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

[mhays]

Here's a theory:

--Into the 90s, the tallest buildings were often built with easy government-backed loans, with less concern for local economics and a level of risk-taking we don't see today. (Before the savings and loan crisis)

--Since then, local economics have been the main factor -- land costs, construction costs, housing/hotel/office demand, transit, etc.

You can also factor the oil boom in Houston and Denver, or the added challenge of seismic codes in LA, SF, and Seattle. And definitely cities with tighter height and FAR limits.

The funny thing is that the last couple decades have brought development booms to most downtowns. But it's usually buildings that don't make the top 100.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

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.

to add to the above, here are the current bottom 10 towers of america's 100 tallest (#91 - #100).

as new 800+ footers will surely go up in the coming years, these are the first towers that will be squeezed off the list.


91. BNY Mellon Bank Center - Philadelphia - 792'
91. IDS Center - Minneapolis - 792' *
91. Woolworth Building - New York City - 792'
94. 200 Clarendon - Boston - 790' *
95. Four Seasons Hotel & Tower - Miami - 789'
96. 111 Murray Street - New York City - 788'
97. Comerica Bank Tower - Dallas - 787'
98. Duke Energy Center - Charlotte - 786'
99. 300 North LaSalle - Chicago - 785'
100. 30 Hudson Street - Jersey City - 781'

(*) only tower left on the list for the city

[Steely Dan]

here's a timeline chart of US 800+ footers by city.

dots are completed towers
open circles are under construction towers
the 2 "X"s for NYC are the original WTC twins





two things immediately jump out at me:

1. holy fuck, NYC! they've gone plaid over the past decade.

2. 1982 - 1992 saw the construction of 19 new 800+ footers in the US, but only one of them was in NYC (City Spire). strange.

[C.]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

2. 1982 - 1992 saw the construction of 19 new 800+ footers in the US, but only one of them was in NYC (City Spire). strange.

Neat chart. A little before my time but I guess that was the Crack Epidemic?

[mhays]

Some of that was the oil boom and easily federally-backed loans that spurred a lot of vanity construction.

[Manitopiaaa]

Very cool graphic, Steely Dan.

It's graphs like these that show me how much Chicago is underrated. I would have expected New York to have 4-5x more 800 footers, but it's only 2x. Just like how so many say Chicago and Toronto are equal skylines, yet Chicago has far more supertalls than Toronto (7 vs. 0) and far more 800' (20 vs. 6).

[C.]

Originally Posted by Manitopiaaa

Very cool graphic, Steely Dan.

It's graphs like these that show me how much Chicago is underrated. I would have expected New York to have 4-5x more 800 footers, but it's only 2x. Just like how so many say Chicago and Toronto are equal skylines, yet Chicago has far more supertalls than Toronto (7 vs. 0) and far more 800' (20 vs. 6).

Now that's a scandalous idea. Possible to add Canada (Toronto) to the list? I am amazed at how many get proposed but I'm not sure how many actually get built.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Manitopiaaa

Very cool graphic, Steely Dan.

It's graphs like these that show me how much Chicago is underrated. I would have expected New York to have 4-5x more 800 footers, but it's only 2x. Just like how so many say Chicago and Toronto are equal skylines, yet Chicago has far more supertalls than Toronto (7 vs. 0) and far more 800' (20 vs. 6).

800 ft+ towers are a pretty tiny component part of an overall skyline profile. So it isn't surprising that people can come to different conclusions re. relative skyline size by looking at a tiny subset of towers.

NYC does have around 5-6x as many highrises as Chicago, but only 2-3x as many really tall towers as Chicago. So if you're comparing skylines by "size", what exactly are you comparing?

And Toronto has around 2x as many highrises as Chicago, but very few really tall towers relative to Chicago. Chicago's skyline is vastly larger by looking at the tallest, while Toronto's skyline is much larger by counting all highrises.

It's all subjective, but I think it makes the most sense to "count" all highrises, but weight more for the relative height. The particulars would be pretty messy, though. What's a 700-ft tower "worth" relative to a 300-ft tower? And what about bulk?

[Klippenstein]

Originally Posted by Crawford

800 ft+ towers are a pretty tiny component part of an overall skyline profile. So it isn't surprising that people can come to different conclusions re. relative skyline size by looking at a tiny subset of towers.

NYC does have around 5-6x as many highrises as Chicago, but only 2-3x as many really tall towers as Chicago. So if you're comparing skylines by "size", what exactly are you comparing?

And Toronto has around 2x as many highrises as Chicago, but very few really tall towers relative to Chicago. Chicago's skyline is vastly larger by looking at the tallest, while Toronto's skyline is much larger by counting all highrises.

It's all subjective, but I think it makes the most sense to "count" all highrises, but weight more for the relative height. The particulars would be pretty messy, though. What's a 700-ft tower "worth" relative to a 300-ft tower? And what about bulk?

It depends what you consider a high rise. According to Wikipedia, by October 2021 Chicago had 131 skyscrapers over 150m and Toronto had 76.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Manitopiaaa

Very cool graphic, Steely Dan.

It's graphs like these that show me how much Chicago is underrated. I would have expected New York to have 4-5x more 800 footers, but it's only 2x. Just like how so many say Chicago and Toronto are equal skylines, yet Chicago has far more supertalls than Toronto (7 vs. 0) and far more 800' (20 vs. 6).

Ever since the "big 3" went up 50 years ago, Chicago has been a bit of an over performer when it comes to top end height

There's just something in this town's DNA that loves a really tall building.

