Cities having seen the most skyline change since 2000

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by bilbao58

that dumb crap added to the top.

Yeah, that was a pretty damn conspicuous height cheat.

I don't really wanna include it as one of America's "100 tallest skyscrapers", but the CTBUH and I have never seen eye to eye on the old spire debate, and since their database is one of the most consistent around (flaws and all), it is what it is.....

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

Yeah, that was a pretty damn conspicuous height cheat.

I don't really wanna include it as one of America's "100 tallest skyscrapers", but the CTBUH and I have never seen eye to eye on the old spire debate, and since their database is one of the most consistent around (flaws and all), it is what it is.....

Well, it’ll be bumped to #58 when everything U/C finishes and if everything CTBUH lists as proposed gets built (fat chance, I know) it’ll be bumped to #88. It won’t be in the tallest 100 in the United States forever.

[LivinAWestLife]

Some comparison pics I've made (these are from around 2010 instead of 2000, but I thought they would be of interest):

Denver


LA


Philly


Portland


Seattle

[Metro-One]

In the year 2000 there were zero skyscrapers (150m+) existing or actively proposed in Metro-Vancouver.

Today that list has ballooned to 75 towers.

Vancouver
Burnaby
Surrey
New Westminster
Coquitlam
Squamish Nation


Current Position --- Name --- Height in M --- Status


1 --- Pinnacle Tower Two --- 255.3 --- Proposed
2 --- Pinnacle Tower One --- 238.5 --- Proposed
3 --- Concord Metrotown Grand Tower --- 230.1 --- U/C
4 --- Centre Block --- 225 --- Proposed
5 --- Gilmore Place Tower 2 --- 215.4 --- U/C
6 --- Oviedo Towers C --- 214.6 --- Proposed
7 --- Citizen --- 210.8 --- Proposed
8 --- 10227 King George --- 207 --- Proposed
9 --- Brentwood Block Tower 1 --- 202 --- Proposed
10 --- Oviedo Towers D --- 201.8 --- Proposed
11 --- 4141 Lougheed Tower A --- 201.8 --- Proposed
12 --- Willingdon & Halifax --- 198.7 --- Proposed
13 --- Living Shangri-La --- 196.9 --- Complete
14 --- Concord Metrotown T 7 --- 196 --- Proposed
15 --- Concord Metrotown T 8 --- 193 --- Proposed
16 --- Amacon Rosser Ave --- 191 --- Proposed
17 --- Paradox Hotel --- 187.8 --- Complete
18 --- Concord Metrotown T 9 --- 187 --- Proposed
19 --- 3695 North Road T1 --- 186.5 --- Proposed
20 --- Brentwood One --- 186.5 --- Completed
21 --- Brentwood Two --- 186.5 --- Completed
22 --- Oviedo Towers A --- 183.5 --- Proposed
23 --- TriCity Central --- N3 --- 183.5 --- Proposed
24 --- TriCity Central --- N4 --- 183.4 --- Proposed
25 --- Brentwood Three --- 182 --- Completed
26 --- Whalley Station --- 182 --- Proposed
27 --- Brentwood 8 --- 181 --- Proposed
28 --- Pier West, West Tower --- 180 --- U/C
29 --- The Butterfly --- 178.6 --- U/C
30 --- 1059-1075 Nelson --- 178.5 --- Proposed
31 --- 4141 Lougheed Tower B --- 177.4 --- Proposed
32 --- TriCity Central --- N1 --- 177 --- Proposed
33 --- Brentwood Block 2 --- 177 --- Proposed
34 --- Highline --- 177 --- U/C
35 --- Solo District, Altus --- 175.6 --- Complete
36 --- 6450-6508 Telford Avenue --- 175.3 --- Proposed
37 --- 1040-1080 Barclay Street Tower One --- 174.5 --- Proposed
38 --- Gilmore Place Tower 1 --- 173.5 --- U/C
39 --- 1040-1080 Barclay Tower Two --- 173 --- Proposed
40 --- 6000 Mckay (SS5) --- 172 --- Complete
41 --- Senakw Tower 9 --- 171 --- Proposed
42 --- One Burrard Place --- 167.6 --- Complete
43 --- Parkway Phase 3 --- 167.6 --- Proposed
44 --- Station Square Tower Two --- 166.2 --- Completed
45 --- 601 Beach Crescent --- 166 --- Proposed
46 --- Concord Metrotown Central Tower --- 166 --- U/C
47 --- GEC Education Centre --- 165 --- Proposed
48 --- Gilmore Place Tower 5 --- 164.4 --- Proposed
49 --- Wilson 2 --- 164 --- Proposed
50 --- 3 Civic Plaza --- 164 --- Complete
51 --- 567 Clarke+Como --- 162 --- Comlete
52 --- 13425 107A Avenue --- 161.7 --- Proposed
53 --- 1133 Melville --- 161 --- Complete
54 --- Highpoint --- 161 --- U/C
55 --- 6465 Dow 'Building A' --- 160.2 --- Proposed
56 --- Senakw Tower 7 --- 158.6 --- Proposed
57 --- Lougheed Centre, T1 --- 158.5 --- U/C
58 --- Hotel Georgia --- 157.6 --- Complete
59 --- Concord Brentwood Phase 3 Tower 2 --- 157.5 --- Proposed
60 --- Concord Brentwood Phase 3 Tower 5 --- 157.5 --- Proposed
61 --- 1445 W. Georgia --- 157 --- Stale
62 --- 1175 Pinetree Way - Tower A --- 156.7 --- proposed
63 --- The Sovereign --- 155.8 --- Complete
64 --- Parkway Aspect --- 155.1 --- U/C
65 --- Heart of Burquitlam: Myriad --- 154.6 --- U/C
66 --- 1157 Burrard --- 154.4 --- Proposed
67 --- Oakridge Tower 5 --- 154 --- Proposed
68 --- Senakw Tower 10 --- 153.8 --- Proposed
69 --- 3695 North Road T2 --- 153.6 --- Proposed
70 --- T3 - Etoile Gold --- 153.1 --- Proposed
71 --- Triomphe Residences --- 152.4 --- Complete
72 --- 1450 West Georgia --- 151.6 --- Proposed
73 --- Vancouver House --- 151.5 --- Complete
74 --- Gilmore Place Tower 6 --- 150.3 --- Proposed
75 --- Smith & Farrow North Tower --- 150.2 --- U/C

