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

[DCReid]

Originally Posted by MAC123

I don't completely trust CTBUH numbere (their supertall numbers for NYC are wrong, it's not 15 it's 19) but the numbers are good enough.

Yeah Miami is about to blow up. Surpassing Philly I think? Idk.

NYC is about to go even crazier over the next couple of years. Penn Station area, HY towers phase 1 are basically finished next is HY phase 2. PABT redevelopment. Midtown East continues to grow. Etc etc.

Not all that difficult to be number 3 in the US. How would Toronto rank on this list? Would it be number 2 or 3 - seems to be just behind Chicago but closing in.

[MAC123]

Originally Posted by DCReid

Not all that difficult to be number 3 in the US. How would Toronto rank on this list? Would it be number 2 or 3 - seems to be just behind Chicago but closing in.

In total skyscrapers I believe Toronto has already passed Chicago has it not? In terms of supertalls (or even buildings above 800 ft) I think Toronto is closing in

[Innsertnamehere]

Originally Posted by MAC123

In total skyscrapers I believe Toronto has already passed Chicago has it not? In terms of supertalls (or even buildings above 800 ft) I think Toronto is closing in

According to the diagrams Chicago has 108 and Toronto has 82 (90 if you include the suburbs) buildings over 150m (492ft).



That said, Toronto has 64 under construction right now and an additional 14 in the suburbs, which will result in a total of 168 150m+ buildings in the metro area, far above Chicago, which only has 4 under construction right now.

So Toronto hasn't passed them yet, but it will very soon.


For 800 footers though Chicago still wins, with 17 existing and 3 under construction while Toronto has 7 existing and 4 under construction (though an additional 31 proposed).

[MAC123]

Oh that's good to know

[Steely Dan]

i updated the 800+ footer chart to include canadian cities:




toronto is indeed SOLIDLY #3 on this particular measure, and it is entirely possible that it will catch up to chicago later this decade.

there are now 106 skyscrapers over 800' in the US/canada, and NYC (44), Chicago (20) & Toronto (11) together account for 71% of them.

[Innsertnamehere]

Toronto also has several that are literally just short of the 800' cutoff. The two CIBC Square buildings, one complete and the other under construction, are 792ft tall. 160 Front is 787' tall.

[Steely Dan]

^ that is one of the major shortcomings of an arbitrary cut-off.

There is often a building or two that falls just short of it.

In chicago's case, it's 300 N LaSalle which falls 15' short at 785'.

NYC has many within 20' of 800', including the venerable old Woolworth Building (1913) at 792'.

[plinko]

For point of reference...other cities in the western hemisphere (hopefully I didn't forget any):

Panama City 6
Mexico City 2
Monterrey 1 + 1UC
San Pedro Garza Garcia (Monterrey) 1
Santiago 1

Every one of these was built in the past 20 years.

[MAC123]

What's up with Panama City having more than Mexico City?

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by MAC123

What's up with Panama City having more than Mexico City?

Why is that surprising? Comparative number of highrises over an arbitrary cutoff isn't really related to anything except local peculiarities.

Panama City has a bunch of very tall speculative condo towers for expat types looking for residences in favorable tax locale. That isn't a thing in Mexico City. Mexico isn't a tax haven and if it were, the tax dodge condos would be in beachside or tropical areas, not the alpine climate of DF.

[MAC123]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Why is that surprising? Comparative number of highrises over an arbitrary cutoff isn't really related to anything except local peculiarities.

Panama City has a bunch of very tall speculative condo towers for expat types looking for residences in favorable tax locale. That isn't a thing in Mexico City. Mexico isn't a tax haven and if it were, the tax dodge condos would be in beachside or tropical areas, not the alpine climate of DF.

Yeah but Mexico City is considerably larger than Panama City. Like Mexico City has a comparable pop to NYC, Panama City has a comparable pop to Tusla, OK.

It's just such a large distance. I would expect at least office towers in Mexico City would put it up more, but then again it's also in a heavily seismic zone.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by MAC123

Yeah but Mexico City is considerably larger than Panama City.

Metro area size does not equal the # of really tall buildings.

Metro LA is much bigger than Chicago or Toronto, and yet the latter two have far more 800+ footers than the former.

[plinko]

^It has nothing to do with population. And yes, Mexico City does have some others in the pipeline, but Panama City is built on pure speculation. It's a wonderful city in a strategic location that just happens to have excellent tax shelters for the wealthy. If the beaches in the city were anything but tidal mudflats I would expect even more high end development.

[Crawford]

Yeah, population isn't really related to highrise counts. Dubai has a crapload more very tall buildings than Tokyo, but so what? Dubai is obviously tiny compared to Tokyo.

[iheartthed]

Doesn't Panama City have land constraints?

[Maldive]

Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere

According to the diagrams Chicago has 108 and Toronto has 82 (90 if you include the suburbs) buildings over 150m (492ft).
That said, Toronto has 64 under construction right now and an additional 14 in the suburbs, which will result in a total of 168 150m+ buildings in the metro area, far above Chicago, which only has 4 under construction right now.

So Toronto hasn't passed them yet, but it will very soon.

For 800 footers though Chicago still wins, with 17 existing and 3 under construction while Toronto has 7 existing and 4 under construction (though an additional 31 proposed).

It's a bit odd that 'scraper conversations talk of built, u/c and proposed buildings but not approved projects... which is obviously a big step forward from a proposal (which pop up almost daily in Toronto).
In just the past couple of months there have been 23 150 metre to 303 metre approvals, 10 of which are 200 metres to 303 metres (Union Park x 2). Not sure if your '31 proposed' figure includes all the recent approvals.

Skyline changers - Supertalls (300m+): 2 u/c (+ 1@ 299m), 2 approved (+ 1 @ 299m and 1 @ 298m) and 3 more still at the proposed stage

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Maldive

It's a bit odd that 'scraper conversations talk of built, u/c and proposed buildings but not approved projects...

To paraphrase Scottie Pippen,

"It don't mean a thing without that caisson ring".



Proposed and approved projects are nice ideas,

But they're also just nice ideas.

money, money, money, money.............. MONEY!

[Crawford]

There's no definition of "approved" projects. What does that even mean?

In many places around the world, there's no zoning. So theoretically, billions of supertalls are "approved", as they have the right to rise.

In NYC, I don't know what "approved" would mean. A tower is allowed as-of-right, or it isn't. There isn't an approvals process, unless a developer is seeking a rare variance.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Crawford

There's no definition of "approved" projects. What does that even mean?

yeah, there are only 4 macro-state phases:

1. A skyscraper that once existed, but no longer does
2. A skyscraper that currently exists
3. A skyscraper that is currently under construction
4. Plans

[mhays]

Usually it means the land use permit is in place, possibly omitting potential for appeal. It rarely refers to building permits as far as I can tell.

It's an SSP construct, not an industry term.