US Cities with the most highrise buildings

[Goody]

Originally Posted by vgmLiquid

The point to the logic, however, was that it is NOT a suburb. I think if everyone disagrees that is fine, but keep in mind Minneapolis too has suburbs containing dozens and dozens of high rises that I'm not attempting to include (such as Bloomington, Edina, Minnetonka, St Louis Park, etc). If we don't include St Paul, I guess everyone would have to agree by the same logic you are using, that the Minneapolis numbers are very impressive knowing there is a second CBD only 8 miles away (the city limits border each other, but the downtowns are about 8 or 9 miles apart).

I think you both have a fare point. To be honest trying to quantify the number of rises in any given city is somewhat pointless as the land area if self will vary greatly with or without adding in secondary cities. The best way to go about making such a list (comparing the number of high rises in a given 'city') would mostly like be done via urban growth areas. Which is trouble some too.

[Tom In Chicago]

Those numbers are for buildings with more than 12 floors. . . and those numbers are the most accurate list you'll find anywhere. . .

Fact is, New York has 5 times as many buildings 12 floors and higher than Chicago. . . while Chicago still has over twice as many buildings 12 floors and higher than Los Angeles. . . and yes Chicago pretty much has highrises all along the lakefront stretching from Evanston to the South Shore neighborhood. . .

Believe it, or not. . .

[Tom In Chicago]

The original definition that Emporis created for "high-rise" was based upon a legacy list that was put together by one of our senior editors from Minneapolis. . . for one reason or another he counted buildings as short as 12 floors and voila! That became the defacto definition. . .

Be that as it may, it's all just a numbers game in the end. . . but as many of you old timers are aware, my favorite numbers game is to cut the number of floors off at anything below 35. . . seems to me that anything over 35 floors should be undeniably defined as a "high-rise". . . but that's just my opinion. . . here's some fun numbers to chew on. . .

Buildings 35+ floors (completed+under construction)
-New York City 401
-Chicago 203
-Miami/Miami Beach 77
-Las Vegas 41
-Houston 34
-Atlanta 29
-San Francisco 28
-Los Angeles 27
-Boston 24
-Philadelphia 20
-Seattle 20
-Dallas 18
-Minneapolis/St. Paul 14
-Detroit 11
-Denver 9
-Pittsburgh 9
-Cleveland 5
-Kansas City 4
-Baltimore 4
-Milwaukee 3
-Cincinnati 2

[KevinFromTexas]

^ You can add Austin to that list now Tom.

5 buildings under construction

The Austonian - 56 floors
360 Condominiums - 44 floors
Spring - 42 floors
W Austin Hotel & Residences - 35 floors
Altavida - 37 floors

5 buildings proposed:


501 Congress - 47 floors
21C Austin Hotel & Residences - 44 floors
401-499 West 6th Street - 40 floors
Four Seasons Residences - 38 floors
501-599 West 6th Street - 35 floors

10 in all. Currently, 360 Condominiums is working on the 41st floor. It should be topped out sometime around the first week of November.

By 2010, Austin will have only 1 less 35+ floor building than Detroit, and one more than Denver!

Austin compilation list.
http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/show...87#post2590387

[plinko]

Originally Posted by Tom In Chicago

The original definition that Emporis created for "high-rise" was based upon a legacy list that was put together by one of our senior editors from Minneapolis. . . for one reason or another he counted buildings as short as 12 floors and voila! That became the defacto definition. . .

Be that as it may, it's all just a numbers game in the end. . . but as many of you old timers are aware, my favorite numbers game is to cut the number of floors off at anything below 35. . . seems to me that anything over 35 floors should be undeniably defined as a "high-rise". . . but that's just my opinion. . . here's some fun numbers to chew on. . .

Buildings 35+ floors (completed+under construction)
-New York City 401
-Chicago 203
-Miami/Miami Beach 77
-Las Vegas 41
-Houston 34
-Atlanta 29
-San Francisco 28
-Los Angeles 27
-Boston 24
-Philadelphia 20
-Seattle 20
-Dallas 18
-Minneapolis/St. Paul 14
-Detroit 11
-Denver 9
-Pittsburgh 9
-Cleveland 5
-Kansas City 4
-Baltimore 4
-Milwaukee 3
-Cincinnati 2

Big omission from your list Tom: Honolulu, which has 60 (according to Emporis), but oddly doesn't include its tallest, the First Hawaiian Center!

