Austin | 6G | 874 Feet | 65 Floors | Complete

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by Mopacs

Guessing another 50-ish feet to go. Should be approaching the top occupied floor shortly then starting on the crown.

Useless filler comment of the day, as measured only by the tallest building in each skyline.

If that is the case, then this building is already taller than the tallest buildings in these cities’ skylines:

Boston (Downtown), Winthrop Center, 691’ (U/C and topped out)
New Orleans, Hancock Whitney Center, 697’
Indianapolis, Salesforce Tower, 701’
Atlantic City, Ocean Casino Resort, 710’
Denver, Republic Plaza, 717’
Detroit, Renaissance Center Marriott, 727’
Mobile, RSA Battle House Tower, 745’
San Antonio, Tower of the Americas, 750’
Minneapolis, Capella Tower, 776’
New York City (Queens/Long Island City), Skyline Tower, 778’
Boston (Back Bay), John Hancock Tower, 790’

—

These cities are still to be surpassed by this building:

Pittsburgh, US Steel Tower, 841’
Oklahoma City, Devon Tower, 844’
*Miami, Panorama Tower, 868’
Charlotte, BoA Corp. Center, 871’

—

And these cities’ skylines’ tallests will be surpassed by the successor to this tower:

Jersey City, 99 Hudson, 900’
Houston (Uptown/Galleria), Williams Tower, 901’
Dallas, Bank of America Plaza, 921’
Seattle, Columbia Center, 933’
Cleveland, Key Tower, 945’
Houston (Downtown), JPMorgan Chase Tower, 1002’

—

Only these cities’ skylines will remain with a taller tower:

Atlanta (Downtown/Midtown), Bank of America Plaza, 1023’
New York City (Brooklyn), Brooklyn Tower, 1066’
San Francisco, Salesforce Tower, 1070’
Los Angeles (Downtown), Wilshire Grand, 1100’
Philadelphia, Comcast Center, 1121’
Las Vegas, Stratosphere Tower, 1149’
Chicago, Sears Tower, 1450’
New York City (Midtown), Central Park Tower, 1550’
New York City (Downtown), 1WTC, 1776’

—

360, The Independent, and The Austonian, while being hugely impactful on our own skyline were also moving the needle tremendously vis-a-vis other cities:

Buffalo, Seneca One Tower, 529’
Baltimore, Transamerica Tower, 529’
Hartford, City Place I, 535’
Los Angeles (Century City), SunAmerica Center, 535’
Portland, Wells Fargo Center, 546’
Little Rock, Simmons Tower, 547’
Louisville, 400 West Market, 549’
Fort Worth, Burnett Plaza, 567’
Atlanta (Sandy Springs), Concourse V, 570’
Tampa, 100 North Tampa, 579’
—
Albany, Erastus Corning Tower, 589’
Milwaukee, US Bank Center, 601’
Jacksonville, BoA Tower, 617’
Nashville, AT&T Building, 617’
Columbus, Rhodes State Office Tower, 624’
Kansas City, 1KC Place, 624’
St. Louis, Gateway Arch, 630’
Des Moines, The Principal Building, 630’
Omaha, First National Bank Tower, 634’
Sunny Isles Beach, Muse (prev. tallest), 649’
Cincinnati, Queen City Square, 665’
Atlanta (Buckhead), 3344 Peachtree, 665’
Tulsa, BOK Tower, 677’

—

These two towers are groundbreaking, and even more so as only one city on this list, Miami, is currently likely to put up a tower taller than 98RR with the Waldorf Astoria and another taller than 6XG with Okan Tower and a smattering of other proposals as well. Raleigh currently also has an approved 800’ tower, but that won’t move the needle vis-a-vis Austin. Nashville, while admirable and perhaps adding as much bulk and filler than Austin, always seems to be a step behind in height.

