America's Supertalls- Take 2

[Duke87 1,070]

Okay, so, since this thread has been padlocked due to damage, here's the new one.

Buildings in the US now or in the future. Starting at the tallest and going down:

Chicago Spire

Chicago, 2000 ft (610 m)

Under Construction, opening 2010

-Will be tallest building in North America upon completion

-Will be tallest building in Chicago upon completion

Freedom Tower

New York, 1776 ft (541 m)

Under Construction, opening 2011

-Will be tallest building in New York upon completion

Sears Tower

Chicago, 1451 ft (442 m)

Opened 1973

-Worlds tallest building, 1973-1998

-Tallest building in North America, 1973-

-Tallest building in Chicago, 1973-

1 World Trade Center

New York, 1368 ft (417 m)

Opened 1972, Destroyed 2001

-World's tallest building, 1972-1973

-Tallest building in New York, 1972-2001

2 World Trade Center

New York, 1362 ft (415 m)

Opened 1973, Destroyed 2001

Trump International Hotel and Tower

Chicago, 1362 ft (415 m)

Under Construction, opening 2009

200 Greenwich Street (World Trade Center Tower 2)

New York, 1339 ft (408 m)

Under Construction, opening 2011

175 Greenwich Street (World Trade Center Tower 3)

New York, 1255 ft (383 m)

Under Construction, opening 2011

Empire State Building

New York, 1250 ft (381 m)

Opened 1931

-World's tallest building, 1931-1972

-Tallest building in North America, 1931-1972

-Tallest building in New York, 1931-1972 and 2001-

Bank of America Tower (Bryant Park Tower)

New York, 1200 ft (366 m)

Under Construction, Opening 2008

One Bayfront Plaza

Miami, 1180 ft (360 m)

Approved, opening 2015

Aon Center

Chicago, 1136 ft (346 m)

Opened 1972

-Tallest building in Chicago, 1972-1974

John Hanc.ock Center

Chicago, 1127 ft (344 ft)

Opened 1969

-Tallest building in Chicago, 1969-1972

Waterview Tower

Chicago, 1047 ft (319 m)

Under Construction, Opening 2009

Chrysler Building

New York, 1046 ft (319 m)

Opened 1930

-World's tallest building, 1930-1931

-Tallest building in North America, 1930-1931

-Tallest building in New York, 1930-1931

-World's first Supertall

New York Times Building

New York, 1046 ft (319 m)

Opened 2007

Signature Tower

Nashville, 1030 ft (314 m)

Approved, Opening ?

Bank of America Plaza

Atlanta, 1023 ft (312 m)

Opened 1992

US Bank Tower

Los Angeles, 1018 ft (310 m)

Opened 1990

AT&T Corporate Center

Chicago, 1007 ft (307 m)

Opened 1989

JP Morgan Chase Tower

Houston, 1002 ft (305 m)

Opened 1982

Right then, continue from where you left off.

[sEAhAwk fAn121 0]

Thank you Duke for reviving this thread. But you need an updated pic of the Trump Tower in Chicago, it's almost topped out.

[Duke87 1,070]

Done.

[patriots_1228 51]

Thanks for reviving this thread Duke, one of my favorites.

My question: Why on earth is the signature tower going up in Nashville? lovely design, but a) it looks out of place b) there are what, 5 other skyscrapers in the whole city? c) its about 700 feet taller than all the surrounding buildings c) This design belongs in somewhere better, like chicago or new york, where it will actually fit the skyline.

[Micah 16]

Thanks, Duke. I was surprised you added the WTC 1&2, but I agree... they both should have definitely been added.

[Micah 16]

Sorry for the double post, but it's been a new day so you may have already seen my last message and could miss my edit.

Are you going to update with all the NYC proposals, Chicago proposals, etc.?

[Duke87 1,070]

Well, feel free to discuss proposals, but since most buildings that get proposed never actually see the light of day I'm going to avoid putting buildings in the main post which are merely "proposed". They'll have to be approved for construction before I'll add them.

That's actually why a few entries from the old thread are missing from this one. Empire Tower I and II are nothing more than proposed. 80 South Street is approved but delayed and not selling space, so it's looking like it won't ever get built. And Transbay Tower is also just proposed, and besides which it's been scaled back and is no longer a supertall, thus making it ineligible to grace this list regardless.

[Jazzmaster 716]

Originally posted by: Duke87 Well, feel free to discuss proposals, but since most buildings that get proposed never actually see the light of day I'm going to avoid putting buildings in the main post which are merely "proposed". They'll have to be approved for construction before I'll add them.

