Great Mid West downtowns

[Columbusite]

I'll just add a couple more great sites for progress being made.

http://columbusretrometro.com/

http://www.columbusunderground.com/phpBB2/portal.php

[Exodus]

Yup, The DPM, Detroits modern version of an el train. I know it just has a loop, but how many other citys have an el train that connects you to hotels, offices, apartments, sports arenas, and even goes through a couple buildings ? and can do this at a cost of 50 cents and cover it all in 15 minutes ? People shouldn't look at it as a failed mass transit that it was supposed to be, but a nice clean, safe, cheap, and fast mini transit or shuttle train.

[Exodus]

Back to the question. Chicago is the obvious choice, so it should not have even been on the list. I pick Detroit as runner up. Why you say ? Detroit has the third largest collection of pre 1920's skyscrapers outside of NYC & Chicago, Second largest Midwestern skyline, large theatre district, two stadiums and one hockey arena, one of the nations largest convention centers, three casinos, an ever expanding and developing waterfront, great squares and parks, a riverfront pavillion with a winter icerink and down under resturaunts, Greektown, great festiviles, and great views of Canada. Plus a cool downtown transit system, which was named in the previous reply.

Detroit also has more people living and working in the downtown area than most people realize. Wayne State University alone has over 30 thousand students, and much of that student population live and work in the general area. I'm sorry, but no other city in the midwest outside of Chicago has a bigger or better downtown than Detroit, Despite some of the grunge, which is quickly disappearing these days.

[Southernyank]

Chicago's downtown skyline and Chicago at street level are both in a class of their own. that is partially why Chicago has earned the reputation of one of the top three greatest NA cities.

[cmj2k5]

I pick Detroit as runner up. Why you say ? Detroit has the third largest collection of pre 1920's skyscrapers outside of NYC & Chicago, Second largest Midwestern skyline

Yeah, detriot is loaded with old buildings. But minneapolis has a larger skyline, making detroit third, unless cleveland is? I guess it depends on what you go by.

[AvianKeahi]

...I pick Detroit as runner up. Why you say ? Detroit has the third largest collection of pre 1920's skyscrapers outside of NYC & Chicago, Second largest Midwestern skyline, ...

... I'm sorry, but no other city in the midwest outside of Chicago has a bigger or better downtown than Detroit, Despite some of the grunge, which is quickly disappearing these days.

Sorry, but at least one of your claims is clearly in error. While Detroit has a large overall market size regarding leasable office space, the downtown Central Business District is surprisingly small. According to ONCOR International, which is one of the world's leading market-research authorities on office space, Detroit has downtown office space totaling approximately 15.8 million square feet. That is actually similar to Milwaukee's, which stands at 15.0 million square feet. Chicago of course is #1 with 126 million square feet. Minneapolis is 2nd at 26.1 million. While these figures date from 2002, they are comparative to today since not a lot of construction occurred in the last two years.

Grubb & Ellis also notes that in the last quarter of 2005 Detroit has the second-highest downtown vacancy rate, just better than Oklahoma City. However, the good news is that the market is fairly stable in Detroit and vacancy rates are not rising. The full report is here.

Detroit is also only one of two major cities in the US that actually loses population during the day, due in large part to the availability of jobs in the suburbs. The other is San Jose. The full story from the Detroit News is here. While this does not discriminate between CBD loss/gain vs. the entire city, it's clear that Detroit's downtown is not as strong as it could be.

[hudkina]

Downtown office space means nothing when comparing skylines or downtowns. Granted, I wouldn't necessarily call Detroit's downtown the second best in the region. It was years ago and it could be years from now, but currently I'd say there are other downtowns that are in better shape.

[AvianKeahi]

Downtown office space means nothing when comparing skylines or downtowns.

Huh? What? Downtown office space means nothing when comparing skylines or downtowns? Tell that to Hong Kong or New York.

Somehow I suspect office space would be a factor if Detroit had the second biggest downtown in the Midwest. And that is the subject of this thread. I would be interested to know what criteria you would use to determine a "great" downtown?

Listen, I worked in Detroit for almost two years. While that certainly doesn't make me an expert - even though my first degree is in urban and environmental design - it does make me qualified to say that Detroit has serious problems. Problems that few other American cities face. And it is no one's doing but Detroit's. It will do no good to point to the mass suburban exodus. Every other major city in America has had to deal with the same issues.

