HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #61  
Old Posted Dec 13, 2021, 1:57 AM
Nouvellecosse's Avatar
Nouvellecosse Nouvellecosse is online now
Volatile Pacivist
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Nova Scotia
Posts: 9,002
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crawford View Post
I don't understand these analogies. If you own a car and never use it, yes, you're living a non-autocentric lifestyle. If a a city has a billion miles of transit and basically no ridership, yes, it's auto-oriented with no real transit.

The fact is that Dallas has essentially no transit ridership. So what does it matter how many miles of light rail, or how many bus routes? You could shut all Dallas transit down tomorrow, and it would barely register.

In terms of the analogies you don't understand, I guess I would just ask you, if you knew someone who had a car they didn't use very often would you actually say "They don't have a car" or would you just say, "They're living a non-autocentric lifestyle?"

I suppose the main reasons I would say that "most people in a city are living an auto-centric lifestyle" rather than saying "the city doesn't have transit" is because if the transit is there for those who want it, that has implications for the minority who do want or need it. Plus, the presence of physical infrastructure and like electrified rail transit and institutional structures like a regional transit agency potentially gives an advantage to a city who does want to get serious about attracting ridership compared to one that actually has no transit.

But I agree it's functionally not a huge difference.
__________________
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man." - George Bernard Shaw
Don't ask people not to debate a topic. Just stop making debatable assertions. Problem solved.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #62  
Old Posted Dec 13, 2021, 2:19 AM
Lobotomizer's Avatar
Lobotomizer Lobotomizer is online now
Frontal Lobe Technician
 
Join Date: Jul 2021
Posts: 351
For those interested in facts, and not hyperbole, Dallas Area Rapid Transit pre-Covid had a ridership of 70 million passengers annually on 161 bus lines, and 4 light rail lines totalling 93 miles.

I understand DFW is nearly 8 million people, and compared to comparably sized metros it's ridership is not impressive.

However, I believe it to be entirely disingenuous and ridiculous to state it essentially has no transit.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #63  
Old Posted Dec 13, 2021, 2:21 AM
Crawford Crawford is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NYC/Polanco, DF
Posts: 30,551
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lobotomizer View Post

However, I believe it to be entirely disingenuous and ridiculous to state it essentially has no transit.
I think it's a reasonable statement. 2% transit share, for a major world city of nearly 8 million, is effectively zero transit.

If Dallas shut all transit tomorrow, forever, would it have any meaningful impact on the metro? Almost certainly no.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #64  
Old Posted Dec 13, 2021, 2:47 AM
ue ue is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 9,480
^ Didn't Arlington already do that? lol

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Dan View Post
Tulsa?

There are other US cities that would rank FAR ahead of Tulsa in the pre-war skyline size department - Philly, SF, and KC to name a few.
Was just thinking of Tulsa's Art Deco collection. But yeah Kansas City and San Francisco would arguably have been better choices. Philly I think shines more after they got rid of their height limit.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #65  
Old Posted Dec 13, 2021, 4:11 AM
homebucket homebucket is online now
你的媽媽
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: The Bay
Posts: 8,722
Quote:
Originally Posted by JManc View Post
Ever since the oil bust in the late 80's and the ensuing office glut, Houston and Dallas have been very risk adverse when it comes to high rises.
I wonder if anyone has access to list of US downtown office vacancy rates. I'd be interesting to see this list pre- and post-COVID as well.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #66  
Old Posted Dec 13, 2021, 4:29 AM
summersm343's Avatar
summersm343 summersm343 is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 18,362
Quote:
Originally Posted by ue View Post
^ Didn't Arlington already do that? lol



Was just thinking of Tulsa's Art Deco collection. But yeah Kansas City and San Francisco would arguably have been better choices. Philly I think shines more after they got rid of their height limit.
Huh? I’m sorry, but have you ever been to Philadelphia? Philadelphia has a massive collection of prewar buildings. Not a chance Tulsa has more. Late 1800s, early 1900s, Philadelphia was still one of the top cities in the nation. No doubt in my mind that Philadelphia has more pre-war buildings than Kansas City, Pittsburgh, Cleveland and Detroit too…. And I don’t know for sure, but it may have more than San Francisco. I’m willing to bet Philadelphia has the largest collection of pre-war buildings in the US after NYC and Chicago.

