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.
Per Emporis here are the number of highrises built over 300 feet in these cities since 2000. It's hard to sort and count without a subscription so I just used 300 feet since it made counting rational to do so (except you NYC, omg).
Jersey City would be at least middle of the pack on this list, maybe top one-third. And we’re a pretty small city. I’ve lost track of what’s been built recently or is currently under construction, but we have at least two buildings over 70 stories under construction now, one is downtown and the other is in the booming Journal Square area.
Jersey City would be at least middle of the pack on this list, maybe top one-third. And we’re a pretty small city. I’ve lost track of what’s been built recently or is currently under construction, but we have at least two buildings over 70 stories under construction now, one is downtown and the other is in the booming Journal Square area.
Jersey City is solid at a 20, which is extremely solid since if you look at their 23 tallest buildings 20 of them are from 2000 and after.
Boston has also added 15 buildings in the Seaport district that are 250-260 feet. That doesn't seem like a huge difference from 300 feet and is caused by the airport. These high rises in my opinion account for the seeming lack of tall buildings Boston has built compared to other cities with similarly strong economies that have built more taller towers. If the FAA height restrictions did not exist it is likely these buildings would have been much taller.
Boston has also added 15 buildings in the Seaport district that are 250-260 feet. That doesn't seem like a huge difference from 300 feet and is caused by the airport. These high rises in my opinion account for the seeming lack of tall buildings Boston has built compared to other cities with similarly strong economies that have built more taller towers. If the FAA height restrictions did not exist it is likely these buildings would have been much taller.
If you include over 240ft in Boston, you get 37 more buildings. (6 in CCX, 17 in Seaport, Northeastern, Longwood Medical)
Per Emporis here are the number of highrises built over 300 feet in these cities since 2000. It's hard to sort and count without a subscription so I just used 300 feet since it made counting rational to do so (except you NYC, omg).
Those who like to call Chicago stagnant and question how it can become more urban while overall not gaining much if any in population .... certainly this stat is VERY impressive. Though by far in Chicago's ONE Greater Core region. So as a Core .... Chicago certainly has a honorable mention for most change. Though it already had a impressive skyline 10+ years ago for sure.....
But clearly a city of few high-rises and higher getting triple what it had 10-years ago? Clearly, will evoke the most change in look.
Boston has also added 15 buildings in the Seaport district that are 250-260 feet. That doesn't seem like a huge difference from 300 feet and is caused by the airport. These high rises in my opinion account for the seeming lack of tall buildings Boston has built compared to other cities with similarly strong economies that have built more taller towers. If the FAA height restrictions did not exist it is likely these buildings would have been much taller.
Same thing for Dallas and FAA height restrictions around the core.
And even with Emporis, the numbers could be off by a couple. Nitpicking here, but Nashville's real number is 10 as far as new buildings over 300 ft, so other cities could have different numbers as well.
NYC for sure. The skyline literally looks like it’s being replaced. I guess NYc heard all the haters complaining about those old grey and brown buildings lmao
NYC for sure. The skyline literally looks like it’s being replaced. I guess NYC heard all the haters complaining about those old grey and brown buildings lmao
well we surely know those shinny super-talls ..... clearly stand out in the change. Sadly, less of the art deco buildings we love being seen unless near them.
Most of us miss that older NYC iconic skyline then. I do. Hudson Yards is impressive. But not those skinny new ones nearer Central Park for me.
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.
So as a Core .... Chicago certainly has a honorable mention for most change. Though it already had a impressive skyline 10+ years ago for sure..... 
well we surely know those shinny super-talls ..... clearly stand out in the change. Sadly, less of the art deco buildings we love being seen unless near them. 