Believe me, I think Detroit is a great city, but that is based purely on its past. I sincerely wish that Detroit can rise again and reclaim its heritage and dominance. But frankly, the city itself is in severe trouble. Please don't argue against any other city's rise to prominence, such as Minneapolis. It has nothing to do with Detroit.

I happen to live in Minneapolis right now. But rest assured, I am as great a critic of this city as anyone. If Minneapolis/St. Paul decays to the extent that Detroit has, I would be among the first to stand up and shout. And if I knew that I could be influential in the future of the city, I would gladly get even more involved with the political process.

Detroit may have a bright future. But right now, it isn't living up to its potential. What Detroiters need to do is take back their city and position itself to be a dominant force in the middle of the continent, rather than exist as an also-ran. The industry is there. The work ethic is there. What Detroiters need to understand is that the vision must also be there.

[hudkina]

I'm assuming when you said "I worked in Detroit for almost two years", you meant to say Auburn Hills, Southfield, Troy, or any other suburb...

[AvianKeahi]

I'm assuming when you said "I worked in Detroit for almost two years", you meant to say Auburn Hills, Southfield, Troy, or any other suburb...

I worked in the city of Detroit.

Perhaps the solution to this issue lies in the idea that a diffuse, decentralized urban area might possibly have the cache' and influence that a prominent central city - surrounded by its affluent suburbs - once had in the 20th Century. Who knows? Maybe Detroit is actually the model for cities of the 21st Century! Maybe American cities as a hub of commerce and culture is an anachronistic throwback to 17th, 18th and 19th century urban idealism. The future is in the suburbs!

But then again, maybe not.

Hey, kidding aside, I reiterate my belief: Detroit was once a great city, and right now it isn't. But that doesn't mean it cannot regain it's prominence. As I said, the work ethic is there. The industry is there. But it just seems that the vision is lacking. And that's all it takes. I believe in Detroit's future. I hope others do too.

[Exodus]

Yeah, detriot is loaded with old buildings. But minneapolis has a larger skyline, making detroit third, unless cleveland is? I guess it depends on what you go by.

Actualy, Detroit has more buildings that are at least 19-20 stories or more than Minneapolis. Not including the several sq. miles that include midtown, Newcenter, Lafayette Park, Rivertown, and the Gold Coast. So for size in population, density, and even highrises, Detroit is still the second city of the midwest.

[Exodus]

Sorry, but at least one of your claims is clearly in error. While Detroit has a large overall market size regarding leasable office space, the downtown Central Business District is surprisingly small. According to ONCOR International, which is one of the world's leading market-research authorities on office space, Detroit has downtown office space totaling approximately 15.8 million square feet. That is actually similar to Milwaukee's, which stands at 15.0 million square feet. Chicago of course is #1 with 126 million square feet. Minneapolis is 2nd at 26.1 million. While these figures date from 2002, they are comparative to today since not a lot of construction occurred in the last two years.

Grubb & Ellis also notes that in the last quarter of 2005 Detroit has the second-highest downtown vacancy rate, just better than Oklahoma City. However, the good news is that the market is fairly stable in Detroit and vacancy rates are not rising. The full report is here.

Detroit is also only one of two major cities in the US that actually loses population during the day, due in large part to the availability of jobs in the suburbs. The other is San Jose. The full story from the Detroit News is here. While this does not discriminate between CBD loss/gain vs. the entire city, it's clear that Detroit's downtown is not as strong as it could be.

Building wise, Detroit really does have the second largest skyline in the midwest. The problem is that many of the buildings are vacant and in unusable condition as of right now. So yeah, the available office space is just not there at the moment. The city is trying to change this around by renovating buildings that have been vacant for years to increase the available office space, and raze the ones that are too far gone so they can have the available land to redevelop. So when it comes to a physical number of highrises and skyscrapers, Detroit has the largest number in the midwest outside of Chicago, regardless of available space or not. I thought this thread to be based on size, not economic stature, I could be mistaken though

[AvianKeahi]

Building wise, Detroit really does have the second largest skyline in the midwest. ...Detroit has the largest number in the midwest outside of Chicago, regardless of available space or not. I thought this thread to be based on size, not economic stature, I could be mistaken though

I hate repeating myself, but maybe this is clearer. The following is the total office space of the Midwestern downtowns in millions of square feet. It includes vacancies. All Class A, B & C buildings are counted. Source: ONCOR International & Downtown Cleveland Partnership.

