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.
Dallas has substantially more buildings over 300' than Seattle (current count puts Dallas at ~81) but thats mainly due to city limits rather than core size, Seattle just has more buildings over 400'
Still...... compared to Austin, they've both received nothing but a light touch up
Austin has exploded, but neither it or Dallas can compare to Seattle. It's not even close.
You have obviously never been.
And neither one of them have anywhere remotely similar to Bellevue.
To provide some context, this is from Skyscraperpage.com. It is probably missing building for every city, but it’s the only comprehensive source we have for context. Does anybody know what these counts were in 2010?
City......................Highrises
1. New York City........6034
2. Chicago.................1208
3. Los Angeles.............563
4. Houston..................494
5. Washington, DC.......492
6. Honolulu..................465
7. San Francisco...........453
8. Philadelphia..............385
9. Boston.....................351
10. Miami....................348
11. Dallas....................316
12. Denver..................304
13. Atlanta..................290
14. Seattle...................259
15. Arlington Va............226
16. Minneapolis............201
17. Detroit...................191
18. Baltimore..............175
19. Las Vegas..............172
20. San Diego...............162
21. Miami Beach............159
22. Pittsburgh...............158
23. Portland..................153
24. Fort Lauderdale........149
25. Austin.....................148
Source: skyscraperpage.com
What year is this from?
Also, the total count column--is this the total number of buildings in each city? If so, what is the height/stories starting point?
I'm thinking it has to be anything over 5 stories, and maybe 50 feet tall? So a very, very low starting point. Especially since Detroit has 191, and Minneapolis 200. I know that Minneapolis has about 38-39 high rises over 300 feet.
Typically, 300 feet (sometimes 400 feet) and up, is the starting point for a considerable "high rise" building, or roughly 25 to 30 stories+.
Also, the total count column--is this the total number of buildings in each city? If so, what is the height/stories starting point?
I'm thinking it has to be anything over 5 stories, and maybe 50 feet tall? So a very, very low starting point. Especially since Detroit has 191, and Minneapolis 200. I know that Minneapolis has about 38-39 high rises over 300 feet.
Typically, 300 feet (sometimes 400 feet) and up, is the starting point for a considerable "high rise" building, or roughly 25 to 30 stories+.
Please clarify. Thanks!
It’s for 2019. They use 12 stories and taller as their definition for high-rises I believe. The total number of buildings which includes buildings under 12 stories is higher than these counts for all cities. The total count of buildings is listed on their website database also, but I don’t know their definition for that.
This is directly from the database for high-rises 12+ stories at skyscraperpage.com. See below, I added land area:
Quote:
Originally Posted by MDAllstar
To provide some context, this is from Skyscraperpage.com. It is probably missing buildings for every city, but it’s the only comprehensive source we have for context. Does anybody know what these counts were in 2010?
City...............High-rises (12+ Floors)...Land Area
1. New York City........6034.........303 sq. miles
2. Chicago.................1208.........228 sq. miles
3. Los Angeles.............563.........469 sq. miles
4. Houston..................494..........600 sq. miles
5. Washington, DC.......492...........61 sq. miles
6. Honolulu..................465..........60 sq. miles
7. San Francisco...........453..........47 sq. miles
8. Philadelphia..............385.........134 sq. miles
9. Boston.....................351.........48 sq. miles
10. Miami....................348..........36 sq. miles
11. Dallas....................316..........340 sq. miles
12. Denver..................304..........155 sq. miles
13. Atlanta..................290..........133 sq. miles
14. Seattle...................259..........84 sq. miles
15. Arlington Va............226..........26 sq. miles
16. Minneapolis............201...........57 sq. miles
17. Detroit...................191..........139 sq. miles
18. Baltimore..............175...........81 sq. miles
19. Las Vegas..............172..........136 sq. miles
20. San Diego...............162..........325 sq. miles
21. Miami Beach............159..........8 sq. miles
22. Pittsburgh...............158..........55 sq. miles
23. Portland..................153..........133 sq. miles
24. Fort Lauderdale........149..........35 sq. miles
25. Austin.....................148..........298 sq. miles
Source: skyscraperpage.com
Last edited by MDAllstar; 10-27-2019 at 10:55 PM..