That's actually why a few entries from the old thread are missing from this one. Empire Tower I and II are nothing more than proposed. 80 South Street is approved but delayed and not selling space, so it's looking like it won't ever get built. And Transbay Tower is also just proposed, and besides which it's been scaled back and is no longer a supertall, thus making it ineligible to grace this list regardless.quote>

Agreed, there's several buildings, bridges etc. right here in Tampa Bay that were proposed but never realized.  Also, good to see WTC 1&2 in there, they're definitely to be remembered.

I also agree with Patriots on the Signature tower, that city doesn't seem developed enough for that tall a building yet, it's as out of place as a new mid-rise would be in Dubai.  So to my favorite city with it then (Chicago).

[patriots_1228 51]

signature tower has been cut down to no more than 433 feet due to the same airplane problems that plagued transnational.

Yes! xD

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: patriots_1228 signature tower has been cut down to no more than 433 feet due to the same airplane problems that plagued transnational.

Yes! xDquote>

Link? Wikipedia still says that the FAA recommended no more than 433 feet but that the plans have not been altered.

[patriots_1228 51]

Apparently the project is actually dead [according to a guy at archboston.com who just visited the city]

[sakarr 1]

hmm. I think they need to add a spire to the top of Key Tower here in Cleveland. that way it can become a supertall and we can go back to having the tallest building between NYC and Chicago again. Forget Philly haha

[manman99 2]

i think, if i read it right, that Chicago Tower opens in 2012, but im not entirely suree....

[confused04 14]

Nashville's Signature Tower is in critical condition, but it is not officially dead. The original plans for the tower had a significant condo element which due to market conditions have scaled back. They are however trying to find anchor tenants to replace 150 of the condo units as well as a hotel component (which they have already lined up). Do I think Nashville should have a supertall? No... Its tallest tower (including the spires) is a meager 188 meters. This is what you call the classic "Vulgar Hand Gesture" skyline. Signature has a lot of hurdles to jump and its quite possibly and likely that it won't happen. Really the city should work on density over height. The one problem this tower is gonna do is KILL demand.

Minneapolis has rumors of supertalls, naturally the market is only going to support one supertall. This is not all on one site (For Minneapolitans, its the TCF Bank Site, Hennepin between 10th and 11th , and Marquette between 9th and 10th). The Nicollet site (200 m proposed tower thats considered to be just about dead) might get a commercial element to push this to supertall. One of these rumors has people scratching their heads because they claim its the biggest project since the 60's (our largest office/retail/tower complex, the IDS Tower was built in 1973). So we don't exactly know what they mean to build the largest project since the 60s since the largest was in the 70's! The only thing that some people have thought of was the destruction of the Gateway district which destroyed much of downtown Minneapolis. Perhaps the biggest factor is what Target decides to do with with its lease in another local tower. If it decides to consolidate, a supertall is likely (although it'd be called Target Tower, which would almost be asking for it). I'll post if and when the supetall is announced... supposedly soon.

[un1 41]

lol.. The Chicago Spire will stick out like a sore thumb. Not only is it taller than the rest of Chicago it has the strangest design ever. I personally think it would fit better in or Toronto due to the fact that there is already taller towers than the current tallest in Chicago that is in Toronto. I mean it'll be taller than the CN Tower so it should be near the CN Tower so Chicago doesn't look any different in height.

-un1

[IDS2 3,396]

It won't look any better in Toronto, which has about 20 supertall buildings, all about 1000 feet of less. The CN Tower would look silly next to the spire anyway, since the CN is already a centerpiece and would be one of two...the Spire will look great in Chicago IMO, but that's just me.

[underwearman2007 0]

damn that freedom tower lookz good don't u guys agree?

[Micah 16]

Minneapolis has rumors of supertalls, naturally the market is only going to support one supertall. This is not all on one site (For Minneapolitans, its the TCF Bank Site, Hennepin between 10th and 11th , and Marquette between 9th and 10th). The Nicollet site (200 m proposed tower thats considered to be just about dead) might get a commercial element to push this to supertall. One of these rumors has people scratching their heads because they claim its the biggest project since the 60's (our largest office/retail/tower complex, the IDS Tower was built in 1973). So we don't exactly know what they mean to build the largest project since the 60s since the largest was in the 70's! The only thing that some people have thought of was the destruction of the Gateway district which destroyed much of downtown Minneapolis. Perhaps the biggest factor is what Target decides to do with with its lease in another local tower. If it decides to consolidate, a supertall is likely (although it'd be called Target Tower, which would almost be asking for it). I'll post if and when the supetall is announced... supposedly soon. quote>

Sounds great! We need more supertalls wherever we can get them. I actually believe growing higher up is better than growing wider out.

There's another supertall in the works which I'd like to add. It's going to be built by a Dubai company called Deyaar which has built or will build several supertalls in Dubai. They are currently designing and getting the financing for a tower that will be anywhere from 1,300 feet to 1,500 feet with an attached skybridge connected to a 900 feet tower. I can't give any more details away because there aren't any left to give. All I can say is that it won't be built in any downtown in America but in the more "uptown" of a city. Expect it to make major news 2 months from now.