Personally for me, the number for a true high-rise was always 500'. I actually helped M.Gerometta find literally dozens of architects names for many of them for his 'Hot500' list back in the days before SSP, Emporis, etc...

[LivingIn622]

I did a study on which cities where tallest out of these NYC, Chicago, Boston, Detroit, Denver, Los angeles, and Atlanta. I went under skyscraperpage diagrams and added the heights of the twenty tallest buildings in each of those cities. Which ever city had the most ft added at the end was number 1, and then I ranked the cities. 1. NYC, 2. Chicago, 3. Los Angeles, 4. Atlanta, 5. Philadelphia, 6. Detroit, 7. Boston, 8. Denver.
My point of this is to say that Tom posted that Boston has more 35 story buildings than Detroit and Philly. I am not sure if that is true. and according to Skyscraperpage. Boston has no buildings under construction more than 35 storys.

[plinko]

Some more adds to Tom's list of 35+ (not counting proposals and a minimum of two):
Jersey City 12
San Diego 10
New Orleans 8
Charlotte 7
Tulsa 4
Portland 3

I'm sure there are more...

[ColDayMan]

For over 35+ floors:

Columbus 4

[Tom In Chicago]

LivingIn622 - . . . My point of this is to say that Tom posted that Boston has more 35 story buildings than Detroit and Philly. I am not sure if that is true. and according to Skyscraperpage. Boston has no buildings under construction more than 35 storys.

Skyscraperpage is NOT a reliable source for this kind of information. . . however Emporis IS. . . them's the facts. . .

BOSTON
# Name Height Floors Year
1 Hancock Place 790 ft 60 1976
2 Prudential Tower 750 ft 52 1964
3 One Boston Place 601 ft 41 1970
4 One International Place 600 ft 46 1987
5 First National Bank 591 ft 37 1971
6 One Financial Center 590 ft 46 1983
7 111 Huntington Avenue 554 ft 36 2002
8 Two International Place 538 ft 35 1992
9 One Post Office Square 525 ft 40 1981
10 One Federal Street 520 ft 38 1975
11 Exchange Place 510 ft 40 1984
12 60 State Street 509 ft 38 1977
13 One Beacon Street 507 ft 37 1971
14 State Street Financial 503 ft 36 2003
15 28 State Street 500 ft 40 1969
16 Millennium Place Tower1 475 ft 38 2001
17 Millennium Place Tower2 445 ft 36 2001
18 Harbor Towers I 400 ft 40 1971
19 One Devonshire Place 396 ft 42 1983
20 Harbor Towers II 396 ft 40 1971
21 Westin Hotel at Copley 395 ft 38 1983
22 Boston Marriott Copley 382 ft 39 1984
23 Four Longfellow Place 381 ft 38
24 One Longfellow Place 381 ft 38

PHILADELPHIA
# Name Height Floors Year
1 Comcast Center 974 ft 57 2008
2 One Liberty Place 945 ft 61 1987
3 Two Liberty Place 848 ft 58 1990
4 Mellon Bank Center 792 ft 54 1990
5 Bell Atlantic Tower 739 ft 55 1991
6 G. Fred DiBona, Jr. 625 ft 45 1990
7 Two Commerce Square 565 ft 41 1992
8 One Commerce Square 565 ft 41 1987
9 Residences Ritz-Carlton 518 ft 44 2008
10 1818 Market Street 500 ft 40 1974
11 The St. James 498 ft 45 2004
12 Loews Philadelphia 492 ft 36 1932
13 PNC Bank Building 491 ft 40 1983
14 Centre Square II 490 ft 40 1973
15 Five Penn Center 490 ft 36 1970
16 The Murano 475 ft 42 2008
17 Two Logan Square 435 ft 35 1987
18 1500 Locust Street 390 ft 44 1973
19 Academy House 377 ft 37 1975
20 Hopkinson House 351 ft 35 1962

DETROIT
# Name Height Floors Year
1 Renaissance Center 727 ft 70 1977
2 One Detroit Center 619 ft 43 1993
3 Penobscot Building 565 ft 47 1928
4 Renaissance Center 100 522 ft 39 1977
5 Renaissance Center 200 522 ft 39 1977
6 Renaissance Center 300 522 ft 39 1977
7 Renaissance Center 400 522 ft 39 1977
8 Guardian Building 496 ft 40 1929
9 Book Tower 475 ft 38 1926
10 Cadillac Tower 437 ft 40 1927
11 Broderick Tower Lofts 369 ft 35 1928

That's all she wrote. . .