What's kinda funny though is the two faced nature of it, downtown vs. the neighborhoods. Downtown they'll let you build a freaking space elevator to the moon, IF you can get it funded, but in the the other 90% of the city out in the nabes, anything over 4 - 5 stories is seen as the single greatest affront to basic human decency since the Holocaust.

Chicago: skyscrapers or 3-flats, and that's it!

[Crawford]

I thought a highrise was usually defined as something 120 ft. or taller. On that measure, Toronto will have far more than Chicago.

But it's all subjective. Does Dubai or Sao Paulo have a more impressive skyline? Dubai presently has more supertalls than anywhere on earth, but few highrises. Sao Paulo probably has more highrises than anywhere on earth, but no real skyscrapers. I'd probably go with Sao Paulo, given the overwhelming sea of highrises, but I get if people go with Dubai.

To me, Chicago still feels like a substantially bigger skyline than Toronto, partially because there are more really tall towers, but also because there are more really iconic towers, more corporate trophy towers, and nearly 100% of the highrises are concentrated in a discrete, relatively small geography. Toronto's highrises, on average, tend to be more generic residentials, and there are clusters all over the metro, with most outside the metropolitan core.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

here's a timeline chart of US 800+ footers by city.

dots are completed towers
open circles are under construction towers
the 2 "X"s for NYC are the original WTC twins





two things immediately jump out at me:

1. holy fuck, NYC! they've gone plaid over the past decade.

2. 1982 - 1992 saw the construction of 19 new 800+ footers in the US, but only one of them was in NYC (City Spire). strange.

Do you have a way to show which are publicly vs privately financed projects?

[MAC123]

It's a combination of the 2 I think. If all you have is a few really big towers then it really isn't that impressive of a skyline as a whole, even if the towers themselves are impressive.
And vise versa, if all you have are a bunch of highrises the skyline still isn't going to be that impressive (though maybe a bit better)
I'm thinking it's a 40/60 split in favor of the bunch of highrises.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Do you have a way to show which are publicly vs privately financed projects?

I don't, but off-hand, I can't think of any publicly financed 800+ footers in the US, unless there are some in NYC that I don't know about.

[softee]

Originally Posted by Manitopiaaa

Very cool graphic, Steely Dan.

It's graphs like these that show me how much Chicago is underrated. I would have expected New York to have 4-5x more 800 footers, but it's only 2x. Just like how so many say Chicago and Toronto are equal skylines, yet Chicago has far more supertalls than Toronto (7 vs. 0) and far more 800' (20 vs. 6).

Toronto currently has 2 supertalls under construction, with several more on the way.

And to address some other comments/questions upthread:

There are 78 completed buildings of 150M+ and another 35 under construction.
There are another 129 towers of 150M+ proposed.

The majority of high-rise proposals in Toronto get built.

[Klippenstein]

Seems like Toronto is going to look like a completely new city in 10 years or even sooner, in regards to its skyline.

[Zapatan]

Originally Posted by softee

Toronto currently has 2 supertalls under construction, with several more on the way.

And to address some other comments/questions upthread:

There are 78 completed buildings of 150M+ and another 35 under construction.
There are another 129 towers of 150M+ proposed.

The majority of high-rise proposals in Toronto get built.

Toronto could catch up to Chicago in a lot of categories and is definitely the third best skyline in the world outside of Asia (perhaps soon rivaled by Moscow or Melbourne) but it still falls way behind Chicago at the high end.

Quantity matters but so does height, Chicago has five ~350 meter buildings by roof alone, which is pretty rare globally.

[Doady]

Chicago's skyline is along the waterfront, while Toronto's skyline is perpendicular to the waterfront, which might affect people's perception a bit.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Doady

Chicago's skyline is along the waterfront, while Toronto's skyline is perpendicular to the waterfront, which might affect people's perception a bit.

Maybe that plays a part, but I think the bigger factor here, from an American perspective, is the incredible speed at which the Toronto skyline has grown over the past decade or so.


Toronto buildings over 500':

2010: 19
Today : 99 (including U/C)


Toronto buildings over 800':

2010: 4
Today : 9 (including U/C)


12 years ago, Toronto simply wasn't anywhere close to chicago's level skyline-wise. it has now solidly positioned itself as #3 in NA, and is quickly catching up to #2 and will likely surpass it in size.

If miami ever decides to build some of its 3 dozen supertall proposals, it could theoretically move itself into a solid #4 slot because it's already got the bulk I'm the lower height ranges.

[ue]

^ Out of curiosity, what do you think #3 in NA would have been circa 2010, if not Toronto? I agree it wasn't quite on the level of Chicago then, but Toronto has been solidly #3 for a while...which is impressive in its own way. Toronto also has had way more suburban high-rise clusters (both residential and office) for a long time, whereas Chicago just has the contiguous core skyline really.

Originally Posted by Doady

Chicago's skyline is along the waterfront, while Toronto's skyline is perpendicular to the waterfront, which might affect people's perception a bit.

That's been changing over the past 20 years, though. For sure the main orientation of high-rises is still north-south along the Yonge corridor, but it has been beefing up east-west too with Cityplace, the Harbourfront, Southcore, Corktown, various developments in the King West area and Financial District, and soon the Portlands.

Unfortunately the north-south orientation doesn't have many good places to view it from, aside from Riverdale Park and Chester Hill Lookout, although the latter is kind of far from things. An observatory from around Regent Park/St Lawrence/Eastern Queens Quay or somewhere near Bathurst St or Spadina between College and King would show the impressive expanse of Toronto's skyline better.