Miami's Skyline Is Now Taller Than Houston's

[citykid09]

Miami's skyline is now taller than Houston's

Houston's skyline moves down to 4th tallest in US

http://homepages.ipact.nl/~egram/skylines.html

Has Houston lost it's power? All of these years while other US and forigen cities built up and built rail transit, Houston was building more sprawling shopping centers, freeway and tollroads, etc. Now that the city has finnally caught on to the stuff other cities have been doing, rail has become to expensive for the city to have a quality rail and the building boom that the rest of the nation had is now over. It just seems like Houston has been doing stuff backwards latley. I honestly miss the booming days of Mayor Lee Brown when it seemed that everything was going right.

Now I know you all will gang up and say that Miami beating Houston is not important, but I say it is for many reasons that I don't have the time to explain. And I know that the city has a few projects going up now, but its not at the speed that I would like to see. And as the buildings continue to go up in Miami Houston will fall further and further down the list.

[TheNiche]

I honestly miss the booming days of Mayor Lee Brown when it seemed that everything was going right.

Bwahahahahaha!

Wow. I mean... The only way I could ever have forseen a sentence like that written was if it were produced by a thousand monkeys on a thousand typewriters for a thousand years.

[TheNiche]

Good god, I just can't stop laughing!

[shinoda28107]

Um....not really. Miami has been ahead of Houston on that list for years. It ranks how impressive the skyline is adding in factors such as breadth and length besides height.

Houston will be ahead of Miami in terms of "tallness" for at least a 8 more years. The proposals Miami are seeing are very impressive and I do expect for them to pass us up....but not so soon.

A bit of info....Miami has only two completed structures over 200 meters with five more under construction.

Houston has 15 skyscrapers over 200 meters tall (including two over 300 meters) with one more under construction.

Miami's construction boom is very impressive...but they have yet to match the Houston of the 70's and 80's

[C2H]

^^^ What about Houston's proposals? Mainplace, Discovery Tower, etc. Are you sure that list doesn't go by just height? How do you know?

[KimberlySayWhat]

I thought Nashville had already taken Houston's spot.

[houstonmacbro]

...while other US and foreign cities built up and built rail transit, Houston was building more sprawling shopping centers, freeway and toll roads, etc.

That's funny ... sad ... and true.

[Houston19514]

The score of a city is equal to the sum of all building heights (in m, without spires) after substraction of the minimum of 90m/295ft for each building. Freestanding towers (i.e. thin structures with no floors over most of their height) count for half their height.

[Trae]

Miami's skyline is now taller than Houston's

Houston's skyline moves down to 4th tallest in US

http://homepages.ipact.nl/~egram/skylines.html

Has Houston lost it's power? All of these years while other US and forigen cities built up and built rail transit, Houston was building more sprawling shopping centers, freeway and tollroads, etc. Now that the city has finnally caught on to the stuff other cities have been doing, rail has become to expensive for the city to have a quality rail and the building boom that the rest of the nation had is now over. It just seems like Houston has been doing stuff backwards latley. I honestly miss the booming days of Mayor Lee Brown when it seemed that everything was going right.

Now I know you all will gang up and say that Miami beating Houston is not important, but I say it is for many reasons that I don't have the time to explain. And I know that the city has a few projects going up now, but its not at the speed that I would like to see. And as the buildings continue to go up in Miami Houston will fall further and further down the list.

Get out of here until you know what you are talking about.

Every city was building shopping centers, freeways, and toll roads. Houston only built on toll road anyway (Westpark). There were always developments in the city, and railw as delayed by the oil-folks (the majority wanted it).

[Mark F. Barnes]

We need to roll the language down a notch do we not?

Also just consider the source and ignore it. The entire original post was meant to do exactly as it did, Stir up crap and Houstonians! Mission accomplished.

[Guest danax]

It's kinda like me telling you that I am more important because I have a super long schlong.

I think there's a subtle connection between the two possibly, which makes one ponder whether women, and some men, are attracted to living in cities which have large skycrapers. Are Galleria area condos filled with an unbalanced number of females, ie; is the Williams Tower a chick magnet?

