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.
If you believe that OKC thing! Unless a billionnaire is signing drunken checks, it sounds like vapor.
I don't believe it, that's why it has 5*'s next to it. Miami and Austin both only have one asterisk signifying that they are not super tall cities yet, but they are on their way.
There are more than 3 US cities with Supertalls. Philadelphia is the 6th US city to get a super tall.
Timeline of US Cities to get a Super tall:
1. New York Since 1930
2. Chicago - 1969
3. Houston -1982
4. Los Angeles - 1989
5. Atlanta - 1992
6. Philadelphia -2017
7. San Francisco - 2018
Would have thought that Dallas and Boston would be on the list before Austin.
John Hancock, at 60 floors.
Anyway, I agree with what you are saying. Especially for Density and Aesthetics, I don't think I would rank Miami ahead of Philly. Miami has a but load of buildings in the pipeline over 800ft but the skyline isn't really dense, and aesthetics is in the eyes of the beholder. I like the more classic look of Philly's, but the water is a nice touch for Miami
Boston has a decent number of skyscrapers but certainly is not a city with cultural elements that are inherently defined by them like a nyc or chicago. Boston doesn’t seek out the super talls for a few main reasons
It’s core neighborhoods highlight an old world urban fabric that wasn’t focused on skyscraper construction
Many people in love with bostons old world character and winding roads don’t like skyscrapers and impede development
A main industry is biotech and labs cannot be constructed as skyscrapers
The downtown is about 10 minutes to the airport
There are more than 3 US cities with Supertalls. Philadelphia is the 6th US city to get a super tall.
Timeline of US Cities to get a Super tall:
1. New York Since 1930
2. Chicago - 1969
3. Houston -1982
4. Los Angeles - 1989
5. Atlanta - 1992
6. Philadelphia -2017
7. San Francisco - 2018
My bad, I was thinking 1084' not 984'. Philadelphia still has the current tallest building the US outside of NYC & Chicago.
And the OKC proposal is a joke. I see asterisks, but it's a pie-in-the-sky proposal, not a legitimate project close to U/C.
I know, but I thought I would list it anyway.
As for Philly having the tallest outside of NY and Chicago, I kinda take away points because of how it attains that height.
It is only 60 Floors. Same as John Hancock in Boston. CTC Tower doesn't seem any taller than CC Tower to me. It's a bit of a cheat.
Looking at roof height of occupied floors, after NY and Chicago there is
Chase Houston 1002
Wells Fargo Houston 992
US Bank LA 980
BOA Dallas 921
Salesforce SF 913
CTC Philly 886
CC Philly 885
Wilshire Grand LA 839
BOA Atlanta 741
A lot of the trophy towers in the last 30 years have hundreds of feet in spires, antenna, crowns or other architectural features that greatly boost the height, but doesn't add anything in terms of occupiable space. At least some use that space to store mechanical items for the building.
Others boost height being placed on massive parking podiums.
The new tallest UC in Austin has a combination of 3 things boosting height. It has the non occupiable architectural feature at the top, it is on a massive podium, AND, it has non occupiable space between sections of the building on stilts.
But height is height, even if you wear a really tall hat and platform shoes
As for Philly having the tallest outside of NY and Chicago, I kinda take away points because of how it attains that height. It is only 60 Floors. Same as John Hancock in Boston. CTC Tower doesn't seem any taller than CC Tower to me. It's a bit of a cheat.
Looking at roof height of occupied floors, after NY and Chicago there is
Chase Houston 1002
Wells Fargo Houston 992
US Bank LA 980
BOA Dallas 921
Salesforce SF 913
CTC Philly 886
CC Philly 885
Wilshire Grand LA 839
BOA Atlanta 741
A lot of the trophy towers in the last 30 years have hundreds of feet in spires, antenna, crowns or other architectural features that greatly boost the height, but doesn't add anything in terms of occupiable space. At least some use that space to store mechanical items for the building.
Others boost height being placed on massive parking podiums.
The new tallest UC in Austin has a combination of 3 things boosting height. It has the non occupiable architectural feature at the top, it is on a massive podium, AND, it has non occupiable space between sections of the building on stilts.
But height is height, even if you wear a really tall hat and platform shoes
A few nitpicks...
1. The CTC has a crown/mechanical shaft (not an antenna), it is a structural weight component of the building and some of it contains elevator equipment. But I agree that there are many other buildings that count actual antennas as height.
2. Floor count is irrelevant. The new 1,388' Chase building in NYC is only 60 stories. Massive floor-to-ceiling ratios are common in many new office towers, a-typical of a 1960s skyscraper (John Hancock in Boston). The average floor height in the CTC is 13', the first floor alone is 70', and the 60th floor/top floor of the Four Seasons is ~40'.
3. As you said, height is height, and according to The Council of Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat rankings, Philadelphia has the tallest building outside of New York and Chicago... You can slice and dice data to benefit Houston or LA, but it is what it is.
Lol, I am not slicing or dicing data. I stated an opinion.
I was just defending Philly a few posts above when I said I preferred it's aesthetic and I think it should be higher in that category with aesthetics and density than Miami.
Yes I did say height is height and official height is what I go with. That's why the list of supertalls I gave was using full building height. But I can still give my opinion that some buildings get up that list with a lot of unoccupiable space. And yes I have called out the new Chase NYC building too. Just a page back.
I'm consistent in that opinion.
And I don't have a problem with floor to ceiling heights. I never nitpicked that feature. My argument is in relation to spires, antenna, poles, crowns ...... Some gives buildings a finishing touch, but it also gives a big boost in bragging rights. But like I said, height is height
Boston has a decent number of skyscrapers but certainly is not a city with cultural elements that are inherently defined by them like a nyc or chicago. Boston doesn’t seek out the super talls for a few main reasons
It’s core neighborhoods highlight an old world urban fabric that wasn’t focused on skyscraper construction
Many people in love with bostons old world character and winding roads don’t like skyscrapers and impede development
A main industry is biotech and labs cannot be constructed as skyscrapers
The downtown is about 10 minutes to the airport
Boston could definitely use more skyscrapers in the Back Bay. There is still a gap between Fairfield and Dartmouth Streets (i.e. around Copley Place) in between the clusters around the Pru and Hancock.
I also think it's a matter of time until skyscrapers pop up around Kendall. It's already a thriving urban center (so NIMBYism should not be as much as an issue) and not along any major fight paths to Logan.
Boston could definitely use more skyscrapers in the Back Bay. There is still a gap between Fairfield and Dartmouth Streets (i.e. around Copley Place) in between the clusters around the Pru and Hancock.
I also think it's a matter of time until skyscrapers pop up around Kendall. It's already a thriving urban center (so NIMBYism should not be as much as an issue) and not along any major fight paths to Logan.
Atlanta looks good in those videos and pictures. I think it’s a bit of “faux” density where it appears more dense than it actually is based on angle.Though I think it’s getting much better these days at orientating more dense development *patterns* these days (its one thing to have dense developments but a bit better when the pattern starts to become dense itself)
I’m really excited for the prospect of the 4 new infill stations along with the belt line (or whatever it’s called) tram. That will be giant before it’s even built.
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.