1) Chicago.............125.9

2) Minneapolis........26.2

3) Columbus..........22.7

4) Cleveland..........19.0

5) Detroit...............15.8

6) Milwaukee..........15.0

7) St. Louis............10.3

This does not count residential low-rise & towers. Minneapolis and Cleveland also have the tallest downtowns outside of Chicago.

If you argue that office space has no effect on the skyline of a city, then from what data set should we establish "size" of a downtown or skyline?

[Exodus]

I hate repeating myself, but maybe this is clearer. The following is the total office space of the Midwestern downtowns in millions of square feet. It includes vacancies. All Class A, B & C buildings are counted. Source: ONCOR International & Downtown Cleveland Partnership.

1) Chicago.............125.9

2) Minneapolis........26.2

3) Columbus..........22.7

4) Cleveland..........19.0

5) Detroit...............15.8

6) Milwaukee..........15.0

7) St. Louis............10.3

This does not count residential low-rise & towers. Minneapolis and Cleveland also have the tallest downtowns outside of Chicago.

If you argue that office space has no effect on the skyline of a city, then from what data set should we establish "size" of a downtown or skyline?

Detroit has plenty of buildings that are in an abandoned state, those buildings don't even count as prospective office space. I'm not talking about buildings that are vacant but ready to lease. Now I feel like I'm repeating myself. Also Minneapolis has one building taller, which is about what ? 50 -60 ft. taller than the ren. Cen. ? and yes, the Ren. Cens actual peak height is on the riverfront side at 748 ft. Cleveland only has about 3/5ths the skyscrapers Detroit does in its cbd, and while I give props to its tallest building, it is just one building that gained height with its crown. Also I realize we are not talking lowrise or towers, that's why I said highrises and skyscrapers. Again, is this about physical size or economic status ? help me out here.

[hudkina]

Interesting, especially when you consider the Renaissance Center has nearly 6 million square feet of office space alone.

Great so what are the boundaries of each of these "downtowns"? I'd like to see where Detroit ranks when you include the office space in Midtown and New Center, which size-wise is more comparable to what the definition of "downtown" Minneapolis is. I'm sure Cadillac Place, the Fisher Building, and several of the other larger office buildings along the Northern Woodward corridor bring up the numbers quite a bit. I know that Cadillac Place alone has over 1 million square feet of space.

[AvianKeahi]

Detroit has plenty of buildings that are in an abandoned state, those buildings don't even count as prospective office space. I'm not talking about buildings that are vacant but ready to lease. Now I feel like I'm repeating myself. Also Minneapolis has one building taller, which is about what ? 50 -60 ft. taller than the ren. Cen. ? and yes, the Ren. Cens actual peak height is on the riverfront side at 748 ft. Cleveland only has about 3/5ths the skyscrapers Detroit does in its cbd, and while I give props to its tallest building, it is just one building that gained height with its crown. Also I realize we are not talking lowrise or towers, that's why I said highrises and skyscrapers. Again, is this about physical size or economic status ? help me out here.

Minneapolis has three buildings taller than RenCen. RenCen is 726.7 feet tall, not 748, with 5.5 million square feet of office space. And I repeat, ONCOR counts ALL buildings, Class A,B,C AND vacant buildings in its international reports. If the question is about "great midwest downtowns" you can argue all you like about subjective qualities. That's not the point of my resonse! My response is to the person who claimed Detroit has the "second largest skyline" in the Midwest.

It simply doesn't. Period.

So what are you arguing about?

[Exodus]

Minneapolis has three buildings taller than RenCen. RenCen is 726.7 feet tall, not 748, with 5.5 million square feet of office space. And I repeat, ONCOR counts ALL buildings, Class A,B,C AND vacant buildings in its international reports. If the question is about "great midwest downtowns" you can argue all you like about subjective qualities. That's not the point of my resonse! My response is to the person who claimed Detroit has the "second largest skyline" in the Midwest.

It simply doesn't. Period.

So what are you arguing about?

