HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > City Compilations

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #4961  
Old Posted Aug 28, 2018, 8:15 AM
N90 N90 is offline
Voice of the Modern World
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 630
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4962  
Old Posted Aug 28, 2018, 2:22 PM
tdawg's Avatar
tdawg tdawg is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: NY,NY
Posts: 2,366
^ That's a great angle except that the Frost Bank Tower is blocked.
__________________
Creative Director in New York City
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4963  
Old Posted Aug 28, 2018, 4:32 PM
ATXboom ATXboom is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 1,488
Quote:
Originally Posted by tdawg View Post
^ That's a great angle except that the Frost Bank Tower is blocked.
Unless owners decide to jack it up a few hundred feet, Frost is going to be buried from most angles in the next 3 years. It will have to be a hidden gem to be discovered from within
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4964  
Old Posted Aug 28, 2018, 4:50 PM
ATXboom ATXboom is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 1,488
Quote:
Originally Posted by wwmiv View Post
Some data^ on skylines for those cities which anchor comparable US metro areas to Austin's (roughly those between ~1.9 and ~2.5 million*) IF you define a highrise building to be any with a height above 200' (as was done above):
  • Charlotte, 2.53 million, 43 completed buildings taller than 200' with an average height of 376' -- the 5 under construction towers at 632', 378', 372', 280', and 252' will not change that average
  • Orlando, 2.51 million, 21 completed buildings taller than 200' with an average height of 329'
  • San Antonio, 2.47 million, 26 completed buildings taller than 200' with an average height of 312' and the 3 additional towers under construction at 386', 314', and 247' will not change the average height
  • Portland, 2.45 million, 58 completed buildings taller than 200' with an average height of 279' and the 2 additional towers under construction at 358' and 325' will push the average to 281'
  • Pittsburgh, 2.33 million, 64 completed buildings taller than 200' with an average height of 336'
  • Sacramento, 2.32 million, 17 completed buildings taller than 200' with an average height of 312'
  • Las Vegas, 2.20 million, 108 completed buildings taller than 200' with an average height of 371'
  • Cincinnati, 2.18 million, 45 completed buildings taller than 200' with an average height of 303'
  • Kansas City, 2.13 million, 41 completed buildings taller than 200' with an average height of 317'
  • Austin, 2.12 million, 52 completed buildings taller than 200' with an average height of 322' and the 12 additional towers under construction (or in site prep) at 690', 542', 459', 446', 419', 397', 387', 386', 330', 247', 236', and 222' will push the average to 336'
  • Columbus, 2.08 million, 30 completed buildings taller than 200' with an average height of 332' and there's one under construction tower for which I can't find a height
  • Cleveland, 2.06 million, 45 completed buildings taller than 200' with an average height of 329' and the 1 under construction tower at 380' will push that average to 330'
  • Indianapolis, 2.03 million, 38 completed buildings taller than 200' with an average height of 303' and the 1 under construction building at 290' will decrease that average to 302'
  • San Jose, 2.00 million, 19 completed buildings taller than 200' with an average height of 248'
  • Nashville, 1.90 million, 38 completed buildings taller than 200' with an average height of 323' and the 5 under construction towers at 550', 460', 345', 289', and 267' will increase that average to 330'

Some observations (using stats from data including both completed and under construction towers):

1. Vegas is the indisputable winner in our weight class in both height (371' average) and mass (108 buildings over 200')

2. The only other notable stand-out for average building height is Charlotte (376'), with everyone else between 300' and 340' except San Jose (at 248') and Portland (at 281')

3. Outside of Vegas, which has many more 200'+ buildings than any other city in this weight class, there are notable tiers in quantity of these highrises:

Pittsburgh (64), Austin (63), and Portland (60) are tier 1
Cleveland (46), Cincinnati (45), Charlotte (43), Nashville (43), Kansas City (41), and Indianapolis (39) are tier 2
Columbus (30) and San Antonio (29) are tier 3
Orlando (21), San Jose (19), and Sacramento (17) are tier 4.