[MolsonExport]

Originally Posted by LivinAWestLife

Some comparison pics I've made (these are from around 2010 instead of 2000, but I thought they would be of interest):

Denver


LA


Philly


Portland


Seattle

Thanks for these.

[isaidso]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

In the year 2000 there were zero skyscrapers (150m+) existing or actively proposed in Metro-Vancouver.

Today that list has ballooned to 75 towers.


Squamish Nation


Current Position --- Name --- Height in M --- Status


41 --- Senakw Tower 9 --- 171 --- Proposed
56 --- Senakw Tower 7 --- 158.6 --- Proposed
68 --- Senakw Tower 10 --- 153.8 --- Proposed

It's my understanding that these towers are beyond the jurisdiction of the municipality because its aboriginal land. I wonder if height restrictions next to these will be relaxed once they're built. It's right next to downtown but it's currently zoned for mid-rises only, right?

Regarding metro Vancouver, you can feel the ground swell of growth and development happening there. Vancouver really does have everything going for it. Historically, the only significant weakness has been its relatively small size but I doubt we'll be saying that a generation from now. Metro Vancouver + the Fraser Valley could hit 4 million by the 2031 Census; 5 million+ by the 2041 Census?

[craigs]

Originally Posted by LivinAWestLife

Some comparison pics I've made (these are from around 2010 instead of 2000, but I thought they would be of interest):

No way that second photo of LA is from 2023. It's missing a very prominent skyscraper that opened in 2023 (The Beaudry, 695') but it's not even under construction in that pic.

[LivinAWestLife]

Originally Posted by craigs

No way that second photo of LA is from 2023. It's missing a very prominent skyscraper that opened in 2023 (The Beaudry, 695') but it's not even under construction in that pic.

Sorry, I’ve been informed on Reddit that picture is from 2021. The Beaudry is definitely missing.

[Metro-One]

Originally Posted by isaidso

It's my understanding that these towers are beyond the jurisdiction of the municipality because its aboriginal land. I wonder if height restrictions next to these will be relaxed once they're built. It's right next to downtown but it's currently zoned for mid-rises only, right?

Regarding metro Vancouver, you can feel the ground swell of growth and development happening there. Vancouver really does have everything going for it. Historically, the only significant weakness has been its relatively small size but I doubt we'll be saying that a generation from now. Metro Vancouver + the Fraser Valley could hit 4 million by the 2031 Census; 5 million+ by the 2041 Census?

There are several factors currently challenging the long established height limits, and this is one of them. And yes, the city has no jurisdiction on this project, so that yes why they can build as high as they want (but tipping out around 170m shows they are still doing a mild attempt at good neighbor).

And yes, I believe any site that is now in this project’s view shadow can potentially build taller.

I believe the Fraser Valley is already approaching 3.4 million (which is what would be considered as a single CMA in the US).