Last edited by summersm343; Dec 13, 2021 at 5:05 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #67  
Old Posted Dec 13, 2021, 4:41 AM
summersm343's Avatar
summersm343 summersm343 is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 18,362
Quote:
Originally Posted by homebucket View Post
If we examine this 2nd tier of skyscraper cities, here is the breakdown of completed buildings of at least 500 ft. I thought I'd look up some others too in addition to the ones you listed.

It appears that Miami by far is the 3rd largest skyline in the US, followed by Houston, LA, and SF. Philadelphia is surprisingly low despite having an impressive looking skyline. Maybe because it's more top heavy? It doesn't seem like they have very many towers below 600 ft (unless Wikipedia is very off), yet the skyline still appears quite dense. Very interesting phenomenon. Austin will likely jump to the top half of this list in the next 5-10 years.
Philadelphia had a “Gentleman’s Agreement” in place until the late 80’s that you couldn’t build taller than William Penn’s hat on the top of City Hall which sits at 548 feet tall. Look at all of Philadelphia’s buildings taller than City Hall… built 1987 and onward. Before the Gentleman’s agreement was ended in the late 80’s, Philadelphia only had 2 buildings over 500 feet tall including City Hall. Many other cities were already building 500+ footers for decades. Since the Gentleman’s Agreement was ended however, Philadelphia has made some pretty great strides in that department in my opinion. Philadelphia has a very large collection of buildings in the 100, 200, 300 and 400 foot tall range, but has a relatively low amount of 500 and 600 footers.

Last edited by summersm343; Dec 13, 2021 at 5:08 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #68  
Old Posted Dec 13, 2021, 6:00 AM
ChiSoxRox's Avatar
ChiSoxRox ChiSoxRox is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 2,489
Using our diagrams, the top US cities by buildings above 300 feet in 1940:

New York - 186
Chicago - 41
Philadelphia - 19
San Francisco - 15
Detroit - 14
Pittsburgh - 11
Dallas - 6
Houston - 6
Kansas City - 5

Any city not listed was under 5. LA had 3, Baltimore 4, Cleveland 2.
__________________
Like the pre-war masonry skyscrapers? Then check out my list of the tallest buildings in 1950.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #69  
Old Posted Dec 13, 2021, 6:46 AM
ue ue is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 9,480
Quote:
Originally Posted by summersm343 View Post
Huh? I’m sorry, but have you ever been to Philadelphia? Philadelphia has a massive collection of prewar buildings. Not a chance Tulsa has more. Late 1800s, early 1900s, Philadelphia was still one of the top cities in the nation. No doubt in my mind that Philadelphia has more pre-war buildings than Kansas City, Pittsburgh, Cleveland and Detroit too…. And I don’t know for sure, but it may have more than San Francisco. I’m willing to bet Philadelphia has the largest collection of pre-war buildings in the US after NYC and Chicago.
Yeah, I haven't been to Philly, but I do know it has a lot of pre-war buildings. It's probably the 3rd best for pre-war urbanism in the US behind NYC and Chicago. I also didn't mean to discount Philadelphia's pre-war skyline, as I know there's many different buildings. It's just that, compared to the current skyline, they don't stick out as much, so I don't generally think about them as much, whereas in Detroit or New York, they definitely do still stick out. Regardless, I will concede that Philly probably, along with San Francisco, are the two cities whose skylines have consistently been in the tier below New York/Chicago. So...it'd be cool if you all could drop it instead of harping on it. I was wrong - you were right. Let's move on.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #70  
Old Posted Dec 13, 2021, 1:33 PM
jtown,man jtown,man is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Chicago
Posts: 4,144
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crawford View Post
Dallas does have the largest light rail system, but the ridership is minimal.

Dallas metro transit ridership is about as close to 0 as you can get for a major metropolis. So, functionally, it basically has no transit. When you have like 1-2% transit share, you don't have transit.
It's true, ridership numbers reflect the usefulness of a system. However, Dallas has a decent rail system. That's not in dispute.


*No, I am not comparing Dallas to NYC, Chicago, or European or Asian cities.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #71  
Old Posted Dec 13, 2021, 3:13 PM
chris08876's Avatar
chris08876 chris08876 is online now
NYC/NJ/Miami-Dade
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Riverview Estates Fairway (PA)
Posts: 45,696
Keep an eye out for Jersey City. It has the potential to move up the rankings quick.

On a side note but Miami also has the potential to move up the 300m ladder. We have the Waldorf Astoria which is looking like a "go" and a few others.

