Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
In defense of the other poster, his NYC list is limited to buildings 650+ ft., so Somi, Halsted, 465 N. Park, Essex can be excluded. He only forgot 110 N. Wacker and 1 Bennett.
Also, his NYC list is incomplete as well. Just at a glace, I don't see Queens Plaza Park at 751ft and 281 5th ave at 705ft.
I don't think expanding the list to 400ft-600ft range would be productive for NYC, as those projects are really hard to track. NYC has entire complexes under construction in that height range.
Irregardless of what standard NY is setting, (For the U.S.) 607 ft. on Michigan Ave along the park with the fierce Nimbyism and preservationists along that corridor is significant in Chicago. Just because it falls 43 ft. short of an arbitrary NY worthiness list doesn't change this fact. This is also why I mentioned 1000M that is 832' a few blocks down from Essex. 832' in River North, LSE, GC or the Loop is nowhere near as significant as transforming the South Loop and the Michigan Ave. streetwall.
SoMi being nearly 500 ft. that far south as well as 1 S. Halsted being west of the Kennedy and nearly 500' are also both very significant as well.
Point is, Chicago is building taller further from the "downtown" than ever before and have solid proposals with approvals and financing/tenants in place, in areas that will stretch the traditional "core" to new limits and tons of infill is taking place in between. Using artificial height or distance parameters to directly compare the development to NY's and dismiss the long awaited progress Chicago is finally making is juvenile. It is much more difficult to build 500' in the West Loop/Fulton Market area than a supertall in Brooklyn or 700' in Queens. There are entirely different dynamics here.
400'-600' buildings in the core aren't "game changers" in Chicago just like they aren't in Manhattan and most projects under 500' in Chicago hardly get any mention. I purposely said those relatively short towers were "significant" mostly due to their locations. For example, Essex at 607' and 1 S. Halsted at 495' have more of an impact on the city's growth/skyline/advancement than 110 N. Wacker at 814' along the river in the Loop where it will be lost in the fold and is a height that is expected or disappointing for most.
500'-700' towers west of the Kennedy is a major achievement for Chicago's expansion westward. This is the West Loop where there are strict guidelines and restrictions and a community that comes out in force to protest progress, even the most optimistic Chicago development junkies probably never envisioned this actually happening. Just because you don't think these projects rise to the prominence of the boom taking pace in NY doesn't mean they don't deserve mention when listing CHICAGO projects under construction.
Lastly, I mentioned that Chicago has 5 or 6 solid supertall proposals with approvals and major development firms behind them. These are not far fetched wet dreams by inexperienced cash strapped attention seekers or concepts as a few have been.....For a city that has only built one in almost 40 years I'd say they deserve a mention as being significant and a possible ceiling breaker that Chicago has been stuck under seemingly forever. Supertall proposals in Chicago dried up for a long time so 6 legitimate proposals at the door step is an astounding leap forward for the city.
Of course NY has skyscrapers "in the pipeline too" as does Chicago which has dozens and dozens of other projects that I never mentioned like the 950 ft. LSE tower at Site I that will also include 550' and 400' buildings or Riverline that has 8 buildings and has already broken ground. Suffice it to say, there is a lot more transformation taking place in Chicago than 2 buildings as the post I quoted would lead one to believe.
Last edited by IronWright; 09-21-2018 at 07:49 PM..
Funny BigLake San Jose is nothing like Manhattan LOL 😂
You obviously never have been there. If you have: you'd agree. It has similar Manhattan vibe: cool hoods, lots of places to go, sense of community, cool night life(better) and interesting street cultures.
I absolutely agree- After moving out of Seattle back East to Chicago and Boston, there is a clear delta in buzz and foot traffic and overall vibrancy. Seattle feels very low key, sleepy, and "chill" a good portion of the week and weekend. And, it certainly doesn't have the broad shoulders of a Chicago, Boston, or Philadelphia. A walk through Center City, on Newbury/Tremont, or on Michigan Avenue will prove that true. No data needs to be provided on that point, regardless of what those from Seattle try and feed us.
That said, there is a place in my top ten for a city like Seattle. The coffee, the music, the seafood, the hills, the mountain views, the green space. I grew to love it for what it had, not what it lacked. It makes my list, over Philadelphia, for overall desirability. Love cruising on the harbor, loved tailgating at Washington games, and found the neighborhoods to have a really really intellectual vibe. Maybe more so than any other city I've spent time in.
