Major Cities with no new tallest buildings [Archive]

WonderlandPark

Dec 30, 2006, 4:43 AM

What major cities have not seen a new tallest building built in a long time?
What about those cities that have virtually no chance of a new tallest?

Cities with a tallest "drought" greater than a quarter century (counting from '07, buildings, not towers) greater than 1 million metro, from Emporis:

Cincinnati-76 years, no prayer of new tallest anytime soon
Rochester-39 years, no prayer of new tallest anytime soon
Buffalo-37 years, there is some talk of a new tallest....
Pittsburgh-37 years, no prayer of new tallest anytime soon
Oklahoma City-36 years, no prayer of new tallest anytime soon
Portland-35 years, no prayer of new tallest anytime soon
San Francisco-35 years, several proposals for future, probably 5+ years away
Phoenix-35 years, no firm plans for new tallest, but possible
Milwaukee-34 years, possible new tallest or 2nd tallest, not firm
Chicago-33 years, proposed new tallest in hemisphere
Columbus-33 years, no prayer of new tallest anytime soon
Toronto-32 years, several new proposals, likely a new tallest will start soon
Boston-31 years, the mayor is begging for a new tallest
Detroit-30 years, no prayer of new tallest anytime soon

+special case, NYC, current tallest is the ESB, 76 years old, if not destroyed, WTC1 would be tallest, and 35 years old, AND, a new tallest is U/C.

Also, info on whether Ottawa is a million + metro is conflicting, if it is over that mark then add
Ottawa-35 years

correct me if I am wrong.

vid

Dec 30, 2006, 4:48 AM

Duluth-96 years, no prayer of new tallest anytime soon

Miniscule compared to Cincinnati, but still. A great American city nonetheless.

CGII

Dec 30, 2006, 4:49 AM

Cool list. Don't forget Chicago (32 years, I believe).

WonderlandPark

Dec 30, 2006, 4:51 AM

Cool list. Don't forget Chicago (32 years, I believe).

wow, how could I have missed the most obvious :)

ColDayMan

Dec 30, 2006, 5:03 AM

Columbus - 33 years
Dayton - 33 years
Akron - 76 years
Youngstown - 80 years

asher11

Dec 30, 2006, 5:07 AM

IMO, with the exception of Chicago (and that's a matter of debate), the "tallest" in any of the cities mentioned aint anywhere near the "best" building in any of those cities mentioned. Anywayz, before I get slammed here, I did say IMO.

CGII

Dec 30, 2006, 5:19 AM

San Francisco? Cincy? Pittsburgh? Those could all make the case.

Hell, if Steely Dan were running the panel, throw in Milwaukee, Columbus, Buffalo and Detroit as well.

unusualfire

Dec 30, 2006, 5:24 AM

Toronto. There is a new tallest taller than the CN tower coming along??????

CGII

Dec 30, 2006, 5:26 AM

Habitable buildings, mind you. We've had this discussion before.

tocoto

Dec 30, 2006, 5:32 AM

Boston's current tallest, the John Hancock Tower, is probably the city's best skyscraper as well. It is well designed, elegant and has aged very well. The new tallest proposed has a pretty good probability of beng built due to the support of the mayor, the size of the lot, and the wealth of the developer. It looks to be 1000' to roof and 1200' to top of spire.

Antares41

Dec 30, 2006, 5:39 AM

I think Denver has been stagnant in terms of new tallest for well over thirty plus years. I believe Denver has had several proposals for a new tallest bldg, maybe someone from the area can confirm.

Cleveland Brown

Dec 30, 2006, 5:42 AM

If we're going by buildings and not monuments...

Washington, DC ~200 years since last tallest built ;)

Buckeye Native 001

Dec 30, 2006, 5:45 AM

I'm not complaining about Cincinnati's dearth of a new tallest. Let the Carew reign supreme.

Kevin

Dec 30, 2006, 5:47 AM

Syracuse - 78 years

Gov. elect Spitzer said he wants to revitalize downtown Syracuse. Here's hoping that plan involves a new tallest!:cool:

KevinFromTexas

Dec 30, 2006, 7:10 AM

Waco, Texas hasn't seen a new tallest since 1911, so 95 years. And there's pretty much no chance of them getting another one.

Austin went from 1888 to 1972 without a new tallest.

Texas cities:

Starting from 2007.

