Cities having seen the most skyline change since 2000

Austin55 · #1 Posted **Jul 8, 2019, 12:13 AM**

I've put together a chart which shows what American and Canadian cities have built the highest percentage of skyscrapers, defined here as 250 ft/76 meters, since the year 2000. To qualify for the list cities must have 10 buildings over 250 feet. Please let me know if you notice any omissions.

On average, the cities included here have built about 1/3rd of their skyscrapers since 2000. This first chart shows cities which have fallen below that mark,

All 5 cities that haven't built anything in the past 20 years already have very few, less than 15 each. New Orleans is fairly notable, it has built a good number but has seen very little development in the past decade. A lot of the cities on this list are probably not surprising, midwest rust belt, flyer over type places make up a good majority. However, some of the largest cities in the nation like New York, Phoenix, San Francisco and Houston do fall below average, but not by much. Los Angeles is a bit of an outlier, although it has built a large number the overall percentage is not as high as many peers.

Here are the cities that have performed above average. Coquitlam takes the unique distinction of being the only place with 100%, with other Toronto and Vancouver suburbs being high. Miami leads the big US cities, especially impressive given Miami's already high stock of skyscrapers before 2000 (In fact, Miami had the 4th highest total number built, behind only Toronto, NYC and Chicago). Several Miami suburbs also appear on the list. Alberta cities doing well. Austin is probably no surprise.

Edit - updated to include Aventura, Oakland, St. Paul, Arlington VA, San Jose PR, and Bellevue WA.

Innsertnamehere · #2 Posted **Jul 8, 2019, 1:21 AM**

Las Vegas surprises me, but I guess it's easy to forget how much growth it experienced pre-recession. New construction has been so flat since, only really picking up again very recently.

bnk · #3 Posted **Jul 8, 2019, 4:14 AM**

So according to the first infographic chart

Chicago built -0% of any Skyscrapers in a decade.

Talk about a list....

Steely Dan · #4 Posted **Jul 8, 2019, 4:29 AM**

250' is too short of a cut-off in big skyline cities like NYC and Chicago to get reliable stats for. Lots of shorter buildings fall through the cracks in those cities for any database you're using.

If you bump the threshold up to 500' you'll get much more solid data in the big skyline cities.

In NYC's case 131 of its 300 500+ footers have been built since 2000, or ~44%.

In Chicago's case 50 of its 123 500+ footers have been built since 2000, or ~41%.

Source: SSP database

xzmattzx · #5 Posted **Jul 8, 2019, 4:32 AM**

Buffalo built 12% of its skyscrapers since 2000? I was unaware that it even had 10 buildings over 250 ft, and that a new one was added. I only recall the courthouse being built.

Austin55 · #6 Posted **Jul 8, 2019, 5:48 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere

Las Vegas surprises me, but I guess it's easy to forget how much growth it experienced pre-recession. New construction has been so flat since, only really picking up again very recently.

Las Vegas had a tremendous 2000s... 46 250fters 2000-2010 and only 2 since.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bnk

So according to the first infographic chart

Chicago built -0% of any Skyscrapers in a decade.

Talk about a list....

Hmm?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

250' is too short of a cut-off in big skyline cities like NYC and Chicago to get reliable stats for. Lots of shorter buildings fall through the cracks in those cities for any database you're using.

If you bump the threshold up to 500' you'll get much more solid data in the big skyline cities.

In NYC's case 131 of its 300 500+ footers have been built since 2000, or ~44%.

In Chicago's case 50 of its 123 500+ footers have been built since 2000, or ~41%.

Source: SSP database

Interestingly cities as a whole with at least 1 500 footer have added about 30% since 2000 as well, nearly an identical number to 250 footers.

Here's a chart, minimum 4 500 footers per city. 23 cities have at least one 500 footer but haven't built any since 2000, 9 cities have at least one and have built at least one (Virginia Beach, Cincinnati, Atlantic City, Oklahoma City, Mobile, Hallandale Beach, Miami Beach, Omaha and Raleigh)but dont appear on chart due to small sample size and not meeting minimum total.

You are right that 250 is a low number, but it does allow a much larger sample size to compare many more cities than a 500 foot limit.

Quote:

Originally Posted by xzmattzx

Buffalo built 12% of its skyscrapers since 2000? I was unaware that it even had 10 buildings over 250 ft, and that a new one was added. I only recall the courthouse being built.

17 buildings total over 250, 2 built since 2000 (other being Marriott Harborcenter)

Steely Dan · #7 Posted **Jul 8, 2019, 1:14 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Austin55

You are right that 250 is a low number, but it does allow a much larger sample size to compare many more cities than a 500 foot limit.

which is fine, i was just pointing out that for big skyline cities, 250' buildings tend to be woefully under-counted/under-represented in most databases.

additionally, buildings that short have no impact on skylines as mighty as NYC's and chicago's, so including buildings in that height range for a skyline change thread for those kinds of cities seems a bit silly to me.

to gain a sense of how much NYC's or chicago's skylines have truly changed so far this century, it'd likely be more telling to look at just the 100 tallest buildings.

