AUSTIN | Projects & Construction III - Page 208

wwmiv · #**4141** Posted **Feb 8, 2015, 10:50 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

Kansas City does have a nice skyline, though. It might not have tons of height, but the buildings go great together, and you can't beat the old skyscraper stock they have. It's a treasure trove of old tall buildings and neat architecture, but I know what you meant.

I agree.

IluvATX · #**4142** Posted **Feb 8, 2015, 5:27 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by wwmiv

We've got a ways to go before we catch up to Charlotte. I've seen their skyline in person (many times, in fact, since all the good shopping near where I live is in Charlotte) and it is substantially more impressive.

Austin actually has more high rises than Charlotte, but they have the height. Also, Charlotte's downtown is more of a working downtown that's pretty lame after business hours. The surrounding neighborhoods like NoDa and Southpark are where people go while downtown sits in the dark.

SkyPie · #**4143** Posted **Feb 8, 2015, 5:44 PM**

The Bank of America Corporate Center in Charlotte gives a good idea of what Frost would look like if it had been built about 300' taller.

wwmiv · #**4144** Posted **Feb 8, 2015, 10:04 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by IluvATX

Austin actually has more high rises than Charlotte, but they have the height. Also, Charlotte's downtown is more of a working downtown that's pretty lame after business hours. The surrounding neighborhoods like NoDa and Southpark are where people go while downtown sits in the dark.

Very. Very. True.

KevinFromTexas · #**4145** Posted **Feb 9, 2015, 12:17 AM**

Here's a quick rundown of Austin compared to other cities. This is for buildings over 200 feet. I'm using a list from a friend, Marshall Gerometta, who has collected building heights of cities for like the last 40 years. The list is a couple of years old, so some of the other cities now have more buildings than this.

Austin - 55 - (includes site prep/under construction stuff)

New York - 1,190

Chicago - 529

Toronto - 400

Vancouver - 189
Houston - 187

Honolulu - 160

San Francisco - 155

Los Angeles - 146

Miami - 124

Las Vegas - 111

Atlanta - 109
Philadelphia - 103

Calgary - 98
Dallas - 97

Boston - 87
Seattle - 81

Montreal - 78

San Diego - 68

Denver - 59
Minneapolis - 57
Austin - 55
Jersey City - 53
Mississauga, Ont., Canada - 51
Pittsburgh - 50

Detroit - 48
Burnaby, BC, Canada - 47
Ottawa - 44
Miami Beach - 43
Edmonton - 42
Phoenix - 42
Sunny Isles Beach, FL - 42
Aventura, FL - 41
Baltimore - 41
Fort Lauderdale - 40
Portland - 40

Cincinnati - 39
San Antonio - 39
St. Louis - 38
Naples - 37
Milwaukee - 36
Atlantic City - 34
Indianapolis - 33
New Orleans - 33
Cleveland - 32
Kansas City - 32
Tampa - 32
Orlando - 31

Charlotte - 28
Columbus - 27
Winnipeg - 26
Albany - 25
Arlington, VA - 25
Nashville - 25
Oakland - 25
Bellevue, WA - 24
Fort Worth - 23
St. Paul - 23
Newark - 22
Hamilton, Ont., Canada - 21
Hartford, CT - 21
Jacksonville - 21
Louisville - 21
Oklahoma City - 21
Omaha - 20
Rochester - 20
Tulsa - 20

wwmiv · #**4146** Posted **Feb 9, 2015, 1:01 AM**

I wonder if there's a way to integrate a measure of verticality with the number of highrises (I agree on the 200' cut point, fwiw) so that we can get a more holistic measure of "skyline" impressiveness.

Actually, I'd include a measure of dispersion of those buildings that are over 200' as well.

One note though: there's no reason to separate Miami and Miami Beach. Those are for all intents and purposes the same skyline. I'd sooner separate Houston and Houston's uptown and Atlanta downtown/midtown from Buckhead than separate Miami and Miami Beach.

IluvATX · #**4147** Posted **Feb 9, 2015, 1:10 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by wwmiv

I wonder if there's a way to integrate a measure of verticality with the number of highrises (I agree on the 200' cut point, fwiw) so that we can get a more holistic measure of "skyline" impressiveness.

Actually, I'd include a measure of dispersion of those buildings that are over 200' as well.

One note though: there's no reason to separate Miami and Miami Beach. Those are for all intents and purposes the same skyline. I'd sooner separate Houston and Houston's uptown and Atlanta downtown/midtown from Buckhead than separate Miami and Miami Beach.