Philadelphia, like it's Boston/DC brethren, has a lot to be desired. Philadelphia pros include good food, eclectic mix of neighborhoods, great art scene, awesome little underground music scene, decent nightlife. But, I don't find it to be as desirable as Boston or DC. To me, DC and Boston are two of the top five prettiest cities in the country. Areas like Fishtown, East Passyunk- the "it" areas of Philadelphia outside of Center City- feel decayed, lack greenery, and have an element of grit that's more reminiscent of Detroit than NYC. Compared that to the DC or Boston equivalents like Davis Sq., Adams Morgan, Allston, they're just not nearly as aesthetically nice. Or, compare a Fishtown to Ballard in Seattle.. Just no comparison in that way.
Fair enough. You have to remember that Philadelphia was a much more industrious city throughout its development, and it fell a lot harder than most of its counterparts, and as a result of that a lot of the money left the city for the burbs, hence the increased decay.
It really wasn't until after the turn of the 21st century that Philadelphia made a turn around. Center City has grown and improved exponentially, but the footprint is still small in the overall context of the city, and a lot of the "greater CC" neighborhoods do lack greenery and tend to feel grittier due to the former industrial nature, but I think its a characteristic that adds to the uniqueness of the city and it becomes more appreciated when you spend a considerable amount of time in Philadelphia.
Even with that bit of info, that are still plenty of neighborhoods in Philadelphia outside of CC that offer wonderful amenities, aesthetics and greenery - Chestnut Hill and Mt. Airy are two great examples of that. The difference is that these neighborhoods do not border CC, they are further out. Boston and DC have a more continue flow of top neighborhoods, whereas Philadelphia is more broken up, and you can literally go from a beautiful neighborhood to a a bad one, back to a beautiful neighborhood in a 2 mile walk.
That being said, I personally would still place Philadelphia's "downtown" ahead of DC and edging out Boston due to the density and activity throughout the day, and growing amenities, the final piece would be the integration and connecting of CC to surrounding neighborhoods. Philadelphia still has a ton of room to improve, Boston not so much. DC is still pretty rough in many parts too, and I think people tend to overlook that for some reason.
Fair enough. You have to remember that Philadelphia was a much more industrious city throughout its development, and it fell a lot harder than most of its counterparts, and as a result of that a lot of the money left the city for the burbs, hence the increased decay.
It really wasn't until after the turn of the 21st century that Philadelphia made a turn around. Center City has grown and improved exponentially, but the footprint is still small in the overall context of the city, and a lot of the "greater CC" neighborhoods do lack greenery and tend to feel grittier due to the former industrial nature, but I think its a characteristic that adds to the uniqueness of the city and it becomes more appreciated when you spend a considerable amount of time in Philadelphia.
Even with that bit of info, that are still plenty of neighborhoods in Philadelphia outside of CC that offer wonderful amenities, aesthetics and greenery - Chestnut Hill and Mt. Airy are two great examples of that. The difference is that these neighborhoods do not border CC, they are further out. Boston and DC have a more continue flow of top neighborhoods, whereas Philadelphia is more broken up, and you can literally go from a beautiful neighborhood to a a bad one, back to a beautiful neighborhood in a 2 mile walk.
That being said, I personally would still place Philadelphia's "downtown" ahead of DC and edging out Boston due to the density and activity throughout the day, and growing amenities, the final piece would be the integration and connecting of CC to surrounding neighborhoods. Philadelphia still has a ton of room to improve, Boston not so much. DC is still pretty rough in many parts too, and I think people tend to overlook that for some reason.
Why doesn't Boston have room to improve? although technically not in what I would call Downtown, the area around North Station has completely transformed in the last 10 years. Same with the Seaport just across from South Station. Tons of infill too, 3 hotels popped up in DTX since 2010.
Fair enough. You have to remember that Philadelphia was a much more industrious city throughout its development, and it fell a lot harder than most of its counterparts, and as a result of that a lot of the money left the city for the burbs, hence the increased decay.
It really wasn't until after the turn of the 21st century that Philadelphia made a turn around. Center City has grown and improved exponentially, but the footprint is still small in the overall context of the city, and a lot of the "greater CC" neighborhoods do lack greenery and tend to feel grittier due to the former industrial nature, but I think its a characteristic that adds to the uniqueness of the city and it becomes more appreciated when you spend a considerable amount of time in Philadelphia.
Even with that bit of info, that are still plenty of neighborhoods in Philadelphia outside of CC that offer wonderful amenities, aesthetics and greenery - Chestnut Hill and Mt. Airy are two great examples of that. The difference is that these neighborhoods do not border CC, they are further out. Boston and DC have a more continue flow of top neighborhoods, whereas Philadelphia is more broken up, and you can literally go from a beautiful neighborhood to a a bad one, back to a beautiful neighborhood in a 2 mile walk.