Overall, taking bulk and height, I'd rank the skylines like this:

X. City (# / average / tallest)

1. Vegas (108 / 371' / 1150')
2. Pittsburgh (64 / 336' / 841')
3. Austin (63 / 322' / 683')
4. Charlotte (45 / 376' / 871')
5. Portland (60 / 281' / 546')
6. Cleveland (46 / 330' / 947')
7. Nashville (44 / 332' / 617)
8. Cincinnati (45 / 303' / 665')
9. Kansas City (41 / 317' / 624')
10. Indianapolis (39 / 302' / 811')
11. Columbus (30 / 330' / 624')
12. San Antonio (29 / 312' / 750')
13. Orlando (21 / 329' / 441')
14. Sacramento (17 / 312' / 430')
15. San Jose (19 / 248' / 286')

Consider the two skylines we were talking about: Austin and Charlotte. What is currently in the development pipeline that hasn't started turning dirt? If we include those buildings in our data Austin simply blows Charlotte out of the water and looks to be starting to give Las Vegas a run for its money:

Austin, 2.12 million, 85 highrises at 355' average height, tallest building at 848'
Charlotte, 2.52 million, 52 highrises at 372' average height, tallest building at 871'

Even if you only include the most serious Austin proposals, Austin still is potentially at 75 highrises above 200' within 10 years with these buildings having an average of 344'. We simply don't currently have an 850' + building dragging up our average height. Instead, we have breadth as was noted above. To expand on ILUVSAT's numbers above, I think this shows why I think that although Austin already has a larger skyline (if currently lacking a big tall signature building) it will soon have a substantially bulkier skyline with equal height:

Completed:

800 PLUS: AUS: 0 / CHA: 1
700-800: AUS: 0 / CHA: 1
600-700: AUS: 1 / CHA: 1
500-600: AUS: 3 / CHA: 3
400-500: AUS: 8 / CHA: 9
300-400: AUS: 16 / CHA: 12
200-300: AUS: 24 / CHA: 16

Completed + Under Construction / Site Prep:

800 PLUS: AUS: 0 / CHA: 1
700-800: AUS: 0 / CHA: 1
600-700: AUS: 2 / CHA: 2
500-600: AUS: 4 / CHA: 3
400-500: AUS: 11 / CHA: 9
300-400: AUS: 20 / CHA: 14
200-300: AUS: 27 / CHA: 17

Reliable Proposals:

800 PLUS: AUS: 1 / CHA: 1
700-800: AUS: 1 / CHA: 1
600-700: AUS: 2 / CHA: 2
500-600: AUS: 5 / CHA: 3
400-500: AUS: 11 / CHA: 9
300-400: AUS: 23 / CHA: 16
200-300: AUS: 32 / CHA: 19

All Proposals:

800 PLUS: AUS: 1 / CHA: 1
700-800: AUS: 1 / CHA: 1
600-700: AUS: 4 / CHA: 2
500-600: AUS: 7 / CHA: 3
400-500: AUS: 11 / CHA: 9
300-400: AUS: 28 / CHA: 16
200-300: AUS: 33 / CHA: 19

^data is mostly from skyscraper forum database with other sources used to supplement

