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

[The North One]

Originally Posted by tech12

Oceanwide is on hold.

The foundations are built, and it's right in the middle of downtown SF, so it wouldn't be surprising if they get completed one day.

Right but typically when a developer is severed from a property the project as we know it is dead. Who knows when and what will happen in the future or what it'll look like.

https://www.wbez.org/stories/develop...1-8b59fca603d8

[Zapatan]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

^ nice, another potential supertall for SF!

and if oceanwide gets going again.... and if parcel F happens....

that'd build a pretty damn strong case for the #3 skyline nationally.

It's up there but by a questionable margin considering Miami, Houston and maybe some others have a lot more official skyscrapers overall, plus Miami also has supertalls on the way (hopefully) and Houston has way more 200+ meter buildings. Philly, Houston and LA would still give it a run for its money at the high end (i.e tallest two or three buildings), too.

But yea SF is great and has the perfect natural setting.

[tech12]

Originally Posted by The North One

Right but typically when a developer is severed from a property the project as we know it is dead. Who knows when and what will happen in the future or what it'll look like.

https://www.wbez.org/stories/develop...1-8b59fca603d8

Yeah, I guess "Oceanwide Center" is dead, but I would bet that towers do eventually go up on those locations. It's a much less ambitious project than the Chicago spire, and is located in the heart of the busiest part of downtown SF, whereas the spire was in a comparatively more isolated part of downtown Chicago.

Oceanwide site:

https://www.google.com/maps/@37.7877.../data=!3m1!1e3


Spire site:

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.8880.../data=!3m1!1e3

[photoLith]

Originally Posted by plinko

Don't sleep on Pittsburgh's pre-war skyline. I think there are (3-4) 300 footers that have now been torn down:


Source

To my knowledge, no 300 ft buildings ever got torn down here downtown... I may by wrong but all of those tall buildings in that photo are still here today.

[tech12]

Originally Posted by Zapatan

It's up there but by a questionable margin considering Miami, Houston and maybe some others have a lot more official skyscrapers overall, plus Miami also has supertalls on the way (hopefully) and Houston has way more 200+ meter buildings. Philly, Houston and LA would still give it a run for its money at the high end (i.e tallest two or three buildings), too.

But yea SF is great and has the perfect natural setting.

SF has around 500 high-rise buildings (using the emporis definition of 115'+). NYC, Chicago, Miami, Houston, and LA have more, and it looks like Honolulu has around as many as SF does. SF seem to have a lot of high rises in the 115-400 foot range compared to many US cities, but it stopped building high-rises for most of the 1990s, and didn't build anything taller than 500 feet between 1986 and 2008. So a lot of cities have caught up to or surpassed SF when it comes to the taller skyscrapers.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by photoLith

To my knowledge, no 300 ft buildings ever got torn down here downtown... I may by wrong but all of those tall buildings in that photo are still here today.

According to the CTBUH database, pittsburgh has demolished two pre-war towers over 300' tall.

and sadly, both of them looked to be quite nice.


1. First National Bank Building - 387' - built 1912 - demolished 1970

2. Farmers Bank Building - 344' - built 1902 - demolished 1997

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Zapatan

It's up there but by a questionable margin considering Miami, Houston and maybe some others have a lot more official skyscrapers overall, plus Miami also has supertalls on the way (hopefully) and Houston has way more 200+ meter buildings. Philly, Houston and LA would still give it a run for its money at the high end (i.e tallest two or three buildings), too.

higher peaks are more interesting to me than wider plateaus, generally speaking.

philly vs. vancouver. that can go either way, but i know which skyline i prefer.


ALSO: would miami please finally fucking build one of its 3 dozen supertall proposals, WTF?

[craigs]

Originally Posted by tech12

There's also the Shell building, at 378 feet, built in 1929

Ah, my bad. I love the massing and vertical emphasis.

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

higher peaks are more interesting to me than wider plateaus, generally speaking.

philly vs. vancouver. that can go either way, but i know which skyline i prefer.

Agreed. And I would share that same preference.

[C.]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

It's a nice round number, and with 90 of them now, it gets us pretty damn close to the nation's top 100 tallest.

I could rerun the numbers using the nation's 100 tallest towers and the results would not substantively change.


The 100 tallest US skyscrapers:

New York: 46 (includes 2 in JC)

Chicago: 21

Rest of America: 33

I love, love, love how Jersey City is doing a very small part in support of NYC's count. At one point there was a proposal for three 95 story towers (55 Hudson, 99 Hudson, Liberty Rising Hotel), but only one got built at 79 floors.

If One Journal Square ever gets revived, a couple more may be added. Although the tower proposals have saw height decreases as of late.

[SFBruin]

If Miami builds a supertall, then it's game over for third largest skyline in the US imo.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by C.

I love, love, love how Jersey City is doing a very small part in support of NYC's count.

yeah, JC's skyline has really grown into a real thing in its own right.

i've mentioned this before, but if you scooped up JC and plopped it down into some random iowa cornfield, it would instantly become the 2nd largest/tallest skyline in the entire midwest after chicago!

[C.]