That being said, I personally would still place Philadelphia's "downtown" ahead of DC and edging out Boston due to the density and activity throughout the day, and growing amenities, the final piece would be the integration and connecting of CC to surrounding neighborhoods. Philadelphia still has a ton of room to improve, Boston not so much. DC is still pretty rough in many parts too, and I think people tend to overlook that for some reason.
Our lack of greenery, I suspect, may turn more people off than we might know.
Philadelphia's tree canopy of 20 percent is the lowest of the five major cities on the East Coast. Even New York edges us out with 22 percent.
The residential districts of the city center are quite green, and so is most of the city's northwest section. Take away those two, though, and the rest is pretty barren save for parts of West Philadelphia, in particular Powelton Village, Spruce Hill, Squirrel Hill, Garden Court and Cedar Park.
I think that this might be as important an issue to address as the city's stubbornly high poverty rate. The environmental benefits would be enormous, never mind the aesthetic ones.
Edited to add: Though it is interesting that that other poster downgraded Philadelphia's downtown based on the visual appeal of the areas outside it.
Irregardless of what standard NY is setting, (For the U.S.) 607 ft. on Michigan Ave along the park with the fierce Nimbyism and preservationists along that corridor is significant in Chicago. Just because it falls 43 ft. short of an arbitrary NY worthiness list doesn't change this fact. This is also why I mentioned 1000M that is 832' a few blocks down from Essex. 832' in River North, LSE, GC or the Loop is nowhere near as significant as transforming the South Loop and the Michigan Ave. streetwall.
SoMi being nearly 500 ft. that far south as well as 1 S. Halsted being west of the Kennedy and nearly 500' are also both very significant as well.
Point is, Chicago is building taller further from the "downtown" than ever before and have solid proposals with approvals and financing/tenants in place, in areas that will stretch the traditional "core" to new limits and tons of infill is taking place in between. Using artificial height or distance parameters to directly compare the development to NY's and dismiss the long awaited progress Chicago is finally making is juvenile. It is much more difficult to build 500' in the West Loop/Fulton Market area than a supertall in Brooklyn or 700' in Queens. There are entirely different dynamics here.
400'-600' buildings in the core aren't "game changers" in Chicago just like they aren't in Manhattan and most projects under 500' in Chicago hardly get any mention. I purposely said those relatively short towers were "significant" mostly due to their locations. For example, Essex at 607' and 1 S. Halsted at 495' have more of an impact on the city's growth/skyline/advancement than 110 N. Wacker at 814' along the river in the Loop where it will be lost in the fold and is a height that is expected or disappointing for most.
500'-700' towers west of the Kennedy is a major achievement for Chicago's expansion westward. This is the West Loop where there are strict guidelines and restrictions and a community that comes out in force to protest progress, even the most optimistic Chicago development junkies probably never envisioned this actually happening. Just because you don't think these projects rise to the prominence of the boom taking pace in NY doesn't mean they don't deserve mention when listing CHICAGO projects under construction.
Lastly, I mentioned that Chicago has 5 or 6 solid supertall proposals with approvals and major development firms behind them. These are not far fetched wet dreams by inexperienced cash strapped attention seekers or concepts as a few have been.....For a city that has only built one in almost 40 years I'd say they deserve a mention as being significant and a possible ceiling breaker that Chicago has been stuck under seemingly forever. Supertall proposals in Chicago dried up for a long time so 6 legitimate proposals at the door step is an astounding leap forward for the city.
Of course NY has skyscrapers "in the pipeline too" as does Chicago which has dozens and dozens of other projects that I never mentioned like the 950 ft. LSE tower at Site I that will also include 550' and 400' buildings or Riverline that has 8 buildings and has already broken ground. Suffice it to say, there is a lot more transformation taking place in Chicago than 2 buildings as the post I quoted would lead one to believe.
Nobody needs to stick up for Chicago’s development boom. Many of America’s cities are booming right now and it’s great to see...I don’t think countless skyscrapers are necessary of any premier city. Soho nyc, back bay Boston, Gold Coast Chicago, DuPont dc are some of my favorite neighborhoods in the country and none are littered with skyscrapers...I feel like those from Chicago feel the need to come back and justify what Chicago is doing height wise given nyc historic pace. As if there’s some height competition...who cares..nyc is building 7 1000 ft towers as we speak with several more coming up...18 1000 ft in nyc to Chicago’s 6...but who cares?? We have more work to do in this country on infrastructure and income inequality than worrying about an extra 300 ft...crown nyc America’s height champ..that’s not what makes nyc so great to me.
