17 most beautiful skylines

[Crawford]

A lot of higher end apartment buildings in NYC don't want cooking or food-related businesses. Perceived issues with smells, noise, off-hours traffic, garbage, vermin, etc. I think this has changed, somewhat, but it's still an issue. A higher end building would generally take a bank or medical retail over a nice restaurant.

You see this now with the explosion of wellness retailers in higher end buildings. Laser, botox, stretching, whitening, toning, etc.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Crawford

A lot of higher end apartment buildings in NYC don't want cooking or food-related businesses. Perceived issues with smells, noise, off-hours traffic, garbage, vermin, etc. I think this has changed, somewhat, but it's still an issue. A higher end building would generally take a bank or medical retail over a nice restaurant.

I could see that. Developers in my area have lately taken to promising to put in grocery stores in order to get approval by our local land use committees, though. It's a bit ironic since this area is far from a food desert... but that does help them get the votes for approval.

Another speculation I've heard is that landlords prefer chains for newer spaces so they are leaving retail spaces unoccupied, or lightly occupied, in hopes of landing a chain. Just before the pandemic, daycares also became popular in a lot of the newer commercial spaces, particularly the ones that sat empty for multiple years. But it's been rare for bars, restaurants, cafes, etc., to go into those spaces.

[3rd&Brown]

Originally Posted by pj3000

I call them suburbs in the sky. Miami's multitudinous condo towers atop massive parking "podia" is a perfect example. For all of downtown Miami's insane amount of residential tower growth over the past 20 years, the amount of street-level pedestrian activity has not increased commensurately.

I immediately thought of Miami as well. All of Brickell is mostly car oriented high rises. Although the impact on the skyline is impressive the pedestrian experience in most areas of Miami outside of some pockets in Miami Beach, Wynwood, the Design District, and Coral Gables is lackluster at best.

[The North One]

Originally Posted by Pioneer

My thoughts as well. Milwaukee is a nice town but it should not be listed anywhere near the top 100 global skylines, much less top 17. Now, if you wanted to rate Milwaukee on kooky culture, it would be a top 5 city. I mean that in the most genial manner. Also, I think Toronto should be Top 10, at least. This won't be popular, but HK is overrated.

Disagree about HK. There's really nothing in the world like it. The way it wraps around the harbor, the signature towers, the mountains right behind it all. Easily the best skyline on earth. Only other place that can compete is Shanghai looking from the Bund.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by homebucket

I think SF has had some decent recent residential highrises as well. Nothing I would call iconic or memorable, but definitely not bland or generic either.

Yeah, at the upper end of the height bracket, I'd say that chicago's recent residential towers display far more diversity in architectural style, massing, materials, etc. than our recent office towers, most of which are variations on the blue glass box theme.

But in the shorter height ranges, a lot of the residential towers tend to be pretty formulaic and generic (with some exceptions of course)



Here's how the 11 new 700+ footers of Chicago's current building boom break down along residential vs. office lines:



Residential Towers:


St. Regis | 1,191 FT | Studio Gang


source: https://www.skyscrapercenter.com/bui...-chicago/17137



One Chicago | 971 FT | Goettsch Partners


source: https://www.skyscrapercenter.com/bui...superior/31296



NEMA | 896 FT | Rafael Vinoly


source: https://www.skyscrapercenter.com/bui...-chicago/21954



400 N LSD - North Tower | 851 FT | SOM - Under Construction





One Bennett Park | 836 FT | Robert A.M. Stern


source: https://www.skyscrapercenter.com/bui...ett-park/17214



1000M | 805 FT | JAHN


source: me






Office Towers:


Salesforce Tower | 850' | Pelli Clark & Partners


source: https://www.skyscrapercenter.com/bui...ce-tower/14276



110 N Wacker | 817 FT | Goettsch Partners


source: https://www.skyscrapercenter.com/bui...h-wacker/28315




River Point | 732 FT | Pickard Chilton


source: https://www.skyscrapercenter.com/bui...ver-point/1381



BMO Tower | 727 FT | Goettsch Partners


source: https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/sho...postcount=1328



150 N Riverside | 724 FT | Goettsch Partners


source: https://www.skyscrapercenter.com/bui...iverside/15587

[3rd&Brown]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

Yeah, at the upper end of the height bracket, I'd say that chicago's recent residential towers display far more diversity in architectural style, massing, materials, etc. than our recent office towers, most of which are variations on the blue glass box theme.

But in the shorter height ranges, a lot of the residential towers tend to be pretty formulaic and generic (with some exceptions of course)



Here's how the 11 new 700+ footers of Chicago's current building boom break down along residential vs. office lines:

In this instance I think the residential towers look better than the commercial towers.

But damn...I gotta get to Chicago soon to see all this new stuff.

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Another speculation I've heard is that landlords prefer chains for newer spaces so they are leaving retail spaces unoccupied, or lightly occupied, in hopes of landing a chain. Just before the pandemic, daycares also became popular in a lot of the newer commercial spaces, particularly the ones that sat empty for multiple years. But it's been rare for bars, restaurants, cafes, etc., to go into those spaces.

If you're talking about larger-scale developments, often a chain retailer will require a "no-competitors" clause in its rental agreement. Hence if a building has a Starbucks, it's not gonna have an independent coffeeshop as well. Or the same with food.