Miami Beach is its own city. Every comparison I've seen separates the two.

wwmiv · #**4148** Posted **Feb 9, 2015, 1:34 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by IluvATX

Miami Beach is its own city. Every comparison I've seen separates the two.

It is its own jurisdiction, yes, but it isn't really it's own skyline. The highrises are all at the very southern end of the island right across the bridge from Miami downtown. It appears from every vantage point - except that where you are on the bridge - to be a single cohesive skyline... especially if you are looking toward Miami from offshore.

IluvATX · #**4149** Posted **Feb 9, 2015, 2:27 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by wwmiv

It is its own jurisdiction, yes, but it isn't really it's own skyline. The highrises are all at the very southern end of the island right across the bridge from Miami downtown. It appears from every vantage point - except that where you are on the bridge - to be a single cohesive skyline... especially if you are looking toward Miami from offshore.

I agree, but when do you draw the line? Do you combine Newark/New York or Minneapolis/St. Paul?

wwmiv · #**4150** Posted **Feb 9, 2015, 2:31 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by IluvATX

I agree, but when do you draw the line? Do you combine Newark/New York or Minneapolis/St. Paul?

That's a very hard question. I'd argue that Newark and New York are the same substantive skyline, but Minneapolis and St. Paul are visually distinct with a good ten miles of nothing but suburban character between the two.

It's all about where the buildings cluster together.

Uptowner · #**4151** Posted **Feb 9, 2015, 4:09 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by wwmiv

That's a very hard question. I'd argue that Newark and New York are the same substantive skyline, but Minneapolis and St. Paul are visually distinct with a good ten miles of nothing but suburban character between the two.

It's all about where the buildings cluster together.

Newark and New York? Jersey City, yeah, but Newark? They're a good ten miles of suburban character and wetland apart.

wwmiv · #**4152** Posted **Feb 9, 2015, 4:14 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Uptowner

Newark and New York? Jersey City, yeah, but Newark? They're a good ten miles of suburban character and wetland apart.

Sorry. For some reason I was thinking Jersey City, which I think you kinda picked up on.

Newark definitely not.

KevinFromTexas · #**4153** Posted **Feb 9, 2015, 6:36 AM**

Here's the list for everything over 400 feet. I actually think this is a better measurement since there are many more cities with buildings over 200 feet outside of their downtowns than ones with 400 footers outside of their downtowns.

Cities with buildings over 400 feet. I'm not listing all of them either, and only ones in North America.

New York - 439

Chicago - 198

Toronto - 92

Panama City, Panama - 89

Miami - 61

Houston - 54

Las Vegas - 43
San Francisco - 43

Atlanta - 36
Mexico City - 35
Los Angeles - 34
Calgary - 32

Dallas - 29
Philadelphia - 28
Boston - 27
Seattle - 24
Sunny Isles, FL - 24
Montreal - 21

Minneapolis - 19
Denver - 16
Pittsburgh - 15
Austin - 14
Detroit - 14
Charlotte - 13
Jersey City - 13
San Diego - 13
Honolulu - 12
New Orleans - 12
Cleveland - 10
Columbus - 10

Kansas City - 9
Miami Beach - 9
Baltimore - 8
Cincinnati - 7
Tampa - 7
Atlantic City - 6
Fort Worth - 6
Indianapolis - 6
Nashville - 6
Tulsa - 6
Edmonton - 5
Jacksonville - 5
Milwaukee - 5
Monterrey, Mex - 5
Oklahoma City - 5
Orlando - 5
Portland - 5
St. Louis - 5
Bellevue, WA - 4
Hartford, CT - 4
Louisville - 4
Mississauga, Ont, Canada - 4
San Antonio - 4
Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic - 4
Fort Lauderdale - 3
St. Paul - 3
Burnaby, BC, Canada - 2
Newark - 2
Omaha - 2
Phoenix - 2
Rochester - 2
Sacramento - 2
Albany - 1
Aventura, FL - 1
Hamilton, Ont, Canada - 1
Oakland - 1
Arlington, VA - 0

KevinFromTexas · #**4154** Posted **Feb 9, 2015, 6:38 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by wwmiv

I wonder if there's a way to integrate a measure of verticality with the number of highrises (I agree on the 200' cut point, fwiw) so that we can get a more holistic measure of "skyline" impressiveness.

Back in the day people would just add up every single building height above whatever cut off point they picked, and then would compare the numbers. It isn't perfect, but it does indicate the intensity of height you can expect for any given city.