*I chose this range because (1) to include both Austin and Charlotte) and because there are (2) no clear gaps in size between the 15 metropolitan areas in this range with no gap being larger from one MSA to the next, when ordered sequentially, than 121k and only 3 gaps larger than 50k and (3) because, in turn, there are obvious gaps in size between the largest city within this range (Charlotte at 2.52 million) and the next largest cities of St. Louis, Baltimore, and Denver (at 2.81, 2.81, and 2.89 million, respectively, with a minimum gap in population between Charlotte and St. Louis of 282k) as well as the smallest city in this range (Nashville at 1.90 million) and the next smallest cities of Norfolk (1.73 million, a gap from Nashville of 178k), Providence (1.62 million), Milwaukee (1.58 million), and Jacksonville (1.54 million)
GREAT DATA / RESEARCH! Thanks for tracking all of this down.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4966  
Old Posted Aug 28, 2018, 6:22 PM
Urbannizer's Avatar
Urbannizer Urbannizer is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: SXSW
Posts: 7,618
__________________
HAIF
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4967  
Old Posted Aug 28, 2018, 7:10 PM
KevinFromTexas's Avatar
KevinFromTexas KevinFromTexas is offline
more brains
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: down the street from the taco trailer
Posts: 46,722
Quote:
Originally Posted by wwmiv View Post
Some data^ on skylines for those cities which anchor comparable US metro areas to Austin's (roughly those between ~1.9 and ~2.5 million*) IF you define a highrise building to be any with a height above 200' (as was done above):
  • Charlotte, 2.53 million, 43 completed buildings taller than 200' with an average height of 376' -- the 5 under construction towers at 632', 378', 372', 280', and 252' will not change that average
  • Orlando, 2.51 million, 21 completed buildings taller than 200' with an average height of 329'
  • San Antonio, 2.47 million, 26 completed buildings taller than 200' with an average height of 312' and the 3 additional towers under construction at 386', 314', and 247' will not change the average height
  • Portland, 2.45 million, 58 completed buildings taller than 200' with an average height of 279' and the 2 additional towers under construction at 358' and 325' will push the average to 281'
  • Pittsburgh, 2.33 million, 64 completed buildings taller than 200' with an average height of 336'
  • Sacramento, 2.32 million, 17 completed buildings taller than 200' with an average height of 312'
  • Las Vegas, 2.20 million, 108 completed buildings taller than 200' with an average height of 371'
  • Cincinnati, 2.18 million, 45 completed buildings taller than 200' with an average height of 303'
  • Kansas City, 2.13 million, 41 completed buildings taller than 200' with an average height of 317'
  • Austin, 2.12 million, 52 completed buildings taller than 200' with an average height of 322' and the 12 additional towers under construction (or in site prep) at 690', 542', 459', 446', 419', 397', 387', 386', 330', 247', 236', and 222' will push the average to 336'
  • Columbus, 2.08 million, 30 completed buildings taller than 200' with an average height of 332' and there's one under construction tower for which I can't find a height
  • Cleveland, 2.06 million, 45 completed buildings taller than 200' with an average height of 329' and the 1 under construction tower at 380' will push that average to 330'
  • Indianapolis, 2.03 million, 38 completed buildings taller than 200' with an average height of 303' and the 1 under construction building at 290' will decrease that average to 302'
  • San Jose, 2.00 million, 19 completed buildings taller than 200' with an average height of 248'
  • Nashville, 1.90 million, 38 completed buildings taller than 200' with an average height of 323' and the 5 under construction towers at 550', 460', 345', 289', and 267' will increase that average to 330'

Some observations (using stats from data including both completed and under construction towers):

1. Vegas is the indisputable winner in our weight class in both height (371' average) and mass (108 buildings over 200')

2. The only other notable stand-out for average building height is Charlotte (376'), with everyone else between 300' and 340' except San Jose (at 248') and Portland (at 281')

3. Outside of Vegas, which has many more 200'+ buildings than any other city in this weight class, there are notable tiers in quantity of these highrises:

Pittsburgh (64), Austin (63), and Portland (60) are tier 1
Cleveland (46), Cincinnati (45), Charlotte (43), Nashville (43), Kansas City (41), and Indianapolis (39) are tier 2
Columbus (30) and San Antonio (29) are tier 3
Orlando (21), San Jose (19), and Sacramento (17) are tier 4.

Overall, taking bulk and height, I'd rank the skylines like this:

X. City (# / average / tallest)

1. Vegas (108 / 371' / 1150')
2. Pittsburgh (64 / 336' / 841')
3. Austin (63 / 322' / 683')
4. Charlotte (45 / 376' / 871')
5. Portland (60 / 281' / 546')
6. Cleveland (46 / 330' / 947')
7. Nashville (44 / 332' / 617)
8. Cincinnati (45 / 303' / 665')
9. Kansas City (41 / 317' / 624')
10. Indianapolis (39 / 302' / 811')
11. Columbus (30 / 330' / 624')
12. San Antonio (29 / 312' / 750')
13. Orlando (21 / 329' / 441')
14. Sacramento (17 / 312' / 430')
15. San Jose (19 / 248' / 286')

Consider the two skylines we were talking about: Austin and Charlotte. What is currently in the development pipeline that hasn't started turning dirt? If we include those buildings in our data Austin simply blows Charlotte out of the water and looks to be starting to give Las Vegas a run for its money:

Austin, 2.12 million, 85 highrises at 355' average height, tallest building at 848'
Charlotte, 2.52 million, 52 highrises at 372' average height, tallest building at 871'

Even if you only include the most serious Austin proposals, Austin still is potentially at 75 highrises above 200' within 10 years with these buildings having an average of 344'. We simply don't currently have an 850' + building dragging up our average height. Instead, we have breadth as was noted above. To expand on ILUVSAT's numbers above, I think this shows why I think that although Austin already has a larger skyline (if currently lacking a big tall signature building) it will soon have a substantially bulkier skyline with equal height:

Completed:

800 PLUS: AUS: 0 / CHA: 1
700-800: AUS: 0 / CHA: 1
600-700: AUS: 1 / CHA: 1
500-600: AUS: 3 / CHA: 3
400-500: AUS: 8 / CHA: 9
300-400: AUS: 16 / CHA: 12
200-300: AUS: 24 / CHA: 16

