Future Skylines/Developments of the US

[stick n move]

Another "new deco" tower, this time in Philly at 1601 vine st. As much as I love Liberty Mutual and am extremely happy with it, a tower would be 100x better. We were basically missed by the limestone skyscrapers of the golden era, I hope we get one of these so bad. The argument "it missed us so its over" is dumb, washing dc wouldnt exist, fanuel hall etc... because those eras of architecture were "missed" too. Nothing wrong with cladding a tower in limestone these days, plus they still do have a different style to them now. Limestone towers just give skylines a certain authenticity and class to them that nothing else does. Plus as old a city as Boston is it "should" have 1 or 2 anyways. The custom house tower, hancock, and liberty mutual are great, but a legit slender 500 footer would be phenominal. Something like 30 park in nyc in downtown Boston would be next level to go with our new glass towers.

 

[stick n move]

 

[odurandina]

meanwhile, back in Boston, they have a collective meltdown at the mere suggestion of 870'
at the tallest FAA site and no shadow.

 

[vanshnookenraggen]

I'll tell you no one is happy about those super talls next to the Manhattan Bridge.

 

[stick n move]

Yea just one Manhattan sq. Alone is crazy

Oasis Bangkok Skyscrapercity

Luca9A8M, Skyscrapercity

Zwamborn, Skyscrapercity

Streetscapeer, Skyscrapercity

 

[stick n move]

Imo this is the nicest tower to go up in years.

 

[stick n move]

Even Minneapolis getting a new masonry tower...

I see a distinct difference with these new towers vs art deco of years past. Art deco had black metal plating over the floor plates with vertical lines of limestone. There was always a very strong emphasis on verticality. Here the whole facade is clad, no black floor plates, no emphasis on the vertical lines and they all seem to use bump out windows.

Note the vertical lines, black floor plates. These new towers have their own style and if we try to say we can only build with glass no more “stone” we do our cities a disservice. This tower is much closer to 30 park than Empire state. 30 park is 4 years old.

 

[stick n move]

Jersey City New Tallest, 99 Hudson, 889ft T/O:

Via: Oasis-Bangkok, Skyscrapercity

 

[fattony]

^ Wow. Jersey City just keeps on growing.

Surprisingly to me, Hudson County is comparable to Boston proper in both land area (46 sq miles to Boston's 48) and population (692k to Boston's 685k).

 

[stick n move]

Transbay parcel F San Francisco

Perviously peer city running away

They dont wanna build too much to preserve the neighborhoods, but they have a literal housing crisis. We have obnoxious rents they have a crisis. Their skyline should round the corner southeast through mission bay and go to the central waterfront imo. Theres already hills, a highway, and like an old eastie waterfront situation there so it would actually improve that section. Build it up and connect the waterfront and it could be great. They could and should go condo/apartment crazy down here because they need units bad. They dont need supertalls they can keep the main downtown as the focal point, but 50 mid rise condo towers here would be great for the city. Mission bay is already their seaport so thats a start, they need more though. Will they...idk.

 

[stick n move]

“F5”, 5th and Columbia, Seattle. What a beautiful tower. Its like a perfect blending of the Scalpel in London and 181 freemont in San Francisco. Two great towers on their own, apparently one great tower together. It looks like a render at dusk, Im jealous... we need one! Or one similar.

The726, Yimbyforums, Seattle

 

[KentXie]

“F5”, 5th and Columbia, Seattle. What a beautiful tower. Its like a perfect blending of the Scalpel in London and 181 freemont in San Francisco. Two great towers on their own, apparently one great tower together. It looks like a render at dusk, Im jealous... we need one! Or one similar.

The726, Yimbyforums, Seattle

Hopefully the New State Street HQ will be our "F5"

 

[kmp1284]

Transbay parcel F San Francisco

Perviously peer city running away

Boston hasn't been a peer of San Francisco for fifty years. Seattle maybe but San Francisco blows Boston out of the water in every possible way.

 

[fattony]

Boston hasn't been a peer of San Francisco for fifty years. Seattle maybe but San Francisco blows Boston out of the water in every possible way.

