Show us some pictures of suburban skylines!
please be sure to include the main city that the suburb is off from.

Bloomington, South of Minneapolis:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7a/Bloomingtonskyline.jpg
(I know its not much, bt what do you expect from a suburb?)

Covington, south of Cincinnati

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/80/Picture_127CovSky08.jpg

Clayton, west of Saint Louis:

http://www.urban-photos.com/gallery/albums/city_galleries/stlouis/saintlouis_90_8681.jpg

It looks even cooler today, since a new 21-story tower has just been built and is not even a blip in this pic.

Wow, Jive beat me to it! *Mods, please delete*

evanston, IL - by far the best skyline in suburban chicagoland.

http://img188.imageshack.us/img188/7101/58355970.jpg
Andy Tucker/ flickr (http://www.flickr.com/photos/mspdude/3989188948/)


and if the economy should ever improve, there is an approved proposal for a new 35 floor/409' tall centerpiece tower planned to go right in the heart of the skyline:

existing
http://img5.imageshack.us/img5/9392/708churchexisting.jpg

proposed
http://img13.imageshack.us/img13/7809/708church.jpg

That'd be a very nice addition to the Evanston skyline!

It just dawned on me that every suburb represented here ends with 'ton.'

Bloomington
Covington
Clayton
Evanston

Well shit!

The best part of the Bloomington "skyline" is really on the other end from that pic, near 100 and 494. You can see some of the tallest buildings in the distance. There are around 10 buildings of 10 storeys or taller immediately surrounding that intersection, tallest being 25...then a mile down the road at France ave there are are 6 or 7 more 10 plus floor buildings.

I always thought Schaumburg had a pretty cool one.

I always thought Schaumburg had a pretty cool one.

meh. schaumburg does have a dozen or so highrise buildings, but they're all spread out from each other upon one of the most autocentrically disgusting sprawl-burban landscapes in our nation, coming nowhere close to approching any kind of urban cohesion that i would consider necessary for the formation of a "skyline".

this is the best schaumburg skyline pic i could find on the web, and believe me, it doesn't even look anywhere close to this "dense" in real life.

http://schaumburgofficespace.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/cropped-schaumburg_skyline1.jpg

^^ I agree but just for comparison purposes.

http://lh6.ggpht.com/_gjWm_LGbQ5E/SWOWy0f_nUI/AAAAAAAAAMs/nbIWPHb0a_E/Schaumburg+Skyline.jpg

I know what a blossoming city there.

BTW, for those wondering what lies below tree level, thinking there may be a visible street life that connects these buildings....no sadly it's just parking lots and a giant mall filling that space.

The best part of the Bloomington "skyline" is really on the other end from that pic, near 100 and 494. You can see some of the tallest buildings in the distance. There are around 10 buildings of 10 storeys or taller immediately surrounding that intersection, tallest being 25...then a mile down the road at France ave there are are 6 or 7 more 10 plus floor buildings.

do you know a good vantage point to take a picture from? I can try to get out there so I can post a better pic on here.

hmmm, I would say from highland park, across the lake from Normandale lakes office park. That is probably the only place you could get pics, unless you go on the 77th street overpass on 100.

like over by the ski jump? I wonder if i can get up on it...

Covington, south of Cincinnati

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/80/Picture_127CovSky08.jpg

I like those buildings alot. You know, sometimes suburban areas have some neat ones that I wonder, why downtown cannot get 1 or 2 cool newer buildings as well. Not really saying that for Cinci, but a few other downtowns I know!

meh. schaumburg does have a dozen or so highrise buildings, but they're all spread out from each other upon one of the most autocentrically disgusting sprawl-burban landscapes in our nation, coming nowhere close to approching any kind of urban cohesion that i would consider necessary for the formation of a "skyline".

this is the best schaumburg skyline pic i could find on the web, and believe me, it doesn't even look anywhere close to this "dense" in real life.

http://schaumburgofficespace.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/cropped-schaumburg_skyline1.jpg

Reminds me of Indy's "only" suburban skyline, Keystone at the Crossing. Right on the border between Indy and Carmel. It too is a parking lot with a mall

Question for the Milwaukeeans out there - Which suburb do you believe has the best downtown? Milwaukee has few suburban skylines, but it makes up for it with quality urban fabric in many of its suburbs. Would Shorewood have the best downtown? What about Waukesha? Racine has a quality downtown but it is probably too disconnected from the city to be considered a suburb in my opinion. What do you think?

I judge a downtown by how densely it is built and how walkable and approachable it is as a pedestrian. I would put Shorewood up there, also downtown Waukesha, downtown Wauwatosa, Whitefish Bay and, lest it not be forgotten, downtown West Allis (it has its problems but it really displays some true identity as an urban suburban core).
They say downtown Cedarburg is also pretty nice, but I haven't spent enough time there to really judge one way or another. I do think that downtown Pewaukee, albeit quite small, is really very well situated -- it was ranked the number 1 most livable suburb in America recently I think even, largely because it has the advantages of many suburbs but still has the character of a centralised town with a walkable downtown.

