Dated Skylines

[JAYNYC]

What cities' skylines - whether large, medium or small - appear to be visibly stuck in the past? What cities' skylines are stagnant, filled with brown/beige eyesores or boxes, and could use a few new towers to reinvigorate their respective aesthetic? Think skylines that take you back to the 70s, 80s or 90s.

I'll start, in no particular order.

*Some of these cities' (Houston, Dallas) skylines were considered among the most modern in the nation during their boom periods, yet have been unable to maintain the growth that led to their one-time prominence. Others were never considered great (San Antonio, Cleveland).

Houston
Dallas
San Antonio
Cleveland
Detroit
New Orleans
Orlando
Phoenix
Indianapolis
Oakland

[pj3000]

Pittsburgh

Outside of the new PNC Tower (which filled a gap and added another 500-footer, but is nothing great), Pittsburgh’s skyline is pretty much unchanged since the 1980s.

There have been some additions to the downtown skyline, but nothing that makes much of a mark.

[jmecklenborg]

Office towers were very rare outside the United States until about 2000. So by 2050 foreigners will take a lot of interest in the "old" 1950-2000 skyscrapers in U.S. cities, in addition to the actually old ones in NYC, Chicago, Detroit, and a handful of other places.

[Boisebro]

Fresno.


image


I'm not picking on Fresno. I just think given its size, it has a ton of potential and seemingly plenty of space that's eager for development.

[DZH22]

Originally Posted by pj3000

Pittsburgh

Outside of the new PNC Tower (which filled a gap and added another 500-footer, but is nothing great), Pittsburgh’s skyline is pretty much unchanged since the 1980s.

There have been some additions to the downtown skyline, but nothing that makes much of a mark.

If I recall correctly, PNC Tower was originally supposed to go 600' and got chopped down a small amount. You're right that it's nothing really special.

Hartford hasn't changed much since the 1980's. Most of the Western MA and Upstate NY cities haven't really changed, such as Worcester, Springfield, Albany, Syracuse, Rochester, Buffalo....

Atlanta is mostly stuck in the 90's, except Buckhead and a bit of Midtown.

Detroit could qualify, but obviously has a (potentially) bright future if the Dan Snyder projects come to fruition.

Pretty much all the Ohio cities qualify.

New Orleans never seems to have fully recovered (at least in terms of forging ahead) from Katrina.

Birmingham Alabama doesn't seem to have much going on, whereas Mobile built the massive Battle House Tower.

Tampa and Jacksonville seem kind of left behind in the scheme of Florida's ongoing boom.

I have barely seen anything from Tulsa and Kansas City recently.

Minneapolis hasn't really built much in the impact department since the early 2000's. I know they have a pair of 500'+ on the way which should take it back off the list. With that said, I don't think Saint Paul has built much either.

I guess I also mainly agree with the first poster's list. It's always interesting to agree with someone when you vehemently disagree with that same person elsewhere!

[Buckeye Native 001]

Cincinnati.

Queen City Square is an abomination with that tiara, and the other top-two tallest were built before the start of the 2nd World War.

[Obadno]

Originally Posted by JAYNYC

What cities' skylines - whether large, medium or small - appear to be visibly stuck in the past? What cities' skylines are stagnant, filled with brown/beige eyesores or boxes, and could use a few new towers to reinvigorate their respective aesthetic? Think skylines that take you back to the 70s, 80s or 90s.

I'll start, in no particular order.

*Some of these cities' (Houston, Dallas) skylines were considered among the most modern in the nation during their boom periods, yet have been unable to maintain the growth that led to their one-time prominence. Others were never considered great (San Antonio, Cleveland).

Houston
Dallas
San Antonio
Cleveland
Detroit
New Orleans
Orlando
Phoenix
Indianapolis
Oakland

Half the Phoenix skyline has been built since 2000, its still not much to look at so its hard to find a large array of pictures over the years to get good comparisons

these are roughly 15-20 years old (guessing)





This is about as close as I can get for the same angle today, And that empty corner right front and center is about to start work on condo tower:

https://goo.gl/maps/oRXtCMiAx4Qv3PuY8

https://goo.gl/maps/VLt5i4ZKGnpyUPXb8

the four buildings in the coinciding photo above are blocked by the new stuff if that inst clear

Picture from 2 years ago you can see some of the buildings from the post card above, this view is now largely blocked by a new development across the street. https://goo.gl/maps/myrnKL48tb25Ahk78

And here you can see the original line of buildings from the pics above now surrounded by new ones. https://goo.gl/maps/AVKqgo6TCd19Jtg97

[sopas ej]

Cologne:


123rf.com


I kid, I kid! I guess it's supposed to be stuck in the past.

[the urban politician]

The Great Pyramids of Egypt?

[Steely Dan]

among the larger US skylines (those with at least 20 500+ footers), dallas has the most stagnant skyline.

ALL of its current 20 tallest buildings are at least 30 years now.

[Obadno]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

among the larger US skylines (those with at least 20 500+ footers), dallas has the most stagnant skyline.

ALL of its current 20 tallest buildings are at least 30 years now.