Nobody needs to stick up for Chicago’s development boom. Many of America’s cities are booming right now and it’s great to see...I don’t think countless skyscrapers are necessary of any premier city. Soho nyc, back bay Boston, Gold Coast Chicago, DuPont dc are some of my favorite neighborhoods in the country and none are littered with skyscrapers...I feel like those from Chicago feel the need to come back and justify what Chicago is doing height wise given nyc historic pace. As if there’s some height competition...who cares..nyc is building 7 1000 ft towers as we speak with several more coming up...18 1000 ft in nyc to Chicago’s 6...but who cares?? We have more work to do in this country on infrastructure and income inequality than worrying about an extra 300 ft...crown nyc America’s height champ..that’s not what makes nyc so great to me.
You keep this NYC superior stand yourself in every post. Everyone knows this and no one boasting for Chicago is claiming superiority over your NYC. The thread IS ON DOWNTOWNS. So of course for Chicago it being in a boom period for high-rises to supertalls ..... is valid to mention. Does it lessen NYC to mention?
NYC never gets accused of in decline and loosing relevance. Chicago does and generally political in nature .... but does come into threads. This is one allowing the term downtown to be used in the title and defines a cities core and CBD as it has become used for.
Threads that do not exclude NYC get post promoting it too and really it needs little defense. No one is saying NYC's downtown (whole core) .... which to most gets all Manhattan. Isn't #1 here. But the consensus is Chicago's in its constant striving to improve it last few decades. Has it pay off even in rising tourism that matches NYC for domestic visitors, but NYC rocks the high international numbers.... Chicago lacks.
But mighty NYC has no worries. Others throw NYC at Chicago too much if it gets some boasting. I say any city that can .... should get its chance here. Especially on their downtown.
Most on C-D clearly know NYC has the most in skyscrapers ..... old and new. New needle footprint supertalls that other cities can go a bit broader in, as land is cheaper and even parking provided inside for its residents also. Other cities will have one attained as a arrival and milestone. Including these approaching that criteria of reaching 900'. Most fall short even in Chicago. It is also much easier to change a cities skyline much more to get just one just close to the height and even in Chicago's changing one.
Everyone posting a list. Gives NYC top billing. Chicago generally second. Sounds fair to me.
Now if cleanest downtowns and grandeur to viewing vistas of its architecture are discussed? Chicago could get a few top billings. It clearly worked on its core and deserves credit when due too. and other downtowns that are improving much and why.
-- Part of Chicago's downtown --
. 1970s toward the Loop and 2016 .
You keep this NYC superior stand yourself in every post. Everyone knows this and no one boasting for Chicago is claiming superiority over your NYC. The thread IS ON DOWNTOWNS. So of course for Chicago it being in a boom period for high-rises to supertalls ..... is valid to mention. Does it lessen NYC to mention?
NYC never gets accused of in decline and loosing relevance. Chicago does and generally political in nature .... but does come into threads. This is one allowing the term downtown to be used in the title and defines a cities core and CBD as it has become used for.
Threads that do not exclude NYC get post promoting it too and really it needs little defense. No one is saying NYC's downtown (whole core) .... which to most gets all Manhattan. Isn't #1 here. But the consensus is Chicago's in its constant striving to improve it last few decades. Has it pay off even in rising tourism that matches NYC for domestic visitors, but NYC rocks the high international numbers.... Chicago lacks.
But mighty NYC has no worries. Others throw NYC at Chicago too much if it gets some boasting. I say any city that can .... should get its chance here. Especially on their downtown.
Most on C-D clearly know NYC has the most in skyscrapers ..... old and new. New needle footprint supertalls that other cities can go a bit broader in, as land is cheaper and even parking provided inside for its residents also. Other cities will have one attained as a arrival and milestone. Including these approaching that criteria of reaching 900'. Most fall short even in Chicago. It is also much easier to change a cities skyline much more to get just one just close to the height and even in Chicago's changing one.
Everyone posting a list. Gives NYC top billing. Chicago generally second. Sounds fair to me.
Now if cleanest downtowns and grandeur to viewing vistas of its architecture are discussed? Chicago could get a few top billings. It clearly worked on its core and deserves credit when due too. and other downtowns that are improving much and why.
-- Part of Chicago's downtown --
. 1970s toward the Loop and 2016 .