Again, Detroit has plenty of buildings that are in an abandoned state, those buildings don't even count as prospective office space. I'm not talking about buildings that are vacant but ready to lease. Buildings that are in virtual disrepair and or have unclear titles or futures. That's about the farthest I can break it down, and I doubt any building like this is counted as office space. Also office space in a cbd can mean any size of building, and highrise and skyscraper can be residential or hotel. The physical number of skyscrapers in the immediate cbd/downtown skyline of Detroit comes to about 50, this is buildings at least 20 stories and or around 250 ft. or taller. Again, this is within the sq. mile area known as downtown, and does not include midtown, Newcenter, Lafayette Park, Rivertown, or River East(Goldcoast). And your wrong, The Hotel in the Ren. Cen. was recorded at 748 ft. on the riverfront entrance by the Guiness Book of World records in 1977, which was the tallest hotel at the time. Too often sites and there resources like skyscraperpage and scyscrapers.com are inconsistant. For example, you say 726, but at one time it said 725, and at one time it was 721 and so forth. And I'm not trying to argue about nothing, I made my statements, and you are trying to contradict me, sounds like you are the one trying to argue. All I'm saying is that Detroit has the second largest downtown skyline in the midwest, and many other things in its downtown that make it great, despite some of the problems it has, which is slowly being worked on. Detroit has 50 known skyscrapers in its cbd, and at least 36 highrises in the cbd that I know of, Minneapolis has 37 skyscrapers in its cbd that I know of, and around 49 highrises in its cbd that I know of. In otherwords the number of skyscrapers and highrises in both cities cbd's are a close match of what I can tell, but the number of highrises and skyscrapers are inverted, which makes Detroits downtown skyline bigger as far as skyscrapers and obviously taller overall. Detroit does lack somewhat on skyscrapers outside of downtown, but it still has about 10 in the adjoining areas of downtown, which gives it right at 60 overall. Minneapolis does really well on skyscrapers outside the cbd for its size due to economics, but the overall number gathered from a much more spread out area than Detroits areas tells a different story. There is about 56 skyscrapers all together in Minneapolis, which means that even in a flat number Detroit still has more. Plus the adjoining areas to downtown Detroit have as far as I know at least another 40 highrises. None of what I'm saying is 100% correct I'm sure, but I grew up in Detroit and as a person interested in architecture I can tell you that I'm close, and I'm sure I've even missed or forgotten a few buildings. I've done my homework to some degree, and I know that Minneapolis does not have a larger downtown skyline than Detroit despite the 3 buildings that is slightly higher than the Ren. Cen., unless you call every community even remotely close to the cbd downtown. I think What helps Minneapolisis skyline is that it is layed out a little more even, while Detroits is slightly disjointed due to the Ren. Cen. If the 7 buildings of the Ren. Cen. and even the 3 riverfront towers was divided up and placed evenly throughout the rest of the skyline, you would see an obvious difference.

Detroit might not be as economicaly stable as Minneapolis, but isn't that another subject, and obvious ? Which leads me to wonder what you are trying to argue about ? I suspect that since Detroits decline, other cities have been kicking it while its been down and competing to have bragging rights to who is the second city in the region. By focusing mostly on Detroits pitfalls while focusing on another cities boom helps to put a slight spin on the subject, and wala ! we can now now brag about being the biggest and best in the region outside of the Windy City, am I close ? Since Chicago is so far ahead on everything, noone can do anything but give props to it.

[Exodus]

Interesting, especially when you consider the Renaissance Center has nearly 6 million square feet of office space alone.

Great so what are the boundaries of each of these "downtowns"? I'd like to see where Detroit ranks when you include the office space in Midtown and New Center, which size-wise is more comparable to what the definition of "downtown" Minneapolis is. I'm sure Cadillac Place, the Fisher Building, and several of the other larger office buildings along the Northern Woodward corridor bring up the numbers quite a bit. I know that Cadillac Place alone has over 1 million square feet of space.

Detroit was set up in compact sections and layout similar to NYC. It starts with the sq. mile area off the river which is downtown and of course has the downtown skyline. Then it moves north to the two mile stretch of the "midtwown" area, which has the university, medical, and cultural districts. Then moves farther north to the Newcenter "uptown" area, wich is a smaller second corporate hub. The cities planners carefully laid out a uniformed and organized layout for the central city. Since Detroit(including Highland Park & Hamtramck)had 2.2 million at one time crammed into 140 sq. miles, there wasn't room for sprawl and random development. Detroit is built like a traditional city should be built, and when you compare the lay out of Manhattens downtown, midtown, and uptown sections(albeit a bigger area) to Detroits, you will see what I mean. Detroit also has close to a sq. mile area called Lafayette Park just to the east, and a three mile stretch that hugs between the river and Jefferson Ave. that include Rivertown & Rivereast(Goldcoast).

