Future Skylines/Developments of the US

[stick n move]

General development and skylines thread of cities outside of Boston.


San Francisco

NYC

 

[stick n move]

This thread is also for the people who want to cry about height and slow development here. Come here to have a cry about the cities that you should either move to, or be jealous of. If you need your fix, here it is.

 

[BostonUrbEx]

I don't care if the city doesn't grow incredibly rapidly, so long as it doesn't boom/bust so much as seems to be typical. A nice, constant growth would be great, super-talls be damned. Not that it wouldn't be nice to have supertalls, but there's more important things.

 

[vanshnookenraggen]

I'm willing to bet half those NYC towers don't get off the ground anytime soon (if they haven't already). The bottom for that market has dropped out and what's on the market now isn't moving. There just isn't that many billionares looking to park money in Manhattan atm. And fuck em.

 

[DZH22]

I'm willing to bet half those NYC towers don't get off the ground anytime soon (if they haven't already). The bottom for that market has dropped out and what's on the market now isn't moving. There just isn't that many billionares looking to park money in Manhattan atm. And fuck em.

Most of the tallest ones are now out of the ground, and there are many more large ones (700's-900's) not shown in the renders.

Honestly, the city that I can't believe is still building so much (with so much more in the pipeline) is Toronto. Why so much demand?! The skyline went from comparable to Boston in the early 2000's (less 500' towers for a very long time, although more height at the top) to now challenging Chicago. I went there once and I just don't see the draw. Ugly, soulless city.

Philadelphia is the skyline that Boston should aspire to. Ever since 1 Liberty broke the Gentlemen's agreement, Philly has not shied away from height. It has a 730' topping out now, and a new tallest (Comcast #2, over 1100' with spire) that is most of the way up!

In terms of cities getting new tallest buildings that are surpassing the Hancock, Calgary's just topped out, Edmonton's(!!!) is around ground level, and Miami has an ugly condo that is climbing.

So US cities that have gone taller than Boston now include:
NYC
Chicago
LA
San Francisco
Houston
Dallas
Atlanta
Seattle
Philadelphia
Pittsburgh
Charlotte
Cleveland
Oklahoma City
Indianapolis
Minneapolis

with a 16th, Miami, soon to join them.

Canada includes Toronto, now Calgary, and soon Edmonton.

With all the new towers we have coming, we are really just 1 new tallest away from breaking into the big-time. Hopefully we get it done next cycle.

 

[stick n move]

The thing I never understand is the "philly effect". They have actually a pretty substantial skyline but it looks like they only like like 4 towers. Other cities have towers that rise well above the rest but for some reason it is so much more pronounced in philly. Its a weird pehnomenon that makes it look like a small skyline from a distance. When in reality its not. Towers in Boston that are shorter than towers in philly or close in height absolutely dont exist on the skyline in Philly...they just blend into obscurity, where here they are very visible and contribute to the skyline.

 

[stick n move]

Heres one example obviously minus comcast tower. Still looks very good though.

Even with Comcast looks like 5 towers.

For some reason the "supporting cast" just melts into a blur of nothingness even though they are substantial towers.


On another note I cant remember their names, but Phillys skyline would have been incredible if those twin towers were like the Philly version of NY twins and the roof heights were like 1400 and they dominated downtown. I wouldn't be the same image either that nobody wants to see anymore like if Boston put twins by winthrop because our waterfront skylines are similar. It would be unique here and would have looked amazing.

 

[Patrick]

Most of the tallest ones are now out of the ground, and there are many more large ones (700's-900's) not shown in the renders.

Honestly, the city that I can't believe is still building so much (with so much more in the pipeline) is Toronto. Why so much demand?! The skyline went from comparable to Boston in the early 2000's (less 500' towers for a very long time, although more height at the top) to now challenging Chicago. I went there once and I just don't see the draw. Ugly, soulless city.

Philadelphia is the skyline that Boston should aspire to. Ever since 1 Liberty broke the Gentlemen's agreement, Philly has not shied away from height. It has a 730' topping out now, and a new tallest (Comcast #2, over 1100' with spire) that is most of the way up!

In terms of cities getting new tallest buildings that are surpassing the Hancock, Calgary's just topped out, Edmonton's(!!!) is around ground level, and Miami has an ugly condo that is climbing.

So US cities that have gone taller than Boston now include:
NYC
Chicago
LA
San Francisco
Houston
Dallas
Atlanta
Seattle
Philadelphia
Pittsburgh
Charlotte
Cleveland
Oklahoma City
Indianapolis
Minneapolis

with a 16th, Miami, soon to join them.

Canada includes Toronto, now Calgary, and soon Edmonton.