Waco: 96 years - last built 1911
Corsicana: 81 years - last built 1926
New Braunfels: 81 years - last built 1926, (Building is redeveloped power plant).
Wichita Falls: 80 years - last built 1927.
San Angelo: 78 years - last built 1929
Temple: 78 years - last built 1929
Port Arthur: 78 years - last built 1929
Big Spring: 77 years - last built 1930
Marshall: 77 years - last built 1930
Lubbock: 52 years - last built 1955
Pasadena: 44 years - last built 1963, (I believe there's a new tallest in the works, though).
Denton: 40 years - last built 1967
Nacogdoches: 40 years? - last built in the 60s.
Amarillo: 36 years - last built 1971
El Paso: 36 years - last built 1971
Brownsville: 36 years - last built 1971
Galveston: 35 years - last built 1972, (New tallest twin complex under construction).
Laredo: 32 years - last built 1975
McAllen: 30 years? - last built in the 70s.
Montgomery: 30 years? - last built in the 70s.
Port Aransas: 30 years? - last built in the 70s.
Midland: 29 years - last built 1978
Tyler: 27 years - last built 1980
Houston: 25 years - last built 1982
Abilene: 25 years - last built 1982
Beaumont: 25 years - last built 1982 (There's an older building there which may actually be taller. that one was built in 1913).
Fort Worth: 24 years - last built 1983
South Padre Island - 23 years - last built 1984, (New tallest under construction).
Dallas: 22 years - last built 1985
Irving: 22 years - last built 1985
Arlington: 22 years - last built 1985
League City: 20 years - last built 1987
Bryan: 20 years? - last built in the 80s
San Antonio: 19 years - last built 1988
Corpus Christi: 19 years - last built 1988
College Station: 18 years - last built 1989
San Marcos: 17 years - last built 1991, (new building will start construction in March, may be new tallest).
Farmer's Branch: 7 years - last built 2000
Round Rock: 6 years - last built in 2001, (new building is under construction which may be the new tallest).
The Woodlands - 5 years - last built 2002
Austin: 3 years - last built 2004 (New tallest under construction)

Texas cities with new tallest under construction:

Austin
South Padre Island
Galveston

None of the cities listed are including county courthouses, otherwise some of those dates would be much longer, some over 120 years.

Arriviste

Dec 30, 2006, 7:14 AM

Calgary is just a year shy of the requirements. A new tallest starts construction next year, but doesn't finish untill 2010. Our current tallest dates to '83.

MonkeyRonin

Dec 30, 2006, 7:17 AM

Toronto-32 years, several new proposals, likely a new tallest will start soon

30 years actually, since the completion of our current tallest. though the new tallest will be completed in 2010.

Suburban Lou

Dec 30, 2006, 7:37 AM

St. Louis 41 years

bmfarley

Dec 30, 2006, 8:09 AM

Qualifying cities are those having a population of 1+ million persons? Right? I didn't know Rochester, Buffalo, or Columbus fit that bell. Nor Waco Texas.

toddguy

Dec 30, 2006, 8:14 AM

Qualifying cities are those having a population of 1+ million persons? Right? I didn't know Rochester, Buffalo, or Columbus fit that bell. Nor Waco Texas.

Cities with a tallest "drought" greater than a quarter century (counting from '07, buildings, not towers) greater than 1 million metro, from Emporis:

*edit* from Emporis: Columbus 730,657 in city and 1,936,351 in metro

Metro populations. Columbus is closer to 2 million than it is 1 million so it certainly fits the bill-along with having no chance in hell of having a new tallest anytime soon to take the title away from the ugly Rhodes Tower.

vid

Dec 30, 2006, 8:15 AM

Rochester has 1,133,140 in metro
Buffalo has 1,230,213 in metro
Columbus has 1,936,351 in metro
Waco has 224,668 in metro

He didn't say that Qualifying cities have to be of a million or more in population, he just said that his example used cities of that size. If it was limited to cities with only a million people, we would be limited to about 50 cities and the discussion would end pretty quickly, wouldn't it?

KevinFromTexas

Dec 30, 2006, 9:41 AM

Qualifying cities are those having a population of 1+ million persons? Right? I didn't know Rochester, Buffalo, or Columbus fit that bell. Nor Waco Texas.