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: IDS2 It won't look any better in Toronto, which has about 20 supertall buildings, all about 1000 feet of less. The CN Tower would look silly next to the spire anyway, since the CN is already a centerpiece and would be one of two...the Spire will look great in Chicago IMO, but that's just me.quote>

Erm... Toronto has exactly zero supertalls. The tallest building in the city is 327 feet tall, not even a third of supertall height (The CN Tower doesn't count since it's technically not a building).

...also, a supertall is at least 1000 feet. "about 1000 feet or less" doesn't describe a collection of supertalls.

[Misterquicks 4]

Tallest Building in Toronto currently is First Canadian Place at 1165 feet, including spire so they do have one other than the CN Tower that would be classified as a "supertall"

[Shingure 56]

My Home City of Philly has one proposed that is over 1000ft. The American Commerce Center.

It will be 1500ft ....Though it only has 63 floors.

I highly doubt that it will be built...Philly isn't ready for it... 

And Certainly commerce isn't ready to set much of a foot in Philly yet

I think it will be built by 2020. But there many floating around

Saying between 2012 and 2015.

[Godzillaman 21]

Originally posted by: Misterquicks Tallest Building in Toronto currently is First Canadian Place at 1165 feet, including spire so they do have one other than the CN Tower that would be classified as a "supertall"quote>

Actually, if a supertall is classified as 1000 feet or taller, the FCP isn't a supertall. It would only be classed as one if the antenna was included in the measure...

[confused04 14]

Originally posted by: Duke87

Originally posted by: IDS2 It won't look any better in Toronto, which has about 20 supertall buildings, all about 1000 feet of less. The CN Tower would look silly next to the spire anyway, since the CN is already a centerpiece and would be one of two...the Spire will look great in Chicago IMO, but that's just me.quote>

Erm... Toronto has exactly zero supertalls. The tallest building in the city is 327 feet tall, not even a third of supertall height (The CN Tower doesn't count since it's technically not a building).

...also, a supertall is at least 1000 feet. "about 1000 feet or less" doesn't describe a collection of supertalls.quote>

Just wanted to point out that Emporis has broke

All towers above 100 meters (at least in the US) have disappeared... They no longer exist. Quick, check outside your windows!...

Yea, Toronto does have buildings over 327 feet (thats approximately 100 meters is). So just to warn everyone. For the time being you're gonna have to use something else.

[jglei701 8]

Originally posted by: un1 lol.. The Chicago Spire will stick out like a sore thumb. Not only is it taller than the rest of Chicago it has the strangest design ever. I personally think it would fit better in or Toronto due to the fact that there is already taller towers than the current tallest in Chicago that is in Toronto. I mean it'll be taller than the CN Tower so it should be near the CN Tower so Chicago doesn't look any different in height.

-un1quote>

The Spire is not going to stick out like a sore thumb.  One of Chicago's biggest assets is Lake Michigan.  This tower is being built really close to the lake... and it has a very, very slim profile.  The most common views of the city are going to be coming from the west, south, north, or NW, SW, etc.  Looking from the west, the Sears tower is currently the showcase.  It is set out away from the lake and is most easily seen from the west, north or south (or NW or SW).  The John Hancock is also very evident, as it is set a bit closer to the lake, but not a lot... it is one of the showcases coming from the north.  The Aon is seen from the south the best, or from the Lake, and the soon-to-be-topped-off Trump tower has some great views from all angles as well. 

The Spire is going to be set back very close the lake.  Now, it's going to be considerably taller than the Sears (158 meters), but it won't appear THAT much taller because 1) the profile is much slimmer and 2) it's set back about a mile (about the same distance that the Aon is from the Sears).  Now, if you're relatively close, there will likely be a huge difference... the same as if you look straight up at a building vs. from far away... however big it looks when you're 20 miles away, it always looks bigger when you're sizing it up from the street!  Up close, the Spire will shoot over the top of the Sears pretty obviously.  But, from afar, it may be a different viewpoint.  Interestingly, from certain views, like down the Chicago River or from certain views from the west like the top of the hill in Glen Ellyn that looks over 355 on Roosevelt Rd and the Kennedy Expressway from various views, but especially far ones, like near O'Hare, the Trump and the Spire may be in line with each other, as they are only a bit over a half mile apart, and pretty much directly in line with each other in East-West orientation.  That won't affect any comparisons to the Sears... but it affects the views of the skyline, nonetheless.

No, the Spire isn't going to stick out like a sore thumb... the Spire is going to slimly stretch towards the heavens and be a GREAT showcase piece!

