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

[Steely Dan]

According to the CTBUH, there were 38 skyscrapers over 800' tall in the US at the close of the 20th century (tragically, the two WTC twins would soon be lost on 9/11, making for 36 that still survive).


US Skyscrapers over 800 ft. In 1999: 38 (36 still standing)

New York: 12 (10 still standing)

Chicago: 9

Rest of America: 17
- Houston: 3
- Atlanta: 3
- Los Angeles: 2
- Philly: 2
- Dallas: 2
- Seattle: 1
- Cleveland: 1
- Charlotte: 1
- San Francisco: 1
- Pittsburgh: 1



Since then, a further 64 800-footers have been built (or currently U/C) in the US according to the CTBUH.


US Skyscrapers over 800 ft. built or U/C since 2000: 64

New York: 38 (includes 1 tower in Jersey City)

Chicago: 12

Rest of America: 14
- Miami: 5
- Philly: 2
- San Francisco: 2
- Austin: 2
- Los Angeles: 1
- Seattle: 1
- Oklahoma City: 1




Total US skyscrapers over 800 ft. built or U/C: 100

New York: 48 (includes 1 tower in Jersey City)

Chicago: 21

Rest of America: 31
- Miami: 5
- Philly: 4
- San Francisco: 3
- Los Angeles: 3
- Houston: 3
- Atlanta: 3
- Austin: 2
- Dallas: 2
- Seattle: 2
- Cleveland: 1
- Charlotte: 1
- Pittsburgh: 1
- Oklahoma City: 1





So there are now a total of 100 800-footers in the US (including U/C), but 48% of them are in New York, and a further 21% of them are in Chicago, meaning 69% of America's big towers are located in just those two cities.








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 ---- Current --- change

New York ------- 28 ------- 48* ----- +20

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

Miami ----------- 1 --------- 5 ------- +4

Philly ------------ 4 --------- 4 ------- 0

San Francisco --- 3 --------- 3 ------- 0

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

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

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

Austin ---------- 0 ---------- 2 ------- +2

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

Dallas ----------- 5 --------- 2 -------- -3

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

Charlotte ------- 1 ---------- 1 --------- 0

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

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

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

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

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

Boston --------- 2 ---------- 0 -------- -2

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

Minneapolis ---- 3 ---------- 0 -------- -3





(*) NYC's current total includes 1 tower in Jersey City.


source: CTBUH database

[JManc]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

According to the CTBUH, there were 38 skyscrapers over 800' tall in the US at the close of the 20th century (tragically, the two WTC twins would soon be lost on 9/11, making for 36 that still survive).

Had 9/11 never happened, there probably would just be the two original WTC towers rather than the four or five that occupy that area now.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by JManc

Had 9/11 never happened, there probably would just be the two original WTC towers rather than the four or five that occupy that area now.

Only three on that spot right now. 2 WTC is yet to be completed. So only one additional 800+ ft. tower due to 9/11. And no additional supertalls (until 2 WTC is completed)

The other new towers are off the main WTC site. 7 WTC replaced the destroyed 7 WTC, and the upcoming 5 WTC replaces the old Deutsche Bank HQ.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by JManc

Had 9/11 never happened, there probably would just be the two original WTC towers rather than the four or five that occupy that area now.

There were more towers before than there are now. There were 7 before and only four now.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

There were more towers before than there are now. There were 7 before and only four now.

I assume he doesn't mean the hotel tower, or the midrise office towers.

Yeah, technically the WTC site is less dense, with fewer towers, than the original. But there's one (eventually to be two) more 800 ft. towers.

[craigs]

What was the reasoning behind picking 800' as the base height for the comparison? It's clear that towers of that height remain exceedingly rare in US cities other than New York and Chicago--and always were.

[homebucket]

SF should add another 2 to its tally shortly once Transbay Parcel F (806 ft) gets going early next year and when Oceanwide Center (910 ft) hopefully resumes. There's also that recent proposal for 50 Main Street (818 ft).

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by homebucket

SF should add another 2 to its tally shortly once Transbay Parcel F (806 ft) gets going early next year and when Oceanwide Center (910 ft) hopefully resumes. There's also that recent proposal for 50 Main Street (818 ft).

Based on land values alone, it seems to me that SF should rightfully be the 3rd undisputed US skyline heavyweight, were it not for that town's almost maniacal levels of NIMBYism.