The only cities in the Texas list with 1 million or more in the metro are: Dallas, Houston, San Antonio, Fort Worth and Austin. The rest are below 1 million. McAllen and El Paso would be next up, though, with each having over 900,000 in the metro area currently.

I just thought it was an interesting topic and dove right in it. :)

PhillyRising

Dec 30, 2006, 1:32 PM

I guess I should be thrilled Philadelphia isn't on this list as the top of the Comcast Center core is now the second tallest structure in the city and the tower should top out as the tallest in February.

However...I'm still not thrilled that we are now going on 24 years without a major sports championship.

eemy

Dec 30, 2006, 2:37 PM

Also, info on whether Ottawa is a million + metro is conflicting, if it is over that mark then add
Ottawa-35 years

Since when has Ottawa's metropolitan size been ambiguous? The only possibility I can think of is that some people may be confused by the fact that Stats Canada disseminates the census data for the Ontario and Quebec sides both separately and as a single CMA for convenience purposes. Strictly speaking though, the CMA includes both Ottawa and Gatineau and has a population of 1,063,664 (2001) and estimated to be 1,148,800 in 2005.

That said, either way you look at it the 35 year figure is way off. The tallest building in Ottawa-Gatineau is Terrases de la Chaudiere - Tower 1, which was built in 1978 (28 years ago). The tallest tower in Ottawa alone is Place de Ville II - Tower C built in 1979 (27 years ago). So, looking at the entire metropolitan area, Ottawa has a 28 year drought, and if only looking at the Ontario side, a 27 year drought. All that said, talking about the tallest building in Ottawa is strictly academic, since the tallest buildings in Ottawa aren't particularly tall to begin with (averaging around the 100m mark).

glowrock

Dec 30, 2006, 2:59 PM

Cirrus

Dec 30, 2006, 9:36 PM

If you want to discuss Washington seriously, then the Washington Monument (555 ft) was completed in 1884, which would make DC's magic number 122 years.

If, however, you insist on using occupiable buildings only, then Washington's tallest is the Old Post Office (315 ft - 1899), which would make the magic number 107 years.

Either way I think DC "wins", at least as far as the US is concerned.

toddguy

Dec 30, 2006, 10:19 PM

How really indicative is it of anything of having a recent 'new tallest'?

If the tallest in your city was 500 feet. and there were only two options(listed below).which would you want?

1. Two 450 foot buildings that are well designed, well located, and have amenities like ground level retail, etc. and that contribute to filling in and complementing the existing skyline...

or

2. One 550 foot building(new tallest) with a poor design, poor location, and surrounded by a desolate windswept plaza?

the pope

Dec 30, 2006, 10:38 PM

Benhamin

Dec 30, 2006, 11:55 PM

I think Denver has been stagnant in terms of new tallest for well over thirty plus years. I believe Denver has had several proposals for a new tallest bldg, maybe someone from the area can confirm.

I think Denver's current tallest opened in 1984. Not too sure if there is any talk of a new tallest, I know they have some new towers going up, not sure any one of them will be the tallest.

MonkeyRonin

Dec 30, 2006, 11:55 PM

How really indicative is it of anything of having a recent 'new tallest'?

Exactally. like in Toronto, we have had no new tallest building for 30 years, but have had hundreds (thousands?) of new high rise condos, apartments, and offices since that time.

Metropolitan

Dec 31, 2006, 12:16 AM

The Eiffel Tower has been built in 1889.

118 years later, it still harbors the highest floor in Europe at about 300 meters (984 ft). If everything goes as expected, it should be superceded only in 2008 (119 years later) by the Federation Tower in Moscow, which should have its highest occupied floor at about 320 meters (1,050 ft).

However, the Eiffel Tower should stay with 324 meters (1,063 ft) the tallest tower in Paris, and this despite the delivery in 2011 of the Generali tower (318 m/1,043 ft) and the Morphosis tower (approx. 300 m/1,000 ft).

Even if 118 years is long, you should remember that the Eiffel tower was at its delivery nearly twice taller than the tallest structure ever built by man before. The Eiffel tower is the first supertall structure ever, the only one built during the 19th century. ;)

AZheat

Dec 31, 2006, 12:20 AM

Cirrus,
Isn't DC kind of a special situation though? I know that there's a huge amount of office space when you look at square footage but with a strict height limitation that was imposed to keep the Capitol Building as a dominant structure and to retain the historical appearance of the city there will never be a real skyscraper in DC. Some of the outlying suburbs may have some fairly tall buildings but that's not ever going to happen in DC.
One city that surprises me is Portland. It has a fairly modest although attractive skyline and it's been growing steadily over the years. You would expect to see a new highest in this city considering its population.

donybrx

Dec 31, 2006, 1:07 AM

a cities true greatness is defined by the heights of its buildings.

