Cities having seen the most skyline change since 2000

[Dariusb]

Originally Posted by bilbao58

The REAL reason houses in Texas rarely have basements is because they’re not needed. Basements are a cold climate thing where the frostline is deep and the house’s foundation needs to be even deeper. Tall buildings in Texas have basements, but who in their right mind wants to put six or more levels of subsurface parking under a high rise condo? There is underground parking all over Downtown Houston, but it rarely goes deeper than 2 or 3 levels.

Ok. I didn't know that. With north Tx being in Tornado Alley I thought basements would be beneficial for them.

[AviationGuy]

Originally Posted by bilbao58

What I meant, really, is that if the average is 50 inches, there have been weather events that dumped close to that yearly “average” amount at one time. Not that one extreme event was the only rain during any given year. I’m thinking specifically of Harvey and Allison. I was there for Allison. I don’t think many people on this forum have ever experienced 20 inches of rain in one night (40 over a week’s time).

My folks were there for Allison. It was awful. I recall people drowning in lower levels of parking garages. Basements in the medical center were flooded, destroying medical records for no telling how many people. Records were already being digitized, and I recall computer systems being destroyed.

[LivinAWestLife]

Not directly related, but if you have a Reddit account, come check out r/SkylineEvolution on www.reddit.com/r/SkylineEvolution, a subreddit I’ve started for before and after pictures of cityscapes and skylines. There’s about fifty posts now, and I would love it if other people started posting their own pictures.

[Tom In Chicago]

This brings me back to a memory I had of a family friend who used to spend a lot of time in Chicago back in the 1960s only to not visit for a decade until the mid 1980s. . . he commented on how shocked he was at the number of big buildings that were built over that time. . . I had to think about his remarks because as a teenager I didn't really understand what he was saying - or why this was even a topic of discussion among the adults in the family. . . but if you had come into Chicago after the 1970s you would have seen one of the most TRANSFORMATIVE eras of the city skyline and it would have been something to talk about. . .

Looking at this now - from places that I have actually had past visited - I would say that both Austin, TX and Frankfurt, Germany have had the most TRANSFORMATIVE skylines. . . I would also throw an honorable mention over to New York City - specifically the west side (Hudson Yards) and 57th Street (Billionaire's Row), Long Island City, downtown Brooklyn and Jersey City. . .

If I had to look at the sheer amount of budlings added you probably can't deny Toronto having the numbers to back it up, but I would argue that the other cities skylines changed more dramatically and transformative-ly. . . which I suppose you could blame the fact that Toronto already had a significant number of buildings in its skyline, defining the major nodes of built environment as well as the CN Tower which is a dominant landmark which will likely not be surpassed anytime soon. . .

[/thoughts]

. . .

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Tom In Chicago

This brings me back to a memory I had of a family friend who used to spend a lot of time in Chicago back in the 1960s only to not visit for a decade until the mid 1980s. . . he commented on how shocked he was at the number of big buildings that were built over that time. . . I had to think about his remarks because as a teenager I didn't really understand what he was saying - or why this was even a topic of discussion among the adults in the family. . . but if you had come into Chicago after the 1970s you would have seen one of the most TRANSFORMATIVE eras of the city skyline and it would have been something to talk about. . .

. . .

Like you, I'm not old enough to remember the massive scale increase the Chicago skyline went through in the late 60s/70s.

To go from this:




To this:





Had to be a bit jarring.


The second image above is more or less the Chicago skyline of my early childhood, and while it's changed a bunch since those days, the overall skyline scale has remained fairly similar, it's just been greatly densified and expanded outward.

[The North One]

Nice, yeah I don't see dramatic scale for skylines changing like that ever again. At least not for cities that already have skyscrapers around the 800ft range and higher. After that height it just doesn't really make any sense to build taller unless it's purely an ego tower. And ego towers are not nearly as feasible or common as they used to be.

