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 have no idea what you're talking about. In my 30 years in civic affairs and construction I see no reason why highrise development would be related to how the area is divided administratively.
Zoning laws do play a part where you can build so highrise development would be related to how some areas are divided administratively or better stated how or where you can build in those divided administrative zones, but not always. You can't build highrises any and every where or in just any city, suburb or district. I think you are thinking a little too hard about this. This was more from an image point of view here vs say population. If that's the case Miami Metro should at least be the size of Chicago around 10,000,000 but it's not. We know tourism and other factors play roles here...
It makes no sense at all. By that logic, Atlanta should have a skyline comparable to Chattanooga.
As for "beauty," it looks nice from a distance, particularly from the water, but the closer you get, the uglier the buildings look... That's what happens when a vast majority of the highrises are similar-styled residential towers.
Architecture has lot to do with regional developers and a lot of development in cities are monopolized by a few firms.
DC, Baltimore, Philly, NYC & Boston for example have a lot of architecture/development firms that have overlap and do work in the adjacent cities, so theres a way larger diversity of firms that those cities can pull from, granted baring NYC none of them building anywhere remotely as much as Miami.
Miami doesn't have that luxury, so you get a lot of copy any paste.
It makes no sense at all. By that logic, Atlanta should have a skyline comparable to Chattanooga.
As for "beauty," it looks nice from a distance, particularly from the water, but the closer you get, the uglier the buildings look... That's what happens when a vast majority of the highrises are similar-styled residential towers.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. But the fact of the matter is that lot of people are investing premium dollars in those "ugly" buildings. And as in the case of Miami, despite the high price tag and a looming climate change crisis. They're representative of the majority of buildings now going up everywhere, especially in Florida. Besides those infill buildings in those pics will be somewhat balanced out by some unique skyscrapers under construction/or close to begin. They will be the true stars of the skyline. It seems a lot people want to buy into an increasingly "Manhattanized" Miami :
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. But the fact of the matter is that lot of people are investing premium dollars in those "ugly" buildings. And as in the case of Miami, despite the high price tag and a looming climate change crisis. They're representative of the majority of buildings now going up everywhere, especially in Florida. Besides those infill buildings in those pics will be somewhat balanced out by some unique skyscrapers under construction/or close to begin. They will be the true stars of the skyline. It seems a lot people want to buy into an increasingly "Manhattanized" Miami :
Miami doesn't have a weight comparison in the US though.
There is no other 6+ million metro located in a near tropical environment with miles and miles of beach.
The only comparison would be Honolulu and that is a mich much smaller metro.
We can't compare Miami with other 6plus metros because those are inland metros not pressed for space and doesn't have the beaches and views to warrant all those condos
It somewhat does.
Tijuana city plus San Diego urban area equals a 5 million area denser than Miami's 6 million urban area. There's more geographic constraints to spur high rise development also.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cpomp
Yea. I did some quick math (though a margin or error)...
NYC has put 70+ buildings 500'+ since 1999 (there are so many buildings in NYC that it's hard to track because every site omits a few).
Miami has put up ~56 buildings 500'+ since 1999.
Chicago has put up ~42 buildings 500'+ since 1999.
And no other city comes close to those 3.
Today I learned that a one square mile city called Sunny Isles Beach, Florida has 3X as many actual skyscrapers as Nashville.
Its not Miami, but I don't know of any metro with 15 500 foot buildings outside of a CBD except NYC.
Only three cities in NA in need of substantially more high rises in their core imo;
LA
Mexico City
Detroit
A few more with more moderate needs;
Dallas
Phoenix
St. Louis
The rest just need mild additions here and there regularly over time.
lol How's Dallas in the same category as those places? When there’s San Antonio, Jacksonville, OKC, Memphis, etc and other places that have added little to none. There hasn’t been a lull in high-rise development in the core. They just built two new high-rises in the Design District recently and 5 in Deep Ellum in the last few years. High-rises extend consistently (of at least 300 ft - from Museum Tower on the northern border of Downtown to The Offices at Turtle Creek Village --- aka Origin Bank Building) for 1.73 miles from downtown until it hits the Park Cities area. BTW that is an estimate plotted on Google Earth. They can’t build beyond that since they are very affluent single family municipalities in the middle of North Central Dallas. So, it picks up back again around Northwest Highway/Loop 12 (Dallas' inner loop) in the Preston Center area, which is on the border of the Dallas city limits and the Park Cities. That’s a reason why high-rises trail along Central Exwy, across from the Park Cities too. Commercial corridors or districts is where the high-rises are. You'd never see high-rises plopped everywhere like in our in-state equivalent Houston, because the zoning simply doesn't allow it. 86% of the city is zoned single family. It will never be tall because of Love Field, they will just continue more high-rise infill north of Downtown with the occasional building that will "punch" above the rest (height closer to or over 400 ft).
Origin Bank Building in Turtle Creek looking towards Downtown in 2022
Another view from Downtown, old pic already posted somewhere in this thread. Just added a red dot for Museum Tower and a black dot (it covers the high-rise tower) in Turtle Creek, to show locations.
If we're talking only downtown proper, south of Ross Ave, then I'll give you that. Too many plans are in the works, but not enough actual construction.
Just an added bonus. This is a March 2023 skyline view after sunset, but it isn't too dark to the point where the buildings are hard to make out.
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.
How's Dallas in the same category as those places? When there’s San Antonio, Jacksonville, OKC, Memphis, etc and other places that have added little to none. There hasn’t been a lull in high-rise development in the core. They just built two new high-rises in the Design District recently and 5 in Deep Ellum in the last few years. High-rises extend consistently (of at least 300 ft - from Museum Tower on the northern border of Downtown to The Offices at Turtle Creek Village --- aka Origin Bank Building) for 1.73 miles from downtown until it hits the Park Cities area. 