You mean that over many centuries including the 18th and 19th there were no great cities?

the pope

Dec 31, 2006, 1:08 AM

You mean that over many centuries including the 18th and 19th there were no great cities?

100% correct. Throw in the previous 4,000 years while we are at it.

boden

Dec 31, 2006, 3:23 AM

30 years actually, since the completion of our current tallest. though the new tallest will be completed in 2010.

What building will that be?

shane453

Dec 31, 2006, 3:28 AM

Where'd you get your data on whether there is a prayer for a new tower or not? lol...

Oklahoma City-36 years, no prayer of new tallest anytime soon

We actually have a 40-story rumor floating around (local architect FSB has been showing renderings at special presentations that show a new glass tower on the OKC skyline, but playing coy about what it is). Class A office space is very tight, and getting tighter by the month. Also, with the incredible residential demand across the entire inner city (thanks to a rejuvenated downtown and all-new top of the line inner city schools), it's fairly likely to speculate a residential or mixed use tower is in planning stages.

WonderlandPark

Dec 31, 2006, 3:31 AM

Where'd you get your data on whether there is a prayer for a new tower or not? lol...

Just by doing stuff on Emporis and bumming around here and other websites, great if you guys in OKC can get a new tallest. Even if it is just rumor.

CGII

Dec 31, 2006, 3:53 AM

MonkeyRonin

Dec 31, 2006, 3:53 AM

What building will that be?

325m Trump Tower.

WonderlandPark

Dec 31, 2006, 3:57 AM

Check out the riverfront projects. Skycrapers growing like weeds.

But no way politically that a new tallest is in the near future. Portland practically prides itself on not being Seattle, so the future may be like the Philly of old, a big downtown skyline "plateau" or 300-400 ft buildings, and nothing that will really break out of that besides the already built Wells Fargo or Big Pink.

Derek

Dec 31, 2006, 4:17 AM

San Diego-last tallest was One America Plaza in 1991 (500 feet) and will probably be the tallest for at least the next 30 years?:( (if the damn airport would just leave...)

boden

Dec 31, 2006, 4:27 AM

325m Trump Tower.

I didn't realize it was going to be that tall...it's been billed as the tallest residential building.....wonder why?

secondson

Dec 31, 2006, 5:05 AM

It's already on the list, but Cincinnati desperately needs a new tallest. Aside from NY, it's the largest U.S. city in which its tallest true skyscraper predates WW2. Carew Tower is a cool building, but it's time to let the title go to something new.

Wheelingman04

Dec 31, 2006, 5:29 AM

^ I agree. I hope Queen City Square 2 gets built.

toddguy

Dec 31, 2006, 5:48 AM

Exactally. like in Toronto, we have had no new tallest building for 30 years, but have had hundreds (thousands?) of new high rise condos, apartments, and offices since that time.

Yes. It is even called SkyscraperPage..not Skyscraper(but only the very tallest possible skyscrapers and to hell with any other skyscrapers)Page. Toronto has numerous things working for it that many other North American (in particular) cities lack..and it is these very things that make the downtown vibrant and prosperous and in demand..and these are the things that lead to..Surprise! tall buildings getting built. I would rather have all of the retail, housing, cultural amenities, etc that Toronto has, to have a thriving downtown first-the thriving part could then build on itself and then generate the specific tall buildings or even 'tallest' building. Focusing on just the very tallest skyscrapers is puerile and just a pissing contest.

Not to dump on any particular city, but look at Detroit. It got a new tallest in the Ren Center-and what did that really do for the city? From nearly everything I heard on here about it..it did more harm to the downtown than good and sucked away what little retail and street life was left in the downtown..hurting the downtown, and in effect, reducing the chances for more tall buildings. *sigh* And did it really even help the skyline, being off to the side and sitting there in 'splendid isolation'???* What did it really add to the city when other huge macro and local socio-economic forces were running the city down??? *not attacking Detroit here..I like the city...just needed an example*

I like skyscrapers..I love tall buildings. And yes all other things being equal the taller the better. But it all needs to be in some reasonable perspective. There are other things to a skyscraper like function, design, placement, use, etc. etc. that matter besides*heresy coming now* being 'the tallest'.

