Skylines and Developments of the US/World

Yes, there are some blocks downtown but walk a few blocks in any direction and it's parking lots and single story buildings. Wouldn't you prefer urban fabric over a supertall tower surrounded by suburbia? You seem to be more on the urbanist team vs the skyscraper gawkers. So to rephrase my honest question: I still don't get why the market in Austin is generating demand for skyscrapers that are far taller than those in cities that have a lot more people. It attracts talent? Apparently, if the units sell, and I'm not doubting they will. And please don't project your own snark.
I'm not projecting my own snark, rather I'm replying with snark because your post is clearly phrased to be snarky.

But I'll answer your honest question.

First, a supertall and an urban fabric is not mutually exclusive. Anyone telling you that is just plain lying.

Second, there are people who prefer to live in tall buildings, not just gawk at them. I specifically pointed out that a lot of transplants are from big cities and are likely accustomed to living in high-rises. Given that Austin is cheaper than say NYC, these folks can actually afford to live in high-rise condos there.

Third, Austin is the 11th most populous city in the US, it's not a small city. It may not be the densest but that's likely a product of Austin not putting density as a priority until the past decade. I guess you can say the reason that Austin is building these supertalls is so that it can densify.

Fourth, Austin is quickly becoming a premier tech hub that pays a lot of money. As such, these folks likely want to pay for the best amenities and many of these amenities are usually only available in luxury high-rises.
 
Third, Austin is the 11th most populous city in the US, it's not a small city....

28th in metro population, and has over 5 times the land area of Boston proper for city population comparisons. Compared to Boston, it doesn't feel like a big city, or even really like a city at all. To be fair, I haven't been since 2009, but it's among the most overrated places I have set foot in.

It doesn't really need buildings this tall, but the more unfortunate part is that the architecture of each new tallest building is arguably worse than its immediate predecessor. I think it's all been downhill since the Frost Tower was built.

What I will say is there's a heck of a lot more need for taller buildings by Boston's main transportation hubs, plus Back Bay and Kendall, than there is a need ANYWHERE in Austin. It's 100% a vanity city and the density ends extremely quickly. I honestly don't see the draw, or the reasoning to keep stacking supertalls in a city that size-wise was basically a less good version of Providence as recently as 2000.

Austin's skyline in 2000:
1673329791384.png


2010:
1673329824210.png


2020:
1673329867285.png


Then suddenly, WTF? Present, including U/C. This doesn't even include the additional supertall posted above, and another in the upper 700's. Sixth and Guadalupe is topped off so add another US city to the list with a taller building than the Hancock.
1673329946682.png
 
28th in metro population, and has over 5 times the land area of Boston proper for city population comparisons. Compared to Boston, it doesn't feel like a big city, or even really like a city at all. To be fair, I haven't been since 2009, but it's among the most overrated places I have set foot in.

It doesn't really need buildings this tall, but the more unfortunate part is that the architecture of each new tallest building is arguably worse than its immediate predecessor. I think it's all been downhill since the Frost Tower was built.
This is the fallacy that seems to permeate a lot of members in Archboston. Just because a city has a large area does not mean it needs to use it up. For a group of anti-sprawl activists, y'all seem quick to criticize whenever a city decides not to build another suburban neighborhood by building taller skyscrapers at it's core. Here's the thing, it's cheaper, infrastructure and environmentally-wise, to densify which is what Austin is doing rather than continue sprawling out.

And yeah, Austin doesn't feel as big as Boston, but it is absolutely a large city and it's short sighted to say that just because it's growing population, which BTW has jumped 20% in the past decade and continues to grow at a fast pace, hasn't reach the level of Boston, that it should wait to build tall resident towers so that it can end up like SF and Boston where the supply of residential units lag so far behind demand that people have to decide whether to eat or live close enough that they don't have to travel 1+ hour to get to work.

And yeah you may feel it's overrated but your opinion doesn't really matter does it? You don't live there and yet people continue to move there in droves. If Austin was to take your opinion into consideration, they would never grow to be a more interesting place.
 
And yeah you may feel it's overrated but your opinion doesn't really matter does it?

You always have the worst opinions on this site. It's actually pretty impressive.

Also, it's quite hypocritical that for Boston I have to hear that anything over 40 stories isn't cost effective, and Boston "doesn't need tall buildings" but then it also "makes sense" to build twice as tall in a podunk place like Austin. It "makes sense" to build tall when you are running out of room. Austin has tons of room to densify its downtown core without needing to jump 20 other denser cities and start plopping down supertalls.

Where are you on the North Point thread to counter all the people who say the pathetic heights and football-field-wide buildings are appropriate as long as there's a coffee shop?
 
Also, it's quite hypocritical that for Boston I have to hear that anything over 40 stories isn't cost effective, and Boston "doesn't need tall buildings" but then it also "makes sense" to build twice as tall in a podunk place like Austin.
Bruh, what the heck are you talking about? At no point did I say Boston doesn't need tall buildings. I've only said suggested in this forum that basing the entire value of a tower to a city solely on height is stupid. Boston can build tall tower. If it doesn't hit 1000ft, fine. A lot of the time, the reasoning is driven from a business sense (developers don't build tall if they don't think they can get their targeted return from it at that height/tenants don't need that much space). You and height fetishists are the ones in a fetal position in the corner crying over it when it doesn't achieve a height to your liking. If you have problems with people saying Boston "doesn't need tall buildings", argue with those people saying that, not me.

