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.
This is a list of completed +200’ buildings in each city. Paints a lot different picture in skyline size as buildings in the 200’ range play a huge roll in skyline infill/visual density.
Houston - 281+
SF - 223
Philly - 181
Dallas - 171
Boston - 156 (Does not include Cambridge)
Seattle - 147
Denver - 98
MSP - 93
SD - 86
St. Louis - 76
Austin - 68
Pittsburgh - 65+ (Does not include Clayton)
Baltimore - 65+ (Does not include Towson)
Portland - 61
Charlotte - 58
NYC, Chicago, Miami, LA are all major step above the “top” tier
According to (Emporis)San Antonio has 41 skyscrapers/high rises 200' or more with 5 (200ft to 400ft plus that are planned or approved for construction)
San Antonio's Emporis page is a bit out of sequence, high rise building stock info drops off and buildings 200' to 300' plus appear on other pages. Wikipedia shows only 27 over 200ft but there are over 40 existing buildings.
There are several proposed that are almost 200 Ft. I noticed that there are several buildings that are over 190FT and just a few feet shy of 200ft, buildings that are 12-20 floors. These buildings also add to visual density.
San Antonio has over 200 high rise buildings that are 10 floors or more which definitely adds to infill/density and overall building stock.
In contrast, Austin has 147 total buildings over 10 floors.
San Antonio doesn't have as many 200' plus buildings as the cities listed above but it gains ground when buildings 10 floors or more are included.
Last edited by SweethomeSanAntonio; 08-03-2021 at 12:23 AM..
Yeah, ilke totally "extremely poly-centric." Thats what it is. To the max.
Its downtown skyline is still as or more impressive as any of the other cities you mentioned, and its the only city of those with two complete, topped out supertall buildings downtown.
It is extremely poly centric/nodal... just like NYC, Atlanta & Houston. I never said that it's skyline is small because of that.
That said, DT Houston has two supertalls as well, so what's your point? That doesn't mean eithers primary downtowns clusters are anywhere as built up as the cities I've mentioned. Seattle, Philly, Boston & SF tight street grids and zoning which only allow high-rise development in and around their downtowns is what allows them to have these ridiculous numbers despite all being less than half 1/2 the size of LA. LA is not inhibited by those constraints which is why you see high-rises popping all over the city, not just in a 1 or 2 square mile box.
Oh fun fact... I just did the math. LA proper currently "only" has 236 buildings over +200', all of which are not centered around DT. Adding Hollywood & Long Beach would put it just shy of 300.
According to (Emporis)San Antonio has 41 skyscrapers/high rises 200' or more with 5 (200ft to 400ft plus that are planned or approved for construction)
San Antonio's Emporis page is a bit out of sequence, high rise building stock info drops off and buildings 200' to 300' plus appear on other pages. Wikipedia shows only 27 over 200ft but there are over 40 existing buildings.
There are several proposed that are almost 200 Ft. I noticed that there are several buildings that are over 190FT and just a few feet shy of 200ft, buildings that are 12-20 floors. These buildings also add to visual density.
San Antonio has over 200 high rise buildings that are 10 floors or more which definitely adds to infill/density and overall building stock.
In contrast, Austin has 147 total buildings over 10 floors.
San Antonio doesn't have as many 200' plus buildings as the cities listed above but it gains ground when buildings 10 floors or more are included.
That could be said for every city on this list, so its not exclusive to San Antonio. The ranking don't change much the lower the "bar" gets *DC excluded*. That being said yes, I agree San Antonio is undersold for it's urban vernacular.
City proper?
Sea above bos? Im not sure about that. Dallas too. Why is houston #4?
I ranked Seattle over Boston because it's been a while since I have been to either and they were about even at the time but I gave Seattle the nod since I am assuming that it took the lead since then. Could be wrong.
Dallas I ranked over Boston and Seattle even though it hasn't build very many really tall buildings in the last 30 years, it never stopped building in the 200ft range.
It's listed as over Boston and Seattle because it is over this two.
As for Houston being#4 what do you mean? It was #3 for decades but I think it recently got passed by Miami.
I think it is still over Miami in terms of average height of skyscrapers.
If you focus on the western half of Houston's inner loop (the inner loop is about 90 sq miles, so about a 45 sq mile area) you will see that there are 3 major employment districts and a handful of smaller to mid sized districts. I am not sure if this is the still the case but I remember about 10 years ago Uptown and The Medical center was said to have almost as much building sq footage as Downtown Dallas. And TMC is just 2 miles down the street from Downtown.
It was the hope that the rail from Downtown to TMC would result in tall buildings connecting the two, but so far the development has been really slow as the development has not been confined to just that area.
If that area was able to develop it would be a monster of a skyline.
Anyway, Houston has tons of tall buildings. That poster who listed it as # 10 behind Seattle, Boston, Philly, etc was waaaaaay off-base. Houston hasn't been on top of its game in over 5 years and it still is cranking out tall buildings. I am not sure why it continues to outpace a place line Dallas where the economy has been on a roll all decade, but Houston just has more of an affinity for building up than Dallas. I can only imagine how the city would look if it had more major economic sectors in the loop. The Energy Corridor isn't even in the loop.
People keep mentioning Clayton and Cambridge, but how about Bellevue? It has maybe 35 or so over 200', plus 11 under construction. (I only see the top 20 on Emporis, which is also a very partial list. Wikipedia stops at #31 at 230'.)
Off the top of my head, Seattle itself has 21 underway over 200', not counting a few paused jobs.
I ranked Seattle over Boston because it's been a while since I have been to either and they were about even at the time but I gave Seattle the nod since I am assuming that it took the lead since then. Could be wrong.
Dallas I ranked over Boston and Seattle even though it hasn't build very many really tall buildings in the last 30 years, it never stopped building in the 200ft range.
It's listed as over Boston and Seattle because it is over this two.
As for Houston being#4 what do you mean? It was #3 for decades but I think it recently got passed by Miami.
I think it is still over Miami in terms of average height of skyscrapers.
If you focus on the western half of Houston's inner loop (the inner loop is about 90 sq miles, so about a 45 sq mile area) you will see that there are 3 major employment districts and a handful of smaller to mid sized districts. I am not sure if this is the still the case but I remember about 10 years ago Uptown and The Medical center was said to have almost as much building sq footage as Downtown Dallas. And TMC is just 2 miles down the street from Downtown.
It was the hope that the rail from Downtown to TMC would result in tall buildings connecting the two, but so far the development has been really slow as the development has not been confined to just that area.
If that area was able to develop it would be a monster of a skyline.
Anyway, Houston has tons of tall buildings. That poster who listed it as # 10 behind Seattle, Boston, Philly, etc was waaaaaay off-base. Houston hasn't been on top of its game in over 5 years and it still is cranking out tall buildings. I am not sure why it continues to outpace a place line Dallas where the economy has been on a roll all decade, but Houston just has more of an affinity for building up than Dallas. I can only imagine how the city would look if it had more major economic sectors in the loop. The Energy Corridor isn't even in the loop.
Dallas has built a couple of 560’ buildings and some others around 400+ feet, but Dallas also deals with height restrictions in a majority of its most popular neighborhoods. Also, the most prominent industries in Houston tend to require more office space.
Last edited by R1070; 08-03-2021 at 11:09 AM..
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.
