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 think it's fine for a city it's size. Decent height, good low rise density. Probably would help a little if those taller buildings by the Crown Center and the Plaza were downtown though.
I'm in Austin today and was last here during the Christmas holidays. I've travelled quite a bit around north America. I know Atlanta, Miami and NYC have added significant hi-rise inventory but NONE have experienced the percentage of growth the Capital of Texas has shown since 2000. Looking to my left heading south on Congress avenue across the lake and one sees like 6 or 7 new towers finished or under construction. Look to the northwest and an 800 foot tower is nearing being topped-off. Ground has broken on a 1000 foot tower as well.
Yep, only a few areas in Downtown allow supertalls. Dallas’ current tallest — BOA Plaza was cut down a few floors due to Love Field in the 80s. Also in the 60s, Republic Center II (1964) was trying to regain the title of the tallest building in Dallas. Republic Center Tower I being the tallest west of the Mississippi from 1954-1959. But it only rose to 598 ft due to the FAA, slightly shorter than Republic Center I spire at 602 ft. A rival bank was also constructing a new tower in the 60s called the First National Bank Building, but it was cut down 96 ft — from 723 ft to 627 ft by the FAA. It still held the title as the tallest building west of the Mississippi from 1965-1969.
I wonder if height restrictions for downtown Dallas are less of an issue on the east side near US 75/I-45? There's some surface car lots that easily could supoort a Super Tall.
I'd say Columbus ranks like this, below, based on comparing it to KC. Also, added Cleveland, since they are similar to KC, too:
7 Sacramento - several good "over 400 ft high" towers, and decent density, but should have more. I can see them building quite a few more though in the next decade. Sort of a sleeper city not on a lot of folks radar, but one to watch.
6 Indianapolis - lacks a high number of towers to rank high on skyscraper lists. The tallest is super attractive, and the city has a good core of some density, but very small overall. They should have 10-15 more buildings over 300 feet.
5 Columbus - Very close to Sacramento's look and feel, aesthetically and count-wise. But a bit more density and overall decently nice in terms of a skyline.
4 Kansas City - KC has great bones. They should have several more in the 300-400 range and then 2-3 btwn 400-700 feet, then it would be spot on.
3 Cleveland - such great bones. I'd love to see several more skyscrapers built, but the Sherwin Williams 600 footer is an excellent height addition going up now. They have a good skyline overall.
2 Cincinnati - The skyline makes the city look bigger than it is. Love the density downtown, and love the older bones mixed with new. If Cincy added an 800-900 footer, and then one more between 600-800 feet, its skyline would be one of the best mid-sized in the US.
1 Pittsburgh - Superb skyline. They have the height, the variation in aesthetic, the density and an ideal downtown location to go vertical, due to the peninsula Pittsburgh sits on. Love this skyline--hope they continue to build in the next decade.
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.