Completed + Under Construction / Site Prep:

800 PLUS: AUS: 0 / CHA: 1
700-800: AUS: 0 / CHA: 1
600-700: AUS: 2 / CHA: 2
500-600: AUS: 4 / CHA: 3
400-500: AUS: 11 / CHA: 9
300-400: AUS: 20 / CHA: 14
200-300: AUS: 27 / CHA: 17

Reliable Proposals:

800 PLUS: AUS: 1 / CHA: 1
700-800: AUS: 1 / CHA: 1
600-700: AUS: 2 / CHA: 2
500-600: AUS: 5 / CHA: 3
400-500: AUS: 11 / CHA: 9
300-400: AUS: 23 / CHA: 16
200-300: AUS: 32 / CHA: 19

All Proposals:

800 PLUS: AUS: 1 / CHA: 1
700-800: AUS: 1 / CHA: 1
600-700: AUS: 4 / CHA: 2
500-600: AUS: 7 / CHA: 3
400-500: AUS: 11 / CHA: 9
300-400: AUS: 28 / CHA: 16
200-300: AUS: 33 / CHA: 19

^data is mostly from skyscraper forum database with other sources used to supplement

*I chose this range because (1) to include both Austin and Charlotte) and because there are (2) no clear gaps in size between the 15 metropolitan areas in this range with no gap being larger from one MSA to the next, when ordered sequentially, than 121k and only 3 gaps larger than 50k and (3) because, in turn, there are obvious gaps in size between the largest city within this range (Charlotte at 2.52 million) and the next largest cities of St. Louis, Baltimore, and Denver (at 2.81, 2.81, and 2.89 million, respectively, with a minimum gap in population between Charlotte and St. Louis of 282k) as well as the smallest city in this range (Nashville at 1.90 million) and the next smallest cities of Norfolk (1.73 million, a gap from Nashville of 178k), Providence (1.62 million), Milwaukee (1.58 million), and Jacksonville (1.54 million)
For San Antonio, by my count, with the help of our old "original" World Almanac list for San Antonio, plus what I've compiled so far over the years with the help of Google Earth, I have come up with 40 buildings over 200 feet. That number includes the new Frost Bank Headquarters, but not the other new 200 footers that haven't quite gone vertical yet, even though they are under construction. This also doesn't include the Tower of the Americas or the Alamodome. There are 5 other buildings over 200 feet that are under construction, but they have reached anywhere near that height yet.

For Austin, I have 64 buildings counted over 200 feet. These include the ones that are under construction that have reached that height. There are also two more under construction that will reach that height, and two more that are doing site prep. Once those are done, Austin will have 70 buildings over 200 feet sometime after 2020. There are also 22 more buildings proposed that will be at least 200 feet tall, plus one more that I'm expecting to be at or very close to 200 feet. So, right now Austin has enough buildings in the pipeline that we could end up with 93 buildings over 200 feet within 4 to 5 years.

Austin also now has 218 high rises that are either complete, under construction or that are doing site prep. All of these heights I have either come from the building elevations or from Google Earth. Most of the newer buildings are from building elevations, while most of the older ones have been measured with Google Earth.
__________________
Blue Leader, this is Troll Fighter

Last edited by KevinFromTexas; Aug 28, 2018 at 7:25 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4968  
Old Posted Aug 28, 2018, 9:50 PM
photoLith's Avatar
photoLith photoLith is offline
Ex Houstonian
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Oakland, Pittsburgh
Posts: 11,524
Quote:
Originally Posted by N90 View Post
Instaskyline
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4969  
Old Posted Aug 29, 2018, 4:26 AM
colemonkee's Avatar
colemonkee colemonkee is offline
Ridin' into the sunset
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: L.A. - Skid row adjacent
Posts: 7,294
If the project brief for Inspire on 22nd required the design to maximize irony when saying the name, the architects hit a grand slam...
__________________
"Then each time Fleetwood would be not so much overcome by remorse as bedazzled at having been shown the secret backlands of wealth, and how sooner or later it depended on some act of murder, seldom limited to once."

