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

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

US Skyscrapers over 800 ft. built or U/C since 2000: 54

New York: 33 (includes 1 tower in Jersey City)

Chicago: 11

Rest of America: 10

- Philly: 2
- San Francisco: 2
- Miami: 2
- Los Angeles: 1
- Seattle: 1
- Austin: 1
- Oklahoma City: 1

source: CTBUH

i decided to re-run the chart above, but lowering the minimum height down to 700' to cast the net a little wider.

it didn't really make much difference. NYC still owns, and chicago still hangs tight relative to the rest of the nation.



US Skyscrapers over 700 ft. built or U/C since 2000: 95

New York: 58 (includes 4 towers in Jersey City)

Chicago: 17

Rest of America: 20

- Miami: 5
- Philly: 3
- San Francisco: 2
- Houston: 2
- Los Angeles: 1
- Seattle: 1
- Austin: 1
- Oklahoma City: 1
- Charlotte: 1
- Boston: 1
- Mobile: 1
- Atlantic city: 1

source: CTBUH

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Manitopiaaa

Under Construction (2)

1. 262 Fifth Avenue - 1,011'
2. 270 Park Avenue - 1,388'

is 262 5th actually U/C now?

i only ask because both the CTBUH nad SSP still have it listed as a proposal at the moment.

[Manitopiaaa]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

is 262 5th actually U/C now?

i only ask because both the CTBUH nad SSP still have it listed as a proposal at the moment.

Not by SSP's official rules (no caissons), but excavation is definitely actively underway: https://newyorkyimby.com/2021/12/excavat...ential-supertall-in-nomad-manhattan.html

[Steely Dan]

^ gotcha, thanks for the YIMBY link.

i like to keep the list as up to date as possible.

in this case, i'll wait until it goes officially U/C by CTBUH standards.

which looks like it won't be long........

[Crawford]

Fifth Ave. might have three residential supertalls u/c in the next year.

262 Fifth, which is excavating and very close to the CTUBH standard, 520 Fifth, which is cleared and financed, and 570 Fifth, which is approved and now being cleared.

660 Fifth could have been a fourth if Kushner properties didn't mess up and sell to Brookfield. That site will be redeveloped one day, but probably not anytime soon.

[Quixote]

Just 'cause I felt like posting this. Imagine this view in 25-30 years.


@christineanneho / Instagram

[proghousehead]

Originally Posted by Quixote

Just 'cause I felt like posting this. Imagine this view in 25-30 years.


@christineanneho / Instagram

The mountains never look that close in real life. I was majorly
Disappointed when I first went to LA and the mountains seemed so much further In the distance vis a vis similar shots like this. Telephoto zoom lense I assume?

[Steely Dan]

^ it's a gorgeous shot, but yes, there's a MASSIVE amount of telephoto compression going on there.

IRL with the naked eye the LA skyline never looks that close to either the shore or the SG mountains.

I do like how WG's spire catches the light to make it look fairly substantial, which isn't always the case.

[twister244]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

^ it's a gorgeous shot, but yes, there's a MASSIVE amount of telephoto compression going on there.

IRL with the naked eye the LA skyline never looks that close to either the shore or the SG mountains.

You get this with Denver too. Even though the mountains do look closer than they do in LA, they don't look that close. The only city I've been to where the mountains actually look impressive and close is Colorado Springs. It's all about prominence, not necessarily height.

[Quixote]

Okay, here's a more "realistic" photo of a similar view (farther away, but same angle). The point was to capture the skyline from a vantage point that featured the San Gabriels and the Pacific.


https://www.flickr.com/photos/kelifornia/50125288541/in/pool-866885@N25

And my favorite, although it's dated (from 2005 I think):


(unknown)

[Manitopiaaa]

Originally Posted by twister244

You get this with Denver too. Even though the mountains do look closer than they do in LA, they don't look that close. The only city I've been to where the mountains actually look impressive and close is Colorado Springs. It's all about prominence, not necessarily height.