[wwmiv]

Frost, fwiw, which many credit as being the opening bid of our current boom, put us past many cities as well:

Springfield (Massachusetts), Monarch Place, 401’
Oakland, Ordway Building, 404’
Toledo, Seagate Center, 411’
Corpus Christi, One Shoreline Tower-South, 411’
Salt Lake City, Wells Fargo Center, 422’
Sacramento, Wells Fargo Center, 423’
Memphis, 100 North Main, 430’
Raleigh, Two Hannover Square (prev. tallest), 431’
Orlando, SunTrust Center, 441’
Fort Wayne, Indiana Power, 442’
Rochester, Xerox Tower, 443’
Richmond, James Monroe Building, 449’
Birmingham, Shipt Tower, 454’
Winston-Salem, 100 North Main, 460’
Houston (Medical Center), 6624 Fannin Tower (prev. tallest), 477’
Phoenix (Downtown), Chase Tower, 483’
New London (Uncasville), Mohegan Sun Tower, 486’
San Diego, One America Plaza, 500’

In the span of less than 20 years, we have gone from having our tallest be shorter than Corpus Christi to these.

[clubtokyo]

Austin’s skyline growth has to be one the fastest in American history at least after NY, Boston, Chicago and Philly? I also could be completely wrong lol

[Mopacs]

Great compilation. That is unreal. We are already surpassing heights of metro areas that are 2-3x the size of Austin. That would have been unthinkable 20 years ago.

Originally Posted by wwmiv

Useless filler comment of the day, as measured only by the tallest building in each skyline.

If that is the case, then this building is already taller than the tallest buildings in these cities’ skylines:

Boston (Downtown), Winthrop Center, 691’ (U/C and topped out)
New Orleans, Hancock Whitney Center, 697’
Indianapolis, Salesforce Tower, 701’
Atlantic City, Ocean Casino Resort, 710’
Denver, Republic Plaza, 717’
Detroit, Renaissance Center Marriott, 727’
Mobile, RSA Battle House Tower, 745’
San Antonio, Tower of the Americas, 750’
Minneapolis, Capella Tower, 776’
New York City (Queens/Long Island City), Skyline Tower, 778’
Boston (Back Bay), John Hancock Tower, 790’

—

These cities are still to be surpassed by this building:

Pittsburgh, US Steel Tower, 841’
Oklahoma City, Devon Tower, 844’
*Miami, Panorama Tower, 868’
Charlotte, BoA Corp. Center, 871’

—

And these cities’ skylines’ tallests will be surpassed by the successor to this tower:

Jersey City, 99 Hudson, 900’
Houston (Uptown/Galleria), Williams Tower, 901’
Dallas, Bank of America Plaza, 921’
Seattle, Columbia Center, 933’
Cleveland, Key Tower, 945’
Houston (Downtown), JPMorgan Chase Tower, 1002’

—

Only these cities’ skylines will remain with a taller tower:

Atlanta (Downtown/Midtown), Bank of America Plaza, 1023’
New York City (Brooklyn), Brooklyn Tower, 1066’
San Francisco, Salesforce Tower, 1070’
Los Angeles (Downtown), Wilshire Grand, 1100’
Philadelphia, Comcast Center, 1121’
Las Vegas, Stratosphere Tower, 1149’
Chicago, Sears Tower, 1450’
New York City (Midtown), Central Park Tower, 1550’
New York City (Downtown), 1WTC, 1776’

—

360, The Independent, and The Austonian, while being hugely impactful on our own skyline were also moving the needle tremendously vis-a-vis other cities:

Buffalo, Seneca One Tower, 529’
Baltimore, Transamerica Tower, 529’
Hartford, City Place I, 535’
Los Angeles (Century City), SunAmerica Center, 535’
Portland, Wells Fargo Center, 546’
Little Rock, Simmons Tower, 547’
Louisville, 400 West Market, 549’
Fort Worth, Burnett Plaza, 567’
Atlanta (Sandy Springs), Concourse V, 570’
Tampa, 100 North Tampa, 579’
—
Albany, Erastus Corning Tower, 589’
Milwaukee, US Bank Center, 601’
Jacksonville, BoA Tower, 617’
Nashville, AT&T Building, 617’
Columbus, Rhodes State Office Tower, 624’
Kansas City, 1KC Place, 624’
St. Louis, Gateway Arch, 630’
Des Moines, The Principal Building, 630’
Omaha, First National Bank Tower, 634’
Sunny Isles Beach, Muse (prev. tallest), 649’
Cincinnati, Queen City Square, 665’
Atlanta (Buckhead), 3344 Peachtree, 665’
Tulsa, BOK Tower, 677’

