Future Skylines/Developments of the US

[stick n move]

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]

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.

 

[stick n move]

LA Grand, 1107 ft, 77 stories, bunker hill, future LA tallest

 

[vanshnookenraggen]

That base is terrrible.

 

[stick n move]

That base is terrrible.

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.

 

[vanshnookenraggen]

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]

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.

 

[iamdjmichael]

There is certainly enough demand but this is how Kendall, DOT, Fenway, and I'd even say like Malden through the Assembly area SHOULD look.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/lumberjack_london/48033359251/

 

[stick n move]

So true..

 

[stick n move]

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.

 

[fattony]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[stick n move]

Bunker hill tower LA

 

[stick n move]

Some more nuevo deco in Chicago now:

One Bennett Park

Id love to see a Liberty Mutual in the seaport and a shorter 30 park place downtown.

Either a 30 park or a 520 park ave, this is a new icon as well. Id love to see some copper roofs next too. Nobody has done it yet on any of these new limestone condo towers... lets do it Boston!! They get better with time too, in 20 years the green patina would be a MUUCH needed and wonderful icon on our skyline.

It even holds its own vs the classics

 

[odurandina]

Detroit's planned Bedrock-Hudson 912' tower likely getting slashed, mid-construction, as the mixed use program will (likely) not have a large residential component as originally planned.

Bedrock: Hudson's site tower may end up not being tallest building, skydeck dropped

For 2 1/2 years, Dan Gilbert's Bedrock LLC has said that the tower planned for the site of the former J.L. Hudson's department store in downtown Detroit would be the tallest building in the state when it's completed. Now, it's not entirely sure. Whether it ends up taller than the 727-foot…

www.crainsdetroit.com

....2 Supertalls topped out in NYC this week (1 Vanderbilt and Central Park Tower - on the left below).

i appreciate your NYC updates and NYC perspective.

So, i was giving some thought to the new projects going up in Chicago (from the pics above--not related to your post). It wouldn't be fair to compare Chicago to buildings in New York of more extreme massing and luxury. Chicago's buildings are certainly almost as nice as New York buildings of the equivalent massing. But i think they're clearly missing the extra element of "pizzazz" that so many NYC buildings have. Chicago buildings seem (to me) more like an upscale version of Toronto. But, not New York level.

 

[stick n move]

Im interested to know if there are, or what will be the names for the new architectural styles...

Like Steinway tower, pretty unique, not sure what that would be classified as. Glass deco?

Or 30 park place... new deco?

What about 53 w 53, new brutalist? Subtlest... lol. It will be interesting to see what they are seen as when looking back on them.

 

[odurandina]

Nohrlanz has one less building u/c today.