It "makes sense" to build tall when you are running out of room. Austin has tons of room to densify its downtown core without needing to jump 20 other denser cities and start plopping down supertalls.
Ok it's clear business sense isn't something you have a great understanding for. From the perspective of a developer and real estate management, building one tall tower on one plot of land is much more cost effective than acquiring multiple plots, building 15 smaller ones throughout the city, and managing each one. Seems like you're whinging here because you have an inferiority complex because other cities are getting supertalls and Boston isn't.

Where are you on the North Point thread to counter all the people who say the pathetic heights and football-field-wide buildings are appropriate as long as there's a coffee shop?
I don't live in Boston anymore. I don't frequent this forum as much as I use to and I'll admit, I have less stake in Boston's development. Do I like these landscapers? Absolutely not, I think they are awful and you've seen me complain about the low quality of the designs in the Seaport and Northpoint. Again, argue with those people saying that, not me.

You always have the worst opinions on this site. It's actually pretty impressive.
This is a great take here considering the fact that your complaints about height, the "sky is falling because the building boom cycle is over and we will never have another one again", and "I don't live in Boston but I think the city development and politicians should serve my opinion and my hobby only", are so well received on Archboston
 
I don't live in Boston anymore. I don't frequent this forum as much as I use to and I'll admit, I have less stake in Boston's development. Do I like these landscapers? Absolutely not, I think they are awful and you've seen me complain about the low quality of the designs in the Seaport and Northpoint. Again, argue with those people saying that, not me.


This is fair. I think it's easy to lump posters together when everybody has their own specific opinions, with lots of gray areas. Maybe it's just because we disagree so much on other topics that I instinctively go by that.

On my end I have never once called for a 1000' tower in Boston. Not one time, not ever. FAA map wouldn't even allow it, as the 1000' zones are to sea level. Seaport is also stuck around 250' due to FAA flight paths. On the other hand, North Point could have pushed into the 900's, Kendall into the 900's, North Station Area as high as 800'+ in specific areas, and Back Bay into the 900's. So I am definitely complaining that we don't even build half that high, in the few places where height is actually possible. Just 1-2 buildings for each of those neighborhoods that approach their FAA allowances would really pop, and visually redefine the entire area. I also complain that we plan to put, say, a 190' lab on a choice 600' parcel next to South Station, or that instead of a slim 709' residential in DTX it's going to be a super fat 350' office.

Also on my end I constantly hear that anything over 40 floors stops being cost effective for the developers. So building over 1000' in a city full of low-rises and parking lots seems like it would be purely ego driven, and not the model of efficiency you are implying. There's probably 30 US cities ahead of Austin that should be pushing for 800'-1000' due to actual constraints.

I'm jealous of Austin's upcoming height, but not the designs and definitely not the city itself. I just recognize we might be heading towards a decade or more without even cracking 500' after South Station Tower is done, whereas we have the actual need and demand to get more of the larger towers. If there were somehow a ratio out there, we have probably built the most square feet in the last decade with the least visual impact to show for it, maybe in the entire world. For instance, for every 800' office tower Chicago builds, we put up 4 buildings on the same footprints, except at 1/4 of the height (Seaport, North Point, Kendall, Fenway....). Maybe the ratio could be something like "total square feet built / total square feet above 300'" or "total square feet built / total square feet above the city's prior 25th tallest building." Something that illustrates all the times I witnessed the seas of cranes end up being more impressive than the buildings they created. The entire North Point area is obviously our prime example there. Huh... Maybe you do kind of get it too. My bad then.
 
This would be awesome for Oakland! I think it would have been a little better if they had emphasized the verticality more by insetting the floors or using a dark color so you just had the long vertical lines being continuous up the face. The massing really is pretty good though given the lack of height theyre working with, but regardless this still would be a home run.

1431 franklin st, Oakland.
1431-Franklin-Street-residential-scenario-aerial-view-rendering-by-Large-Architecture.jpg

1431-Franklin-Street-residential-scenario-looking-northwest-rendering-by-Large-Architecture.jpg

1431-Franklin-Street-residential-scenario-seen-from-across-Lake-Merritt-rendering-by-Large-Architecture.jpg

1431-Franklin-Street-residential-scenario-street-activity-rendering-by-Large-Architecture.jpg

1431-Franklin-Street-residential-scenario-facade-elevations-illustrations-by-Large-Architecture.jpg


The 413-foot tall residential proposal will rise 39 floors and yield 491,800 square feet with 411,800 square feet for housing, 14,900 square feet of private open space, 8,100 square feet of public open space, and 80,000 square feet for the 167-car garage. Additional parking will be included for 116 bicycles. Unit sizes will vary with 64 studios, 148 one-bedrooms, 150 two-bedrooms, and 19 three-bedrooms.