—

These two towers are groundbreaking, and even more so as only one city on this list, Miami, is currently likely to put up a tower taller than 98RR with the Waldorf Astoria and another taller than 6XG with Okan Tower and a smattering of other proposals as well. Raleigh currently also has an approved 800’ tower, but that won’t move the needle vis-a-vis Austin. Nashville, while admirable and perhaps adding as much bulk and filler than Austin, always seems to be a step behind in height.

[Mopacs]

Originally Posted by clubtokyo

Austin’s skyline growth has to be one the fastest in American history at least after NY, Boston, Chicago and Philly? I also could be completely wrong lol

Miami's skyline has had a pretty dramatic transformation as well over the past 20 years.

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by Mopacs

Miami's skyline has had a pretty dramatic transformation as well over the past 20 years.

Our skyline is still relatively sparse, too, even if we are reaching new heights. That’s why I don’t often complain about filler towers, because they help, too—bringing up the average height of our skyline, drawing the eye to the peaks, and filling in gaps that aren’t CVCs (making the CVCs all the more apparent).

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by clubtokyo

Austin’s skyline growth has to be one the fastest in American history at least after NY, Boston, Chicago and Philly? I also could be completely wrong lol

I would LOVE to get together a cohesive single dataset for the colonial Anglosphere (US, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand—which all have very similar highrise development patterns) of every building over 150’ ft / 45 m for a more than a few graphics based on these numbers:

1. The absolute number of buildings over time in each skyline.
2. The average height of the buildings comprising each skyline over time.
3. The tallest building in each skyline over time.

Of course, data limitations are such that a 300’ minimum is more realistic, but that doesn’t actually give a wide dataset with respect to what “skyline” are. CTBUH, Wiki, etc. would obviously be easy places to start.

It would allow us all to really pin point a few things, inc. the answer to your question. I’d love to see examples of where “filler” actually brings down the average of the skyline even when there are numerous new-builds. Another set of illuminative examples would be cities which sustain increases in both peak height and in average height.

[migol24]

Originally Posted by wwmiv

Our skyline is still relatively sparse, too, even if we are reaching new heights. That’s why I don’t often complain about filler towers, because they help, too—bringing up the average height of our skyline, drawing the eye to the peaks, and filling in gaps that aren’t CVCs (making the CVCs all the more apparent).

I agree. But what I really hate is when these fillers take up great spots that could have been instead saved for more striking towers. Two in particular are the Ashton and the Four Seasons. I think those two are a bit of an eyesore for such a neat skyline. I'd of preferred them tucked in somewhere in a crowded area where they don't stand out so much like they do on the waterfront.

[bobbywest87]

Originally Posted by wwmiv

Our skyline is still relatively sparse, too, even if we are reaching new heights. That’s why I don’t often complain about filler towers, because they help, too—bringing up the average height of our skyline, drawing the eye to the peaks, and filling in gaps that aren’t CVCs (making the CVCs all the more apparent).

I totally agree with this sentiment. Filler can really help a skyline appear much larger than it is because it gives you something to compare against (like how football or basketball players appear much taller when standing on the sideline next to coaches).

I think that’s why some cities get more skyline love than others.

For example, these cities have nicely-placed “filler” that help them appear larger than they actually are:

New York (1940s):


Seattle:


Minneapolis:


Dallas (from certain angles)




Whereas, these cities could really use a little more filler to help the “talls” stand out a bit more. For example:

Los Angeles:


Dubai:


Miami:


And Houston to an extent:

Originally Posted by migol24

I agree. But what I really hate is when these fillers take up great spots that could have been instead saved for more striking towers. Two in particular are the Ashton and the Four Seasons. I think those two are a bit of an eyesore for such a neat skyline. I'd of preferred them tucked in somewhere in a crowded area where they don't stand out so much like they do on the waterfront.