[Tom In Chicago]

I'll tell you though, that the view coming in on the Kennedy has changed quite a bit. . . the skyline has a lot of new very tall buildings that appear as tall as the Hancock and Sears from that angle and if/when anything along the river gets built (Lincoln Yards, Halsted Point, stuff around the Ballys Casino) it will be even more dramatic. . .

If you take the Ontario feeder to the outbound Kennedy, the buildings in the Fulton Market area are creating a skyline that looks more at home in Houston than Chicago. . . that will be interesting to watch as well. . .

. . .

[WhipperSnapper]

Roughly 170 of the tallest 200 high rises in Toronto were built after 2000. That should count for more than the thousand plus 200 footers built before 2000.

Edit

250 of 300
375 of 500

These are only become higher by 2025

[summersm343]

Not saying Philadelphia has seen the most dramatic change, but quite a lot of highrises and skyscrapers have been built in recent years...

2006


Today


https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/sho...238995&page=10

[LivinAWestLife]

(deleted)

[Altoic]

Miami 2030

[Gresto]

No offence to Philadelphia, but that Comcast building should have been prevented on account of its being an architectural felony.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Gresto

No offence to Philadelphia, but that Comcast building should have been prevented on account of its being an architectural felony.

That seems to be a fairly common view here at SSP, but I've never understood the special disdain for it.

Truth be told, I actually like it.

[wanderer34]

Originally Posted by Gresto

No offence to Philadelphia, but that Comcast building should have been prevented on account of its being an architectural felony.

The old or the new one???

[summersm343]

I don’t get the hate for it either. I think it’s great. Most importantly, it interacts with the street quite well and offers a couple great restaurants on the ground floor, great coffee shop, 5-star hotel and rooftop restaurant and cocktail lounge. I’ll take it in my city any day of the week

Plus, when is anything designed by Lord Norman Foster an architectural felony? Dude is one of the top contributors to modern and contemporary architecture.

[Steely Dan]

^ Yeah, it's a totally solid addition to one of the best "high peak" skylines in the nation, IMO. The Philly skyline has really great layers/textures, which Comcast 2 is definitely a contributor to.



Philaddelphia Skyline as seen from the 59th street bridge in West Philadelphia by Krtz07, on Flickr

[DZH22]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

^ Yeah, it's a totally solid addition to one of the best "high peak" skylines in the nation, IMO.

You posted by far the best angle of it, and the only one that actually looks somewhat good IMO. From the sides it's extremely wide, and from the opposite side of this picture it's basically just a spire poking up behind the rest of the towers. Up close the cladding is tacky, and it looks somewhat squat next to the higher roof of Comcast 1.

I actually didn't really like the first Comcast building until this one was built. Then side by side in comparison, the first one suddenly looked a lot more handsome next to its uglier younger sibling.

[WhipperSnapper]

The massive firm Lord Norman Foster founded with at least a dozen senior partners designed Comcast. I'll guess Nigel Dancey' s team designed it with no participation from the Lord himself. The tower is very innovative than beautiful which is Dancey's trademark.

[Nouvellecosse]

It's aesthetics are definitely very "angle dependent" compared to most towers.

[isaidso]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

Like you, I'm not old enough to remember the massive scale increase the Chicago skyline went through in the late 60s/70s.

To go from this:




To this:





Had to be a bit jarring.


The second image above is more or less the Chicago skyline of my early childhood, and while it's changed a bunch since those days, the overall skyline scale has remained fairly similar, it's just been greatly densified and expanded outward.

Hard to believe but in the early 60s (1962, 1963, 1964) Montreal had taller buildings than Chicago. Chicago moved ahead when Richard J Daley (198n) was built in 1965; a lead its not relinquished.


Tallest Buildings in Chicago/Montreal in 1964

1. Montreal: Tour de la Bourse (190m)
2. Montreal: Place Ville Marie (188m)
3. Montreal: La Tour CIBC (187m)
4. Chicago: Chicago BOT (184m)
5. Chicago: One Prudential Plaza (183m)