The new design has a more uniform and gridded exterior than the previous articulated design. Similar to the office iteration, the residential scenario is wrapped with a gridded punched-window system clad with a brick facade.

The overall massing is inspired by downtown Oakland’s various spire-style towers. In keeping with the area’s spire-like towers, the building narrows with setbacks for amenity decks on the 17th and 28th floors. The exterior is directly inspired by the bold verticality of the Cathedral Building at 1615 Broadway. Windows are elongated to reinforce the impression of height.

https://sfyimby.com/2022/08/updated-renderings-for-1431-franklin-street-in-downtown-oakland.html
 
Last edited:
I find this shot to be mindblowing. The world's current 2nd tallest building (yes due to a cheating spire) completely DWARFS the old world's tallest twins (which also cheated to surpass the Sears Tower and help ruin the way we measure buildings). No city exemplifies the way a couple taller towers can completely redefine an area quite like Kuala Lumpur.

1676139117663.png

 
San fran swings for the fences and says fu nimbys
2700-Sloat-Boulevard-southeast-view-illustration-by-Solomon-Cordwell-Buenz.jpg

2700-Sloat-Boulevard-northeast-view-illustration-by-Solomon-Cordwell-Buenz.jpg

2700-Sloat-Boulevard-northwest-perspective-illustration-by-Solomon-Cordwell-Buenz.jpg


“If zoning is silent on something, that means you can do it. Like, sorry, too late… They never explicitly prohibited multiple towers because nobody has ever proposed it before. “If they want to pass a new rule or ordinance to prohibit more than one tower, then they can do that. But they don’t have that rule right now.”

“Whether or not one believes this project is likely to happen or well positioned, one has to hand it to the developer, this is bold. This is the tallest proposal to be floated in the Bay Area this year and would be the tallest on the city’s west side. Not to mention, if built today, 2700 Sloat would be the tallest structure in the Bay Area constructed so far this decade.”

https://sfyimby.com/2023/04/exclusi...-boulevard-in-outer-sunset-san-francisco.html
 
Pretty cool to see what a skyscraper sized wynn casino looks like.


Wynn Set to Spend $3.9 Billion on First Mideast ‘Gaming’ Resort
  • Project set to feature 500 more rooms than previously planned
  • Wynn’s new resort off the UAE’s coast will now open in 2027

1200x-1.jpg



Wynn Resorts Ltd. increased the number of rooms in its planned resort off the coast of the United Arab Emirates by 50%, and said it will spend almost $4 billion on the project that’s set to be the first to include “gaming” in the Middle East.

The beach-front Wynn Al Marjan Island will be one of the world’s largest gaming facilities with 1,500 rooms and villas, and is being built in Ras Al Khaimah — an emirate about 45 minutes from Dubai. The opening, originally slated for 2026, will be delayed by a year, Wynn said in statement on Thursday.

While the government of Ras Al Khaimah hasn’t clarified what “gaming areas” refer to, there’s been speculation that the Wynn resort may signal an end to the ban on gambling, which is prohibited under Islam. The emirate’s Tourism Development Authority last year set up a unit to regulate so-called “integrated resorts,” which will include gaming facilities.”

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...mideast-gaming-resort?leadSource=uverify wall
 
-Not everyday that you have this much land to develop in sf.

Renderings Revealed For Mixed-Income Housing On Twin Peaks, San Francisco
Midtown Land Homes townhomes, rendering by RG Architecture

Midtown Land Homes educator housing aerial view, rendering by RG Architecture

Midtown Land Homes educator housing and townhomes street view, rendering by RG Architecture

Midtown Land Homes Farview Court project, rendering by RG Architecture

Midtown Land Homes overlooked by Sutro Tower, rendering by RG Architecture

Midtown Land Homes pedestrian view from the interior street, rendering by RG Architecture

Midtown Land Homes site map, illustration by RG Architecture

Midtown Land Homes site outlined, illustration courtesy planning documents


“Renderings have been published for affordable teacher housing and townhome duplexes at 402 Dellbrook Avenue, near the base of Sutro Tower in Twin Peaks, San Francisco. The project would create around 76 units, of which 40 will be affordable housing. Midtown Lands LLC, owned by James Keith, is the property owner and developer.
The three-acre project will be filled with 168,130 square feet for housing, 19,580 square feet for parking, and 8,740 square feet for open space. The project will create an expansion of Farview Court. The internal street expansion will connect to a turnaround bulb. The teacher housing will be the closest to the outlet, with townhomes lining the extension of Farview Court.”

https://sfyimby.com/2023/05/renderi...come-housing-on-twin-peaks-san-francisco.html
 
I currently reside in DC and visit Baltimore regularly. I must say that I’m impressed with Harbor Point and the environs. In same aspects it reminds me of the Seaport and in others surpasses it from an urban perspective (likely because it isn’t cut off from the rest of the harbor and inner city neighborhoods).

To entire waterfront stretch from Harbor Point through Fells Point and Canton seems underrated on a national level.
 

Back
Top