*Louisville may be getting a new tallest..have you seen the renderings for the Jenga Tower? If I lived in Louisville I would rather have NOTHING at all than that monstrosity getting built-and I would really not give a shit if it would be 'the tallest' or not.*

vid

Dec 31, 2006, 6:23 AM

I like the Museum Tower. But I can understand how so many don't.

Thunder Bay has gone without a new tallest for 35 years. :)

jerremyl

Dec 31, 2006, 12:31 PM

Tacoma has not had a tallest since 1970 when the 103 Meter Wells Fargo Center Was constructed.

Spokane's last tallest the 88 Meter BoA Financial Center was constructed in 1981

Taller Better

Dec 31, 2006, 4:30 PM

I think the answer to all this is pretty obvious. North America went through the building boom of tall office buildings back in the 70's. The race was on to have the tallest tower in each city. Slowly, developers began to realize that two shorter buildings were a heck of a lot cheaper to build than one supertall and fewer of them went up. Til this day it has to be a pretty prestigious project to try and win the crown of tallest building, as most ones going up are content to be mid range. This craze that swept North America in the 70's seems to be sweeping the UK now, and the race is on for tallest building bragging rights.
9-11-01 didn't help matters much, either, as suddenly people started wondering if supertalls were an automatic target.

rds70

Dec 31, 2006, 5:30 PM

I think Denver's current tallest opened in 1984. Not too sure if there is any talk of a new tallest, I know they have some new towers going up, not sure any one of them will be the tallest.

Denver has one proposal for a "new tallest" - the Four Seasons Hotel and Residences. Its proposed at 752 feet to the top of the spire. The actual top of roof is only about 600 feet, however. The current tallest is the Republic Plaza at 714 feet.

Taller Better

Dec 31, 2006, 7:30 PM

Denver has one proposal for a "new tallest" - the Four Seasons Hotel and Residences. Its proposed at 752 feet to the top of the spire. The actual top of roof is only about 600 feet, however. The current tallest is the Republic Plaza at 714 feet.

I think only in Australia do they count the top of the "spire" (which is usually an antennae) as the height of the building.

Hoodrat

Dec 31, 2006, 8:39 PM

Seattle:
21 years since Columbia Center (76 floors 934 feet). No taller proposals.

The city recently rescinded it's hieght cap, but only in a small area downtown that's pretty much built out.

SLC Projects

Dec 31, 2006, 10:58 PM

Paintballer1708

Dec 31, 2006, 11:03 PM

Cincinnati really deserves Queen City Square.

CGII

Dec 31, 2006, 11:48 PM

:previous:
Ha!-Ha!

:previous:
Eh?

SSLL

Jan 1, 2007, 12:07 AM

Toronto's highest building isn't CN Tower, it's First Canadian Place. CN Tower is Toronto's tallest structure.

ArchiCAD

Jan 1, 2007, 12:33 AM

Habitable buildings, mind you. We've had this discussion before.
When was the interior of the CN Tower closed off and sealed?

alps

Jan 1, 2007, 12:38 AM

I don't know if Halifax qualifies as a major city in this thread, but our tallest was built about 35 years ago. If it weren't for NIMBYS, it would be at least our 4th tallest by now.

Dalreg

Jan 1, 2007, 12:51 AM

Berlin last had a new tallest in 1970, 36 years ago.
Brussels last was 1967, 39 years ago.
Belgrade was 1964, 42 years ago.

bryson662001

Jan 1, 2007, 1:06 AM

Buckeye Native 001

Jan 1, 2007, 1:19 AM

Cincinnati really deserves Queen City Square.

I never thought I'd be saying this about the old hometown, but it deserves something far better than a 35-story building with a glorified tiara.

KevinFromTexas

Jan 1, 2007, 3:01 AM

When was the interior of the CN Tower closed off and sealed?

This discussion has been discussed to an oblivion here, but "habitable" just means is it always occupied? Or could ever be? Office buildings, hotels, residential buildings, jails, courthouses, and the like are all considered to be habitable buildings. It just means would it ever be occupied around the clock. Even office buildings in New York are open 24 hours doing business since most of them deal in foreign markets.