- 63 of NYC's 100 tallest buildings have been built since 2000 (63%).

- 42 of chicago's 100 tallest buildings have been built since 2000 (42%).

dave8721 · #8 Posted **Jul 8, 2019, 1:31 PM**

Sunny Isles Beach would need to be added.

Obadno · #9 Posted **Jul 8, 2019, 4:04 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Austin55

I've put together a chart which shows what American and Canadian cities have built the highest percentage of skyscrapers, defined here as 250 ft/76 meters, since the year 2000. To qualify for the list cities must have 10 buildings over 250 feet. Please let me know if you notice any omissions.

On average, the cities included here have built about 1/3rd of their skyscrapers since 2000. This first chart shows cities which have fallen below that mark,

All 5 cities that haven't built anything in the past 20 years already have very few, less than 15 each. New Orleans is fairly notable, it has built a good number but has seen very little development in the past decade. A lot of the cities on this list are probably not surprising, midwest rust belt, flyer over type places make up a good majority. However, some of the largest cities in the nation like New York, Phoenix, San Francisco and Houston do fall below average, but not by much. Los Angeles is a bit of an outlier, although it has built a large number the overall percentage is not as high as many peers.

Whats really wild is Phoenix is set to nearly double its high rise count over the next 5 years if everything pans out and it already increased by 1/3 in the last 19 years with a solid 6 or 7 years being totally devoid because of the recession. The more important development, from an urbanization standpoint, however has been the low rise development and infill of apartments that dont impact skylines much.

Crawford · #10 Posted **Jul 8, 2019, 4:04 PM**

Where are you getting your highrise lists? I think, at 250 ft., you would have a very hard time getting complete data.

Emporis would not be complete data. The data quality gets worse as you go lower.

CVG · #11 Posted **Jul 8, 2019, 4:52 PM**

Nice work Austin, I was just thinking about this the other day. My 2 'hometowns' Cincinnati and Louisville are low on the list (which isnt surprising) but I was going to look into what peer cities in the area have built - no need to now.

Hamilton · #12 Posted **Jul 9, 2019, 5:28 PM**

JManc · #13 Posted **Jul 9, 2019, 6:20 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

250' is too short of a cut-off in big skyline cities like NYC and Chicago to get reliable stats for. Lots of shorter buildings fall through the cracks in those cities for any database you're using.

If you bump the threshold up to 500' you'll get much more solid data in the big skyline cities.

In NYC's case 131 of its 300 500+ footers have been built since 2000, or ~44%.

In Chicago's case 50 of its 123 500+ footers have been built since 2000, or ~41%.

Source: SSP database

Exactly. Houston has built very few high rises in recent years compared to 70's and 80's. We are getting a lot of sub '500 but anything taller is far and few between. We are also slow to the residential craze.

Altoic · #14 Posted **Jan 20, 2024, 1:22 AM**

2006 - 2022

Downtown Miami. by James Good, on Flickr

Photo: DANIEL SLIM/AFP/Getty Images

DZH22 · #15 Posted **Jan 20, 2024, 2:04 AM**

Cambridge MA has 14 buildings over 250', with 10 of them built since 2000. That's 71.4%. There are also 3 more U/C which would bring that to 13/17, or 76.5%.

The 500' chart is wildly incorrect for Boston. 8 out of 22 are built since 2000, for 36.4%. There is one more U/C that should surpass that mark by Spring, which would bring it to 9 out of 23 or 39.1%.

mhays · #16 Posted **Jan 20, 2024, 2:41 AM**

Wikipedia has Seattle at 52 completed buildings of 400'+, and 34 of those are new since 2000. Another six are under construction. (They list three more under construction that started digging and stopped.)

Nouvellecosse · #17 Posted **Jan 20, 2024, 3:04 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

which is fine, i was just pointing out that for big skyline cities, 250' buildings tend to be woefully under-counted/under-represented in most databases.

additionally, buildings that short have no impact on skylines as mighty as NYC's and chicago's, so including buildings in that height range for a skyline change thread for those kinds of cities seems a bit silly to me.

to gain a sense of how much NYC's or chicago's skylines have truly changed so far this century, it'd likely be more telling to look at just the 100 tallest buildings.

- 63 of NYC's 100 tallest buildings have been built since 2000 (63%).

- 42 of chicago's 100 tallest buildings have been built since 2000 (42%).

For sure. Skyline change by its very nature is relative. A big change in one city isn't necessarily a big change in another so the height thresholds should be relative too. Instead of it just being the percentage of buildings above a common height, it should be something like, change in a skyline's average height and/or change in the number of buildings of a noticeable scale. It could be something like:

- cities that added the most buildings at or above the average height of its 20 tallest, or
- the cities where the average height of the 10 tallest increased the most, or
- 10 points for a new tallest, 5 points for each addition to the top 5 tallest, etc.

Having a huge volume of inconspicuous infill doesn't make for that impressive a change from a skyline perspective imo. That's more of a cityscape change.