Can anyone expand this list below to the top 100? And maybe throw in proposals just for fun? The idea is it will be a moving target as new taller skyscrapers are proposed and built, skyscrapers at the end of the list will fall out.

Top 25 tallest skyscrapers completed in the United States by City

New York - 14
Chicago - 6
Los Angeles - 2
San Francisco - 1
Philadelphia - 1
Atlanta - 1

Top 25 tallest skyscrapers completed + under construction in the United States (change)

New York 15 (+1)
Chicago 5 (-1)
Los Angeles 2
San Francisco 1
Philadelphia 1
Atlanta 1

Top 25 tallest skyscrapers completed + under construction + proposed in the United States using SSP data (change from completed)

New York 16 (+2)
Chicago 6
Philadelphia 2 (+1)
Los Angeles 1 (-1)
San Francisco 0 (-1)
Atlanta 0 (-1)

[Steely Dan]

The 100 tallest US skyscrapers in 2021 (completed + U/C):

New York: 46 (includes 2 in JC)

Chicago: 21

Rest of America: 33

- Philly: 5
- San Francisco: 3
- Los Angeles: 3
- Houston: 3
- Atlanta: 3
- Dallas: 3
- Miami: 3
- Seattle: 2
- Charlotte: 2
- Cleveland: 1
- Austin: 1
- Pittsburgh: 1
- Oklahoma City: 1
- Minneapolis: 1
- Boston: 1


source: CTBUH database


so nearly half of the nation's 100 tallest are in NYC, and fully 2/3 of them are in NYC + Chicago. then a giant drop off down to philly at #3 with 5 of 'em.

[SFBruin]

I don't know why Seattle would bother to build anything in downtown rn.

There's too many homeless.

[mhays]

You're definitely not in commercial real estate!

Most of greater Downtown doesn't have that bad an issue. And that's behind the pretty epic boom we're still in, which seems to be continuing.

[Steely Dan]

here's a fun little chart comparing the 100 tallest skyscrapers in the US today with how things stood back in 2000.


The 100 tallest US skyscrapers, 2000 vs. today:


city ------------ 2000 ---- 2021 ---- change

New York ------- 28 ------- 46* ----- +18

Chicago --------- 13 ------- 21 ------- +8

Los Angeles ---- 10 --------- 3 ------- -7

Houston -------- 10 --------- 3 ------- -7

Atlanta ---------- 6 ---------- 3 ------- -3

Dallas ----------- 6 ---------- 3 ------- -3

Philly ------------ 4 --------- 5 ------- +1

Seattle ---------- 4 --------- 2 -------- -2

Minneapolis ----- 3 --------- 1 -------- -2

Denver ---------- 3 --------- 0 -------- -3

San Francisco --- 2 --------- 3 ------- +1

Cleveland ------- 2 --------- 1 -------- -1

Pittsburgh ------ 2 ---------- 1 ------- -1

Boston --------- 2 ---------- 1 -------- -1

Miami ---------- 1 ---------- 3 ------- +2

Charlotte ------- 1 --------- 2 ------- +1

Detroit --------- 1 ---------- 0 -------- -1

Indianapolis --- 1 ---------- 0 -------- -1

New Orleans --- 1 --------- 0 --------- -1

Austin ---------- 0 --------- 1 -------- +1

Oklahoma City - 0 --------- 1 -------- +1


(*) NYC's 2021 total includes 2 towers right across the Hudson in Jersey City.


source: CTBUH database




once again, the data shows NYC and Chicago really pulling ahead of the rest of the pack over the past two decades, and knocking some cities out of the top 100 altogether (denver, detroit, new orleans, and indianapolis).

back in the year 2000, NYC and chicago accounted for 41% of the 100 tallest towers in the nation, and now they account for 67%, that's 26 percentage points of movement combined!

because most of the nation's 700 - 800 footers have now been pushed out of the top 100, LA and houston, who both have substantial collections of such towers, took the biggest hits on this particular measure.

and with the ongoing building booms taking place in the big 2, boston and minneapolis will soon find themselves in danger of being bumped off the list altogether. minneapolis' lone entry is currently #91 and boston's is #94.

dallas and charlotte are also both very close to losing a top 100 tower as well, but they both have taller towers that will keep them on the list for some time.

[Tom In Chicago]

^This really points out the correlation between cities that excel in pizza making and skyscraper inventory. . .

. . . I'll see myself out

. . .

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by Tom In Chicago

^This really points out the correlation between cities that excel in pizza making and skyscraper inventory. . .

. . . I'll see myself out
.

That’s the obvious conclusion, yes.

…..Your post literally made me hungry

[Tom In Chicago]

^You're welcome. . .

. . .

[Zapatan]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

higher peaks are more interesting to me than wider plateaus, generally speaking.

philly vs. vancouver. that can go either way, but i know which skyline i prefer.


ALSO: would miami please finally fucking build one of its 3 dozen supertall proposals, WTF?

I agree but I meant that other cities have decent peaks and plateaus, easily comparable to or surpassing SF (which is gorgeous aesthetically). SF is definitely one of the best in the US after NYC and Chicago but it definitely has competition.


Anyway, question is, why does the US build so few skyscrapers outside of NY and Chicago? I would expect more from a country like this and hope things change in the future.