[edale]

Originally Posted by LivinAWestLife

Some comparison pics I've made (these are from around 2010 instead of 2000, but I thought they would be of interest):


Seattle

I think the Seattle skyline looked better in 2009 tbh...

Most dramatic transformation of this group is probably LA. It added a new tallest (even if by a technicality via that toothpick of a 'spire'), and added a bunch of towers in the southern portion of the skyline. Philly is probably the second biggest transformation.

[LivinAWestLife]

I made two more that I think look pretty nice:

Boston


(Differences circled)


Phoenix


(Differences circled)

[Airwave Dynamics]

Austin's Rainey District alone appears to be a whole a new section of downtown that looks nothing like it did since 2000.

https://twitter.com/TheATX1/status/1755295464834953479





• Video Link

[mhays]

Those are so weird looking, with their massive parking podiums topped by what look like separate buildings.

I'd rather cut the parking in half and put it all below-grade. Let the buildings be shorter if that's the trade-off. It wouldn't be as visually imposing but the neighborhood would be better.

[UrbanImpact]

Originally Posted by mhays

Those are so weird looking, with their massive parking podiums topped by what look like separate buildings.

I'd rather cut the parking in half and put it all below-grade. Let the buildings be shorter if that's the trade-off. It wouldn't be as visually imposing but the neighborhood would be better.

Putting the parking underground would jack up the cost for the developer and the tenants putting a damper on new highrise housing. There could be less costly solutions to unsightly podiums (like wrapping the street facing sides with units) , but, the City would have to enforce that.

[mhays]

For the same amount of parking, without question (or else they'd have done it).

If the parking numbers were also cut in half, maybe and maybe not. Going b-g can be costly (a huge variable) but reducing building height can save a lot too.

In any case I was only speaking theoretically, not practically.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by mhays

Going b-g can be costly (a huge variable) but reducing building height can save a lot too.

Given the wet sloppy marsh muck that Chicago was built upon, deep excavations are quite expensive, messy, and time consuming, and are thus rarely done here.

Of course, there will be a multitude of variables for any given project that can change the equation, but the general "back of the envelope" calculation I've always heard here is that an underground parking space costs twice as much as a structured parking space.

That's obviously a very rough generality, and even if it's not always true, the generally-accepted perception of it being "true", does scare away some in the local market from even considering underground parking solutions.

[muertecaza]

Originally Posted by LivinAWestLife

I made two more that I think look pretty nice:

Phoenix


(Differences circled)

Thanks for the Phoenix one. Our skyline is obviously not going to be in anyone's top 10 list. But the improvements shown in the comparison should hopefully make taller, more skyline-enhancing towers feasible soon. The current proposal for a new tallest would be right about in the middle of the skyline in that shot and would make a great 'peak.' Fingers crossed that the 2038 comparison shot shows a skyline with some real shape to it.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by mhays

Those are so weird looking, with their massive parking podiums topped by what look like separate buildings.

I'd rather cut the parking in half and put it all below-grade. Let the buildings be shorter if that's the trade-off. It wouldn't be as visually imposing but the neighborhood would be better.

It's Austin. No one wants a place with little to no parking and Rainey St. isn't an urban/ walkable area. It was a residential area full of bungalows, those bungalows turned into quirky restaurants and bars and now overtaken by residential towers.

[mhays]

The luxury condo market typically does demand parking, in part due to resale value. But those towers look like they have enormous space/unit ratios. And if they're rentals they'd have more leeway.

I'll skip re-doing the same debate we keep having, other than an initial point: I'm optimistic that the cores of Texas cities can function like reasonably urban places in terms of parking, if allowed. I'll say no more unless new points come up.

And again, I was speaking theoretically, not practically.

Steely, as to your point, I don't know the math, but what I keep hearing is that every location (site geometry, soils, adjacencies, other stuff b-g) will be a complicated spreadsheet. Rules of thumb don't necessarily translate from one city to the next.

[bnk]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

Given the wet sloppy marsh muck that Chicago was built upon, deep excavations are quite expensive, messy, and time consuming, and are thus rarely done here.

Of course, there will be a multitude of variables for any given project that can change the equation, but the general "back of the envelope" calculation I've always heard here is that an underground parking space costs twice as much as a structured parking space.

That's obviously a very rough generality, and even if it's not always true, the generally-accepted perception of it being "true", does scare away some in the local market from even considering underground parking solutions.

I think places right up to an Ocean might have similar issues. Is there underground parking in Miami?

But
As in that Austin video It's quite also possible creating underground parking might be even more expensive in Texas.

The State famous for its lack of house basements because of their type of clay prevents it mostly in areas with that type of soil.

It's effect on towers below grade levels should be looked at. If I find an answer, I will submit it. But perhaps some members from the south already knows.