I guess Waukesha has a bit of a "skyline", but since the city is in such a hilly, rolling area (unlike a lot of the flat areas above), it's not entirely visible all from one angle...

http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a81/Maximilian77/downtownwaukesha.jpg


probably the most "skyliney" suburb of Milwaukee is Wauwatosa... but, just like the ones above, the tall buildings that make up the skyline aren't really part of a compact downtown, but rather taller-than average office buildings and, in the case of Wauwatosa, medical buildings from Froedert, the Medical College of Wisconsin, Children's Hospital, etc.

A few of Detroit's

Troy

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3399/3444086199_beb51f6e7e_b.jpg
dt10111 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/dt10111/3444086199/sizes/l/)

Southfield (can't seem to find any more comprehensive shots)

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2487/4031471991_2541626131_o.jpg
mbenyas (http://www.flickr.com/photos/mbenyas/4031471991/sizes/o/in/set-72157622632457520/)

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/26/37329388_d2990a57a7_o.jpg
link (http://www.flickr.com/photos/macwagen/37329388/sizes/o/)

Southfield (can't seem to find any more comprehensive shots)



this one is pretty good, i think it gets most of the tallest buildings in Southfield:

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/82/237604166_952cb39d94.jpg?v=0

and for those curious about where the tallest suburban buildings are in the midwest, here's a list i compiled awhile ago. for the purposes of this list, "suburban" means anywhere within a midwestern MSA that is outside of the the city limits of the central city (or the two central cities in the case of minneapolis-st. paul).



Midwest suburban buildings 250' and taller:


418'/31 floors - Oak Brook Terrace Tower, Oak Brook Terrace, IL (chicago)
409'/35 floors - 708 Church Street, Evanston, IL - APPROVED (chicago)
409'/30 floors - The Plaza in Clayton, Clayton, MO (st. louis)
402'/32 floors - 3000 Town Center, Southfield, MI (detroit)
395'/28 floors - 1000 Town Center, Southfield, MI (detroit)
395'/26 floors - The Gallagher Center, Itasca, IL (chicago)
381'/24 floors - 8500 Tower, Bloomington, MN (twin cities)
370'/28 floors - 2000 Town Center, Southfield, MI (detroit)
346'/25 floors - National City Center, Troy, MI (detroit)
331'/25 floors - American Center, Southfield, MI (detroit)
328'/33 floors - 5000 Town Center, Southfield, MI (detroit)
326'/23 floors - University Club Tower, Richmond Heights, MO (st. louis)
312'/24 floors - The Sevens Building, Clayton, MO (st. louis)
309'/23 floors - Pirre Laclede Center II, Clayton, MO (st. louis)
308'/19 floors - RiverCenter I, Covington, KY (cincinnati)
305'/25 floors - Ameristar St. Charles Hotel, St. Charels, MO (st. louis)
300'/24 floors - Wells Fargo Plaza, Bloomington, MN (twin cities)
299'/27 floors - Trianon Condos, Clayton, MO - ON HOLD (st. louis)
293'/21 floors - The Ascent, Covington, KY (cincinnati)
292'/17 floors - RiverCenter II, Covington, KY (cincinnati)
277'/22 floors - Chase Building, Evanston, IL (chicago)
276'/25 floors - Sherman Plaza, Evanston, IL (chicago)
275'/19 floors - Interco Corp. Tower, Clayton, MO (st. louis)
270'/20 floors - 4000 Town Center, Southfield, MI (detroit)
270'/20 floors - Zurich Towers 1, Schaumburg, IL (chicago)
270'/20 floors - Zurich Towers 2, Schaumburg, IL (chicago)
266'/23 floors - Clayton on the Park, Clayton MO (st. louis)
266'/19 floors - Esplanade 1, Downers Grove, IL (chicago)
265'/28 floors - Optima Views, Evanston, IL (chicago)
264'/28 floors - Winton Place Apartments, Lakewood, OH (cleveland)
263'/21 floors - 425 Woodfield Corp. Center, Schaumburg, IL (chicago)
263'/18 floors - National City Center, Clayton, MO (st. louis)
263'/16 floors - 601 Carlson Parkway, Minnetonka, MN (twin cities)
263'/16 floors - 701 Carlson Parkway, Minnetonka, MN (twin cities)
262'/24 floors - Park Tower, Clayton, MO (st. louis)
262'/17 floors - Maryland Walk, Clayton, MO (st. louis)
260'/29 floors - 9 Mile Tower, St. Clair Shores, MI (detroit)
256'/18 floors - Travelers Tower, Southfield, MI (detroit)
253'/21 floors - One Town Square, Southfield, MI (detroit)



if i've made any mistakes or omissions, please correct them.

this one is pretty good, i think it gets most of the tallest buildings in Southfield:

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/82/237604166_952cb39d94.jpg?v=0

There are actually some other towers that would be situated roughly 180 degrees from the vantage point where this was taken. But everything in Southfield is built so sparsely that it would be hard to get them in one single shot.