The huge buildings obviously create pride amongst some citizens, and that's fine, but appreciation for impressive architectural heights shouldn't turn into the municipal version of the NFL; our team's the greatest and yours blows...and even with that outlook Houston has nothing to be ashamed of, and the real beauty lies below the skyline anyway.

All cities are works of art. I appreciate each unique skyline.

[VelvetJ]

Get the #!*& here until you think about what you post.

Every city was building shopping centers, freeways, and toll roads. Houston only built on toll road anyway (Westpark). There were always developments in the city, and railw as delayed by the oil-folks (the majority wanted it).

Trae, I think you missed his point. I interpreted those words as meaning sprawling shopping centers, freeways, etc., seemed to have been the main focus in Houston, while building up and building rail transit got a bit more attention in certain other cities. For example, while Houston was replacing rail tracks on Westpark and the Katy Freeway with more roads and toll roads, other cities were placing trains on their tracks. Also, IMO Houston joined the mixed-use trend later than some of it's counterparts, contrary to the belief of some, and when those mixed-use developments were being finished, they seemed to just be hitting the drawing boards in Houston. IMO, Houstonians are finally just now starting to understand how rail could be beneficial to the city (in fact, I'm willing to bet if the people could vote on whether the majority of our transportation dollars today should be spent on rail out to the suburbs instead of NEW toll roads, rail would win). Yet, the majority of transportation money for the future is going to more roads for more cars instead of the majority of it going toward mass transit making way for development and housing to compliment the mass transit. Our local leaders seem to think cheaper gas, fewer people, and cleaner air for Houston is in our immediate future.

I've said many times on this board that Houston always seem to be a step behind everyone else. We seem to "get it" after everyone else has figured it out or done it. There was a time when we were in the family of trend setters. The world saw Houston and saw the future. That is no more. The tone of the city has changed. And while I think that mediocre/conservative/quality isn't important because it saves money/non-visionary lock on the city is breaking down, it is still very much here.

Actually, I really don't care if Miami is taller, bigger, or whatever because like it has been mentioned already, half of those buildings are sitting empty. I will admit the competition in me would probably care a little if we were speaking of Dallas or Atlanta, but Miami......that is totally off of my radar.

[MidtownCoog]

The problem is the people who built the "Houston of The Future" are not the same people who live here today.

As far as Super Talls go, think of the big ones. Some are in the desert built by slaves towering of tribes of nomads, while others tower over oppressed slum dwellers.

If having a big one makes you "cool", maybe I'll pass.

[Mister X]

Houston joined the mixed-use trend later than some of it's counterparts, contrary to the belief of some, and when those mixed-use developments were being finished, they seemed to just be hitting the drawing boards in Houston.

What difference does it make? Are we in a race to see which city builds mixed-use buildings first? In 10 or 20 years will anyone care that other cities started the mixed-use trend earlier than Houston? If anyone still cares about it (they didn't 10 or 20 years ago) they will probably be more concerned with the quality. Is shopping in a cool urban environment in the drizzle actually more enjoyable or more satisfying than parking in a parking garage and shopping in a temperature and weather controlled environment? Sometimes it is better to wait and let others work out the bugs on 'trendy' stuff.

Personally, I can't wait for the citizens of Houston to have those choices, but once places like West Ave, Regency Square, BLVD place, Highland Village, Westcreek, High Street, and Sonoma are built, I don't think anyone is ever going to care that Houston started building them 10 years later than other cities. Hell, most normal people don't care now or will ever care.

Even if the city had gotten rail off the ground sooner, all that buildup and sprawl on the outskirts was going to come anyway. I'm glad the city was preparing for the future unstopable growth of the suburbs. If Houston had a world class mass transit system in place today (of coarse that can only mean rail, as all other forms of public transportation are useless - I guess), the majority of the newcomers would still be more interested in owning a less expensive house in the burbs than living on top of one another in the city. If the newcomers wanted that they would have moved to Chicago, NYC, or SF instead. Like it or not, people like the burbs here. It's good that the city puts the money where it will do the most good for the citizens, even if that means 20 miles from the center of downtown. And BTW, at the present time, they ARE planning to have 6 rail lines running by 2012. HELLO?! It's not like there isn't a future for rail in Houston.