Nobody needs to stick up for Chicago’s development boom. Many of America’s cities are booming right now and it’s great to see...I don’t think countless skyscrapers are necessary of any premier city. Soho nyc, back bay Boston, Gold Coast Chicago, DuPont dc are some of my favorite neighborhoods in the country and none are littered with skyscrapers...I feel like those from Chicago feel the need to come back and justify what Chicago is doing height wise given nyc historic pace. As if there’s some height competition...who cares..nyc is building 7 1000 ft towers as we speak with several more coming up...18 1000 ft in nyc to Chicago’s 6...but who cares?? We have more work to do in this country on infrastructure and income inequality than worrying about an extra 300 ft...crown nyc America’s height champ..that’s not what makes nyc so great to me.
I'm not obsessed with height. That is why I am defending the significance of 500' towers under construction in Chicago. The NY'ers are implying that they are too short to be relevant but Chicago is another landscape entirely. 500'-600' buildings in the right locations can be rather significant for their role in what is stretching the "core", creating new peaks and hopefully encouraging/spurring future development in areas that are traditionally extremely difficult to get anything of significance off of the ground. What Chicago is doing right now is city building, Chicago still has a lot of land in the core with low-rise/warehouse/garage/surface-parking type lots that need to be fully developed. It is slow and underwhelming much of the time but it is obviously necessary to build out these neighborhoods and boost the population to create foot-traffic and vibrancy although many of the projects themselves are mostly filler.
The West Loop/Fulton Market area is undergoing a rapid and radical transformation. Google and McDonald's just built corporate offices/HQ's there and Sterling Bay has 3 office buildings under construction. Nobu is building a hotel etc.. It is mostly a mid-rise neighborhood and proposals for a 700' and 500' building in this location will make a huge impact on the area's growth. Some day there may be a seamless transition from the Loop to the West Loop with towers canyonizing the Kennedy which is the direction development is heading. This will definitely be Chicago's next live-work-play bustling neighborhood with heavy pedestrian traffic and street level activity.
As for your point about Chicago having 6 supertalls to NY's 18, this is the reason Chicago having 6 legitimate supertall proposals with 2 expected to break ground early next year is rather significant. In Chicago's history it has only 6 but could possibly double that amount in only a few years. That is tremendous progress. NY wasn't exactly a forest of supertalls throughout it's history either. This phenomena is new to NY too. There wasn't one proposed supertall in Chicago between the Spire debacle and Wanda so there is an obvious confidence in the Chicago market that hasn't existed in quite some time.
I'm not obsessed with height. That is why I am defending the significance of 500' towers under construction in Chicago. The NY'ers are implying that they are too short to be relevant but Chicago is another landscape entirely. 500'-600' buildings in the right locations can be rather significant for their role in what is stretching the "core", creating new peaks and hopefully encouraging/spurring future development in areas that are traditionally extremely difficult to get anything of significance off of the ground. What Chicago is doing right now is city building, Chicago still has a lot of land in the core with low-rise/warehouse/garage/surface-parking type lots that need to be fully developed. It is slow and underwhelming much of the time but it is obviously necessary to build out these neighborhoods and boost the population to create foot-traffic and vibrancy although many of the projects themselves are mostly filler.
The West Loop/Fulton Market area is undergoing a rapid and radical transformation. Google and McDonald's just built corporate offices/HQ's there and Sterling Bay has 3 office buildings under construction. Nobu is building a hotel etc.. It is mostly a mid-rise neighborhood and proposals for a 700' and 500' building in this location will make a huge impact on the area's growth. Some day there may be a seamless transition from the Loop to the West Loop with towers canyonizing the Kennedy which is the direction development is heading. This will definitely be Chicago's next live-work-play bustling neighborhood with heavy pedestrian traffic and street level activity.
As for your point about Chicago having 6 supertalls to NY's 18, this is the reason Chicago having 6 legitimate supertall proposals with 2 expected to break ground early next year is rather significant. In Chicago's history it has only 6 but could possibly double that amount in only a few years. That is tremendous progress. NY wasn't exactly a forest of supertalls throughout it's history either. This phenomena is new to NY too. There wasn't one proposed supertall in Chicago between the Spire debacle and Wanda so there is an obvious confidence in the Chicago market that hasn't existed in quite some time.
Firstly you’re absolutely correct. Secondly, I’m the person that added a list of tall buildings a few threads back, I stopped the heights at 650’ because it would have taken too long to list them all. You and your city have many buildings going up and I’m glad the landscape is filling out in the city. I and many others hope the money is there for the proposed towers.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
and other downtowns that are improving much and why. 