Darkoshvilli

Jan 1, 2007, 9:54 AM

There is a by-law in Montreal that nothing can be built taller than mount-royal which is 233m tall at its highest peak. So Montreal's current tallest building (1000 de la gauchetiere) which is 205m tall and built in 1992 will probably stay the tallest for a long time.

This is the only part that I dislike about mount-royal.

toddguy

Jan 1, 2007, 2:26 PM

Three years ago there were no plans for a new tallest in Philadelphia anytime soon.......and the building that is now u/c as the Comcast Ctr. was not planned as the tallest. That was sort of a last minute decision. It just goes to show you.....never say never.....who knows what the future holds?

Good point to make. The "no prayer of new tallest anytime soon' is pretty subjective and subject to change at the drop of a hat anyway.

unusualfire

Jan 1, 2007, 5:38 PM

This discussion has been discussed to an oblivion here, but "habitable" just means is it always occupied? Or could ever be? Office buildings, hotels, residential buildings, jails, courthouses, and the like are all considered to be habitable buildings. It just means would it ever be occupied around the clock. Even office buildings in New York are open 24 hours doing business since most of them deal in foreign markets.
I thought it was a restaurant inside the tower? That's habitable. People are up there throughout the day.

Is a hotel a business? Yes

Is a restaurant a business? Yes

Taller Better

Jan 1, 2007, 6:18 PM

I didn't realize it was going to be that tall...it's been billed as the tallest residential building.....wonder why?

They are probably only billing the Trump Tower as the tallest residential building in Canada, instead of the tallest building period (which it will be) because there are so many people who are a bit "slow" at grasping the difference between the CN Tower and residential/office tower that it wouldn't be worth their while having to explain it a thousand times! ;)

asher11

Jan 1, 2007, 6:32 PM

:previous:

Maybe this will help - the CN Tower has no "floors" - well 6 part way up (and another one most of the way up) and maybe a few at the bottom. It does have stairs, but you can't walk up a flight or 2 and go to the next floor. Once you start walking up you have 2 choices - keep going to the observation decks or turn around and go back down. It was built primarily as a communications tower (i.e. a tall mast) and not as a tourist trap and was intended to be the centerpiece of the now defunct "Metro Center" which was supposed to be a huge office complex on the lands owned by Canadian National Railways - hence the name CN. The reason it's defunct is because nobody seemed interested in moving the financial district west just to please the rail company, so now the area is a bunch of condos and a convention center.

CGII

Jan 1, 2007, 6:48 PM

When was the interior of the CN Tower closed off and sealed?

When could you occupy space that wasn't an elevator shaft, equipment room or stairwell in the CN Tower's main shaft?

lawsond

Jan 1, 2007, 7:29 PM

I didn't realize it was going to be that tall...it's been billed as the tallest residential building.....wonder why?

i think it is both the tallest residential building AND the tallest of any kind - to the tip of its attached spire.
what i want to know is - when, when, when is the-donald going to go ahead with it??
every other possible approved tower seems to be underway except maybe the four seasons.

and fyi - the tallest building in halifax n.s., is 32 stories and was built in 1969 i think. so 38 years there.

vid

Jan 1, 2007, 7:32 PM

Donald Trumps, or as he is known to the Indians, 'Bad-Hair-Sleeps-With-Daughter', will start construction on his delightfully tacky POS this spring :)

Trantor

Jan 2, 2007, 1:35 PM

Porto Alegre, Brazil.Tallest building is Santa Cruz building, from the 70s.

São Paulo, Brazil. Tallest building is Mirante do Vale, from the 60s. 3 of the 4 tallest building in São Paulo are old... Banespa, from 1947, Italia, from 1956 and Mirante do Vale, late 60s.

J Church

Jan 2, 2007, 6:38 PM

A relatively minor addition, but:

Oakland, 37 years

Currently two new tallests proposed, but two more were proposed and never built in recent years.