. . .

[LivingIn622]

skyscraperpage has all those same buildings. the only difference is I judge them by height NOT by how many floors. Detroit Comerica tower , for instance, is 619 ft tall but has only 43 storys. A building of that height should have around 60 so that is why Detroit doesn't have as many 35 story buildings as Boston.

[Tom In Chicago]

^I'm not disputing "WHY". . . who cares. . . I'm simply posting numbers. . . and you disputed them. . . the numbers. . . not the "WHY" /of/ the numbers. . .

[Tom In Chicago]

. . . also the main reason I chose to use floor counts is simply because anyone can find that information. . . data on specific building heights is always disputed and in many cases inaccurate. . .

[LivingIn622]

yeah, floors isn't a good info on how tall the building is.

[Tom In Chicago]

Isn't it? I really don't know, but if you look at buildings with spires you might be inclined to think otherwise. . .

[LivingIn622]

skyscraperpage doesn't count spires as part of the buildings height, if that's waht you're saying. And i don't think emporis does either.

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by Tom In Chicago

Fact is, New York has 5 times as many buildings 12 floors and higher than Chicago. . . . and yes Chicago pretty much has highrises all along the lakefront stretching from Evanston to the South Shore neighborhood. . . .

Mostly due to size differences. Although Chicago is the closest thing to New York in the United States in terms of skyscraper building, the makeup of the cities is really different. New York's skyline, for example, tends to go deeper, while Chicago's is more lakefront.

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by Tom In Chicago

as many of you old timers are aware, my favorite numbers game is to cut the number of floors off at anything below 35. . . seems to me that anything over 35 floors should be undeniably defined as a "high-rise". . . but that's just my opinion. . . here's some fun numbers to chew on. . .

Buildings 35+ floors (completed+under construction)
-New York City 401
-Chicago 203
-Miami/Miami Beach 77
-Las Vegas 41
-Houston 34
-Atlanta 29
-San Francisco 28
-Los Angeles 27
-Boston 24
-Philadelphia 20
-Seattle 20
-Dallas 18
-Minneapolis/St. Paul 14
-Detroit 11
-Denver 9
-Pittsburgh 9
-Cleveland 5
-Kansas City 4
-Baltimore 4
-Milwaukee 3
-Cincinnati 2

I always prefer the height list. For example, buildings 500 ft and above. I think that tells a greater story, and you cut off the housing projects, unlike the 12 story lists.

[plinko]

^What are YOU talking about? Why should the Comerica Tower have 60 stories? By that logic, should the John Hancock Tower in Boston have 75 stories?

The reason that Boston has more towers of 35 floors than Detroit has alot more to do with economics than it does 'should'.

All building types are not created equally.

[dave8721]

If you make that Miami/Miami Beach/Sunny Isles/Aventura then the number goes up to 89 over 35 stories (more if you were to include Ft.Lauderdale/Hallandale/Hollywood)

The 32 story 527-foot tall 1450 brickell is not included nor is the 28 story/510-foot tall Stephen P Clark Center.

[Tom In Chicago]

^I'm inclined to count Jersey City with New York's numbers but anything other than Miami/Miami Beach is just too far of a stretch. . . the only reason I included St. Paul's with Minneapolis was because of 2 measly buildings. . . but hey. . . nit-pick the numbers any way you want, it doesn't matter. . .

Also I think the 500' height number is ok to use (Marshall Gerometta started that), but there are SOOO many buildings in the world that we don't know the height of which are at or clearly surpass 500' that there's no way to accurately count for it. . .

Finally, 35 floors of office space will no doubt equal or surpass 500'. . . 35 floors of residential gives a building a significant height to width ratio that I'm comfortable with when I refer to a building as being a high-rise. . .