US skyscraper milestone: closing in on 100 towers over 800' tall

[Steely Dan]

here's the updated list for how the distribution of the 100 tallest skyscrapers in the US has changed since 2000.

this includes all U/C towers listed as such by the CTBUH.

NYC is fast closing in on 50 (half)!

and some rather big losses (relatively speaking) down in the sunbelt.




The 100 tallest US skyscrapers, 2000 vs. today:


city ------------ 2000 ---- Current --- change

New York ------- 28 ------- 48* ----- +20

Chicago --------- 13 ------- 20 ------- +7

Philly ------------ 4 --------- 5 ------- +1

Miami ----------- 1 --------- 3 ------- +2

San Francisco --- 2 --------- 3 ------- +1

Atlanta ---------- 6 ---------- 3 ------- -3

Los Angeles ---- 10 --------- 3 ------- -7

Houston -------- 10 --------- 3 ------- -7

Austin ---------- 0 ---------- 2 ------- +2

Seattle ---------- 4 --------- 2 -------- -2

Dallas ----------- 6 --------- 2 -------- -4

Oklahoma City - 0 ---------- 1 ------- +1

Charlotte ------- 1 ---------- 1 --------- 0

Cleveland ------- 2 --------- 1 -------- -1

Pittsburgh ------ 2 ---------- 1 ------- -1

Boston --------- 2 ---------- 1 -------- -1

Minneapolis ---- 3 ---------- 1 -------- -2

Detroit --------- 1 ---------- 0 -------- -1

Indianapolis --- 1 ---------- 0 -------- -1

New Orleans --- 1 --------- 0 --------- -1

Denver --------- 3 --------- 0 --------- -3




(*) NYC's current total includes 1 tower in Jersey City.


source: CTBUH database

[Crawford]

The World Financial Center (now called Brookfield Place) really softened the Twin Towers. IMO, the Twins really looked good once WFC was built.

[Scraperbase.com]

Originally Posted by MAC123

Miami does not have less than 500,000 people. Its Metro is over 6 million.

The metro is not a part of the city. Not even Miami Beach is a part of Miami. Those 57 skyscrapers are all in the city borders of Miami. That is the special thing. Of course if you include the metro, of course Miami has even more skyscrapers. Sunnly Isles Beach for example is in the metro of Miami and has 14 skyscrapers alone. That is very impressive for a city of less than 22,000 people. So Sunny Isles Beach might be the city with the most skyscrapers per population worldwide.

[Zapatan]

Originally Posted by Scraperbase.com

When I counted the skyscrapers around the world, I was also shocked how "dead" the skylines of most cities in the US are.

Yea, the US built a lot of skyscrapers in the 80s and 90s but it's time for cities to get back in the game again.

It's frustrating that there are so many proposals of what I think US cities could realistically pull off but nothing seems to ever happen. There are a few exceptions like Austin and Miami and of course NYC (and maybe Chicago), but I think even these cities have potential to punch above their weight.

Like, I would have expected buildings like 4/C in Seattle and Tribune East Tower in Chicago to be well underway already, same with all of the proposals in LA or SF etc.

Is it normal for so few proposals to see the light of day? I feel like some other countries generally have better proposed to built track records.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Zapatan

Is it normal for so few proposals to see the light of day?

in chicago, yes.

it's totally normal.

the general rule of thumb in this town is: the taller the proposal is, the less likely it is to be built.

extreme height doesn't make a ton of economic sense out here in the middle of one of the vastest, flattest plains on our planet.

land will never be at a super-premium here; there's simply way too damn much of it.


you need a vane developer and a good chunk of luck to pull off a super-tall in chicago.

[MAC123]

Originally Posted by Scraperbase.com

The metro is not a part of the city. Not even Miami Beach is a part of Miami. Those 57 skyscrapers are all in the city borders of Miami. That is the special thing. Of course if you include the metro, of course Miami has even more skyscrapers. Sunnly Isles Beach for example is in the metro of Miami and has 14 skyscrapers alone. That is very impressive for a city of less than 22,000 people. So Sunny Isles Beach might be the city with the most skyscrapers per population worldwide.

For population numbers, yes it is part of the city. Arbitrary City limits don't tell you a cities population.

[Scraperbase.com]

Originally Posted by MAC123

For population numbers, yes it is part of the city. Arbitrary City limits don't tell you a cities population.

It seems in the US there is much more political power on the county level than in other parts of the world and at the same time even some large cities like Los Angeles do not even cover a whole county. So although Los Angeles has a population of four million, Los Angeles County is a much larger political structure with about ten million people. So in many ways Los Angeles County acts like a city of ten million people. That concept is unknown in Germany. Large cities like Munich are also their own county. So if you go to a suburb of Munich, you not only live the city, but also the county. There is no real political connection. The next biggest political structure that covers the whole Munich metro would be the whole state of Bavaria.

New York City is an interesting exception to the rule that the county is larger than the city. Each of its five boroughs is its own county and people from Brooklyn will always say that they are from Brooklyn and not New York City. "New York" for them only is New York County, which is just Manhattan.