"Major" being one at 320 meters. Likewise with One Bayfront which has been in the pipeline for ages but I think eventually it will make headway due to its mixed used revamp. Was originally all office I believe.

Right now Miami has 18 towers in the pipeline over 800 ft (in various stages of the development via proposal status).

Aston Martin is u/c at over 800 ft.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #72  
Old Posted Dec 13, 2021, 3:20 PM
chris08876's Avatar
chris08876 chris08876 is online now
NYC/NJ/Miami-Dade
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Riverview Estates Fairway (PA)
Posts: 45,696
How NYC and Chicago stack up to other Global Cities:

By 300m+: Complete




By 150m+: Complete

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #73  
Old Posted Dec 13, 2021, 3:29 PM
iheartthed iheartthed is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: New York
Posts: 9,787
Quote:
Originally Posted by summersm343 View Post
No doubt in my mind that Philadelphia has more pre-war buildings than Kansas City, Pittsburgh, Cleveland and Detroit too…. And I don’t know for sure, but it may have more than San Francisco. I’m willing to bet Philadelphia has the largest collection of pre-war buildings in the US after NYC and Chicago.
Maybe. Philly obviously has more than KC, Pittsburgh, Cleveland, and SF, having been a much larger city than those places ever were. It would've been evenly matched with Detroit, but Detroit has lost so much that Philly definitely still has more surviving. L.A. would also be a contender. It was very close to Philly by population in 1950.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #74  
Old Posted Dec 13, 2021, 4:36 PM
mhays mhays is online now
Never Dell
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 19,748
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtown,man View Post
It's true, ridership numbers reflect the usefulness of a system. However, Dallas has a decent rail system. That's not in dispute.


*No, I am not comparing Dallas to NYC, Chicago, or European or Asian cities.
Sure it's debatable. The map is impressive but I'm reading that peak frequencies (even pre-Covid) were 15 minutes, and they got down to 30 on weekend evenings. That's pretty bad. That's before speed comes in.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #75  
Old Posted Dec 13, 2021, 4:36 PM
summersm343's Avatar
summersm343 summersm343 is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 18,362
Quote:
Originally Posted by ue View Post
Yeah, I haven't been to Philly, but I do know it has a lot of pre-war buildings. It's probably the 3rd best for pre-war urbanism in the US behind NYC and Chicago. I also didn't mean to discount Philadelphia's pre-war skyline, as I know there's many different buildings. It's just that, compared to the current skyline, they don't stick out as much, so I don't generally think about them as much, whereas in Detroit or New York, they definitely do still stick out. Regardless, I will concede that Philly probably, along with San Francisco, are the two cities whose skylines have consistently been in the tier below New York/Chicago. So...it'd be cool if you all could drop it instead of harping on it. I was wrong - you were right. Let's move on.
That's fair. Now that you explained, I can see what you mean. The only two prewar buildings that REALLY stick out from most angles in Philadelphia are City Hall and the PSFS Building/Loews Hotel. Most of the others are dwarfed from a skyline perspective by the newer skyscrapers built in the late 80s onward. However, if you're on the street, walking around the city, you can get a really good sense of Philadelphia's large stock of prewar highrises/skyscrapers on

South Broad Street:
https://www.google.com/maps/@39.9510...7i16384!8i8192
https://www.google.com/maps/@39.9487...7i16384!8i8192

Walnut Street (especially west of Broad Street):
https://www.google.com/maps/@39.9494...7i16384!8i8192
https://www.google.com/maps/@39.9498...7i16384!8i8192
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #76  
Old Posted Dec 13, 2021, 5:10 PM
Steely Dan's Avatar
Steely Dan Steely Dan is offline
devout Pizzatarian
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Lincoln Square, Chicago
Posts: 29,634
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChiSoxRox View Post
Using our diagrams, the top US cities by buildings above 300 feet in 1940:

New York - 186
Chicago - 41
Philadelphia - 19
San Francisco - 15
Detroit - 14
Pittsburgh - 11
Dallas - 6
Houston - 6
Kansas City - 5

Any city not listed was under 5. LA had 3, Baltimore 4, Cleveland 2.

thanks for that refresher.