Against the Day, Thomas Pynchon
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4970  
Old Posted Aug 29, 2018, 8:17 AM
drummer drummer is offline
德克萨斯人 y'all
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Asia by way of Texas
Posts: 2,474
Quote:
Originally Posted by N90 View Post
Hey Genral, you're up there in years...err...life experience! Do you remember when they knocked that volcano down to plot out the UT campus?
__________________
人无完人
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4971  
Old Posted Aug 29, 2018, 7:32 PM
KevinFromTexas's Avatar
KevinFromTexas KevinFromTexas is offline
more brains
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: down the street from the taco trailer
Posts: 46,722
https://communityimpact.com/austin/c...sign-approval/
Quote:
Two projects proposed as Austin’s tallest towers earn unanimous design approval Monday

By Christopher Neely | 9:45 pm Aug. 27, 2018 | Updated 9:51 pm Aug. 27, 2018

Two projects, totaling 1,546 feet in height and 2 million square feet and separated by only two downtown blocks, moved forward Monday night following design approvals.

If the projects earn final approval, they would each eclipse Austin’s current tallest building, The Independent at 801 W. Fifth St., which stands at 685 feet.

The 6th + Guadalupe mixed-use project at 600 Guadalupe St. is proposed to stand as Austin’s tallest tower at just over 837 feet, totaling 1,133,430 square feet. Just two blocks south at 401 W. Fourth St., The Republic office and retail project would stand as Austin’s second-tallest structure, reaching roughly 708 feet high and encompassing 920,500 square feet.

Both projects earned unanimous approval from Austin’s Design Commission, which provides advisory recommendations to the City Council on urban design standards.
__________________
Blue Leader, this is Troll Fighter
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4972  
Old Posted Aug 29, 2018, 7:57 PM
JAYNYC JAYNYC is offline
Anti-NIMBY
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 162
Quote:
Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas View Post
Austin is on fire! Look out, Dallas!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4973  
Old Posted Aug 29, 2018, 8:43 PM
Urbannizer's Avatar
Urbannizer Urbannizer is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: SXSW
Posts: 7,618
17th Street Hotel

Quote:
An 18-story hotel could rise on what is currently a drab downtown parking lot at 17th and Lavaca streets.

New Orleans developer HRI Properties LLC has filed an application with the city of Austin to build a 214-room hotel at 1620-1624 Lavaca Street. That’s catty-corner from the Hampton Inn and Suites and across from El Mercado Restaurant.

The project jumped through its first big hurdle Monday night when the Austin Design Commission agreed the hotel met the city’s urban design guidelines. It was one of several steps the developers needed in order to take advantage of the city’s downtown density bonus program.
__________________
HAIF
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4974  
Old Posted Aug 29, 2018, 10:31 PM
Urbannizer's Avatar
Urbannizer Urbannizer is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: SXSW
Posts: 7,618
Demo underway for 300 Colorado:




300 Colorado (Parsley Energy HQ) by Darius Fontenette, on Flickr
__________________
HAIF
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4975  
Old Posted Sep 1, 2018, 3:05 AM
Dariusb Dariusb is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Texarkana, TX
Posts: 264
Awesome skyline shots! Just beautiful!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4976  
Old Posted Sep 2, 2018, 4:54 PM
clubtokyo's Avatar
clubtokyo clubtokyo is offline
クラブトクヨ
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 729
Nice updates!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4977  
Old Posted Sep 14, 2018, 12:12 PM
427MM's Avatar
427MM 427MM is offline
Love Austin
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Austin
Posts: 810
Yes! Terrific updates! Gotta get at least one of these 700+ footers going!
__________________
The City of Austin must reform it's outdated land development code.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4978  
Old Posted Sep 19, 2018, 4:40 AM
ROCrot ROCrot is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 94
Lennar is tearing down the pink Safeway!

From the new website of Jan Buchholz (formerly of ABJ):

https://atxrealestatenews.com/2018/0...aring-it-down/
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4979  
Old Posted Sep 19, 2018, 3:42 PM
clubtokyo's Avatar
clubtokyo clubtokyo is offline
クラブトクヨ
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 729
Quote:
Originally Posted by ROCrot View Post
From the new website of Jan Buchholz (formerly of ABJ):

https://atxrealestatenews.com/2018/0...aring-it-down/
AKA The 14 floor "The Hutson" development:



Source:http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/show...217454&page=14
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4980  
Old Posted Sep 19, 2018, 4:07 PM
The Best Forumer The Best Forumer is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 1,098
Quote:
Originally Posted by clubtokyo View Post
Nice updates!
I concur! This town is on fire!
__________________
The suburbs are second-rate. Cookie-cutter houses, treeless yards, mediocre schools, and more crime than you think. Do your family a favor and move closer to the city.
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 > Global Projects & Construction > City Compilations
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:54 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.