This is the most stark view, if you will, and likely the most photographed, as it will be the showpiece for views from the lake.  Currently, a lot of lake views are shot from a bit farther south, looking northwest, with the Michigan Avenue street wall rising above Grant Park to the west, with signature skyscrapers to the north on Randolph, such as the Aon, Prudential 2, Smurfit-Stone, with the Sears above the Michigan Ave streetwall and now the trump stretching above.  Shots like this:

Now, this shot was showcasing the Trump, as it was in the Trump Tower construction page at SkyScraper City... but lots of shots like this are available elsewhere on the internet.

I mean, really, it's all about perspective.  What perspective are you looking from?  Here's a view of Chicago from the north shore.  The prominent building is the John Hancock, on the left,  with the Sears on the right evident and the Trump starting to poke up there, but the Trump and the Sears are not the showcase of the pic (interestingly here, you can tell that the Sears is probably taller here... but it isn't totally evident from this vantage point).  The Aon doesn't even look close to the same height as the Hancock (the Aon here appears to be just a lower tier of the Hancock building, to the immediate left).

Here's a similar view pre-Trump:

So, it's all perspective.

And finally, here's a render with the Spire and the Trump.  It is that view from the lake, which will be shown in pictures, but MOST people won't see themselves unless they've got a boat:

EDIT:

Btw... here's my favorite view of the Trump, looking down Wabash St. from the north:

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: confused04

Originally posted by: Duke87

Originally posted by: IDS2 It won't look any better in Toronto, which has about 20 supertall buildings, all about 1000 feet of less. The CN Tower would look silly next to the spire anyway, since the CN is already a centerpiece and would be one of two...the Spire will look great in Chicago IMO, but that's just me.quote>

Erm... Toronto has exactly zero supertalls. The tallest building in the city is 327 feet tall, not even a third of supertall height (The CN Tower doesn't count since it's technically not a building).

...also, a supertall is at least 1000 feet. "about 1000 feet or less" doesn't describe a collection of supertalls.quote>

Just wanted to point out that Emporis has broke

All towers above 100 meters (at least in the US) have disappeared... They no longer exist. Quick, check outside your windows!...

Yea, Toronto does have buildings over 327 feet (thats approximately 100 meters is). So just to warn everyone. For the time being you're gonna have to use something else.quote>

Huh. Weird. Anyways, it's working again now.

Still no supertalls, though. 978 feet isn't quite tall enough to qualify.

[Simtastico 0]

that trump building is actually really cool.. seems to fit in well the with rest of the city. It is not what I would expect from Trump, guess he didn't design it though

Skyline is also awesome by the way, I am not a fan of the spire but I have to say that it will only improve the skyline for the better.. go chicago!

[patriots_1228 51]

hmmm thats weird. boston emporis isn't broke, it lists up to 241 m, our tallest

[confused04 14]

Originally posted by: patriots_1228 hmmm thats weird. boston emporis isn't broke, it lists up to 241 m, our tallestquote>

They have been slowly restoring the site. Minneapolis was fixed two nights ago after saying that our tallest building was 100 m yet if you click on the pic of that building, you can see towers behind it that are clearly taller (237 m). Even worse, the building was part of a complex and the other tower was actually the main tower at I believe 150 m or so. Still, if you see a city at 100 m, for the time being, check another site to verify.

[Micah 16]

Originally posted by: Micah

Minneapolis has rumors of supertalls, naturally the market is only going to support one supertall. This is not all on one site (For Minneapolitans, its the TCF Bank Site, Hennepin between 10th and 11th , and Marquette between 9th and 10th). The Nicollet site (200 m proposed tower thats considered to be just about dead) might get a commercial element to push this to supertall. One of these rumors has people scratching their heads because they claim its the biggest project since the 60's (our largest office/retail/tower complex, the IDS Tower was built in 1973). So we don't exactly know what they mean to build the largest project since the 60s since the largest was in the 70's! The only thing that some people have thought of was the destruction of the Gateway district which destroyed much of downtown Minneapolis. Perhaps the biggest factor is what Target decides to do with with its lease in another local tower. If it decides to consolidate, a supertall is likely (although it'd be called Target Tower, which would almost be asking for it). I'll post if and when the supetall is announced... supposedly soon. quote>

Sounds great! We need more supertalls wherever we can get them. I actually believe growing higher up is better than growing wider out.

There's another supertall in the works which I'd like to add. It's going to be built by a Dubai company called Deyaar which has built or will build several supertalls in Dubai. They are currently designing and getting the financing for a tower that will be anywhere from 1,300 feet to 1,500 feet with an attached skybridge connected to a 900 feet tower. I can't give any more details away because there aren't any left to give. All I can say is that it won't be built in any downtown in America but in the more "uptown" of a city. Expect it to make major news 2 months from now.quote>

 

Great! Looks like someone spoiled my fun over at SSP! Well, the secret is out. The location is Houston. 

Also looks like this thread and many others will need a clean up of big images.