HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForumSkyscraper Posters
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #21  
Old Posted Oct 22, 2017, 6:28 PM
Kngkyle Kngkyle is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Chicago/New York
Posts: 2,158
The biggest cluster of height u/c and proposed in Chicago is probably in Lakeshore East and Streeterville. Although the South Loop, River North, and the West Loop all have more projects, most are smaller in scale.


Photo by YoChicago - https://www.flickr.com/photos/yochicago1/ (tons of awesome stuff there)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #22  
Old Posted Oct 22, 2017, 6:31 PM
Pedestrian's Avatar
Pedestrian Pedestrian is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 2,454
Quote:
Originally Posted by coyotetrickster View Post
Don't forget SF's high rise construction activity is limited by Prop M. That severely restricts the number of high rises that will actually be permitted in a given year.
Actually, that's a minor factor. Prop. M applies only to large commercial buildings and much of the recent highrise activity is residential. As has been true since the measure was passed in the 1970s, very recently it looked like we had reached the Prop. M limits on commercial buildings and there would have to be a "beauty contest" to rule out some projects but it looks to me like we are on the verge of a cyclical downturn in commercial construction and that may happen for only a year or so or not at all. Meanwhile, residential highrises (all but one of those I can think of abuilding into next year) proceed without legislative restriction. In the current construction wave, possibly until now, Prop. M has been no factor at all because we have been using up years of banked Prop. M quotas from when there was little building.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #23  
Old Posted Oct 22, 2017, 6:42 PM
Gordo's Avatar
Gordo Gordo is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Seattle, WA/San Francisco, CA/Jackson Hole, WY
Posts: 4,019
^Prop M was passed in 1986.

While it's true that we haven't actually hit the cap in recent years because of banked space, we have probably seen a lot fewer proposals because of it. Additionally, we've seen a whole lot of activity (new mixed use, conversions, etc) that have been slotted at 49,999 sqft office, which...whadayaknow!?! is just below the 50,000 sqft amount that has to apply for prop M allotments.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #24  
Old Posted Oct 22, 2017, 6:55 PM
mhays mhays is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 15,940
Seattle passed a measure called CAP at roughly the same time. But the office space retrictions were temporary (10 years?) and had no effect since we overbuilt in the late 80s. The measure also dramatically lowered height limits in the core, but those have been gradually lifted by various council actions since then. The limits are still restrictive...we couldn't build the Columbia Center today, due to FAR limits for commercial space, and floorplate limits on residential if it went that way. And the increased heights come with massive fees that ensure that everything is expensive.

In the fringes of the CBD, one area was just rezoned from 500' to 550', with residential getting another 10%. A larger area was rezoned from 400' to 440' also with 10% more. We should start getting a lot of towers at 605' and 484' instead of the many 440' towers we've been getting, if I understand the new code correctly after not having read it. (Or 420' or so...the added 10% is amenities, architecture, and mechanical, and isn't always fully used.)

Outside greater Downtown, everything was downzoned in the 1960s I think...that's why we have a scattering of highrises from that era but nothing since. On the plus side, the University District was just upzoned in the last several weeks, and now three highrise apartments are planned.
__________________
When did people starting thinking "alot" was a word?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #25  
Old Posted Oct 22, 2017, 7:21 PM
softee's Avatar
softee softee is offline
Aimless Wanderer
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Downtown Toronto
Posts: 2,832
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pedestrian View Post
But most of them don't seem very tall by US standards. In Vancouver anyway, most seem to be 20-30 floors. Here, 40 is closer to the usual, at least in my city, and that is creeping up. And it seems much more common to put them in park-like settings rather than as part of a continuous street wall (which I much prefer for walkability in downtown areas).
Toronto is building lots of tall (40-80 floor) towers that are strengthening the streetwall by filling in gaps in the urban fabric and creating new canyons.
__________________
Public transit is the lifeblood of every healthy city.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #26  
Old Posted Oct 22, 2017, 7:55 PM
chris08876's Avatar
chris08876 chris08876 is online now
Can't knock the hustle
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: New Jersey - Somerset County
Posts: 19,629
I love these stats threads. Give me a few minutes and I'll gather some CTBUH data...

Ps... this should probally not be in the high rise construction forum. City discussion...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #27  
Old Posted Oct 22, 2017, 8:06 PM
chris08876's Avatar
chris08876 chris08876 is online now
Can't knock the hustle
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: New Jersey - Somerset County
Posts: 19,629
U.S. u/c 100m +. A to Z, alphabetical (cities). U/C and topped off/structurally T/O

The given being below 100m, its obviously much greater.


1 city by Christopher Estevez, on Flickr


city 2 by Christopher Estevez, on Flickr


city 3 by Christopher Estevez, on Flickr


city 4 by Christopher Estevez, on Flickr


city 5 by Christopher Estevez, on Flickr
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #28  
Old Posted Oct 22, 2017, 10:26 PM
DrNest's Avatar
DrNest DrNest is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Toronto
Posts: 1,913
Quote:
Originally Posted by softee View Post
Can Canadians play? City of Toronto has 146, not counting those in sight prep.
Thanks for posting, I was wondering what was Toronto's number. You've saved me looking it up. And like you allude, that number is only going to rise in the near future.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #29  
Old Posted Oct 22, 2017, 11:10 PM
hammersklavier's Avatar
hammersklavier hammersklavier is offline
Your 2016 AAC Champs!
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Polis Philou Adelfou
Posts: 5,423
Moved thread to the section where it belongs.
__________________
Urban Rambles | Hidden City

Who knows but that, on the lower levels, I speak for you?’ (Ralph Ellison, Invisible Man)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #30  
Old Posted Oct 22, 2017, 11:14 PM
Pedestrian's Avatar
Pedestrian Pedestrian is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 2,454
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gordo View Post
^Prop M was passed in 1986.