There's also the American Center which is about 2.5 miles from the main cluster of the Town Center. I wonder if it's possible to get a skyline shot that includes the American Center.;)

Good work on that list, Steely.

Surprised 8500 and Wells Fargo in Bloomington are as high up as they are. I know that driving through the western burbs of Chicago, those buildings look considerably taller than anything in the suburbs here, and I understand suburban Detroit is much the same way...

this one is pretty good, i think it gets most of the tallest buildings in Southfield:

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/82/237604166_952cb39d94.jpg?v=0

I think that photo is by BarGal on Flickr, but she doesn't have it set where you can see the photos by sizes and thus I couldn't post it.

Yeah, that's the Town Center skyline. To the south of that (out of picture to the right) is the smaller Northland skyline, and then there are buildings out of picture to the left, too.

I know that driving through the western burbs of Chicago, those buildings look considerably taller than anything in the suburbs here.
i don't know why it would seem that way to you, as there are really only two suburban skyscrapers in chicagoland that stand out in the height department - oakbrook terrace tower & the gallagher center - everything else in suburban chicago is under 300' tall, unless of course that 400 footer in evanston ever gets built.

It just dawned on me that every suburb represented here ends with 'ton.'

Bloomington
Covington
Clayton
Evanston

Well shit!

well i guess the names of most suburbs are just as uncreative (is that a word?) as most of their architecture

well i guess the names of most suburbs are just as uncreative (is that a word?) as most of their architecture

that may generally apply to forgettable sprawl-burban shitholes like schaumburg, but it most definitely doesn't apply to a real city like evanston.

to get an idea of evanston's architecture and urban fabric, check out the following photothreads from SSP. this is hardly generic, uncreative suburbia we're talkng about here. evanston is a small city in its own right that's been organically developing in a traditionally urban fashion for the past 150 years.

Evanston, IL - Chicago's fantastic northern neighbor (http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=169362&highlight=evanston)

Evanston, IL--Downtown (http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=173619&highlight=evanston)

EVANSTON, IL | Chicago's urban suburb (http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=178172&highlight=evanston)

that may generally apply to forgettable sprawl-burban shitholes like schaumburg, but it most definitely doesn't apply to a real city like evanston.

to get an idea of evanston's architecture and urban fabric, check out the following photothreads from SSP. this is hardly generic, uncreative suburbia we're talkng about here. evanston is a small city in its own right that's been organically developing in a traditionally urban fashion for the past 150 years.

Evanston, IL - Chicago's fantastic northern neighbor (http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=169362&highlight=evanston)

Evanston, IL--Downtown (http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=173619&highlight=evanston)

EVANSTON, IL | Chicago's urban suburb (http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=178172&highlight=evanston)
i wasnt really talking about most of these, just suburbs in general

i wasnt really talking about most of these, just suburbs in general

ahhh, got it.

and looking at the list of those 4 places again (Bloomington, Covington, Clayton, Evanston), Bloomington is the only one that fits the mold of stereotypical post-war suburbia.

i don't know why it would seem that way to you, as there are really only two suburban skyscrapers in chicagoland that stand out in the height department - oakbrook terrace tower & the gallagher center - everything else in suburban chicago is under 300' tall, unless of course that 400 footer in evanston ever gets built.

I don't know....Schaumburg has always sort of impressed me more than Bloomington. I don't know how to explain it....could be the vantage point, could be a familiarity vs. exoticism thing....could be about density, vs. height. Might just be irrational? :)

Not as familiar with Evanston, though, but your pics certainly make it look good...

I don't know....Schaumburg has always sort of impressed me more than Bloomington.

:lol: that's awesome. rarely have i ever heard someone on an urban enthusiast web forum like this claim to be impressed on any level with schuamburg (derisively known as "scum-burg" ;) ). i often jokingly refer to it as "the most poorly planned place on our planet", but the joke isn't very funny because it's not far off the mark.

and yeah, evanston is the shit. compared to a place like schaumburg, evanston feels like central paris.

I would agree...schaumberg is very strange...aside from the area immediately surrounding the mall, it's hard to even find a gas station among the oddly spaced office buildings. Seems to be layed out weird somehow.

looking at the list of those 4 places again (Bloomington, Covington, Clayton, Evanston), Bloomington is the only one that fits the mold of stereotypical post-war suburbia.

...complete with a supermall!

:lol: that's awesome. rarely have i ever heard someone on an urban enthusiast web forum like this claim to be impressed on any level with schuamburg (derisively known as "scum-burg" ;) ). i often jokingly refer to it as "the most poorly planned place on our planet", but the joke isn't very funny because it's not far off the mark.

and yeah, evanston is the shit. compared to a place like schaumburg, evanston feels like central paris.

lol. Well, I don't know if I've ever actually driven around Schaumburg...just through it going into town on the highway. And I do think it seems structurally denser than Bloomington. Anything else, I can't really vouch for...

and for those curious about where the tallest suburban buildings are in the midwest, here's a list i compiled awhile ago. for the purposes of this list, "suburban" means anywhere within a midwestern MSA that is outside of the the city limits of the central city (or the two central cities in the case of minneapolis-st. paul).



