Cities with most buildable vacant land (largest, Atlanta, Los Angeles, Boston)
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.
Vacant lots in cities that can be useful for development
1. Dallas 86.37 acres
2. Las Vegas 75.16 acres
3. Austin 70.72 acres
4. San Antonio 42.39 acres
5. Phoenix 31.03 acres
6. Minneapolis 27.13 acres
7. Indianapolis 24.69 acres
8. Salt Lake City 22.41 acres
9. Atlanta 22.02 acres
10. Tucson 18.11 acres
11. Chicago 16.86 acres
12. NYC 16.49 acres
13. San Jose 14.90 acres
14. Cincinnati 14.22 acres
15. LA 12.61 acres
16 Miami 12.07 acres
Total CBD Construction Since 2013 (Square feet)
1. NYC 29,616,844
2. Chicago** 6,979,051
3. Houston** 6,529,568
4. Los Angeles 4,973,752
5. Washington DC 2,289,886
6. Miami 2,042,506
7. Milwaukee 2,127,176
8. Austin 2,096,160
9.. Kansas City 1,714,257
10. Phoenix 1,592,330
11. Salt Lake City 1,582,976
I'm surprised jacksonville didn't make the list considering half the city is practically woods, and farmland.
It wasn't included in the 25 cities surveyed. And they only looked at CBD's. Jacksonville and OKC would obviously be up there if they looked at every city and included all land within city limits. Both have endless land available.
Am I the only one who finds the list of cities selected to profile to be really random? The report never exactly said why it picked the 25 it did and left off a bunch of obvious other ones and then at some point forgot it wasn't comprehensive and started bandying around terms like "the 25 largest urban cores".
Am I the only one who finds the list of cities selected to profile to be really random? The report never exactly said why it picked the 25 it did and left off a bunch of obvious other ones and then at some point forgot it wasn't comprehensive and started bandying around terms like "the 25 largest urban cores".
Agreed. This entire thread is useless since only 25 cities were used in this so-called study. The 25 cities:
Atlanta
Austin
Buffalo
Chicago
Cincinnati
Dallas
Houston
Indianapolis
Kansas City
Las Vegas
Los Angeles
Miami
Milwaukee
Minneapolis
New York City
Orlando
Phoenix
Rochester
Sacramento
Salt Lake City
San Antonio
San Jose
Tampa
Tucson
Washington
Conspicuous by their absence:
Baltimore
Boston
Charlotte
Cleveland
Columbus
Denver
Jacksonville
Louisville
Nashville
Oakland
Oklahoma City
Philadelphia
Pittsburgh
Portland
Raleigh
Richmond
Saint Louis
Seattle
San Diego
---
its - possession
it's - contraction of it is
your - possession
you're - contraction of you are
their - possession
they're - contraction of they are
there - referring to a place
loose - opposite of tight
lose - opposite of win
who's - contraction of who is
whose - possession
alot - NOT A WORD
I am somewhat surprised NYC has so much vacant land at its disposal. I mean it's tremendous construction output is palpable, however you certainly don't notice many empty lots walking through the concrete jungle. Initially I thought the city's large area and outer boroughs skewed the data, but the study only includes vacant land within each city's designated CBD as defined by how they're zoned. Interesting to see what potential exists out there.
This is pretty interesting and the top 5 do not surprise me at all. I am also a bit surprised that NYC has so much vacant land in CBD, but it depends on how you define it. I guess if you extend it to Hudson Yards, then it makes sense - tons of construction but still vacant land (though they started construction on the foundation a few months ago on a few large buildings).
I'd really be curious to see a year by year data for the vacant land part to see who's gotten rid of the most. Some more data:
Office Space Under Construction
NYC: 23,961,438 sq ft
Chicago: 4,657,355 sq ft
Washington DC: 2,250,345 sq ft
Los Angeles: 1,613,800 sq ft
Minneapolis: 1,000,000 sq ft
Austin: 811,357 sq ft
Houston: 780,000 sq ft
San Antonio: 580,000 sq ft
Milwaukee: 472,914 sq ft
Rochester, NY: 472,836 sq ft
Orlando: 318,060 sq ft
Dallas: 244,906 sq ft
Phoenix: 206,250 sq ft
San Jose: 96,000 sq ft
Buffalo: 63,000 sq ft
Also I'm curious how they define the CBD in each of these cities, especially with many of them having expanding CBD borders technically.
I am somewhat surprised NYC has so much vacant land at its disposal. I mean it's tremendous construction output is palpable, however you certainly don't notice many empty lots walking through the concrete jungle. Initially I thought the city's large area and outer boroughs skewed the data, but the study only includes vacant land within each city's designated CBD as defined by how they're zoned. Interesting to see what potential exists out there.
Eastern Brooklyn, South Bronx, Queens have some empty land. Long Island City Queens by Long Island Railway Yard is big vacant land
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.