DZH22 · #**4155** Posted **Feb 9, 2015, 6:54 AM**

Here's a source for the best quantitative skyline measure that I know of. 90 meter cutoff, and every meter over 90 is worth 1 point.

Austin is 129th in the world as of the last calculation.

http://tudl0867.home.xs4all.nl/skylines.html

The ATX · #**4156** Posted **Feb 9, 2015, 9:35 AM**

That list has been around for a while. I remember when Houston was number 4; then the boom in Asia and the Middle East occurred.

drummer · #**4157** Posted **Feb 19, 2015, 7:12 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hill Country

That list has been around for a while. I remember when Houston was number 4; then the boom in Asia and the Middle East occurred.

Sadly, the boom in Asia is largely Rainey St.-sized apartment complexes (we're talking 5,000-10,000 units) that sit mostly empty. Many of them are owned for the sake of "investment" but sit empty. There are so many ghost towns over here it's ridiculous. I'll attest that many new additions to Asian skylines are empty boxes in the sky - the exception of which are those that are built in central business districts (non-residential buildings). For those of you who hit on the importance of the street experience (and I agree 100%), imagine blocks of mostly empty high-rises, albeit some built with ground-level retail, all sitting empty. It's actually kinda creepy. It also has added to the endless sprawl of many cities over here - but think Houston suburbs on a Chinese scale - and all six floors or more. I'll take slow and steady over mindless development any day.

BnaBreaker · #**4158** Posted **Feb 19, 2015, 7:23 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

Here's a quick rundown of Austin compared to other cities. This is for buildings over 200 feet. I'm using a list from a friend, Marshall Gerometta, who has collected building heights of cities for like the last 40 years. The list is a couple of years old, so some of the other cities now have more buildings than this.

Austin - 55 - (includes site prep/under construction stuff)

New York - 1,190

Chicago - 529

Toronto - 400

Vancouver - 189
Houston - 187

Honolulu - 160

San Francisco - 155

Los Angeles - 146

Miami - 124

Las Vegas - 111

Atlanta - 109
Philadelphia - 103

Calgary - 98
Dallas - 97

Boston - 87
Seattle - 81

Montreal - 78

San Diego - 68

Denver - 59
Minneapolis - 57
Austin - 55
Jersey City - 53
Mississauga, Ont., Canada - 51
Pittsburgh - 50

Detroit - 48
Burnaby, BC, Canada - 47
Ottawa - 44
Miami Beach - 43
Edmonton - 42
Phoenix - 42
Sunny Isles Beach, FL - 42
Aventura, FL - 41
Baltimore - 41
Fort Lauderdale - 40
Portland - 40

Cincinnati - 39
San Antonio - 39
St. Louis - 38
Naples - 37
Milwaukee - 36
Atlantic City - 34
Indianapolis - 33
New Orleans - 33
Cleveland - 32
Kansas City - 32
Tampa - 32
Orlando - 31

Charlotte - 28
Columbus - 27
Winnipeg - 26
Albany - 25
Arlington, VA - 25
Nashville - 25
Oakland - 25
Bellevue, WA - 24
Fort Worth - 23
St. Paul - 23
Newark - 22
Hamilton, Ont., Canada - 21
Hartford, CT - 21
Jacksonville - 21
Louisville - 21
Oklahoma City - 21
Omaha - 20
Rochester - 20
Tulsa - 20

That's a fascinating list. Thanks for posting it. Not sure any city will catch Austin any time soon in terms of skyline growth, but Nashville is sure trying! Our number will likely close to double within six or seven years.

JoninATX · #**4159** Posted **Feb 19, 2015, 9:41 AM**

Nashville definitely got a great start.

Kotliz · #**4160** Posted **Feb 19, 2015, 5:57 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by drummer

Sadly, the boom in Asia is largely Rainey St.-sized apartment complexes (we're talking 5,000-10,000 units) that sit mostly empty. Many of them are owned for the sake of "investment" but sit empty. There are so many ghost towns over here it's ridiculous. I'll attest that many new additions to Asian skylines are empty boxes in the sky - the exception of which are those that are built in central business districts (non-residential buildings). For those of you who hit on the importance of the street experience (and I agree 100%), imagine blocks of mostly empty high-rises, albeit some built with ground-level retail, all sitting empty. It's actually kinda creepy. It also has added to the endless sprawl of many cities over here - but think Houston suburbs on a Chinese scale - and all six floors or more. I'll take slow and steady over mindless development any day.

That is really fascinating. I've wondered about that and about development in Dubai, a city of about 2.1 million with real-estate space that seems to almost rival New York city (8.4 million)—are those buildings occupied at all?