Honolulu, Salt Lake City, and Seattle would quality too with easily visible mountains. And Pittsburgh on the East Coast. I don't recall the mountains in Portland, San Diego, or San Francisco, so those are probably visual illusions as well.

Originally Posted by Quixote

Okay, here's a more "realistic" photo of a similar view (farther away, but same angle). The point was to capture the skyline from a vantage point that featured the San Gabriels and the Pacific.

(unknown)

^^ Beautiful shots.

[Manitopiaaa]

The same visual illusion gets done a lot for Washington D.C. too. Some of our local media has shots of the Capitol Building where you see just giant green hills beside it. Similar to this:



I'm not sure if this is a visual effect or if this view is very common from high altitude, but I can definitely say if there are any notable hills in the D.C. area, you don't really ever notice them. Probably Georgetown crossing into Arlington is the only part where you realize the city is a bit hilly.

[Comrade]

Salt Lake City definitely has some photos out there where the mountains appear significantly larger than they are - like this one:



This is how it really looks:

[the urban politician]

Chicago is going to enter a new phase of supertall construction and everyone is going to be jealous of its dominance, power, and greatness. Buahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!

[Steely Dan]

You don't even need mountains or hills to get the telephoto compression effect.

Aerial telephoto shots in pancake flat cities like Chicago still show it too.

In the pic below, ORD looks like it's only a handful of miles NW of the loop, when in reality that distance is 15 miles!


source: https://twitter.com/ChiPhotoGuy/status/1427678473796075530

[SIGSEGV]

Or you can make it look like the loop is all of two or three blocks

[craigs]

And don't forget the other telephoto classics: "Chicago floating in the water" from across the lake (30+ miles); "Toronto floating in the water" from New York state (30+ miles); New York City from the hills of New Jersey and Beacon Mountain, NY (40+ miles); and mashups of the various skylines in and around the Bay Area, Toronto, Miami, and Atlanta.

So what's the big deal about a Los Angeles skyline shot from 18 miles away in Palos Verdes? We literally have a "Skylines From Far Away" thread on the forum in which telephoto lens pics are the designated medium, and nobody complains. Weird.

[Steely Dan]

^ I wasn't complaining. I even agreed that it was a gorgeous shot!

I was just explaining about telephoto compression to another poster who commented on how the SG mountains don't look nearly as close to the LA skyline in real life as they appear in that shot.

No different than explaining to someone that those gorgeous "over the water" telephoto shots of the Chicago skyline from the Indiana dunes do not at all accurately depict just how tiny the skyline looks to the naked eye when you're over on the dunes.

[ue]

Originally Posted by Manitopiaaa

Honolulu, Salt Lake City, and Seattle would quality too with easily visible mountains. And Pittsburgh on the East Coast. I don't recall the mountains in Portland, San Diego, or San Francisco, so those are probably visual illusions as well.



^^ Beautiful shots.

In Portland, Mount Hood is visible, and Mount Saint Helens can be as well.

[tech12]

Originally Posted by craigs

And don't forget the other telephoto classics: "Chicago floating in the water" from across the lake (30+ miles); "Toronto floating in the water" from New York state (30+ miles); New York City from the hills of New Jersey and Beacon Mountain, NY (40+ miles); and mashups of the various skylines in and around the Bay Area, Toronto, Miami, and Atlanta.

So what's the big deal about a Los Angeles skyline shot from 18 miles away in Palos Verdes? We literally have a "Skylines From Far Away" thread on the forum in which telephoto lens pics are the designated medium, and nobody complains. Weird.

The only Bay Area skylines that are commonly shown together are SF, Oakland and Emeryville, which are only about 6 miles apart. Not even close to the same ballpark as those other much farther-apart examples that you've listed. You do need a massive telephoto lens in order to see mountains looming over downtown LA, or Chicago "floating on the water", but you don't need to get that extreme if you want to clearly see downtown Oakland and SF together.