Has Houston lost it's power? What a retarded question. Go look at the cranes at the TMC, Downtown, Uptown, and along I-10. If that doesn't answer your question why not pull up some population growth figures off the internet. Or look at some economic forecast. Or do something besides form an opinion of the state of Houston by something a little more solid than a website called 'the world's best skylines'. What is that anyway?...some schmo's homemade website?

There's always room for improvement, but Houston is doing fine right now - no matter what quick list you Debbie Downers base your opinions on.

[Gary]

Has Houston lost it's power? What a retarded question. Go look at the cranes at the TMC, Downtown, Uptown, and along I-10. If that doesn't answer your question why not pull up some population growth figures off the internet. Or look at some economic forecast. Or do something besides form an opinion of the state of Houston by something a little more solid than a website called 'the world's best skylines'. What is that anyway?...some schmo's homemade website?

There's always room for improvement, but Houston is doing fine right now - no matter what quick list you Debbie Downers base your opinions on.

Good post. Personally i'm sick of this comparison stuff, and yes I've been involved with it, but this is becoming ludicrous. Houston is doing wonderfully and I'm proud to live here.

[CDeb]

in fact, I'm willing to bet if the people could vote on whether the majority of our transportation dollars today should be spent on rail out to the suburbs instead of NEW toll roads, rail would win.

If you believe that, then you need to get out more.

[Montrose1100]

If the newcomers wanted that they would have moved to Chicago, NYC, or SF instead. Like it or not, people like the burbs here.

Well I don't think people move here just to live in the suburbs. All those cities has suburbs too. I think 80% of why people move here is because of jobs.

[TheNiche]

Well I don't think people move here just to live in the suburbs. All those cities has suburbs too. I think 80% of why people move here is because of jobs.

For most households, that Houston physically has suburbs is pretty much irrelevent; what is important than that our suburbs are better than most in terms of quality of life.

And to the typical household, that means, 1) financially attainable, 2) good schools, and 3) short commute. And because the majority of our jobs are located in the suburbs, and because there are varied price points in all parts of our suburban landscape, the opportunity to access the 'American Dream' is really much better here than in most large cities.

It also factors into site selection for corporate relocation. One anecdote: Oliver Luck (manager of the Dynamo) once gave a speech in which he explained that the initial reaction of the soccer players to Houston was that it was a bit boring compared to California's Bay Area; "...and then they discovered Pearland!"

[lockmat]

It also factors into site selection for corporate relocation. One anecdote: Oliver Luck (manager of the Dynamo) once gave a speech in which he explained that the initial reaction of the soccer players to Houston was that it was a bit boring compared to California's Bay Area; "...and then they discovered Pearland!"

I don't get it.

What am I supposed to know about Pearland? That it's close to the city, nice, relatively cheap houses?

[TheNiche]

I don't get it.

What am I supposed to know about Pearland? That it's close to the city, nice, relatively cheap houses?

Yep, that it's an archetypal suburb that we see as ho-hum, but that a California or Northeastern transplant on a modest income (and most soccer players don't make all that much, yet) sees as the greatest thing ever. They could never have afforded this lifestyle back there. They're living like millionaires.

[Mister X]

Well I don't think people move here just to live in the suburbs. All those cities has suburbs too. I think 80% of why people move here is because of jobs.

Agreed. I was just defending the idea of building roads and making some attempts to prepare for the growth of the suburbs. No matter how much we all want to see Houston develop a great rail system and dense urban core tomorrow, the city and state can not neglect the issues that affect where the vast majority of the people are today - the burbs. I don't think that the majority of people in the Houston suburbs would favor eliminating money going towards hundreds of miles of better roads for a few miles of rail. Both are needed. It's all about choices. But, if the toll roads come first thats fine by me. I would hate to see the burbs not get toll roads at all because all the money went towards rail (or vice versa).