That’s not unusual at all most cities in the us had there tallest built in the 1970’s or wary 80’s. Including New York until 2014 and Chicago to this day.

Only a few cities have actually gotten new tallest buildings and only in the last ~5-7 years

[Steely Dan]

^ you're not understanding me, i'm not talking about just dallas' tallest bulding, i'm talking about ALL of its 20 tallest buildings. buildingS. plural. with an "s".

all 20 of dallas' tallest buildings are now at least 30 years old.

[DZH22]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

^ you're not understanding me, i'm not talking about just dallas' tallest bulding, i'm talking about ALL of its 20 tallest buildings. buildingS. plural. with an "s".

all 20 of dallas' tallest buildings are now at least 30 years old.

Not quite true. #15, AMLI Fountain Place, is under construction (maybe close to T/O?), but more importantly, #18, Museum Tower, was built in 2012. However, every other building in the top 25 was built over 30 years ago.

[craigs]

Originally Posted by Obadno

That’s not unusual at all most cities in the us had there tallest built in the 1970’s or wary 80’s. Including New York until 2014 and Chicago to this day.

Only a few cities have actually gotten new tallest buildings and only in the last ~5-7 years

You're talking about merely the #1 tallest building in a city being older.

Steely noted how the list of tallest 20 buildings in Dallas is almost identical to what it was at the end of the '80s (Museum Tower is the only new top-20 entry since 1988, and there's another under construction).

So while it may indeed be common for a given US city to have its #1 tallest building constructed 30+ years ago, Steely's point is more interesting and salient: it is unusual for a major US city with a relatively tall skyline in the 1980s to have stagnated so much when it comes to building taller towers in subsequent decades. Dallas is a laggard in this respect.

[DZH22]

Originally Posted by craigs

So while it may indeed be common for a given US city to have its #1 tallest building constructed 30+ years ago, Steely's point is more interesting and salient: it is unusual for a major US city with a relatively tall skyline in the 1980s to have stagnated so much when it comes to building taller towers in subsequent decades. Dallas is a laggard in this respect.

Yes, even my much-maligned city has 3 Top 10 buildings since 2000, and 8 of its top 25. Obviously, each subsequent tower makes it that much harder to crack the list, and Dallas was pretty tall to begin with.

However, it's also worth noting that while it makes more sense for more established cities (think Northeast, West Coast) to build up, many of these new Southern cities have tons of open land and parking lots to build on. I'm pretty sure Dallas has actually constructed quite a bit of mid-rise and shorter hi-rises in the last few years, particularly residential towers adjacent to downtown. For whatever reason, it hasn't gone tall lately. I know there are stale proposals in Dallas for supertall towers, and I don't think anything is stopping them from happening aside from simple economics. (unlike some FAA crunched cities, like mine)

Obviously, it seems like Austin has monopolized most of the noticeable skyline growth in Texas over the last couple of decades. I still prefer the more stately office buildings of the 70's/80's, but they are definitely getting stale at this point when the skylines aren't augmented by newer impact towers.

[JAYNYC]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

among the larger US skylines (those with at least 20 500+ footers), dallas has the most stagnant skyline.

ALL of its current 20 tallest buildings are at least 30 years now.

Where do Museum Tower and Amli Fountain Place rank?

[Hudson11]

The most anachronistic, I think, has to be Buffalo.

Mike Shriver

[austlar1]

You need a certain kind of major tenant for really tall office buildings built in second tier cities, and those tenants are in short supply. Downtown Dallas suffered an exodus of large local bank HQs and several large energy related companies by the end of the 1990s. Demand for office space in downtown Dallas has only revived in recent years, and new major corporate HQ's like ATT tend to run lean and mean. Tall office buildings usually aren't built on spec unless there is a lot of demand. The number of 15 to 20 story buildings that have shot up in Uptown/Midtown Dallas is quite impressive, but it does not have the same visual impact as a cluster of really tall buildings.

Here in Austin most of the tall buildings over 400 feet built in the past decade or so have been residential or hotels, including two condo towers over 650 feet tall. Office construction is just now getting off the ground with two 500' plus buildings underway. All the other new office construction in Austin in the past decade has been in buildings in the 250 to 400 foot range.

The Texas city with the most dated skyline is probably Fort Worth (or arguably San Antonio). Most of the tall FW buildings were built in the late 70s and early 80s during the banking/energy boom of that era. Most new construction has been in buildings of 20 floors or less. Fort Worth has done a nice job restoring and re purposing pre WW2 high rise buildings, but most are not especially tall.

[JAYNYC]

Originally Posted by austlar1

You need a certain kind of major tenant for really tall office building built in second tier cities, and those tenants are in short supply.

The most glaring example that comes to mind is Devon (OKC). I doubt that city will gain another similar tower in the next 30 years, if ever.

[JAYNYC]

Originally Posted by austlar1

The Texas city with the most dated skyline is probably Fort Worth.

Perhaps, but I've gotta think Houston, Dallas and San Antonio (the latter of which has never been impressive, but has had a couple small additions in the last 10 years) aren't too far behind.