NYC - the unquestioned #1

Chicago - the unquestioned #2

#3? - take your pick between philly, SF, Detroit, and Pittsburgh.

i personally would slot detoit in at #3 because its pre-war top 5 of the penobscot, guardian, book, fisher, and stott towers is pretty much unbeatable anywhere outside of NYC/chicago, IMO.

i mean, each of those 5 towers are skyscraper masterpieces, any one of them would likely be the pre-war show-stopper in most other skylines.

but if someone is more partial to one of those other 3 cities, i wouldn't argue about it with them; the #3 pre-war skyline is not clear-cut like the first two.


cleveland is an interesting one in that it built, by far, the tallest pre-war skyscraper anywhere on the planet outside of NYC, but then had an extremely limited supporting cast around it at the time, at least relative to its peers like detroit and pittsburgh.
__________________
"Missing middle" housing can be a great middle ground for many middle class families.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #77  
Old Posted Dec 13, 2021, 5:22 PM
summersm343's Avatar
summersm343 summersm343 is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 18,362
Quote:
Originally Posted by iheartthed View Post
Maybe. Philly obviously has more than KC, Pittsburgh, Cleveland, and SF, having been a much larger city than those places ever were. It would've been evenly matched with Detroit, but Detroit has lost so much that Philly definitely still has more surviving. L.A. would also be a contender. It was very close to Philly by population in 1950.
After looking it up... it's not even close honestly. According to Emporis, which is probably the most comprehensive catalog of highrises and skyscrapers out there:

Buildings built 1940 or before taller than 300 feet:

Philadelphia - 20
San Francisco - 13
Detroit - 13
Pittsburgh - 11
Kansas City - 6
St. Louis - 4
Boston - 4
Tulsa - 3
Baltimore - 2
Cleveland - 2
Los Angeles - 1

Buildings built 1940 or before taller than 200 feet:

Philadelphia - 63
San Francisco - 39
Detroit - 36
Pittsburgh - 31
St. Louis - 25
Kansas City - 17
Baltimore - 16
Cleveland - 15
Boston - 15
Los Angeles - 8
Tulsa - 6
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #78  
Old Posted Dec 13, 2021, 5:28 PM
summersm343's Avatar
summersm343 summersm343 is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 18,362
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Dan View Post
thanks for that refresher.

NYC - the unquestioned #1

Chicago - the unquestioned #2

#3? - take your pick between philly, SF, Detroit, and Pittsburgh.

i personally would slot detoit in at #3 because its pre-war top 5 of the penobscot, guardian, book, fisher, and stott towers is pretty much unbeatable anywhere outside of NYC/chicago, IMO.

i mean, each of those 5 towers are skyscraper masterpieces, any one of them would likely be the pre-war show-stopper in most other skylines.

but if someone is more partial to one of those other 3 cities, i wouldn't argue about it with them; the #3 pre-war skyline is not clear-cut like the first two.


cleveland is an interesting one in that it built, by far, the tallest pre-war skyscraper anywhere on the planet outside of NYC, but then had an extremely limited supporting cast around it at the time, at least relative to its peers like detroit and pittsburgh.
Take a look at my post above. Philadelphia is undisputed #3... it's not really close. The diagrams on SkyscraperPage aren't that thorough. San Francisco, Detroit and Pittsburgh are absolutely in the battle for #4 though.

I do agree though that Detroit's tallest prewar buildings are stunners.... so it's probably pretty easily #4 because of that.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #79  
Old Posted Dec 13, 2021, 5:38 PM
ChiSoxRox's Avatar
ChiSoxRox ChiSoxRox is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 2,489
Does the Emporis search include demolished buildings? That will add one or two to most of those cities.

To take LA as an example, the three on the SSP diagram are City Hall (presumably the Emporis one), USC Medical Center (no height listed, but the diagram has it at (~350 feet), and Richfield Tower, 328 feet to the roof but demolished in the late 60s.

Likewise the Hudson Building is probably the Detroit discrepancy.
__________________
Like the pre-war masonry skyscrapers? Then check out my list of the tallest buildings in 1950.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #80  
Old Posted Dec 13, 2021, 5:44 PM
summersm343's Avatar
summersm343 summersm343 is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 18,362
^^I looked at "existing" buildings only. You can see demolished buildings on Emporis, but I didn't look at them. No point.... can't see them anymore. So, if someone today wanted to see a large collection of pre-war skyscrapers and highrises, they would go to NYC, Chicago, Philly, Detroit, San Francisco and Pittsburgh probably in that order.

Side note - shocked how low Boston is.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:01 PM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.