Taller Better

Jan 2, 2007, 7:05 PM

Donald Trumps, or as he is known to the Indians, 'Bad-Hair-Sleeps-With-Daughter', will start construction on his delightfully tacky POS this spring :)

Yes, it is very tacky, vid.

http://img78.imageshack.us/img78/2726/trumptorontoiks5.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

Extremely tacky. How lucky you are that they did not choose to build this tacky building in Thunder Bay! :haha:

The Chemist

Jan 2, 2007, 8:59 PM

It's been 23 years for Calgary now, but it'll only be 3 more years before we have a new tallest. :)

BroncoCSU05

Jan 2, 2007, 10:26 PM

I think Denver has been stagnant in terms of new tallest for well over thirty plus years. I believe Denver has had several proposals for a new tallest bldg, maybe someone from the area can confirm.

republic plaza was built in the mid 80's (1984) so it's been only 22 (well, i guess technically 23) years. you're most likely confusing denver's drought with the fact that after this skyscraper got built, only 2 more got built in 1985 and we didn't see another tower until 2005.

we currently have a new tallest that is proposed and close to becoming u/c. the four seasons will be about 40 feet taller than republic plaza.

BroncoCSU05

Jan 2, 2007, 10:30 PM

I think only in Australia do they count the top of the "spire" (which is usually an antennae) as the height of the building.

which perfectly explains why the petronas towers were labeled as the "tallest in the world"....right? :rolleyes:

people have clearly indicated the differences between a spire and an antenna. they are not synonomyous nor are they interchangeable in any cases as well.

Capsule F

Jan 2, 2007, 11:06 PM

The trump tower in toronto is cool.

Taller Better

Jan 3, 2007, 12:12 AM

which perfectly explains why the petronas towers were labeled as the "tallest in the world"....right? :rolleyes:

people have clearly indicated the differences between a spire and an antenna. they are not synonomyous nor are they interchangeable in any cases as well.

Of course they are not, but many Australian forumers seem to think an antennae is the same as a spire, and they include it in the height of the building. I was being a bit tongue in cheek. :haha:

BroncoCSU05

Jan 3, 2007, 12:26 AM

i guess i missed those threads then..

vid

Jan 3, 2007, 12:56 AM

http://img447.imageshack.us/img447/2706/trumptorontoiks5rk5.jpg

I mean, really. It cries for attention almost as much as I do. :) When I think of the building, all I can see is that POS and bright green glass.

Trantor

Jan 3, 2007, 12:59 AM

a cities true greatness is defined by the heights of its buildings.

yes, Kuala Lumpur is greater than Los Angeles and all european cities... Seattle is greater than Rome and London...:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :koko:

Lecom

Jan 3, 2007, 3:35 AM

Elmwood Park, NJ - Hard to say, I don't know when they built our "highrise" four story office block. But then again, there is talk of a 12-story office tower as a part of a larger complex. A couple of years ago the mayor told me that "it's coming along nicely", when he stopped by the porch of my house. However, it will proceed only when the neighboring suburban office complex fills up at least to 2/3 capacity. Last I checked (a couple of years ago) it was at something around 25%.

The only good news is that my town is part of a greater urban mass known as NYC metro.

Derek

Jan 3, 2007, 3:51 AM

vid, that visual is lovely

BroncoCSU05

Jan 3, 2007, 3:59 AM

vid....are you shitting me??? seriously...

Taller Better

Jan 3, 2007, 4:21 AM

??? say what, vid?

that must be some strong stuff you are on!:haha:

Minato Ku

Jan 3, 2007, 4:42 AM

And....... Paris

The tallest building in 1889 .....117 years Eiffel tower 324m
The tallest skyscraper in 1973...33 years Montparnasse tower 210m
But
a new tallest skyscraper in 2009 Assur tower 225m
and an other new the tallest skyscraper in 2011 Generalli tower 318m
and maybe an other in 2012 Phare tower between 300m and 320m
and maybe an other between 2015 2020 Name unknown approx 400m :D

Magnus1

Jan 3, 2007, 6:48 AM

minneapolis
ids tower
33 yrs old.

No Plans for a Taller tower

the skyline is most awesome but it needs one that hits 1000'

supastar

Jan 3, 2007, 12:00 PM

Trump Toronto would look much better without the little glass tulip at the top, in my opinion. I'm surprised no one has mentioned Atlanta. Last tallest was built in 1992 with no plans to erect anything taller than the 1023' BofA tower.

vid

Jan 4, 2007, 9:33 AM

??? say what, vid?

that must be some strong stuff you are on!:haha:

I'm not on anything. :) I am never on anything. :) Everything I say, I say sober.

But honestly, that little thing really makes me hate the building. That and the fact that Trump owns it. The more I hear him talk the more I want to beat him to death with a steel dildo.

