Future Skylines/Developments of the US

odurandina

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2015
Messages
5,072
Reaction score
105
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

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2006
Messages
1,882
Reaction score
27
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

Active Member
Joined
Oct 5, 2016
Messages
648
Reaction score
5
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

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 14, 2009
Messages
6,444
Reaction score
513
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
 
Last edited:

stick n move

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 14, 2009
Messages
6,444
Reaction score
513
One of my favorite buildings of all time

181 Freemont



homebucket, SkyscraperPage

181 Freemont

Edwards, Skyscraperpage

Gondola coming along

Gillynova, SkyscraperPage



Viewguysf, SkyscraperPage

The bridge is badass imo


Timbad, SkyscraperPage


Video tour of Transit center... wow
https://youtu.be/UtcZHutaI4g
 

stick n move

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 14, 2009
Messages
6,444
Reaction score
513
I gotta say, Im definitely a fan of the transit center. At first it was giving me flashbacks to the govt ctr garage. Now that I see it though I think its a huge net positive, the bridge is wonderful, and the park looks great too. If they do end up tieing in hsr its gonna be perfect. Hope so.
 

vanshnookenraggen

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
May 25, 2006
Messages
6,361
Reaction score
117
Yea. It only has 1 side that matters at least. The other 3 are facing a highway, off ramp, and bridge. Its not the best but they are improving a shit area.
EVEN WORSE. They have ONE side to get right. That was it. And they still think they are in some office park. This is why height is a stupid fetish.
 

stick n move

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 14, 2009
Messages
6,444
Reaction score
513
EVEN WORSE. They have ONE side to get right. That was it. And they still think they are in some office park. This is why height is a stupid fetish.

They definitely can do better but height has no bearing whatsoever on whether a tower has a good base or not. This having no spire makes it a non “height fetish” type of tower as well. The height is roof height aka occupiable space aka return on investment. The tower is a long way from being built, if it ever is, so it has plenty of time to change the base.
 

stick n move

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 14, 2009
Messages
6,444
Reaction score
513
When you look at North American skylines you see very defined downtowns. Even in our biggest cities like NYC, Chicago, Toronto, especially LA the skylines are very uniform. Why do you guys think there is such a noticeable difference between mega cities overseas even in South America vs North America. Skylines like London, Shenzhen, Shanghai, Tokyo, Seoul... even Rio, Mexico city are vastly more different and spread out. I hope in Bostons future it becomes the one US city to develop many different clusters like London, but even our skyline until very recently was very strictly defined. Why do you guys think this is? What cities in the US could you see ever having a more international megacity skyline?

London


Seoul



Tokyo



Its kind of hard to explain what I mean but I think the pictures do a good job. As huge as NYC/Chicago etc are they dont have the absolute vastness of some of the other world cities. If the buildings were more spread out they definitely would be. Personally I like both, but itd be nice to have a megacity like this in the US too. I feel like LA would have if not for early zoning due to the earthquake zone. Do you guys see any cities becoming more like the international megacities or will North America always have its very dense urban core skylines?

What I like about a skyline like London is each cluster has its own thing going on and gets to stand on its own vs getting lost in the crowd. I feel it can give individual buildings more of a chance to stand out.

Also for those who follow Skyscraperpage Moscow appears to be the next great European megacity by the river like Paris and London. Their skyscraper cluster is a bit cheap, but their midrise architecture being built right now is far and away the best in the world right now. Very interested to see how that city builds out.
 
Last edited:

fattony

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 28, 2013
Messages
1,894
Reaction score
18
What I like about a skyline like London is each cluster has its own thing going on and gets to stand on its own vs getting lost in the crowd. I feel it can give individual buildings more of a chance to stand out.
Don't you think that aptly describes New York? It has downtown, midtown, arguably Hudson yards is distinct from midtown from many angles, downtown Brooklyn, Long Island city, and jersey city. The difference compared to London is that half of those clusters has as many skyscrapers as all of London combined. Sure the buildings don’t stand out as distinctly, but thats just due to the sheer quantity and density. New York is very poly-centric and becoming more so all the time. I don’t know how you can describe New York in way way short of “vast”.

Boston has 2 clusters - downtown and the back bay. Back Bay will grow and Cambridge could become more distinct over the next decade or two, but we will never look like Seoul or Tokyo. It’s not in our geographic DNA.
 

George_Apley

Not a Brahmin
Staff member
Joined
Jan 22, 2012
Messages
4,117
Reaction score
397
I agree that Asian cities in particular are different and my gut guess is that it has something to do with western property rights and zoning regulations compared with East Asia. But I don't know that.
 

stick n move

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 14, 2009
Messages
6,444
Reaction score
513
Don't you think that aptly describes New York? It has downtown, midtown, arguably Hudson yards is distinct from midtown from many angles, downtown Brooklyn, Long Island city, and jersey city. The difference compared to London is that half of those clusters has as many skyscrapers as all of London combined. Sure the buildings don’t stand out as distinctly, but thats just due to the sheer quantity and density. New York is very poly-centric and becoming more so all the time. I don’t know how you can describe New York in way way short of “vast”.

Boston has 2 clusters - downtown and the back bay. Back Bay will grow and Cambridge could become more distinct over the next decade or two, but we will never look like Seoul or Tokyo. It’s not in our geographic DNA.
Its hard to describe but North American megacities are very different from the rest. I had said NYC has a huge amount of towers and could far exceed the vastness of some other cities if they were more spread out. Im not saying one is better or worse theres just different styles. NYC is becoming more spread out with Brooklyn, LIC, Jersey, and its definitely one of the kings of world cities Im just saying theres differences and it would be cool to have one somewhere in North America.
 

shawn

Active Member
Joined
May 26, 2006
Messages
209
Reaction score
70
I agree that Asian cities in particular are different and my gut guess is that it has something to do with western property rights and zoning regulations compared with East Asia. But I don't know that.
As a guy who bought land and built a single family house in central Tokyo, you couldn’t be more correct!
 

George_Apley

Not a Brahmin
Staff member
Joined
Jan 22, 2012
Messages
4,117
Reaction score
397
As a guy who bought land and built a single family house in central Tokyo, you couldn’t be more correct!
Cool. I'd love to know more about how they think about zoning and personal property in Tokyo compared to the average American or European polity.
 

Top