While it's true that we haven't actually hit the cap in recent years because of banked space, we have probably seen a lot fewer proposals because of it.
There are some who argue that Prop. M, over the years, has saved San Francisco from the type of overbuilding that causes rents to fall through the floor. While I have lived in SF for 35 years and didn't remember Prop.M being on the ballot in my time--in which case I would have vote against it (and perhaps did)--the fact is I really don't think it has been the disaster even I might have predicted. It's just there and SF has gotten the commercial development it needed to keep vacancies relatively low and commercial rents fairly high and stable.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #31  
Old Posted Oct 22, 2017, 11:21 PM
Pedestrian's Avatar
Pedestrian Pedestrian is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 2,454
Quote:
Originally Posted by chris08876 View Post
U.S. u/c 100m +. A to Z, alphabetical (cities). U/C and topped off/structurally T/O

The given being below 100m, its obviously much greater.
Several in SF missing from there (and not because some are still in the excavation phase because Oceanwide Center is that): 100 Folsom (aka the Jean Gang "twisty tower"), 500 Folsom, 350 Bush, CA-Pacific Medical Center come to mind.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #32  
Old Posted Oct 22, 2017, 11:53 PM
the urban politician the urban politician is online now
The City
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Libertyville, IL
Posts: 13,300
Edit
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #33  
Old Posted Oct 23, 2017, 12:14 AM
dc_denizen's Avatar
dc_denizen dc_denizen is online now
Selfie-stick vendor
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Posts: 4,730
note the prevalence of reinforced concrete v steel construction...interesting.
__________________
Joined the bus on the 33rd seat
By the doo-doo room with the reek replete
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #34  
Old Posted Oct 23, 2017, 12:23 AM
BnaBreaker's Avatar
BnaBreaker BnaBreaker is offline
Dump Drumpf
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Chicago/Nashville
Posts: 15,972
That emporis list is inaccurate at worst, misleading at best. Memphis, love it as I do, definitely doesn't have eleven highrises under construction. It probably hasn't had eleven new highrises over the past decade. If you go through their list on the website, all the U/C buildings but one are low rise buildings under ten stories.

Nashville, on the other hand, is undercounted by pretty significant margin. I can think of at least 35 U/C highrises just off the top of my head.
__________________
"Emancipate yourself from mental slavery. None but ourselves can free our minds."

-Bob Marley
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #35  
Old Posted Oct 23, 2017, 12:30 AM
CIA CIA is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 1,353
Quote:
Originally Posted by left of center View Post
According to Emporis, cities with 10+ multistory projects under construction:


New York: 315
Chicago: 65
Houston: 52
Miami: 36
Minneapolis: 35
Denver: 34
Los Angeles: 32
Seattle: 32
Atlanta: 26
Boston: 16
Washington DC: 16
Dallas: 15
Austin: 14
Philadelphia: 12
San Diego: 12
San Francisco: 12
Memphis: 11
Las Vegas: 10
Nashville: 10


This is only within city limits, and doesn't include anything from the respective metros (Evanston, Miami Beach, Newark, etc.)
Jersey City should be on this list.

http://data.jerseycitynj.gov/dataset...ps-10.5.17.pdf

https://jerseydigs.com/all-jersey-city-development-map/

About 15 or so u/c
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #36  
Old Posted Oct 23, 2017, 12:36 AM
dc_denizen's Avatar
dc_denizen dc_denizen is online now
Selfie-stick vendor
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Posts: 4,730
I counted 6 under construction in Hoboken, Ft Lee, Weehauken, and Edgewater per Emporis.
__________________
Joined the bus on the 33rd seat
By the doo-doo room with the reek replete
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #37  
Old Posted Oct 23, 2017, 12:43 AM
the urban politician the urban politician is online now
The City
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Libertyville, IL
Posts: 13,300
Quote:
Originally Posted by BnaBreaker View Post
That emporis list is inaccurate at worst, misleading at best. Memphis, love it as I do, definitely doesn't have eleven highrises under construction. It probably hasn't had eleven new highrises over the past decade. If you go through their list on the website, all the U/C buildings but one are low rise buildings under ten stories.

Nashville, on the other hand, is undercounted by pretty significant margin. I can think of at least 35 U/C highrises just off the top of my head.
35 highrises U/C for Nashville?

Come on. That would put it above Seattle and LA. I highly doubt that
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #38  
Old Posted Oct 23, 2017, 1:00 AM
N90 N90 is offline
Voice of the Modern World
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 510
Why do you guys subject yourselves to emporis?? Just use skyscrapercenter, they're the best.

http://www.skyscrapercenter.com/cities
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #39  
Old Posted Oct 23, 2017, 2:24 AM
bnk's Avatar
bnk bnk is offline
પટેલ. કે ન
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: chicagoland
Posts: 9,195
NyC # 1

Chicago #2


Anyone further down the line are little of matters when it comes down to skyscrapers. Is this not a website called Skyscraper page already.
__________________
facebook
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #40  
Old Posted Oct 23, 2017, 3:12 AM
mhays mhays is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 15,940
That project list above seems to have cut off the top of Seattle's list.
__________________
When did people starting thinking "alot" was a word?
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 8:37 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.