Midwest suburban buildings 250' and taller:


418'/31 floors - Oak Brook Terrace Tower, Oak Brook Terrace, IL (chicago)
409'/35 floors - 708 Church Street, Evanston, IL - APPROVED (chicago)
409'/30 floors - The Plaza in Clayton, Clayton, MO (st. louis)
402'/32 floors - 3000 Town Center, Southfield, MI (detroit)
395'/28 floors - 1000 Town Center, Southfield, MI (detroit)
395'/26 floors - The Gallagher Center, Itasca, IL (chicago)
381'/24 floors - 8500 Tower, Bloomington, MN (twin cities)
370'/28 floors - 2000 Town Center, Southfield, MI (detroit)
346'/25 floors - National City Center, Troy, MI (detroit)
331'/25 floors - American Center, Southfield, MI (detroit)
328'/33 floors - 5000 Town Center, Southfield, MI (detroit)
326'/23 floors - University Club Tower, Richmond Heights, MO (st. louis)
312'/24 floors - The Sevens Building, Clayton, MO (st. louis)
309'/23 floors - Pirre Laclede Center II, Clayton, MO (st. louis)
308'/19 floors - RiverCenter I, Covington, KY (cincinnati)
305'/25 floors - Ameristar St. Charles Hotel, St. Charels, MO (st. louis)
300'/24 floors - Wells Fargo Plaza, Bloomington, MN (twin cities)
299'/27 floors - Trianon Condos, Clayton, MO - ON HOLD (st. louis)
293'/21 floors - The Ascent, Covington, KY (cincinnati)
292'/17 floors - RiverCenter II, Covington, KY (cincinnati)
277'/22 floors - Chase Building, Evanston, IL (chicago)
276'/25 floors - Sherman Plaza, Evanston, IL (chicago)
275'/19 floors - Interco Corp. Tower, Clayton, MO (st. louis)
270'/20 floors - 4000 Town Center, Southfield, MI (detroit)
270'/20 floors - Zurich Towers 1, Schaumburg, IL (chicago)
270'/20 floors - Zurich Towers 2, Schaumburg, IL (chicago)
266'/23 floors - Clayton on the Park, Clayton MO (st. louis)
266'/19 floors - Esplanade 1, Downers Grove, IL (chicago)
265'/28 floors - Optima Views, Evanston, IL (chicago)
264'/28 floors - Winton Place Apartments, Lakewood, OH (cleveland)
263'/21 floors - 425 Woodfield Corp. Center, Schaumburg, IL (chicago)
263'/18 floors - National City Center, Clayton, MO (st. louis)
263'/16 floors - 601 Carlson Parkway, Minnetonka, MN (twin cities)
263'/16 floors - 701 Carlson Parkway, Minnetonka, MN (twin cities)
262'/24 floors - Park Tower, Clayton, MO (st. louis)
262'/17 floors - Maryland Walk, Clayton, MO (st. louis)
260'/29 floors - 9 Mile Tower, St. Clair Shores, MI (detroit)
256'/18 floors - Travelers Tower, Southfield, MI (detroit)
253'/21 floors - One Town Square, Southfield, MI (detroit)



if i've made any mistakes or omissions, please correct them.

That's a great list! I can tell you the stats for the St. Louis suburban buildings are accurate.
One might suppose that suburban Chicago would have the most tall suburban buildings in the Midwest, simply judging by the vast number of high rises in the Windy City proper. Not so. Suburban Detroit and St. Louis both have 10 buildings on the list, while suburban Chicago has just 9. And the suburb with the most buildings on the list? Another tie: Both Clayton, MO, and Southfield, MI, have 8 each. (If Clayton's proposed Trianon Condos is ever completed, that would break the tie.)
It's amazing to me that these suburbs have more impressive skylines than some much larger US cities (think San Jose, for example.)

Why would it at all be surprising to find that the downtowns most emptied out, and some of the more multi-nodular/multi-centered metros also have the most and some of the largest/tallest suburban office towers? It would seem to me that Southfield and Clayton make perfect sense given the histories of their metropolitan areas.

yeah, it really shouldn't be surprising that chicagoland doesn't dominate this list because, even though it is by far the largest metro in the midwest, chicago still has a bigger percentage of its total metro area office space located in downtown compared to the other major midwest metros. but even with that reality, the chicago market is just so huge that it still has several tall suburban buildings.

