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.
While back bay isn’t the same as it’s ever been (the skyline is much more than two buildings these days)
Booming is a very strong word for what’s happening. It’s more like steady development
I agree that there needs to be some kind of standard met to claim a place is "booming." Gentrification does not mean booming.
Dowtown Austin clearly meets that standard, I'd say DTLA also with both residential skyscrapers and new new transit downtown being completed.
Apartment buildings like this are always being built everywhere, and I don't think they meet the standard of booming. Has to be an actual residential skyscraper.
Struggling to think of anywhere in the Bay Area honestly. Maybe downtown Sunnyvale? That's primarily new construction, looks like one developer "CityLine" is building the bulk of it.
Struggling to think of anywhere in the Bay Area honestly. Maybe downtown Sunnyvale? That's primarily new construction, looks like one developer "CityLine" is building the bulk of it.
Whole slate of residential skyscrapers, central subway opened a few months ago. Even if population is declining, those are things most cities can't do if they tried their hardest.
I agree that there needs to be some kind of standard met to claim a place is "booming." Gentrification does not mean booming.
Dowtown Austin clearly meets that standard, I'd say DTLA also with both residential skyscrapers and new new transit downtown being completed.
Apartment buildings like this are always being built everywhere, and I don't think they meet the standard of booming. Has to be an actual residential skyscraper.
Requiring skyscrapers is odd. Buildings like this are absolutely not being built everywhere. A building like that may not mean much in a big city but in a smaller regional city, it's pretty big. Outside of that, height restrictions could block high rises. And high rises aren't even the best way to address density.
Requiring skyscrapers is odd. Buildings like this are absolutely not being built everywhere. A building like that may not mean much in a big city but in a smaller regional city, it's pretty big. Outside of that, height restrictions could block high rises. And high rises aren't even the best way to address density.
Suit yourself, but consider the standard that needed to have been met to call a neighborhood "booming" 100 years ago in this country.
You needed to be outbuilding and out-innovating most places around the world to even get noticed.
I guess now a small population bump, some basic 6 story box apartments, and a few new restaurants/breweries is all that's needed.
Whole slate of residential skyscrapers, central subway opened a few months ago. Even if population is declining, those are things most cities can't do if they tried their hardest.
IDK, I don't feel like it's anything special. Per this thread from a few months ago, SF proper had 4 skyscrapers and 9 high-rises under construction, placing us 13th in the country. We're also the anchor of the 13th largest MSA in the country.
The Central Subway isn't nothing. I don't know of any other US cities actually building underground rail right now besides Seattle and LA. The project cost $1.9 billion for only 1.5 miles --- I can't tell if that makes it more or less impressive. Regardless I still don't think our downtown would qualify as "booming" on a national scale.
Honestly if I had to pick a neighborhood of SF proper for this thread, I'd go with Treasure Island. For those not in the know: it's a man-made island along the middle of the SF-Oakland Bay Bridge, which served as a US Navy base during WW2 and was still operational as late as the 1990s. The Navy disposed of radioactive waste there and cleaned and painted ships that had been used in nuclear tests, and the soil is deemed unsafe by the EPA to this day.
Nevertheless, plans are going ahead to build 8,000 much-needed residential units on the island. Some have already broken ground. It remains to be seen how the soil cleanup will play into these plans.
Suit yourself, but consider the standard that needed to have been met to call a neighborhood "booming" 100 years ago in this country.
You needed to be outbuilding and out-innovating most places around the world to even get noticed.
I guess now a small population bump, some basic 6 story box apartments, and a few new restaurants/breweries is all that's needed.
100 years ago, a lot of the cities that were "booming" were doing so by throwing single-family residences up all over the land. That remains largely true for the Sunbelt cities that get described with that term today. AFAICT, high-rises never have been a prerequisite for determining whether a place is booming or not.
Philadelphia remains a mostly low-rise city — even mid-rise apartment buildings of the kind found in a good chunk of DC or much of the Bronx are rarities. But Fishtown has been on a tear mainly because of construction of rowhouses, which are now being supplanted with multifamily buildings, and the boom is spreading to much of South and East Kensington. And in South Kensington, most of what's being or has been built are larger 4- or 5-story apartment buildings, many with street-level retail. Sheesh, I can't walk down Chelten or Germantown avenues (above Chelten in Germantown's case) in my own neighborhood without seeing a 3-over-1, 4-over-1 or 5-over-1 building rising on a block, sometimes more than one.
Also: I think the wave has crested in Francisville, but I would have put it on a list of booming Philadelphia neighborhoods last decade. And the interesting thing there was, you didn't hear too much about existing residents being priced out as a result. The head of the local CDC, the Francisville Neighborhood Development Corporation, has her critics, but I think she managed to pull off that hat trick quite well.
DC Buzzard Point and Southwest Waterfront are booming.
Does any area in the country have more cranes than that 1/2 mile stretch of the Anacostia River in DC? I think there are about 14 cranes in that 1/2 mile stretch along both sides of the river. Any neighborhoods in Boston, Seattle, LA, or Austin with more cranes in such a small compact area?
100 years ago, a lot of the cities that were "booming" were doing so by throwing single-family residences up all over the land. That remains largely true for the Sunbelt cities that get described with that term today. AFAICT, high-rises never have been a prerequisite for determining whether a place is booming or not.
Philadelphia remains a mostly low-rise city — even mid-rise apartment buildings of the kind found in a good chunk of DC or much of the Bronx are rarities. But Fishtown has been on a tear mainly because of construction of rowhouses, which are now being supplanted with multifamily buildings, and the boom is spreading to much of South and East Kensington. And in South Kensington, most of what's being or has been built are larger 4- or 5-story apartment buildings, many with street-level retail. Sheesh, I can't walk down Chelten or Germantown avenues (above Chelten in Germantown's case) in my own neighborhood without seeing a 3-over-1, 4-over-1 or 5-over-1 building rising on a block, sometimes more than one.
Also: I think the wave has crested in Francisville, but I would have put it on a list of booming Philadelphia neighborhoods last decade. And the interesting thing there was, you didn't hear too much about existing residents being priced out as a result. The head of the local CDC, the Francisville Neighborhood Development Corporation, has her critics, but I think she managed to pull off that hat trick quite well.
This is a great point. Most cities are building most of their housing in the form of smaller 4-5 story wood frame buildings. Outside of NYC and DC, I don't think most cities achieve the bulk of their growth in buildings over 8 stories.
DC does it obviously because of height limits so most developers build in the 9-15 story range all over the city sprawling in all directions because they can't build 50 stories in downtown DC. NYC does it because of the sheer density and land constraints in the city. Miami could be another contender although tall buildings in Miami only hug the coast. The rest of Miami is very short unlike a NYC or DC. I assume the zoning doesn't allow taller buildings in most of the City of Miami.
It would be interesting to get an average height of all buildings within city limits across the country including everything from houses to skyscrapers. I would assume NYC would be first and then probably DC. Third would probably be San Fran or Chicago.
Last edited by MDAllstar; 04-11-2023 at 05:43 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.