So the Central city of Detroit has it's fair share of dense urban areas outside of downtown. All to often cities will call anything remotely urban and in the central part of the city "downtown" as to bump it's "downtown" size and height on a skyscrapers list, or they confuse downtown with the general central area of the city. At least Atlanta has the sense to know what is downtown, midtown and so forth, and its a newer developed southern city. So Detroit has it right, and a downtown or cbd is usually around a sq. mile or so, anything else is just an adjoining central city district to downtown. There needs to be a class on this, it can be called Downtown 101

[AvianKeahi]

Disclaimer - This is simply in response to this thread's sub-issue of downtown size.

Exodus,

If you wish to include multiple clusters of development as part of a generalized, multi-nodal "downtown," you may certainly do so. Then you must also accord the same to every other city in America. Minneapolis could claim the University area, Cedar-Riverside, the East Bank and the North Warehouse District as well. But for this comparison I won't. I have never even remotely considered buildings that are not part of the square mile of downtown core.

If you wish to count skyscrapers and highrises, that's fair game too. Minneapolis has 28 existing skyscrapers higher than 100 meters - 4 of these are over 200 meters. An additional one is under construction, 2 are in pre-sales (residential) and 2 more are proposed. These towers are all within the square mile of downtown.

Detroit has 27 skyscrapers over 100 meters - one of which is over 200 meters, and it is shorter than the three tallest Minneapolis towers. No additional towers are currently under construction in Detroit, and you would have to tell me if any more are proposed (there may be, but I haven't heard of any).

Minneapolis has 83 towers in the 50-100 meter range, 73 of which are in the downtown core. Six others are in the 4 districts mentioned above.

Detroit has 69 towers in this height range. I don't know how many of these are not in the downtown area, so you can tell us which ones.

Again, please listen. I am not dissing Detroit. I think it's a great city. I have no issues with people's subjective perceptions of it and I reiterate that I worked there for two years. My argument simply relates to people's take-it-for-granted attitude that Detroit has the second-largest downtown in the Midwest. There are many factors that can determine this, but based on height, massing and square footage - reasonably objective factors - Detroit does not have the second largest downtown. If you wish to dispute the figures, go ahead. But then supply reasonable counter-facts.

A true comparison must also take into account the area we're talking about regarding each city, as you have said. May I propose aerial map comparisons? Graphics are often easier to understand than descriptions.

BTW, Downtown 101? I did take a class on it. More than one. My Master's degree is in Architecture with an Undergraduate in Urban Design.

[Exodus]

Disclaimer - This is simply in response to this thread's sub-issue of downtown size.

Exodus,

If you wish to include multiple clusters of development as part of a generalized, multi-nodal "downtown," you may certainly do so. Then you must also accord the same to every other city in America. Minneapolis could claim the University area, Cedar-Riverside, the East Bank and the North Warehouse District as well. But for this comparison I won't. I have never even remotely considered buildings that are not part of the square mile of downtown core.

If you wish to count skyscrapers and highrises, that's fair game too. Minneapolis has 28 existing skyscrapers higher than 100 meters - 4 of these are over 200 meters. An additional one is under construction, 2 are in pre-sales (residential) and 2 more are proposed. These towers are all within the square mile of downtown.

Detroit has 27 skyscrapers over 100 meters - one of which is over 200 meters, and it is shorter than the three tallest Minneapolis towers. No additional towers are currently under construction in Detroit, and you would have to tell me if any more are proposed (there may be, but I haven't heard of any).

Minneapolis has 83 towers in the 50-100 meter range, 73 of which are in the downtown core. Six others are in the 4 districts mentioned above.

Detroit has 69 towers in this height range. I don't know how many of these are not in the downtown area, so you can tell us which ones.

Again, please listen. I am not dissing Detroit. I think it's a great city. I have no issues with people's subjective perceptions of it and I reiterate that I worked there for two years. My argument simply relates to people's take-it-for-granted attitude that Detroit has the second-largest downtown in the Midwest. There are many factors that can determine this, but based on height, massing and square footage - reasonably objective factors - Detroit does not have the second largest downtown. If you wish to dispute the figures, go ahead. But then supply reasonable counter-facts.

A true comparison must also take into account the area we're talking about regarding each city, as you have said. May I propose aerial map comparisons? Graphics are often easier to understand than descriptions.