major midwest metros ranked by percentage of office space located downtown:

city - CBD office SF / total metro office SF = % downtown

chicago - 125,301,390 / 232,353,064 = 53.9%
milwaukee - 12,477,627 / 28,450,126 = 43.9%
minneapolis - 28,327,260 / 70,722,393 = 40.1%*
cincinnati - 12,481,490 / 37,478,026 = 33.3%
indianapolis - 14,709,070 / 46,910,163 = 31.4%
columbus - 12,289,446 / 40,984,243 = 30.0%
kansas city - 14,482,885 / 50,661,709 = 28.6%
st. louis - 14,738,308 / 53,223,498 = 27.7%
detroit - 12,354,069 / 69,330,923 = 17.8%
cleveland - data not available


source: http://www.grubb-ellis.com/

* the CBD SF number for minneapolis includes only downtown minneapolis and not st. paul's CBD, so its % figure is not directly comparable to the other cities on the list, unfortunately.

yeah, it really shouldn't be surprising that chicagoland doesn't dominate this list because, even though it is by far the largest metro in the midwest, chicago still has a bigger percentage of its total metro area office space located in downtown compared to the other major midwest metros. but even with that reality, the chicago market is just so huge that it still has several tall suburban buildings.

major midwest metros ranked by percentage of office space located downtown:

city - CBD office SF / total metro office SF = % downtown

chicago - 125,301,390 / 232,353,064 = 53.9%
milwaukee - 12,477,627 / 28,450,126 = 43.9%
minneapolis - 28,327,260 / 70,722,393 = 40.1%*
cincinnati - 12,481,490 / 37,478,026 = 33.3%
indianapolis - 14,709,070 / 46,910,163 = 31.4%
columbus - 12,289,446 / 40,984,243 = 30.0%
kansas city - 14,482,885 / 50,661,709 = 28.6%
st. louis - 14,738,308 / 53,223,498 = 27.7%
detroit - 12,354,069 / 69,330,923 = 17.8%
cleveland - data not available


source: http://www.grubb-ellis.com/

* the CBD SF number for minneapolis includes only downtown minneapolis and not st. paul's CBD, so its % figure is not directly comparable to the other cities on the list, unfortunately.

Hmmm....I wonder what our number would be in the Twin Cities with St. Paul
's downtown considered?

It wouldn't surprise me a bit if more than 13 or 14% of our metro's office space was in downtown St. Paul, although it would surprise me a bit if we were to pass Chicago on that list...

Hmmm....I wonder what our number would be in the Twin Cities with St. Paul
's downtown considered?

It wouldn't surprise me a bit if more than 13 or 14% of our metro's office space was in downtown St. Paul, although it would surprise me a bit if we were to pass Chicago on that list...

according to grub and ellis, if you combine all of minneapolis and st. paul (not necessarily just the CBDs, they're not terribly specific so it's hard to tell if they're always comparing apples to apples) you get 38,404,999 SF. so dividing that by 70,722,393 you get 54.3%.

the reason i didn't combine them on the first list is because if you make the argument that st. paul should be included as a second CBD for the twin cities, then the st. louisians could make a claim that clayton should be included as a second CBD for their metro because in a way, that's exactly what clayton has grown into being. so i just limited it to one CBD per metro, but because of the twin cities' wacky bi-polar nature, it does make direct apples to apples comparisons more challenging.

The number they gave for the Detroit CBD seems awfully low. Every other market report I've ever seen puts it at twice that size (25 million). They must have a crazy-strict view of what they consider to be downtown Detroit. 12 million seems like they only include the financial district, and "CBD North" must be any office space north of that but south of the Fisher.

I would assume that if they included the area stretching from the Riverfront to the actual train station, Detroit would have a lot more than 12 million sq. ft. Hell, the Ren Cen (2.2 million sq. ft.) accounts for nearly 20% of that 12 million.

according to grub and ellis, if you combine all of minneapolis and st. paul (not necessarily just the CBDs, they're not terribly specific so it's hard to tell if they're always comparing apples to apples) you get 38,404,999 SF. so dividing that by 70,722,393 you get 54.3%.

the reason i didn't combine them on the first list is because if you make the argument that st. paul should be included as a second CBD for the twin cities, then the st. louisians could make a claim that clayton should be included as a second CBD for their metro because in a way, that's exactly what clayton has grown into being. so i just limited it to one CBD per metro, but because of the twin cities' wacky bi-polar nature, it does make direct apples to apples comparisons more challenging.

well, from what I understand, Clayton is a suburb, while St Paul developed along with Minneapolis.

according to grub and ellis, if you combine all of minneapolis and st. paul (not necessarily just the CBDs, they're not terribly specific so it's hard to tell if they're always comparing apples to apples) you get 38,404,999 SF. so dividing that by 70,722,393 you get 54.3%.

the reason i didn't combine them on the first list is because if you make the argument that st. paul should be included as a second CBD for the twin cities, then the st. louisians could make a claim that clayton should be included as a second CBD for their metro because in a way, that's exactly what clayton has grown into being. so i just limited it to one CBD per metro, but because of the twin cities' wacky bi-polar nature, it does make direct apples to apples comparisons more challenging.

That makes absolutely no sense. Clayton is a city of about 13,000 people that wasn't even founded or incorporated until over 100 years after St. Louis. St. Paul's history actually predates that of Minneapolis; it's been the state capital since Minnesota was admitted to the Union in 1858, and has always been a core city of the Twin Cities area.