Chains do also offer more dependable rent, as it's pretty unlikely a major retailer, even if somewhat financially troubled, will have cash-flow issues bad enough to fall behind.

[mhays]

While residential towers don't make for the best retail/restaurant strips, they can enable other nearby streets to have great retail and restaurants. Each one is full of new customers.

Sometimes it's best if the residential buildings DON'T have much retail so business concentrates on the nearby strip, and restaurants/bars don't need to worry about exhaust or noise.

On caveat is that it takes a lot more residents than it used to to keep a retail strip going. That's due to online retail (particularly in more urban areas) and residents driving to some of their shopping (particularly where most people have cars).

[Quixote]

Originally Posted by Crawford

That's not really a highrise issue, it's an urban form issue. Yeah, the typical American highrise is like 40% parking garage and the street-level orientation is largely irrelevant. But it wouldn't be better if it were a midrise instead. The highrise serves its autocentric masters.

It's mostly a big-footprint-building issue, although not all big-footprint buildings are skyscrapers. But almost all skyscrapers these days are big-footprint buildings, usually a consolidation of several (or what would be several) low-rises. This is happening all over Manhattan; see 126 E 57th as an example. Gone are about 10 neighborhood-serving small businesses. The new ground-level tenants definitely aren't going to be an authentic ethnic restaurant and a cool bookstore. Those types of businesses neither need nor can afford to lease those larger commercial spaces.

[Quixote]

Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin

Of course, none of this is inherent to the high-rise typology itself. Just as single-family homes can be built in urban formats, suburban formats, rural formats, and everything in between; so too can multi-family dwellings. Housing typology =/= urban form.

I'm talking about residential high-rises specifically in an urban format in the North American context. It just seems like such a waste to introduce thousands of new residents to an area while not really giving back amenity-wise.

I never said this condition was inherent to skyscrapers, just that it is how they are structured. More to the point, doesn't livability take somewhat of a hit by quadrupling the amount of people living atop the same (let alone fewer) number of businesses? What's the point of increasing population density without increasing or maintaining walkability/livability?

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Quixote

It's mostly a big-footprint-building issue, although not all big-footprint buildings are skyscrapers. But almost all skyscrapers these days are big-footprint buildings, usually a consolidation of several (or what would be several) low-rises. This is happening all over Manhattan; see 126 E 57th as an example. Gone are about 10 neighborhood-serving small businesses. The new ground-level tenants definitely aren't going to be an authentic ethnic restaurant and a cool bookstore. Those types of businesses neither need nor can afford to lease those larger commercial spaces.

Those larger retail spaces in big footprint buildings could easily be chopped up into smaller retail spaces, but the problem is that the big developers that build the big buildings generally don't want the hassle of renting out 10-15 small retail spaces to a bunch of "mom n' pop" retail proprietors. They'd MUCH rather hold out for years, even decades, to get 1-3 big national chain retailers in their ground floor retail spaces.

It's more of an economic issue than a design issue.

[Crawford]

Outside of desired rent/terms, I assume they want stable, credit-worthy tenancy and something considered a resident amenity (or at least something that doesn't repel tenants). So it's obvious why a landlord would want a Whole Foods or upscale gym as opposed to a bunch of mom-and-pop ethnic restaurants, dry cleaners, etc.

It used to be that banks and drug stores were the default in new development. Now it seems like wellness/"health" stuff, and in family neighborhoods, daycares, kiddie gyms, etc. Cryotherapy, botox lounge and a kiddie swim center.

[Quixote]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

Those larger retail spaces in big footprint buildings could easily be chopped up into smaller retail spaces, but the problem is that the big developers that build the big buildings generally don't want the hassle of renting out 10-15 small retail spaces to a bunch of "mom n' pop" retail proprietors. They'd MUCH rather hold out for years, even decades, to get 1-3 big national chain retailers in their ground floor retail spaces.

It's more of an economic issue than a design issue.

Right. And that’s the trade-off that has to be made in exchange for height and density. But again, as far as livability is concerned, what does it say when one new building brings 500-1,000 residents that can in fact support more businesses?

It definitely is a design issue because if you have block after block of these big-footprint buildings with larger commercial spaces, the place-making establishments are effectively driven out for good.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Quixote

It definitely is a design issue

At root, it's an economics issue.

Large retail spaces COULD quite easily be chopped up into much smaller storefronts in most cases, but they often aren't because money.

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by Quixote

Right. And that’s the trade-off that has to be made in exchange for height and density. But again, as far as livability is concerned, what does it say when one new building brings 500-1,000 residents that can in fact support more businesses?

It definitely is a design issue because if you have block after block of these big-footprint buildings with larger commercial spaces, the place-making establishments are effectively driven out for good.

I remember years back reading a chapter of a book talking about the post 9/11 boom of residential in the Financial District in Manhattan. A lot of the local residents (who remember, were upper middle class to wealthy) lamented they needed to get on the subway just to get their hair cut.

When neighborhood-serving retail with ample demand can't open up because commercial rents are too high, something is deeply effed up.

[mhays]

Landlords typically pay a big chunk of tenant buildout costs. If the tenant goes out of business in a year, the landlord often loses more than they make. That's even before opportunity cost, staff time, risk to the building....

On top of that, gauge the mom & pop's evidenced ability to cover a five-year lease.