BTW, Downtown 101? I did take a class on it. More than one. My Master's degree is in Architecture with an Undergraduate in Urban Design.

You misunderstood what I said, I said that all to often people call the general central areas downtown, and I don't. I said downtown should be considered the main cbd. The reason I mentioned the adjoining areas to Minneapolisis downtown is to show that what many think is part of the downtown skyline, is not, and there for breaking it down to how many skyscrapers are actually in the cbd. I just mentioned Detroits adjoining downtown areas to show that if Minneapolis wants to count all of it's areas, that Detroit still has a few more on a total scale. The bottem line is that Detroit has more buildings in the 20 storie range or higher in its downtown than Minneapolis, about 50 to 37 as far as I know, which makes Detroits downtown skyline bigger and taller on an over all scale. Again, counted office space can be any type of building, and skyscrapers can be residential and hotel. The main reason I mentioned highrises is to show how both skylines are close to being inverted, Minneapolis has about as many highrises as Detroit has skyscrapers and Detroit has about as many skyscrapers as Minneapolis has highrises. And once again, none of this is a science, because all to often resources contradict thereselves and each other at times, but the numbers is basicaly correct. I don't count proposed or even approved buildings, just the ones already built or under construction. If you want to include those, Detroit has two Casino hotels under construction and one approved, four condos proposed(2 highrise & 1 skyscraper size), and another 25 storie building proposed.

This is not a subjective view, but just real physical numbers on how many skyscrapers each cities downtowns have, which is what makes a skyline.

[AvianKeahi]

You misunderstood what I said, I said that all to often people call the general central areas downtown, and I don't. I said downtown should be considered the main cbd. The reason I mentioned the adjoining areas to Minneapolisis downtown is to show that what many think is part of the downtown skyline, is not, and there for breaking it down to how many skyscrapers are actually in the cbd. I just mentioned Detroits adjoining downtown areas to show that if Minneapolis wants to count all of it's areas, that Detroit still has a few more on a total scale. The bottem line is that Detroit has more buildings in the 20 storie range or higher in its downtown than Minneapolis, about 50 to 37 as far as I know, which makes Detroits downtown skyline bigger and taller on an over all scale. Again, counted office space can be any type of building, and skyscrapers can be residential and hotel. The main reason I mentioned highrises is to show how both skylines are close to being inverted, Minneapolis has about as many highrises as Detroit has skyscrapers and Detroit has about as many skyscrapers as Minneapolis has highrises. And once again, none of this is a science, because all to often resources contradict thereselves and each other at times, but the numbers is basicaly correct. I don't count proposed or even approved buildings, just the ones already built or under construction. If you want to include those, Detroit has two Casino hotels under construction and one approved, four condos proposed(2 highrise & 1 skyscraper size), and another 25 storie building proposed.

This is not a subjective view, but just real physical numbers on how many skyscrapers each cities downtowns have, which is what makes a skyline.

No, I don't think I misunderstand. You do not seem to understand the basic layout of Minneapolis. It is unfair of you to claim that I am co-opting non-downtown areas as part of downtown Minneapolis. Minneapolis does not have any ancillary urbanized (with high-rises) areas other than Cedar-Riverside and the East Bank. And, as I have said, I am not counting those areas. (And I legitimately could, since the East Bank is only 1000 feet from the West Bank of downtown.)

Minneapolis' CBD extends, containing all of the buildings I mentioned above, as a continuous built-up area, about 1.5 miles north-south and roughly 1 mile east-west.

Regarding the "inversion" you talk about, I really don't think you can back that up. Minneapolis has just as many buildings - and actually a few more - than Detroit does in the 50-100 meter range. However, I thank you for clarifying the current construction status of downtown Detroit's buildings. I was unaware of the casinos.

The animated picture below is worth a thousand words. It only covers the top 15 buildings, but I can extend the animation to 100 buildings if that's what it takes. I don't really mean to be a dick about this - I'm actually very happy to reasonably debate people and will gladly aknowledge when I am wrong. I just want people to understand that the knee-jerk reaction that "Detroit has the tallest/biggest/most massive Midwest downtown outside of Chicago" just doesn't wash. It doesn't mean that Detroit won't eventually get an 80-story tower or anything like that. It's just happens that here, today, Minneapolis has a larger/taller/more massive downtown, and it's the second largest in the Midwest. And this animation goes a long way in explaining why Minneapolis has over 10 million more square feet of office space than Detroit. (Note to those who are unfamiliar with Detroit: Buildings 4-7 are the four identical satellite towers of the Renaissance Center.)

