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.
I guess I don't understand the consternation? The semantics are fairly straightforward: the proposal isn't just an idea a developer came up with, it's actually been generally reviewed and approved by the necessary government bodies. Whether literally ever I is dotted and every t is crossed seems besides the point.
In Austin in particular, approved would mean we are passed things like FAR, "density bonuses", "capital view corridors", "great streets", etc. Undoubtedly other cities have their own sets of regulations.
If you mean "yes, we'll be allowed to build something like this," then sure, once land-use permission is in hand, that's a key step...but it's not necessarily a sign that construction can follow anytime soon.
The hurdles past land use permit can be pretty significant, not "dotting every I." They might still need to do most of the design work, the project cost might be pretty vague, and all sorts of surprises can happen in the building permitting process based on a billion interpretations.
If you mean "yes, we'll be allowed to build something like this," then sure, once land-use permission is in hand, that's a key step...but it's not necessarily a sign that construction can follow anytime soon.
The hurdles past land use permit can be pretty significant, not "dotting every I." They might still need to do most of the design work, the project cost might be pretty vague, and all sorts of surprises can happen in the building permitting process based on a billion interpretations.
I guess I'm missing where anyone implied that an "approved" building meant that construction was imminent or guaranteed to happen. Even an under-construction project can be aborted halfway through.
The link above was specific to Austin, which has some specific challenging regulatory hurdles that every project needs to get through.
Last edited by whereiend; 03-29-2022 at 05:48 PM..
143 in Atlanta seems way off. Skyscraperpage alone counts only 87.
I was kind of surprised to see the ATL that high too. I figured it would have been more in the Philly/Dallas/Seattle range. Which again, I kind of thought Dallas and Houston would have been closer too.
Frankly, I wish whoever made that video just included a spreadsheet in the comments. I mean it isn't THAT many buildings to list and he already supposedly compiled the lists.
The Youtube videos of cities with buildings over 200 ft and 300 ft has Atlanta's numbers jacked way up. It has had a good amount of growth, but not THAT much.
Going by metro is going throws the numbers off a tad
Baltimore has 31 buildings over +300' (Towson, MD has 2)
Seatle has 90 buildings over +300' (Bellevue has 13).
Tampa-St. Petersburg, MSP, SF/Oakland & Dallas-Fort Worth are dual metro's so those numbes account for both primary cities, so take them with a grain of salt.
Miami isn't catching Chicago in a apples vs. apples comparo either as all of Chicago skyscrapers are located in a ~5 sq. mi city core, not spread around 100's of square miles of metro.
Right, cities with smaller footprints like Miami and Boston don’t get to include their tall buildings in bordering communities. St. Louis is another example. There are at least 20 completed buildings over 300’ in St. Louis IF you count neighboring Clayton and Richmond Heights. Using city-only data favors those cities who’ve grown by aggressively extending their borders. Cities like Washington, St. Louis and Baltimore are unable to do this.
The Youtube videos of cities with buildings over 200 ft and 300 ft has Atlanta's numbers jacked way up. It has had a good amount of growth, but not THAT much.
If you go off a +200' metric these rankings flip flop really quick.
San Antonio, St. Louis, Baltimore & Pittsburgh gap Charlotte & Nashville hard and get within whispers of Detroit.
Vegas falls way back.
Austin gets close to tripple digits
Boston & Philly put a lot of distance between themselves and Seattle.
Those are some really nice buildings! Love the aesthetic. Austin will have a 2nd downtown in that area, by 2025/26.
Part of me likes Rainey Street before though. LOL
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.
