Honolulu which has an enormous number of buildings at 150ft+ for a city its size--315 buildings! But, they are all on the shorter end, two-thirds under 300 feet and all of them under 500 feet. Since Portland also generally builds on the shorter side, that leaves Seattle to truly pull this region's points up. We shall see. Currently the tallest building under construction in Seattle isn't even at 700 feet.

Mountain/Desert (not including California)
756 points

• 147,536 feet of completed buildings at 150 feet or more (580 buildings)
• 5,648 feet of 150ft+ buildings under construction (20 buildings)
• 11,790 feet of 150ft+ buildings proposed (38 buildings)

For these purposes, Mountain/Desert includes everything west of the Midwest/Plains and Texas, and east of California and the coastal areas of Oregon and Washington. It also includes Alaska. It accounts for 4.06% of all nationwide points and just 3.5% of all feet currently under construction in buildings of at least 150ft, which means that in the near term, this region's share won't grow. The region includes Denver and Las Vegas, and as the population of this region of the country likely continues to boom, it's possible that longer term there could be a lot of skyline growth in these two cities plus places like Salt Lake, Tucson and even Phoenix if those cities and other smaller cities densify.

[BnaBreaker]

Great work!! Thanks a bunch for sharing. Nashville's number is going to rise significantly over the next few years as we have somewhere in the neighborhood of probably 40-45 buildings of 150 feet or more proposed or under construction.

[KevinFromTexas]

San Antonio has a 10-story Hilton under construction in downtown. It'll probably be around 170 feet tall based on the renderings.

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=207259

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by intheburg

In the supertall race, Chicago has essentially dropped out, at least for the time being. By 2020, it is likely that Chicago will still have just 4 supertalls.

FYI, there are two active proposals for supertalls in chicago, and it's entirely possible that they will be built, or at least U/C, by 2020.



CHICAGO | Wanda Vista | 1,151 FT | 98 FLOORS







CHICAGO | Wolf Point - South Tower | ~1,100 FT






in addition to those two, Related has not yet announced what they plan to do with the old chicago spire site. there is already a foundation in place for a 2,000' tower, with some of the caissons stretching down all the way to bedrock (bedrock is fairly deep in chicago relative to most other cities). now, pretty much no one is expecting another 2,000' tall pipe dream, but given those massive foundations that are already in place, and the site's EXTREMELY prominent location on the lakefront, i'd say it's a reasonably safe bet that we'll see something that achieves supertall status there someday. perhaps by 2020, perhaps not, but it is a very real chance for another chicago supertall. we just have to wait and see what Related has planned.

[intheburg]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

FYI, there are two active proposals for supertalls in chicago, and it's entirely possible that they will be built, or at least U/C, by 2020.

Thanks. Yes, I'm aware of those projects and they are included in Chicago's rating points as active proposals (therefore earning one-eighth of one point for every 200 feet in proposed roof height). My comment regarding Chicago essentially having dropped out of the supertall race at this point is that there aren't any supertalls in Chicago currently under construction, and I'm guessing it won't be until 2016 that construction begins on either of these two projects, if then. That would likely mean a 2020 opening date at the earliest. In the meantime, NYC will have a wave of supertalls completed in the 2017-2019 time frame that are already under construction. Also, the salesforce tower in SF will be completed in this time frame, as well as the skyrise tower in Miami.

So, I don't at all mean to imply that Chicago is out of the race forever. I very much hope Chicago catches its breath and races forward. But even if construction on its current supertall proposals do indeed get underway, it's going to fall back in my little ratings scheme for at least the next four or five years because of what is already under construction in other cities, especially New York.

Let's hope the 2020s see lots of completed supertalls in Chicago!

[Beedok]

Will you be doing these for any other countries?

[intheburg]

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

San Antonio has a 10-story Hilton under construction in downtown. It'll probably be around 170 feet tall based on the renderings.

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=207259

Thanks Kevin. Are you sure the height will be that tall? From the rendering, it looks like the Hilton Garden has a roof height that is noticably shorter than the Hyatt Regency next door. In any case, I'm happy to include it if you can confirm a height a height of at least 150ft, which is a bit of surprise for a non-luxury hotel that is 10 floors. I realize the lobby will have a high ceiling height, so it would be great if you are right.

[intheburg]

Originally Posted by Beedok

Will you be doing these for any other countries?

I would love to have the time/energy to include every city on the globe in this ratings system. For now, I started with the U.S. because it is where I live and where I do most of my traveling for work, so I know U.S. cities well and have personally watched them grow my whole life. Also, I'm reasonably confident that this site has complete or nearly complete data on US cities, with only some minor errors or things that are out of date, for buildings in the 150 foot range or higher. I'm not as confident that it has complete data for cities outside the US and Canada, especially when it comes to shorter buildings.

If I did a global ratings system, it would probably be for buildings of at least 650 or 700 feet tall (around 200 or 220 meters). That's because I don't think we have good enough data in a single place regarding roof heights of every building in every small city everywhere on the globe with roofs of at least 150 feet (45 meters). But a global ratings point system for every building on the planet of at least 700 feet high is doable for me eventually, and would be fun, and would hopefully be pretty accurate.

[Beedok]

Originally Posted by intheburg

I'm not as confident that it has complete data for cities outside the US and Canada, especially when it comes to shorter buildings.

Well, I'm Canadian, so I was mostly asking for Canada. I did figure this was a heck of a lot of work though, so I'm not trying to pressure you or anything, just curious.

[hawainpanda]

awesome analysis!

Its very cool to see the trends. Hopefully with Chicago's condo and office market recovering we'll get some taller proposals.

[intheburg]

Originally Posted by BnaBreaker

Great work!! Thanks a bunch for sharing. Nashville's number is going to rise significantly over the next few years as we have somewhere in the neighborhood of probably 40-45 buildings of 150 feet or more proposed or under construction.

Thanks BnaBreaker. I'm optimistic about Nashville, also, though 40-45 buildings at 150ft+ under construction or proposed is a bit much, no? According to my calculations, Nashville has the following:

3 buildings currently under construction for a total of 993 feet:

• Bridgestone Amercias Tower, 460 feet, due in 2017
• The SoBro, 345 feet, due in 2016
• 1201 Demonbreaun Office, 193 feet, due in 2016

And these 12 projects of 150ft+ that are proposed for a total of 3,766 feet if they are all built at their current projected roof heights:

• Paramount, 745 feet
• Convention site, 400 feet
• Turnberry Tower 1, 400 feet
• Turnberry Tower 2, 325 feet
• Parallon Business Solution HQ, 292 feet
• Skyhouse Nashville, 289 feet
• Sarah Cannon Research Institute, 260 feet
• Us Courthouse, 246 feet
• The Buckingham, 225 feet
• 1818 Church Street, 210 feet
• The Music Row Roundabout Apartments, 178 feet
• Hyatt Regency, 164 feet

The other projects in Nashville that I'm aware of are on the shorter side (below 150ft). But in the over 150ft category, I only count 15 projects maximum for the near term. You seem to have info that the number is three times that. Am I missing some projects?

[drummer]

This is great. Thanks for doing this intheburg. Interesting to read insights on several of the regions and cities.

[hawainpanda]

In the berg, just watned to let u know, not sure when u started ur analysis but the Chicago numbers are sign different from what you can find on the CHicago building compilation page
http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=218289

which has at least 27 buildings of at least 150 feet with roughly around 10g of feet in aggregate, when compared to the philly number I think the philly numbers were the same as what I was able to find, not sure if it was cus you started your analysis prior to some of the u/c projects in chicago being started

[BnaBreaker]

Originally Posted by intheburg

Thanks BnaBreaker. I'm optimistic about Nashville, also, though 40-45 buildings at 150ft+ under construction or proposed is a bit much, no? According to my calculations, Nashville has the following:

3 buildings currently under construction for a total of 993 feet:

• Bridgestone Amercias Tower, 460 feet, due in 2017
• The SoBro, 345 feet, due in 2016
• 1201 Demonbreaun Office, 193 feet, due in 2016

And these 12 projects of 150ft+ that are proposed for a total of 3,766 feet if they are all built at their current projected roof heights:

• Paramount, 745 feet
• Convention site, 400 feet
• Turnberry Tower 1, 400 feet
• Turnberry Tower 2, 325 feet
• Parallon Business Solution HQ, 292 feet
• Skyhouse Nashville, 289 feet
• Sarah Cannon Research Institute, 260 feet
• Us Courthouse, 246 feet
• The Buckingham, 225 feet
• 1818 Church Street, 210 feet
• The Music Row Roundabout Apartments, 178 feet
• Hyatt Regency, 164 feet

The other projects in Nashville that I'm aware of are on the shorter side (below 150ft). But in the over 150ft category, I only count 15 projects maximum for the near term. You seem to have info that the number is three times that. Am I missing some projects?

Yes, quite a few, and much of that info you're going on is pretty outdated. For example, the Hyatt is a dead proposal, while the Paramount and 1818 have been shortened and the Convention proposal is now two towers in the 200-300 foot range. But as I said, no big deal whatsoever, I know this must have been a ton of work so it's not realistic to expect you to scour the web looking for the latest info. I'm in no way complaining...just excited of what's to come in my hometown!

[intheburg]

Originally Posted by hawainpanda

In the berg, just wanted to let u know, not sure when u started ur analysis but the Chicago numbers are sign different from what you can find on the CHicago building compilation page
http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=218289

which has at least 27 buildings of at least 150 feet with roughly around 10g of feet in aggregate

Thanks hawaipanda. I looked over the list on the Chicago building compilation page and you are right, there are over a dozen buildings on the compilation list that are not in my spreadsheet.

This brings to light a significant problem: the data that I use is almost entirely from the database on this particular website--it's where I pulled it from and also from where I update my own spreadsheets each month. So if buildings aren't entered on this website's main database, or if their status isn't updated, those same inadequacies are reflected in my list. Since buildings listed on this site frequently do not have roof heights listed (especially for proposals) or completion dates listed (especially for older buildings), I look that information up independently to complete my spreadsheet. But in terms of the list of buildings that make the cut in the first place, my spreadsheets are almost entirely populated by the buildings that are on this site, and when the status changes on this site, I change the status on my spreadsheets as well.

So here's the problem: it's increasingly clear to me that this site has major holes. I have always known there were a few holes (a few buildings, especially under 500 feet, that were missing or that had data and status errors and that weren't updated in a timely manner and so forth)...no big deal. No data set is perfect. And one of the reason that I made the cut-off at 150ft was that I noticed there were a lot of buildings under 150ft that exist but aren't included on this site. But I was hopeful that the list of buildings at 150ft or higher was (almost) complete and (mostly) accurate. So, for example, I would not have been surprised if there was one or maybe two buildings under construction in Chicago at over 150ft that wasn't on this site's database. But your post makes me realize that there are at least a dozen buildings under construction in Chicago over 150ft that are NOT in the database on this website. That's depressing, because if we extrapolate that out, it means the ratings system might be significantly off for many other cities as well, which greatly undermines the whole project.

So here's my thinking:

1. It would be great if this website made an effort to clean and update its database and keep it clean and accurate on at least a monthly basis. If I can help in some way with the data collection and date entry, I would.

2. I might need to make a more aggressive effort to scour other sites to update my spreadsheets. But the problem with that is that then I would need to keep scouring and scouring endlessly for status changes each month, which I don't have time to do every week. This is precisely why I simply wanted to rely on the database on this website so that I could just feed the data from a single clearinghouse into my own analysis.

3. It's possible that I should simply start over with a more complete/accurate list on a more reliable site. Any suggestions to that end would be appreciated.

Thanks again for pointing out the flaw. I agree that over a dozen missing buildings under construction in Chicago is far too many, and way too many for my statistics to have kind of reliability at this point.

[intheburg]

Originally Posted by BnaBreaker

Yes, quite a few, and much of that info you're going on is pretty outdated.

Thanks BnaBreaker. See my response I just wrote to hawainpanda for the explanation.

And, yes, the goings-on in Nashville are exciting!

[bmoreusmc45]

BALtimore new http://farm1.staticflickr.com/774/21...297d639b_b.jpg

[summersm343]

This is really cool! Nice work!

[MolsonExport]

truly a labour of love.