As for Austin filler that takes the space of where a tall tower could have been, I think 405 Colorado is the most recent offender given that it will be completely surrounded in a few years:

[Mopacs]

Good examples. Another city that could use some filler is Atlanta



Granted the skyline is very linear, stretching several miles from N-S. There are some vantage points that look quite densely packed.

https://assets.dispatchhealth.com/di...ta-georgia.jpg

[Mopacs]

Zoomed shot from Rabbit Hill in Georgetown yesterday. 6xG popping up behind the Domain skyline.



Can also spot the tower from I-35 itself (far right). This is from about 22 miles away.

[The ATX]

Here's a new list I put together for yesterday's Austin Projects Lists updates. It shows completed and U/C. This gives a good idea of how the skyline will compare to other cities in a few years. Of course many of the proposals will eventually start as well. The amount of buildings at any given height threshold is impressive for a U.S. metro with ~2.5K population.

[Mopacs]

Originally Posted by The ATX

Here's a new list I put together for yesterday's Austin Projects Lists updates. It shows completed and U/C. This gives a good idea of how the skyline will compare to other cities in a few years. Of course many of the proposals will eventually start as well. The amount of buildings at any given height threshold is impressive for a U.S. metro with ~2.5K population.

Great list! It's almost hard to fathom now, but Austin went through an entire decade and a half period (late 80s and the 90s decade) with almost no skyscraper activity at all (aside from a few government mid-rise buildings). When the 300 W 6th Street tower was first announced in 1999 it was a huge deal. Now it's shorter than Domain II.

[N90]

I disagree with Houston as an example. The downtown skyline looks spaced out from the West or North due to the size of the streets and the street grid, not because it needs more towers to fill in the gaps. View it from the East or South and it looks like a completely different city skyline with very few gaps.

https://i.imgur.com/ymwX8Ww.jpg

[We vs us]

Love the analysis, as well as our complete/UC list (thanks wwmiv, thanks ATX!)

Two things stand out -- 1) when a tower gets to the permitting stage, virtually all of them will get completed, and most of them generally in the same form/size as the original proposal. And 2) the next round of proposed towers are all pretty much within top 10-15% tallest. In other words, the pace of height increases seems to still be an operative part of the Austin market.

[lonewolf]

6xg visible from spots in apache shores

[bobbywest87]

Originally Posted by N90

I disagree with Houston as an example. The downtown skyline looks spaced out from the West or North due to the size of the streets and the street grid, not because it needs more towers to fill in the gaps. View it from the East or South and it looks like a completely different city skyline with very few gaps.

https://i.imgur.com/ymwX8Ww.jpg

I agree, that is a more flattering angle. I think the effect generally comes from a whole lot of nothing, nothing, nothing - GIANT WALL OF BUILDINGS. I feel it makes a city seem more fake or unnatural, like it never went through the natural progression from large town to thriving metropolis (I.e. Dubai going from nothing-desert to it’s current state).

[corvairkeith]

[The ATX]

Great photos!

[Strayone]

Originally Posted by Mopacs

Good examples. Another city that could use some filler is Atlanta



Granted the skyline is very linear, stretching several miles from N-S. There are some vantage points that look quite densely packed.

https://assets.dispatchhealth.com/di...ta-georgia.jpg

Great example...ATL. While watching golf earlier, and having no idea where it was being held, the skyline was very tall and toothy and long. I said to my friend that looks like Atlanta...it was. They will never get infill. Just likely a couple more crazy tall 1k ft stuff...not too shabby though. I feel like our SL will looked kinda like that with 98 being so damn much taller then every single building, but really dislocated from the core. Still it will be surreal to see that thing, and likely/hopefully it turns out better then the renders.