Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Toronto is interesting in that their high rises expand for miles and miles outside of the urban core. I visit every few years and it’s remarkable driving the QEW constantly seeing the new towers and cranes forming an arc around Lake Ontario in the outer ‘burbs.
Atlanta is doing this on a smaller scale, as skylines in Buckhead, Sandy Springs and Vinings have risen taller in recent years.
Yes every metro has both condo and house dwellers.
Yes Austin has been growing very quickly in population.
Its current population, and even future growth projections don't really seem commensurate with the building schedule they've committed to.
By next year, Austin will be firmly in the Dallas/Atlanta/Philadelphia skyscraper peer group with roughly 1/3rd the metro population of those.
To be fair according to those various radius population tools Austin already has quite a few more people in its immediate core than either Dallas or Atlanta. The big metro population advantages those metros have is because they are physically massive while Austin is comparatively compact. I think even looking at the daytime populations that include office commuters, DT Austin is very comparable with DT Dallas and DT Atlanta.
Philadelphia is just an apples to oranges comparison. It's a classically urban city with a massive amount of urban housing stock. Austin doesn't have any of that and this developers are building new condos and apartments to fill the gap.
Who says they don't? NYC has hundreds already and they keep going up. The largest city in the country is still transforming its skyline, not simply doing infill.
Houston and Dallas shouldn't be merely "keeping up" with Austin, is the point I'm making.
Why would Houston have to keep up with Austin when it's already was ahead.
I'm not sure what you are getting at with the changing goalposts.
At first you said Austin is the only one building 500+ feet skyscrapers, which was incorrect, now you moved out to keeping up with Austin. Austin would have to catch up to Houston first before it can keep up with Houston, but Houston is building just as much as Austin so it definitely will be ahead for quite some time.
Austin is maturing and filling in its midsized city boots so it is getting those trophy towers. Let's not forget that Houston and Dallas also got their trophy towers when they were Austin's size. The question is will Austin be able to sustain the growth for decades.
Who says they don't? NYC has hundreds already and they keep going up. The largest city in the country is still transforming its skyline, not simply doing infill.
Houston and Dallas shouldn't be merely "keeping up" with Austin, is the point I'm making.
Part of NYC’s identity is its outrageous skyscrapers and architecture. It HAS to keep building to keep up with the world, and to remain at or near the top. NYC is an outlier, and not a good metric to go by per American standards. NYC is also fully built out, so it can only build up. These more modern sunbelt cities are in need for urban infill — not just tall glass condos.
Omaha currently constructing a 44 story, 677 foot tall Mutual of Omaha skyscraper, which once completed in early 2026, will give the Omaha skyline two 600 plus footers (the other the First National Center) and a 3rd at nearly 500 feet (The WoodmanLife Tower), is pretty impressive for an MSA/CSA just north of 1 million in population (and growing)..
Just thought I’d break up the never ending monotony of Dallas, Houston and Austin skyscraper talk here …
Status:
"I know, I don't like me either"
(set 15 days ago)
Location: Miami-Dade
159 posts, read 60,866 times
Reputation: 253
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arcenal813
Part of NYC’s identity is its outrageous skyscrapers and architecture. It HAS to keep building to keep up with the world, and to remain at or near the top. NYC is an outlier, and not a good metric to go by per American standards. NYC is also fully built out, so it can only build up. These more modern sunbelt cities are in need for urban infill — not just tall glass condos.
Well the argument made by Kinbueno was that "cities don't have to have a 500 footer under construction all the time", so you also disagree with that statement. And just because NYC "has to" doesn't mean that Houston and Dallas shouldn't.
Infill is great, but when it comes to that Austin is punching above its weight while the other Texas cities are not.
I was mostly referring to the fact that Austin is developing a newer and IMO more attractive skyline, but I do think it's saying something that the fourth largest metro in the state is the only one with 500+ footer under construction.
I know Houston and Dallas already have "supertalls", but they look very dated along with the bulk of their skylines.
Dated as in everything not being cladded in glass…sure. But Austin’s skyline isn’t beautiful to me. A lot of what’s going up is ugly. Including the state’s new tallest, but the amount of what’s being built is impressive. One thing that Austin’s skyscraper boom has that Houston’s and Dallas’ didn’t…signature skyscrapers that sit on huge parking podiums.
Dallas had a boom in the 80s where they overbuilt and there was a crash too. Since that time, they’ve been a lot more conservative IMO. They build what is needed. I hope Austin isn’t making the mistake of overbuilding though.
Dated as in everything not being cladded in glass…sure. But Austin’s skyline isn’t beautiful to me. A lot of what’s going up is ugly. Including the state’s new tallest, but the amount of what’s being built is impressive. One thing that Austin’s skyscraper boom has that Houston’s and Dallas’ didn’t…signature skyscrapers that sit on huge parking podiums.
Dallas had a boom in the 80s where they overbuilt and there was a crash too. Since that time, they’ve been a lot more conservative IMO. They build what is needed. I hope Austin isn’t making the mistake of overbuilding though.
I don't get your point with parking podiums.
Integrated parking with retail on the bottom is much nicer than the 1980s approach of standalone parking next door to the tower.
I agree with you that the GFR on newer buildings is a plus but to be fair some of the buildings in Austin take the parking podium thing way too far. I drive by this monstrosity at least once a week and think wtf am I looking at.
I mean there’s literally more garage than actual usable space in this building.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
…