It's so cool to see it finally re-enter the skyscraper game again after a roughly half-century hiatus.

[homebucket]

Originally Posted by homebucket

SF should add another 2 to its tally shortly once Transbay Parcel F (806 ft) gets going early next year and when Oceanwide Center (910 ft) hopefully resumes. There's also that recent proposal for 50 Main Street (818 ft).

50 Main Street just got bumped up from 818 ft to 1066 ft. We'll see if this actually comes to fruition.

50 Main Street To Become Second Tallest Tower In San Francisco



BY: ANDREW NELSON 5:30 AM ON DECEMBER 15, 2021

Hines has announced that 50 Main Street will rise 1,066 feet tall, potentially becoming the second tallest structure in San Francisco. If built as proposed, the residential tower will be just four feet shorter than the Salesforce Tower. 50 Main Street, to be designed by Foster + Partners, is part of the 200 Mission Street campus, formerly the SoMa headquarters for PG&E.

Hines is proposing to redevelop the historic PG&E campus set in downtown San Francisco with offices, the multi-family tower with affordable housing, retail, and a porous ground-floor network of public open space and 1.25 acres for public parks. The newly designed block will reinvigorate an area in the city’s heart, immediately next to the Embarcadero BART Station. The project will be split between four components, including 50 Main Street, the reskinning of 77 Beale Street, refurbishing the historic office building along Market Street, and creating the ground-level network of parks and pathways.

50 Main Street will rise 85 floors to create nearly one million square feet, approximately 800 new rental apartments, of which a fifth will be offered as affordable housing. Initial plans show that parking will be included for 380 vehicles. Unit sizes will range from studios to two bedrooms. Amenities will be included on the top two floors, with retail at the base. Residents will be given excellent access to open-air with natural light between the shared amenities and access to the base level parks.

https://sfyimby.com/2021/12/50-main-...francisco.html

[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.

[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.

[Zapatan]

Originally Posted by craigs

What was the reasoning behind picking 800' as the base height for the comparison? It's clear that towers of that height remain exceedingly rare in US cities other than New York and Chicago--and always were.

I guess exceedingly rare is subjective, 27 (w/o NY or Chi) is still quite a decent amount of 800 footers, way, way more than most countries on its own.

With NY or Chi though, China is the only country that beats the US in almost every category so we're pretty spoiled, but we just don't have 1+billion people.



In any case, I really hope the US steps up its game outside of the two megacities as there are a decent amount of proposals in places like Seattle / LA / Philly / Austin / Miami etc...

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by craigs

What was the reasoning behind picking 800' as the base height for the comparison?

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

[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.

[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!

[SFBruin]

It is true that the two biggest skylines in the US, by far, are New York and Chicago, and that the race for third is, at least, a discussion.

New York and Chicago not only have more skyscrapers, but are the only cities with any buildings > 1200 feet.

[MAC123]

Originally Posted by SFBruin

It is true that the two biggest skylines in the US, by far, are New York and Chicago, and that the race for third is, at least, a discussion.

New York and Chicago not only have more skyscrapers, but are the only cities with any buildings > 1200 feet.

Is LA planning on densifying anytime soon?

[SFBruin]

I think that SF is the third largest skyline in the US, though it's in some dispute with Philadelphia and Houston.

Maybe LA too.

[homebucket]

Originally Posted by SFBruin

I think that SF is the third largest skyline in the US, though it's in some dispute with Philadelphia and Houston.

Maybe LA too.

SF has some advantage here due to its topography. Some towers appear taller than they really are due to the fact they sit on hills. One Rincon Hill (641 ft) sits on a 100 ft tall hill so from afar it has the appearance of a 740 footer. 555 California also sits at 35 ft so it has the appearance of being at 814 ft. The Nob Hill hotels and Russian Hill residential towers also have more prominence as well since they’re at the very top of their hills, so it helps extend the skyline in a way.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by homebucket

SF has some advantage here due to its topography. Some towers appear taller than they really are due to the fact they sit on hills. One Rincon Hill (641 ft) sits on a 100 ft tall hill so from afar it has the appearance of a 740 footer. 555 California also sits at 35 ft so it has the appearance of being at 814 ft. The Nob Hill hotels and Russian Hill residential towers also have more prominence as well since they’re at the very top of their hills, so it helps extend the skyline in a way.

is that the case with Salesforce because it seems much taller than Transamerica? I think there's only about 150' difference between the two in actuality.