If people from St. Louis are going to call Clayton analogous to St. Paul, we could just as easily say that Bloomington should be included in that calculation. People from Detroit could say that Southfield should be included, too, and pretty soon the entire point of this thread is dead and mute.

Interesting Skyline!

That makes absolutely no sense. Clayton is a city of about 13,000 people that wasn't even founded or incorporated until over 100 years after St. Louis. St. Paul's history actually predates that of Minneapolis; it's been the state capital since Minnesota was admitted to the Union in 1858, and has always been a core city of the Twin Cities area.

If people from St. Louis are going to call Clayton analogous to St. Paul, we could just as easily say that Bloomington should be included in that calculation. People from Detroit could say that Southfield should be included, too, and pretty soon the entire point of this thread is dead and mute.

i understand the historical differences between st. paul and clayton. my point in excluding st. paul from the original list was to have as close of an apples to apples comparison as possible by only including the single largest CBD in a given metro area, but as i've stated several times, the twin cities bi-polar nature makes such an apples to apples comparison difficult. the fact is that downtown minneapolis and downtown st. paul don't form a single CBD, they are two seperate entities.

i understand the historical differences between st. paul and clayton. my point in excluding st. paul from the original list was to have as close of an apples to apples comparison as possible by only including the single largest CBD in a given metro area, but as i've stated several times, the twin cities bi-polar nature makes such an apples to apples comparison difficult. the fact is that downtown minneapolis and downtown st. paul don't form a single CBD, they are two seperate entities.

Fair enough, I guess.

Being from St Louis, I find it interesting how some cities' highrises are largely concentrated in the CBD-- such as in the case of Columbus and Indianapolis.

In St Louis, there are pockets of high rises on an east-west axis stretching all the way from the Mississippi River to the suburbs:
At the east end of the axis is downtown St Louis.
A mile or so west, Grand Center and SLU. Includes the Continental Building (286'), Council House East (280'), and Desloge Towers (250').
A few blocks further, the Central West End. Includes the Park East Tower (330'), Chase Park Plaza (310'), and Barnes-Jewish Hospital South (270').
At the city limits, some highrise apartment buildings, including the Dorchester (260').
A mile an a half west, the impressive Clayton skyline (see list earlier in this thread).
Lastly, Richmond Heights/Brentwood, including the University Club Tower (326').

I have always imagined what downtown St Louis would look like if most (or all) of these highrises had been built in the CBD. The density would be amazing!

grub & ellis finally added data for cleveland, so here are how midwest metros stack up for the percentage of metro office space located in the CBD. cleveland really stacks up well, it has significantly more office space downtown than its midwestern peers.



major midwest metros ranked by percentage of office space located downtown*:

city - CBD office SF / total metro office SF = % office space downtown

cleveland - 21,705,078 / 39,043,259 = 55.6%
chicago - 128,437,405 / 235,929,928 = 54.4%
milwaukee - 12,483,388 / 28,455,226 = 43.9%
cincinnati - 11,919,525 / 36,997,992 = 32.2%
indianapolis - 14,709,070 / 46,910,163 = 31.4%
columbus - 12,289,446 / 40,984,243 = 30.0%
kansas city - 14,551,688 / 50,557,630 = 28.8%
st. louis - 14,808,672 / 52,949,533 = 27.9%
detroit - 12,354,069 / 69,320,236 = 17.8%


source: http://www.grubb-ellis.com/


* the twin cities are not included because their dual-CBD nature makes direct comparisons to traditional single-CBD metros very difficult.

That is no surprise whatsoever. It's not a coincidence that St. Louis, Detroit, and Kansas City have suburban skylines and downtowns more so than the other cities mentioned.

It's amazing how different the numbers are from company to company.

For example, Collier's says the numbers are:

Detroit - 30,239,406 CBD / 151,002,223 Metro (162,710,814 when you include Ann Arbor) <source> (http://dsg.colliers.com/document.aspx?report=660.pdf)
Columbus - 12,353,730 CBD / 40,574,182 Metro <source> (http://dsg.colliers.com/document.aspx?report=523.pdf)
Cincinnati - 11,919,525 CBD / 36,997,992 Metro <source> (http://dsg.colliers.com/document.aspx?report=536.pdf)

They also have Chicago's CBD at 131,254,269 and while they have a report on the suburbs, I don't think it covers the entire suburban area, but rather just the northern and western suburbs. <source> (http://dsg.colliers.com/document.aspx?report=660.pdf)

Interestingly, the numbers for Cincinnati are exactly the same, but the numbers for Detroit are more than double that of what is reported by Grubb-Ellis.