Click on the link if it doesn't show up in your browser:

[Exodus]

According to what I found out, downtown Minneapolis has about 25 buildings at least 100 meters, and about 43 at least 50 meters. Downtown Detroit has at about 26 buildings at least 100 meters, and about 40 buildings at least 50 meters. A second source gives downtown Detroit about the same number of 100 meter buildings, but list 54 at least 50 meters. Earlier I listed 49 highrises and 37 skyscrapers for downtown Minneapolis which = 86, so the 25 100 meters + the 43 50 meters = 78, which is about right give or take. Also earlier I listed about 36 highrises and about 50 skyscrapers for downtown Detroit which = 86, so the 26 100 meters + 54 50 meters = 80, which again is about right give or take. The whole number of 50 meter + buildings in Minneapolis is about 88 actually, while Detroit has around 100 give or take. Again, Detroit has 26 out of 27 100 meter buildings downtown, while Minneapolis has 26 out of its total 100 meter buildings downtown. Again, Downtown Detroit has more buildings also that are in the 20 storie and or 250 ft. range or taller than downtown Minneapolis, about 13 more as a matter of fact. I could spend a lot of time trying to get every name and every little fact about every building in Detroit, but I'm not trying to spend that much time on this or make it into an exact science. According to what I know along with what resources there are on the web, what I say is true though not 100 % perfect on the figures, after all a lot of figures have been contradicted over the years. I could tell you to check out certain sites that I've mentioned before, but even these sites aren't 100 % correct, but I'm sure it does give the basic figures to go by. And yes, Minneapolis does have different sections that are included on the over all list of skyscrapers, the areas include University, Calhoun Isles, Powderhorn, LongFellow, Northest, and Phillips. When you research these individual areas and subract from the actual cbd skyline, you will pretty much get the numbers I have. And yes, I am including east and west downtown together, so don't go through the trouble because I've already done that. Despite three buildings being slightly higher than the ren. Cen., downtown Detroit has more buildings considered skyscrapers than downtown Minneapolis does, which gives it a bigger downtown skyline over all. And that is a cool graph you have, but once Minneapolis gets past the first three that are slightly higher than the Marriot Ren. Cen., the comparisons become a lot more even. When downtown Minneapolis were to run out of what is considered skyscrapers, downtown Detroit would keep going for at least another dozen. So yes, Detroit still does have the largest midwestern downtown skyline outside of Chicago.

[AvianKeahi]

According to what I found out, downtown Minneapolis has about 25 buildings at least 100 meters, and about 43 at least 50 meters.

Minneapolis has 111 buildings higher than 50 meters. About 80 of those are in the downtown area

28 are higher than 100 meters, not 25. (One of those is currently under construction, so you could argue that only 27 are over 100 meters.) Data is here: http://www.skyscraperpage.com/cities/?cityID=255

[Exodus]

Minneapolis has 111 buildings higher than 50 meters. About 80 of those are in the downtown area

28 are higher than 100 meters, not 25. (One of those is currently under construction, so you could argue that only 27 are over 100 meters.) Data is here: http://www.skyscraperpage.com/cities/?cityID=255

First of all, I said that dt Minneapolis has about 78 buildings at least 50 meters give or take, which you are just repeating what I've said. Second of all, minus the three 100 meter buildings that aren't in the cbd, and you get about the same figure for dt Minneapolis that I quoted. So this is pretty much a repeat of my post. And yes, I count construction

[Snowguy716]

Well, Minneapolis is a clear second in the poll...

Which city is better known: Detroit. Why? Well, when I think of Detroit, I think of murder. But I also think of cars.

Minneapolis has the better known skyline.. but there are lots of people in this country and world who don't know where Minneapolis is.

It was recently written by Bill Bryson: "Perth is a lot like Minneapolis, just a nice, modern, and clean city."

We must also look at where these cities are going. Minneapolis is experiencing quite a spectacular boom downtown and the metro area is growing rapidly. Detroit's metro area is not growing that fast and Detroit proper is losing residents at an amazing rate (it's now around 900,000 compared with 1.8 million the 50s).

But I know no one is going to change their minds.. and if you're from Minneapolis, you're oging to think Minneapolis is better, and if you're from Detroit, you're gonna think Detroit is better..