How is Melbourne building more towers than California right now?

[dc_denizen]

Originally Posted by Zapatan

True, the US doesn't doesn't really build that many skyscrapers outside of NY or Chicago, they exist obviously, even some 300+ meter ones, but when you take into account how massive the USA is, it measures up poorly compared to places like Australia, maybe Canada and definitely the UAE.

Australia and Canada have 25-35 million people, UAE has around 10. Considering the USA has 330 million, I'd expect a lot more honestly.

Ideally places like Houston/Dallas/LA would have several 3-350 meter buildings by now.

For that to happen (300 meter residential towers in Houston) we would need much higher re estate prices

Most capital in Houston is focused on building single and multi family middle class housing, not aeries for the global rich

Melbourne tho is much more American in the sense that the commieblock is not as favored there compared to Toronto. Thus the Melbourne highrises comparisons are fairer (Growing us cties tend to build more 5-6 story midrises )

[Zapatan]

Originally Posted by Nite

As per SSP, here are the stats for 150m+ under construction skyscrapers:

United States: 92
Canada: 63
UAE: 46
Australia: 32

Wow we really need to step up our game

The US is in the top 2-3 for 150+ meter and 300+ meter buildings globally but most were built a long time ago or are in NYC and Chicago. I'd like to see the trend spread elsewhere.

and miami.

of the 166 buildings over 150m that are U/C or recently completed (2017+) in the US according to the CTBUH, 70% of them are in metro NYC, metro miami, and chicago.

Miami is a high-rise beast, nothing crazy tall though

For that to happen (300 meter residential towers in Houston) we would need much higher re estate prices

Most capital in Houston is focused on building single and multi family middle class housing, not aeries for the global rich

True, but I didn't just mean residential, Houston already has two 300+ meter buildings, it's one of the fastest growing (and biggest) cities in the USA so I really hope we see more.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Zapatan

Miami is a high-rise beast, nothing crazy tall though

Not yet, anyway.

But yeah, if you bump the height threshold up a bit, say from 500' to 800', then it really becomes the New York & Chicago show in the US.


# of skyscrapers over 800' (including U/C) in the US: 91

NYC - 44*
Chicago - 20**
Philly - 4
SF - 4
LA - 3
Atlanta - 3
Houston - 3
Seattle - 2
Dallas - 2
Miami - 2
Cleveland - 1
Charlotte - 1
Oklahoma city - 1
Pittsburgh - 1

source: CTBUH



Over 70% (64 out of 91) of the nation's skyscrapers over 800' tall are located in just the top two cities.

And NYC is nearly at 50% all by itself.




(*) includes 99 Hudson Street across the hudson river in Jersey City

(**) includes Salesforce Tower which starts construction early in the new year.

[TexasPlaya]

Originally Posted by JManc

Was Crocodile Dundee your only exposure to Australia? They have a pretty sophisticated and diverse economy.

• Video Link

[jd3189]

When I read this thread’s premise, it almost sounded like it was saying “how dare a city in Australia build more high rises than an entire state in the US?”


But yeah, it is interesting how Melbourne got to this level. It’s similar to Canada in the sense that most of the country is uninhabitable on a large scale so most people live in many of the cities that are gravitated near the extremity of the country. Thus, urban living makes a lot more sense in order to save space and other factors as well.


California could use a few high rises in the central parts of many downtowns, but the most economical type of building developers there could utilize there is just low rise multi-units.

[GreaterMontréal]

Originally Posted by jd3189

When I read this thread’s premise, it almost sounded like it was saying “how dare a city in Australia build more high rises than an entire state in the US?”


But yeah, it is interesting how Melbourne got to this level. It’s similar to Canada in the sense that most of the country is uninhabitable on a large scale so most people live in many of the cities that are gravitated near the extremity of the country. Thus, urban living makes a lot more sense in order to save space and other factors as well.


California could use a few high rises in the central parts of many downtowns, but the most economical type of building developers there could utilize there is just low rise multi-units.

Canada is not comparable to Australia. Except for Vancouver, our biggest cities are not coastal cities. Toronto, Montréal, Ottawa, Calgary, Edmonton are all inland. Canada is about 82% urban, same as the US, Australia is 90% urban.

[Fresh]

Originally Posted by GreaterMontréal

Canada is not comparable to Australia. Except for Vancouver, our biggest cities are not coastal cities. Toronto, Montréal, Ottawa, Calgary, Edmonton are all inland. Canada is about 82% urban, same as the US, Australia is 90% urban.

I think Australia's Coast is analogous to the US border for Canada - these are the habitable 'belt's of two giant, largely inhospitable nations.

[dc_denizen]

How many multifamily units is Melbourne building right now?

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by dc_denizen

How many multifamily units is Melbourne building right now?

I think there's a conflating of "building lots of highrises" with "building lots of multifamily".

Dallas is building a ton of multifamily, but almost no highrises. Chicago is building a bunch of highrises but relatively little multifamily. Toronto is (likely; I don't know where to get Canada multifamily stats) doing both.

[GreaterMontréal]

Originally Posted by Crawford

I think there's a conflating of "building lots of highrises" with "building lots of multifamily".