In China cities are usually so big that even the farthest away suburbs are still in the city borders. That even sometimes includes satellites cities that are kilometres or more from the main part of the city. That has some advantages. Those suburbs can't go into competition with the main city, if they are all the same city. So in China Jersey City would be a part of New York City.

[Zapatan]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

in chicago, yes.

it's totally normal.

the general rule of thumb in this town is: the taller the proposal is, the less likely it is to be built.

extreme height doesn't make a ton of economic sense out here in the middle of one of the vastest, flattest plains on our planet.

land will never be at a super-premium here; there's simply way too damn much of it.

I'm more just talking about the US in general, so many approved proposals in so many booming cities still go nowhere. Some cities overseas are cranking them out like no tomorrow. I guess the US is a little too pragmatic or conservative fiscally.

The second part is true though, Chicago isn't land constrained like NYC (Manhattan especially). It is however, important to build up to avoid sprawl.

you need a vane developer and a good chunk of luck to pull off a super-tall in chicago.

Trump was good for something I guess lol. Magellan also pulled off the Vista Tower although I think they were partnered with some other people. It's rumored Parcel I (also Magellan) may now surpass 300m.

[WhipperSnapper]

Unless things have changed, there's only a small area of Chicago where one can build a high rise. In the case of Toronto, you can build a 50 storey skyscraper just about anywhere. Someone interested in building a high rise will probably dream taller in Chicago and during all economic times and not just during an endless bubble.

[mhays]

Chicago has a ton of developable land and not much population growth...it can fill demand with shorter buildings. Toronto has very limited developable land and high population growth.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper

Unless things have changed, there's only a small area of Chicago where one can build a high rise.

yes, outside of downtown & the lakefront, "highrise" has been a four letter word in most of "neighborhood chicago" since the beginning of the building type.

they'll let you build a freaking space elevator to the goddamn moon downtown, but if you dare propose anything taller than a 3-flat out in the neighborhoods, here come the torches and pitchforks!


there's a 6 story development to replace an ugly old surface parking lot in my neighborhood that has been subject to all kinds of NIMBY push-pack and vitriol for years now. it looks like it might finally be starting now that funding has been secured. but still, it's been years and years of legal wrangling over a 6 story building.

six.

fucking.

stories.


apparently, it's going to give cancer to all of the children in the neighborhood or something.

[mhays]

Speaking from Seattle where six or seven stories is the primary growth archetype, that seems really odd. Actually a bunch of cities build a lot of these...Minneapolis, Portland, Denver, LA...

[Steely Dan]

^ it's not that such projects don't get built here at all, it's just that the amount of tooth-pulling usually required on the political front is beyond ridiculous.

"SIX STORIES?!?!?!?! what the hell do they think this is, manhattan? it's completely out of character* with our neighborhood. and can you even imagine how this will screw-up traffic? I'M OUTRAGED! "



(*) "character" is without question the #1 over-used NIMBY buzzword in chicago.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

(*) "character" is without question the #1 over-used NIMBY buzzword in chicago.

Same here in NYC lol

[mhays]

If you want a lot of something, it has to be allowed by right, even if a million hoops have to be jumped through.

[kool maudit]

Originally Posted by Crawford

The World Financial Center (now called Brookfield Place) really softened the Twin Towers. IMO, the Twins really looked good once WFC was built.

I get this, and I also liked the '90s downtown skyline. You had these two peaks, one blockier with the WTC and WFC and one of a much finer grain with the deco towers and Wall Street.

Still, I think there is also something to be said for the less balanced, more imposing 70s skyline. Not only did it have a kind of audacity, but as more of the twins were visible from more angles, you got the impression of their sheer height and verticality, which Yamasaki's design also emphasized.

[bobdreamz]

Originally Posted by lio45

I was looking at a pic of Lower Manhattan with the early 1970s twin towers of the WTC and wow, they are massive. NIMBYs back then must have found it a very extreme transformation.

Freedom Tower is a lot more balanced, skyline-wise.

I finally got to visit them in the 80's and they were just so huge in real life that it seemed surreal. I read at the time that the amount of Office space in the towers alone was equal to all of the office space found in all of Cincinnati.
I have pics of the towers and the base and lobby somewhere so I will post them when I find them.

[Buckeye Native 001]

Each building (or both combined?) had its own zip code, to give you an idea of the massive scale of the property.

[Buckeye Native 001]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

chicago's mammoth Merchandize Mart is another example of a single building with its own zip code.

i wonder how many others there are around the nation?

The Pentagon and...I'm drawing a blank but I'm sure there are a handful of others, probably mostly federal buildings? A quick google search indicates 42 buildings in NYC have their own (including ESB).

[Steely Dan]

^ looking further into it, i was mistaken about the merchandize mart, at least in terms of 5-digit zip codes.

it's one of those local legend false "facts".

the sears tower is also said to be "so big it has its own zip code", but that is false as well.



if you drill down to the more fine-grained 9-digit zip codes (with the 4 digit suffix that most people don't use), then there are probably hundreds, or even thousands, of buildings with "their own zip code" around the nation.

but that's not really the same thing at all.