The vacancy rate for the various CBD's are:
Cincinnati - 18.3%
Detroit - 17.7%
Chicago - 17.2%
Columbus - 15.6%

That is no surprise whatsoever. It's not a coincidence that St. Louis, Detroit, and Kansas City have suburban skylines and downtowns more so than the other cities mentioned.

does kansas city really have noteworthy suburban skylines? on the list of tallest midwest suburban buildings on the previous page, not a single entrant was from the KC metro. now, in looking at the stats, there sure does seem to be a crapload of non-CBD office space in KC, but i'm guessing that the vast majority of it is located in lowrise campus-like office parks.

grub & ellis finally added data for cleveland, so here are how midwest metros stack up for the percentage of metro office space located in the CBD. cleveland really stacks up well, it has significantly more office space downtown than its midwestern peers.



major midwest metros ranked by percentage of office space located downtown*:

city - CBD office SF / total metro office SF = % office space downtown
cleveland - 21,705,078 / 39,043,259 = 55.6%
chicago - 128,437,405 / 235,929,928 = 54.4%
milwaukee - 12,483,388 / 28,455,226 = 43.9%
cincinnati - 11,919,525 / 36,997,992 = 32.2%
indianapolis - 14,709,070 / 46,910,163 = 31.4%
columbus - 12,289,446 / 40,984,243 = 30.0%
kansas city - 14,551,688 / 50,557,630 = 28.8%
st. louis - 14,808,672 / 52,949,533 = 27.9%
detroit - 12,354,069 / 69,320,236 = 17.8%

source: http://www.grubb-ellis.com/

RE: Grubb-Ellis - this is ONLY "leasable class A space".

It does not include govt owned office space (unless leaseable). It also does not include class B or C space, which older downtowns like Kansas City, Detroit, STL, Cleveland, Cinci, etc. has a butt load of. Nor does it include privately owned buildings that are not leased. If a company owns the building and is the main tenant, that space is not counted in the above figures.

KC has millions of sq ft in older warehouses that are not rehabbed to class A. The West Bottoms alone probably has 6 million sq ft that is leaseable at class B or C only. The Crossroads District - same deal.

Additionally the federal Govt is one of Kansas City's major employers. Downtown KC contains several million sq ft of Govt owned office space that is not included. Throw in state and local govt towers/buildings and it's a huge percentage of space not leasable -maybe as much as 30%.

Midwest suburban buildings 250' and taller by metro area:


St. Louis:

409'/30 floors - The Plaza in Clayton, Clayton, MO
326'/23 floors - University Club Tower, Richmond Heights, MO
312'/24 floors - The Sevens Building, Clayton, MO
309'/23 floors - Pirre Laclede Center II, Clayton, MO
305'/25 floors - Ameristar St. Charles Hotel, St. Charels, MO
299'/27 floors - Trianon Condos, Clayton, MO - ON HOLD
275'/19 floors - Interco Corp. Tower, Clayton, MO
266'/23 floors - Clayton on the Park, Clayton MO
263'/18 floors - National City Center, Clayton, MO
262'/24 floors - Park Tower, Clayton, MO
262'/17 floors - Maryland Walk, Clayton, MO




Detroit:

402'/32 floors - 3000 Town Center, Southfield, MI
395'/28 floors - 1000 Town Center, Southfield, MI
370'/28 floors - 2000 Town Center, Southfield, MI
346'/25 floors - National City Center, Troy, MI
331'/25 floors - American Center, Southfield, MI
328'/33 floors - 5000 Town Center, Southfield, MI
270'/20 floors - 4000 Town Center, Southfield, MI
260'/29 floors - 9 Mile Tower, St. Clair Shores, MI
256'/18 floors - Travelers Tower, Southfield, MI
253'/21 floors - One Town Square, Southfield, MI




Chicago:

418'/31 floors - Oak Brook Terrace Tower, Oak Brook Terrace, IL
409'/35 floors - 708 Church Street, Evanston, IL - APPROVED
395'/26 floors - The Gallagher Center, Itasca, IL
277'/22 floors - Chase Building, Evanston, IL
276'/25 floors - Sherman Plaza, Evanston, IL
270'/20 floors - Zurich Towers 1, Schaumburg, IL
270'/20 floors - Zurich Towers 2, Schaumburg, IL
266'/19 floors - Esplanade 1, Downers Grove, IL
265'/28 floors - Optima Views, Evanston, IL
263'/21 floors - 425 Woodfield Corp. Center, Schaumburg, IL




Twin Cities:

381'/24 floors - 8500 Tower, Bloomington, MN
300'/24 floors - Wells Fargo Plaza, Bloomington, MN
263'/16 floors - 601 Carlson Parkway, Minnetonka, MN
263'/16 floors - 701 Carlson Parkway, Minnetonka, MN




Cincinnati:

308'/19 floors - RiverCenter I, Covington, KY
293'/21 floors - The Ascent, Covington, KY
292'/17 floors - RiverCenter II, Covington, KY




Cleveland:

264'/28 floors - Winton Place Apartments, Lakewood, OH

does kansas city really have noteworthy suburban skylines? on the list of tallest midwest suburban buildings on the previous page, not a single entrant was from the KC metro. now, in looking at the stats, there sure does seem to be a crapload of non-CBD office space in KC, but i'm guessing that the vast majority of it is located in lowrise campus-like office parks.