Dallas is building a ton of multifamily, but almost no highrises. Chicago is building a bunch of highrises but relatively little multifamily. Toronto is (likely; I don't know where to get Canada multifamily stats) doing both.

the info is available - 2016 census. total dwellings

5 or more storeys

Toronto : 29.4%
Montréal : 8.8%
Vancouver : 16.7%

fewer than 5 storeys

Toronto : 10%
Montréal : 41.2%
Vancouver : 25.2%

https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-r...016005-eng.cfm

[MonkeyRonin]

Originally Posted by GreaterMontréal

the info is available - 2016 census. total dwellings

5 or more storeys

Toronto : 29.4%
Montréal : 8.8%
Vancouver : 16.7%

fewer than 5 storeys

Toronto : 10%
Montréal : 41.2%
Vancouver : 25.2%

https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-r...016005-eng.cfm

Those aren't construction stats, those are just counts of what kind dwelling people inhabit (built at any point in time).

[GreaterMontréal]

Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin

Those aren't construction stats, those are just counts of what kind dwelling people inhabit (built at any point in time).

I know but it's a long term trend. The numbers in 2021 will be very similar to those in 2016. Toronto, Montréal and Vancouver have a density 2x greater than the biggest cities in Australia.

Melbourne : 66% Separate house , 23% medium density and 10% high density.

Separate house: This is a house which is separated from other dwellings by at least half a metre.

Melbourne is building more medium and high density dwellings than in the past, so it's a good news.

[mello]

Great responses guys I've learned a lot. One reason I started this thread is that my city (San Diego) has a downtown that is "successful", the city is open and seems ready to approve many towers, it is a high demand area that many people would want to live in etc. Yet we have lets say 6 towers of 120m or more that have been approved for quite some time and they have not broken ground yet.

For example I just saw someone from Vancouver posting the office tower growth there. Downtown San Diego is seeing none of that yet one would think we have a more thriving economy than that city. Maybe I'm wrong I don't know much about VAN. So why isn't SD seeing more towers break ground? Like Steely Dan said Chicago is not booming yet developers feel their projects will pencil out so they continue to build. Why not here?

Note: Virtually none of San Diego's Tech, Biotech, Research, and Defense Contractor industry is downtown. It is amazing our downtown is 95% government, lawyers, finance, consultants, and obviously hotel/restaurant workers. Qualcomm has 0 presence downtown.

[softee]

Here's a breakdown of total housing starts by type in 2018 for major Ontario metro areas.

https://www.ohba.ca/wp-content/uploa...cl-all-ont.pdf

Toronto CMA had 41,107 total housing starts, of which 29,639 were apt/condo.

[Doug]

Melbourne also has considerable inner city land formerly devoted to industrial use that has been rezoned for highrise development. The same could be said of Toronto and Vancouver, but Melbourne seems better at rezoning and providing infrastructure to enable redevelopment.

[Zapatan]

Originally Posted by JManc

Speaking for Houston, there's little demand or desire for tall buildings anymore. For residential, 40 stories is pretty much the max and for commercial, developers prefer office parks and stumpy 20-30 story office towers scattered around town.

The few 500+ footers going up are an anomaly looked at with awe, confusion and fear.

Yea it's kinda sad, I wonder if Southern cities in the US will ever get sick of sprawl and become more Manhattan/Chicago/Miami-ized

That being said Houston and Dallas will have to build a considerable amount of high-rises in the near future to keep up with the population boom.

[dc_denizen]

I believe New York has 35,000 permits for >5 unit multifamily, and Dallas is second at 23000. Ytd thru October

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by Zapatan

Yea it's kinda sad, I wonder if Southern cities in the US will ever get sick of sprawl and become more Manhattan/Chicago/Miami-ized

That being said Houston and Dallas will have to build a considerable amount of high-rises in the near future to keep up with the population boom.

Houston and Dallas are densifying, but not in the same way as Miami: they’re adding considerable mid-rise density throughout their cores and regionally in transit oriented districts. People forget, but part of what makes Chicago and New York and Philadelphia so densely populated are not the skyscrapers but rather their large swaths of townhouses, rowhouses, apartments, tenements, walk-ups, narrow lot bungalows, and flats. That’s what Houston and Dallas are adding, Miami is only adding luxury skyscrapers. Which of these two is going to result in a truly real lived urban experience. Not Miami’s.

[dc_denizen]

Based on theories I’ve heard here, melbournes low density (less than many American urban areas) means they must be building very little multifamily at all

[tayser]

Originally Posted by dc_denizen

Based on theories I’ve heard here, melbournes low density (less than many American urban areas) means they must be building very little multifamily at all

Define multi-family for me... is it just 3 or more bedroom units in buildings that share common areas? i.e. any apartment(condo/unit) building?

Because if that's the case about 15% of all new off-the-plan units would be 3 bed or more, the vast bulk are 2 bed (50+%) and the remainder would be 1 bedders.

10-15 years ago everything was far more skewed toward Studios/1 bedders (i.e more than 50%) but these days studios are almost unheard of in new developments.

I can only offer an anecdote in my own building that's 2-3 years old, 12 levels and about ~130 apartments - mixture of 1s, 1 + study, 2s, and 3s. there's 12 apartments on my floor, 4 of them are 3 bed (3 of those apartments have young and teenaged kids in them), the bulk are 2 beds with 3 semi-retired couples and the rest of the 1 and 1+studies and other 2 beds have young singles or couples living in them.