With all the new towers we have coming, we are really just 1 new tallest away from breaking into the big-time. Hopefully we get it done next cycle.

Boston is, in my opinion, one of the greatest city's in the country if not the world. While I'm no globe-trotter, I've traveled a fair amount nationally and internationally and very few places compare to it. I mention this because, while I'm also a huge fan of tall buildings, Boston doesn't need them to be in the "big-time" in my humble opinion. There's also a degree of irrationality when it comes to building super-tall, and the Athens of America can't be blamed much for avoiding that, intentionally or otherwise. Consider for example that as you get into super-tall ranges, the base has to continuously get larger and larger, making each floor more and more expensive, with diminishing marginal returns in psf rent. Some cities, notably overseas, disregard this obvious truth and build super-tall anyway because they have to in order to be recognized in any way. Boston isn't in this class. That all having been said, I do think it's time for the City to have a new crown jewel, and I'm confident it's on its way! Also...I'd much rather look at Boston's skyline than Philly's. Just my opinion.

 

[stick n move]

Iv been to all 4 corners of the US-including Alaska, all major cities, and all over the world. Being in the military I knew people from pretty much every state and could have moved wherever I wanted. I still came back here. 1- its home and you never get that feeling anywhere else, but most importantly other than a few cities you dont get that feeling like theres history under your feet. I was in North Carolina for years and those cities depress me. A lot of people like cities where its all above ground parking garages with perfectly laid out chain retail in the base, perfect concrete sidewalks, and please everybody new school architecture. I hated that. In Boston when your walking down the sidewalk and you catch your foot on a cobblestone breaking through the sidewalk you never know what important person in history walked on that very cobblestone.

Going back to your point, Boston is always mentioned with the major players in the country, even world, even though most of them have taller buildings. Theres cities all over the world that have taller buildings, but they don't matter. They're cool to look at but at the end of the day it really doesn't mean anything. Not to mention we have a great human scale here where the streets feel snug and not overpowering. The combination of the waterfront, with the old brick base level, mixed with some new high rises and the zakim gives it a great balance. We may not have the height but the view of the skyline across the charles or from the harbor is damn near one of the best in the world. Its a combination of factors and not just the buildings. I almost like it more that we dont have to have tall buildings to compete. Not many places can say the same. We get mentioned in the same sentences as some of the major hubs of the world and out tallest building is under 800ft. To me that makes it even more impressive.

To me although this exact development is not going to happen, eventually something will and this is inarguably one of the better skylines of the world. Its all of the small pieces that combine to really create something special. When you mix in 111 fed and the rest that are actually going up, height notwithstanding, this is a great skyline. I think were kind of hard on the city because we live here, but in general most people really appreciate what we have here.

Anyways back to the topic at hand.

These obviously arent real proposals but I remember seeing this and thinking this would be pretty cool for Chicago if this happened in the future at some point. Looks pretty cool.

 

[bigpicture7]

...I think were kind of hard on the city because we live here, but in general most people really appreciate what we have here.

About 15 years ago, when our skyline was not too different, I was dating a (mostly) very nice person from NYC. We were driving in once on I93 and she commented that Boston reminded her of Albany. Needless to say, the relationship ended soon thereafter.

Stick, I agree with everything you're saying about the specialness & history. But we need a couple of punctuation pieces in the skyline - not many, but a couple - we are due, and we deserve it.

 

[bigpicture7]

^ To expand on above thoughts:

It is possible for a city to "pull more than its weight", and there are several cities in the U.S. that are smaller than Boston and pack a relatively big architectural punch relative to their populations. Note: I am NOT saying these cities have better skylines than Bos (I love Bos' skyline)...just making the point that Boston is nowhere near skyline impact capacity, if you will, relative to the economic, technological, and population relevance it has...

For example, Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, and Minneapolis all pull more than their weight:

 

[stick n move]

Jersey City

Its really coming into its own. This and Brooklyn will have pretty substancial skylines in their own right in a few years.

BK

Architecture is really coming around. Were entering a new golden age.

 

[stick n move]

This isnt a future skyline post, just an appreciation. Some people dont like this tower, but Im a huge fan. Im really happy for okc, that they were able to get a masterpiece like this. Its a little bit out of place, but so were the twin towers. Give it 2-3 more decently tall towers and it will look fine. I really like the design here at night or during the day and was lucky enough to see it in person a few years ago. Its unique, commanding, elegant, and also looks incredible at night. All around win.