I was thinking Overland Park, Olathe, and sections of the city south of downtown (Crown Center; the Plaza).

Bloomington:

http://ts2.mm.bing.net/images/thumbnail.aspx?q=243172381213&id=ca3bc7cf4c275aca78840c244bc48d89&index=ch1

http://www.flickr.com/photos/92235537@N00/1862343008/

http://www.ci.bloomington.mn.us/cityhall/dept/commdev/planning/planning_skyline.jpg

http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3121/2678846396_c2441dff18.jpg&imgrefurl=http://flickr.com/photos/24625269%40N05/2678846396/&usg=__GvmD24pVpZEYUIUq4aFFrZs9k0c=&h=332&w=500&sz=129&hl=en&start=174&zoom=0&tbnid=9Yb7U4m0msgcuM:&tbnh=86&tbnw=130&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dbloomington%2Bmn%2Bskyline%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN%26biw%3D800%26bih%3D463%26tbs%3Disch:10%2C9700&um=1&itbs=1&iact=hc&vpx=194&vpy=237&dur=927&hovh=86&hovw=130&tx=124&ty=55&oei=gyaQTLe9JJOLnAeKr820DA&esq=undefined&page=29&ndsp=6&ved=1t:429,r:0,s:174&biw=800&bih=463

Richfield:

http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTNxY48zF18MZS8Nyt4Knhb2zjQfiGyR8rhsG4VjXaGNq-XQrQ&t=1&usg=__MqZqzJxkVj0WYA40MHljsAWZTZU=

http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTTp2ZM-ZKFxgfI1bO0LXHIPDK6rmIVxdwhninvHUtyH8q_Ie8&t=1&usg=__SZ3ijFKJv9J9W4kxsBrm6x4Z5hg=

richfields actually got like a cluster of buidlings to form a downtown area, i just cant find it online.. plus theres a ton along 494 on the opposite side of all the bloomington buildings.. i just cant find them online either :ohno:

^^Lots of Twin Cities suburbs have a few midrise buildings, but none of them have a real "skyline", in my opinion.

The skyline of Eden Park and Hyde Park east of downtown Cincinnati.
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4087/4992894863_4fab01ac0a_z.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/45962869@N04/4992894863/)
Suburban Cincy skyline (http://www.flickr.com/photos/45962869@N04/4992894863/) by Queen City Kid (http://www.flickr.com/people/45962869@N04/), on Flickr

^^Lots of Twin Cities suburbs have a few midrise buildings, but none of them have a real "skyline", in my opinion.


but the one in richfield i think might count.. possibly, cause like its not just like one or two buildings there, its actually quite a few.


all i know for like area wise is that lyndale goes through it.

but the one in richfield i think might count.. possibly, cause like its not just like one or two buildings there, its actually quite a few.


all i know for like area wise is that lyndale goes through it.

Richfield's is part of that whole I-494 "skyline" area that stretches from Bloomington's border with Eden Prairie all the way to the airport. There isn't anything really noteworthy elsewhere in Richfield that isn't largely isolated from other like-sized buildings or that isn't already a part of the I-494 strip.

here's a shot of the evanston skyline i took while kayaking out on the lake back in october.

http://img837.imageshack.us/img837/6059/017dgc.jpg (http://img837.imageshack.us/i/017dgc.jpg/)




and though it's not a suburban skyline, here's a bonus shot of the magnificent Bahai house of worship in suburban wilmette from the same paddle.

http://img838.imageshack.us/img838/5783/05bahai.jpg (http://img838.imageshack.us/i/05bahai.jpg/)

RE: Grubb-Ellis - this is ONLY "leasable class A space".

It does not include govt owned office space (unless leaseable). It also does not include class B or C space, which older downtowns like Kansas City, Detroit, STL, Cleveland, Cinci, etc. has a butt load of. Nor does it include privately owned buildings that are not leased. If a company owns the building and is the main tenant, that space is not counted in the above figures.

KC has millions of sq ft in older warehouses that are not rehabbed to class A. The West Bottoms alone probably has 6 million sq ft that is leaseable at class B or C only. The Crossroads District - same deal.

Additionally the federal Govt is one of Kansas City's major employers. Downtown KC contains several million sq ft of Govt owned office space that is not included. Throw in state and local govt towers/buildings and it's a huge percentage of space not leasable -maybe as much as 30%.

Detroit has a lot of private owned office space that is not leased out. Grubb-Ellis takes the amount of class A space and only figures out what is leased. In Detroit, the biggest class A buildings are private owned like the Renaissance Center, Comerica Tower, Compuware Building, Blue Cross Building etc. These are the biggest office spaces in Michigan that don't get counted but are not vacant.

I was thinking Overland Park, Olathe, and sections of the city south of downtown (Crown Center; the Plaza).

Overland Park has the sprint campus which alone is 3.9 million square feet in 17 low rises