It’s for 2019. They use 12 stories and taller as their definition for high-rises I believe. The total number of buildings which includes buildings under 12 stories is higher. This is directly from the database at skyscraperpage.com. See below, I added land area:
Ah, ok, gotcha. Sounds about right.
I think based purely on "altered skyline," Austin, Seattle & Nashville edge a lot of the cities on my original poll list.
But since new construction in the 12-20 stories or so range is not necessarily visible as well from afar, and it doesn't make such a noticeable impact, some of these cities on the list might very well be booming at that level, but not building towers over 200 feet or so.
32 buildings over 400 feet in Seattle I question. I've been there numerous times since 2000 and don't see it. Also the poll is change this decade not the last two decades.
34 actually, including work underway but not the four that might start shoring by the time you read this (looks like Monday morning). I'll write a list with a link to google or something, but later if needed.
32 buildings over 400 feet in Seattle I question. I've been there numerous times since 2000 and don't see it. Also the poll is change this decade not the last two decades.
LOL do you make a habit of counting all the buildings under construction when you visit cities ?
Actually I'll do it now, but half-ass it. Here's the 34, which I can detail as needed.
Rainier Square (topped out)
The Mark
5th & Madison
2nd & Union / Qualtrics (might have TCO)
Russell
Amazon 1
Amazon 2
Amazon 3
Hyatt Regency
1918 8th
IDX
Olive 8
815 Pine
Amli Arc
Kinects
Nexus (nearly complete)
1200 Stewart 1 (starting to rise from hole)
1200 Stewart 2 (starting to rise from hole)
2014 Fairview (a few floors up)
2019 Boren (tower crane up a few weeks)
Onni 1 (halfway up)
Onni 2 (halfway up)
970 Terry
Cirrus
Stratus
Mackenzie
Insignia 1
Insignia 2
600 Wall (halfway up)
2116 4th
Third & Lenora (topped out)
2nd & Stewart (topped out)
Helios
2nd & Pine
Plus the twin towers at 2300 6th and the twins at 2301 7th...four on the same 1.8-acre block, all just under 484', mobile cranes and shoring steel onsite, fences pulled out to make way for perimeter shoring installation. This will be a remarkable block...close to 1,600 housing units plus 300,000 sf of offices, and the only block in Seattle that has four towers.
Austin has exploded, but neither it or Dallas can compare to Seattle. It's not even close.
You have obviously never been.
And neither one of them have anywhere remotely similar to Bellevue.
In terms of how different the skyline looks? Not before hell froze over
I have been to Seattle and it still looks fundamentally the same, just substantially more infilled. Seattle is a city with an extremely iconic geographic setting, a very large downtown with internationally know landmarks. It's going to require substantially larger & more bold developments to alter its skyline than a city that essentially didn't have one a decade ago.
Austin is completely unrecognizable to the point people genuinely think it's a different city if shown pictures from a decade ago, Seattle (like SF, DC, NYC etc..) doesn't have that effect despite their building booms
Chicago is LOSING population, so I don't see that as sustainable.
Population loss from the poor areas has literally no effect on growth in the core of the city, specifically the skyline. The core in Chicago is booming, and wealthy residents are moving in. The only people leaving are people who couldn't keep up with the rising taxes. Pretty much same exact thing that's happened/happening in NYC, San Francisco, and DC.
The trend in Chicago over the past decade has been to build up and develop the downtown core (and the areas around it), while the fringes and outer suburbs of the area, welp, haven't gotten that much love. The population loss has come entirely from poor/blue collar areas on the outer edges of the area, which is unfortunate, but don't let that fool you. There's tons of development that has happened over the past decade, and certainly more on the way. Seriously, if you haven't been to Chicago in the last 10 years, I'd recommend checking it out if you can. A lot has changed in and around downtown.
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.