Thanks for the helpful contribution.

 

[KentXie]

Boston hasn't been a peer of San Francisco for fifty years. Seattle maybe but San Francisco blows Boston out of the water in every possible way.

Maybe not 50 years but to be brutally honest, the new stuff being put up in SF in terms of creativeness is at a significant higher level than Boston, part of this does have to due to the height restriction limiting developers in Boston the flexibility to decide how much profit they are willing to give up to create something iconic but the other part is that the local architects here that built the city of Boston appear to be incredibly conservative in the design, either because they lack innovation or they are content with being "good enough," the latter of which may have to do to the fact the city has a track record of picking favorites, and as a result, the favorites feel like they don't need to make any effort to stand above their competitors.

Skyscraper designs in Boston, like One Dalton, aside from the height, is a very conservative design shaped by the plot it is built on and doesn't really deviate from its monolithic form aside from the fins (which by the way does make a huge impact). I think the new State Street HQ and the St Regis Residence in the Seaport are the first buildings in Boston that breaks away from that conservative design and hopefully more designs of that quality will go up in the city.

 

[FitchburgLine]

Boston hasn't been a peer of San Francisco for fifty years. Seattle maybe but San Francisco blows Boston out of the water in every possible way.

This is stupid even for trolling. SF was unusually lightly hit by white flight, if Boston was competitive 50 years ago it far exceeds SF now due to experiencing a much larger bounceback.
In reality, Boston was doing much worse than any of its quasi-peer cities 50 years ago, but still has catching up to do especially on transit and housing production.

 

[odurandina]

Boston hasn't been a peer of San Francisco for fifty years. Seattle maybe but San Francisco blows Boston out of the water in every possible way.

Two categories where SF blows Boston's doors--we can't justly ignore;

1. # of Fortune 1000 companies.
2. # of rich and ultra rich people worth over say, $100M, $1B, etc.

The numbers are staggering. There are a few other categories where SF blows Boston's doors, such as total investment capital, tech startups, etc. Then, in other ways, Boston's MSA compares somewhat favorably to SF.

 

[kmp1284]

This is stupid even for trolling. SF was unusually lightly hit by white flight, if Boston was competitive 50 years ago it far exceeds SF now due to experiencing a much larger bounceback.
In reality, Boston was doing much worse than any of its quasi-peer cities 50 years ago, but still has catching up to do especially on transit and housing production.

‘But all the white people left’ sounds more like a Southie bigot’s rationalization. San Francisco was practically leveled by an earthquake in 1906. Any more excuses?

 

[Hubman]

White flight didn't hurt cities because it was specifically white people who were leaving, it hurt because it took sizable population chunks out of the city and combined with the multitude of other problems cities were facing at the time, ate away at neighborhoods.

 

[stick n move]

LA

They have a lot of projects coming online. Add to that that theyre more than doubling their rail transit to become the 2nd most extensive metro in America after NYC, even ahead of Chicago, and theres lots of changes on the horizon.

Theyre rezoning the areas around their transit system and expansion areas as well to allow it to densify over time. In 20 years LA is going to look very different after the rail network has been done for a bit and the areas around it have had time to get denser. The skyline will be a lot different too, but Im definitely more interested in how their sprawl changes with rail.

Theyre actively rezoning around transit to build up density. The sprawl can be good in a way since the city is filled in and now they can focus on making it much denser and giving all of those people more accessibility. Its going to be really cool to see a denser LA and to see their fullscale embrace of rail. Theyre tired of the horrific traffic so they cant build rail fast enough. This is a perfect example of where transit will directly help commuters shave lots of time off their commutes and it should make lots of the city more accessible and “closer”. Anyways heres a lot of the projects coming up.

Bunker Hill, new tallest

Figueroa Centre

Angels Landing

11th and Hill

1045 S Olive

111 Sunset

Metropolis

Olympic Hill

8th and Figueroa

1300 Figueroa

Olympia

Park Hyatt

1200 s Figueroa

Circa

Times mirror sq

Weingart center for the homeless

Civic Center

Century city

643 N Spring st

Omni

9034 Sunset