Sirus

Jan 4, 2007, 4:57 PM

minneapolis
ids tower
33 yrs old.

No Plans for a Taller tower

the skyline is most awesome but it needs one that hits 1000'

I wouldn't say "no plans".
Just wait a few weeks. :cool:

ArchiCAD

Jan 4, 2007, 5:50 PM

When could you occupy space that wasn't an elevator shaft, equipment room or stairwell in the CN Tower's main shaft?
Never, but the point at hand was "the CN Tower isn't habitable" as opposed to "the CN Tower isn't continously habitable throughout it's vertical dimensions".

So for the record:
The CN Tower is not the World's Tallest Building that is continously occupied throughout it's vertical dimension.
But the CN Tower is the World's Tallest Building.

PhillyRising

Jan 4, 2007, 6:52 PM

But honestly, that little thing really makes me hate the building. That and the fact that Trump owns it. The more I hear him talk the more I want to beat him to death with a steel dildo.

I think an angry 200+ pound lesbian from Long Island is going to beat you to it if he keeps running his mouth about her......

Peanut

Jan 4, 2007, 10:26 PM

I think an angry 200+ pound lesbian from Long Island is going to beat you to it if he keeps running his mouth about her......

do you think they would be above celebrity boxing? i hope not ;)

Hot Rod

Jan 5, 2007, 9:55 AM

Oklahoma City: There actually is supposed to be a proposal for a new tallest. Im not sure how solid it is but I assume the next tallest will be a new 40+ storey Glass Tower with Class AAA office space. http://www.okmet.org/bb/index.php?topic=1026.45

It would be a nice/welcome addition to downtown but as of yet there has not been an official announcement or location decided. As was noted earlier, there has been an influx of class B/C conversions downtown while class A and higher is topping out and may require expansion.

Vancouver: Has new tallest currently under construction, the 61-storey Advanced Glass "Living Shangri-La" mixed-use tower. I assume there will be some new announcements coming along for a new tallest to be class AAA office space - tho like OKC's case, the rumors have not yet been officially substantiated. Vancouver is starved for highly configurable class AAA space downtown and the city is re-evaluating its options which might include rezoning portions of downtown for height exemption and/or commercial instead of the residential focus which has been of recent.

Chicago: Obviously I think we all know Chi-town has several new tallest proposals that would eclipse the SEARS Tower (and Taipei 101), along with a number of towers significantly above 1000 ft under construction/approved/or proposed such as the 91-storey Trump International Hotel and Tower under construction.

Seattle: No chance of a new tallest.

That's what I know for the cities I keep track of.

Magnus1

Jan 6, 2007, 8:11 AM

I wouldn't say "no plans".
Just wait a few weeks. :cool:

tell me more friend.

Stephenapolis

Jan 6, 2007, 4:22 PM

tell me more friend.

There is a thread over on minnescraper.com on it. It is in the downtown office space thread if I recall. There have been rumblings in certain local businesss magazines on the strong possibility of a new tower soon. It is speculation or possible true information from a forumer over there that this might be a new tallest. Not much more info then that I am afraid. But the info is coming soon. As soon as we know more it will be posted somewhere over here too.

vid

Jan 6, 2007, 8:04 PM

Remind me, I would like to try drawing a diagram for it. :)

phillyskyline

Jan 12, 2007, 11:14 PM

Imagine if River City comes to fruition in Philly - we'll have another new tallest in 10 years... WOW - St. Louis - 41 yrs??? Thats hurt... for a city w/ so many Fortune 1000 companies!

Coldrsx

Jan 13, 2007, 3:14 AM

Edmonton has been waiting since 1983 (24yrs) since Manulife (146m) was built.....but there are 2 rumours of new tallest.

1. mixed use 40 storey condo/hotel
2. mixes use 52 storey condo/hotel/office

The 2 new tallest condos are UC as we speak....ICON (30 stories, 303ft) and ICON II (35stories, ~371ft)

Sekkle

Jan 13, 2007, 7:32 AM

One city that surprises me is Portland. It has a fairly modest although attractive skyline and it's been growing steadily over the years. You would expect to see a new highest in this city considering its population.

I believe Portland has enacted height restrictions. Portland forumers can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think their two tallest now are taller than the maximum height currently allowed, so it could be a while for them... although there is a thread in the Northwest US forum now about additional height in downtown Portland...