People come here for the jobs, yes, but Houston is largely a suburban city today and will almost certainly forever remain one (at least in our lifetimes). Anyone that has a real problem with it, or Houston's lack of dense inner city neighborhoods is really doing a disservice to themselves by moving or staying here. There are great cities that already have the whole urban package right now. It seems unrealisic and unfair to move to a place like Houston or Dallas and complain that it is just a big suburb and expect it to grow into Chicago overnight. I say - go to Chicago now if you can't handle living in a giant suburban community with a tiny urban center. It would be just as silly as moving to Manhattan and then start complaining that there are not enough open spaces, ranch style homes or big back yards. Duh, go find someplace that does, genius! - life is too short. No job is worth staying in a city where you can not be happy.

That's exactly why I moved to San Francisco a decade ago. I couldn't wait my entire life for Houston to grow into San Francisco and I wanted to experience living in a "real city" as they say. Of coarse, I moved back to Texas once I realized that all that urban coolness isn't worth the trouble in the long run (I'll give you the details some other time), and that my own personal quality of life was actually better in Houston when all was said and done and I added up the pluses and the minuses.

It would be the greatest thing in the world if midtown developed into a quality dense urban environment some day, and the people of Houston had a real choice between living a quality existance in the suburbs OR one in a walkable, mixed use building environment in the middle of the city - like they do in Chicago. But I don't think it would be a good idea for the price of that to come at the expense of neglecting the needs of the people who live in the burbs today. In other words - I want my toll roads! They can't build the Grand Parkway soon enuf for me, baby.

[The Great Hizzy!]

Every week there's a post with a flimsy, crybaby premise that sparks a discussion that's essentially a revised (but weakly vailed) version of the redundant "why isn't Houston like Chicago, Boston, etc" discussion.

Detroit used to be like "Chicago, Boston, etc..." so suck it up.

[lockmat]

Every week there's a post with a flimsy, crybaby premise that sparks a discussion that's essentially a revised (but weakly vailed) version of the redundant "why isn't Houston like Chicago, Boston, etc" discussion.

Detroit used to be like "Chicago, Boston, etc..." so suck it up.

Personally, I loved Houston before I knew the difference in lifestyles between dense and sprawled living. Although now I prefer, at least I think, to live in a more dense place, I still love this place.

[Houston19514]

Also, IMO Houston joined the mixed-use trend later than some of it's counterparts, contrary to the belief of some, and when those mixed-use developments were being finished, they seemed to just be hitting the drawing boards in Houston.

Could you (or anyone else) provide us with a dozen or so examples of the mixed-use developments that are apparently scattered all about the country, in every city except for Houston? I have questioned people about this oft-heard refrain on previous occasions, and the examples provided have been sparse, to say the least (consisting pretty much of Mockingbird Station).

[Houston19514]

Could you (or anyone else) provide us with a dozen or so examples of the mixed-use developments that are apparently scattered all about the country, in every city except for Houston? I have questioned people about this oft-heard refrain on previous occasions, and the examples provided have been sparse, to say the least (consisting pretty much of Mockingbird Station).

I can't say that I'm surprised that nobody came up with a dozen examples of the mixed-used developments that are allegedly scattered all about the country, in ever city except for Houston (as alleged by VelvetJ and Nancy Sarnoff, among others), but not even one or two, other than Mockingbird Station? Is this nothing more than another one of those ridiculous myths spun by Houston's relentless doomsayers and negative nancies?

[Mister X]

I can't say that I'm surprised that nobody came up with a dozen examples of the mixed-used developments that are allegedly scattered all about the country, in ever city except for Houston (as alleged by VelvetJ and Nancy Sarnoff, among others), but not even one or two, other than Mockingbird Station? Is this nothing more than another one of those ridiculous myths spun by Houston's relentless doomsayers and negative nancies?

damn straight!