 

[bigpicture7]

This isnt a future skyline post, just an appreciation. Some people dont like this tower, but Im a huge fan. Im really happy for okc, that they were able to get a masterpiece like this. Its a little bit out of place, but so were the twin towers. Give it 2-3 more decently tall towers and it will look fine. I really like the design here at night or during the day and was lucky enough to see it in person a few years ago. Its unique, commanding, elegant, and also looks incredible at night. All around win.

Thanks for the homage, Stick. I've spent some time in OKC as well and found this project so intriguing. I have such mixed emotions about it - on the one hand, I think it's a great design for a tower of that size, on the other, the skyline simply looks bizarre from certain distances/vantage points. But that said, I'm a fan of the notion of: "well, someone's gotta make the first move" - growth of any shape or kind always has awkward first moves, there's no way around it. It's so hard to find visionary development teams who are able to sell the bigger picture to communities, rather than just their project (even though they put on the dog and pony show about the "community benefit"). I think a main reason Chiofaro got skewered with the hardbor garage towers is that he always make it about his project, not about the whole waterfront. Someone in OKC was able to sell the future of OKC, not "I am going to put a giant thing in your backyard, all else be damned." Fascinating, just fascinating.

 

[DZH22]

This isnt a future skyline post, just an appreciation. Some people dont like this tower, but Im a huge fan. Im really happy for okc, that they were able to get a masterpiece like this. Its a little bit out of place, but so were the twin towers. Give it 2-3 more decently tall towers and it will look fine. I really like the design here at night or during the day and was lucky enough to see it in person a few years ago. Its unique, commanding, elegant, and also looks incredible at night. All around win.

This is a city that had 1 single 500' tower (and 500' on the dot, at that) and hadn't built anything taller than 200' for 25 years. Then they went ahead and built taller than the Hancock. I'm not happy for them at all. I'm resentful. Such a nothing city doesn't deserve something like this. The skyline was smaller (and more stagnant) than Hartford's when this went up. Pics 2, 3, 4, and 8 that you posted literally show the entire skyline from those angles.

Next up: Edmonton, going from 0 buildings over 500' to soon having one taller than the Hancock.

 

[stick n move]

They had a company (devon energy) that needed office space, and consolidated it all into one tower. What were they supposed to do, build a turd so other small cities werent embarassed? They needed the space, built a new hq, and made it look good. Im not saying the city is anything special...its not, but the tower is and Im not mad at them for it. This tower was actually necessary, unlike most new towers going up that absolutely dwarf their skylines just to say look at me overseas. When you build a 2800ft residential theres no reason all of those people need to be in one tower. In this case it is necessary, although it could have been two, but didnt need to be.

They have a taller building than us...and it looks great, not a big deal, everybody on planet earth knows Boston is a far superior city. Im just a fan of great architecture and Devon Tower is just that. Its our own fault we never got off anything taller, doesnt mean other cities need to stop before our tallest out of respect. Dubai has multiple towers taller than NYC and that city is a mirage where the luxory disappears when you try to get close.

 

[stick n move]

Since this is also a future skyline thread OKC does have more coming down the pipeline. Nothing as tall or as transformative, but pretty good nonetheless.

Theyre going to add to the stock more than break through it.

Another one going up next to Devon HQ.

This appears to be an image someone sliced to include them all, along with their relation to Devon Tower.

 

[KentXie]

This is a city that had 1 single 500' tower (and 500' on the dot, at that) and hadn't built anything taller than 200' for 25 years. Then they went ahead and built taller than the Hancock. I'm not happy for them at all. I'm resentful. Such a nothing city doesn't deserve something like this. The skyline was smaller (and more stagnant) than Hartford's when this went up. Pics 2, 3, 4, and 8 that you posted literally show the entire skyline from those angles.

Next up: Edmonton, going from 0 buildings over 500' to soon having one taller than the Hancock.

I mean the almost the exact same thing can be said about Boston. Had 0 tower over 496ft and no building over 400 ft for nearly 20 years and then boom, built the tallest tower outside of NYC. It's easy to cast stones when you don't look at yourself.

 

[bigpicture7]

I mean the almost the exact same thing can be said about Boston. Had 0 tower over 496ft and no building over 400 ft for nearly 20 years and then boom, built the tallest tower outside of NYC. It's easy to cast stones when you don't look at yourself.

YES

Hence:

I'm a fan of the notion of: "well, someone's gotta make the first move" - growth of any shape or kind always has awkward first moves, there's no way around it.

What this means is that designing/strategizing around/pitching the first move is a different sort of endeavor than most of what we are seeing in boston right now (e.g., trying to convince everyone that such-and-such project "fits"). It takes a real visionary to succeed at the former - someone willing to sell the broad picture of what a city can become.

 

[stick n move]

London: