SkyscraperPage Forum

SkyscraperPage Forum (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/index.php)
-   City Discussions (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=24)
-   -   Next Midwest City To Build A Tower Over 700' Tall (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=243339)

Steely Dan Aug 1, 2020 10:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mhays (Post 8998627)
Do these governments encourage or restrict tower heights?

i'm certainly no expert on all of the development particulars of these cities, but generally speaking, i think it's probably fair to say that the political/governmental hurdles to getting a 700'+ tower built in most midwest cities would take a gigantic back seat to the economic ones.

most midwest cities generally aren't in a position to "punish" developers like some coastal cities such as seattle seem to do; they're usually glad to take whatever they can get development-wise.

after all, beggars can't be choosers.

Pedestrian Aug 1, 2020 11:41 PM

^^Very tall towers only make economic sense where land is scarce and expensive and I agree with Steely that economic factors are controlling in these cities. But none of them really have the kind of land scarcity and cost that justifies building very tall.

In undemocratic countries (and even some democratic ones), trophy buildings get built as vanity projects. Less commonly, a private company will do something similar (and the record is full of companies that found themselves in economic difficulties soon after building vanity headquarters buildings--consider such as the Sears Tower and Pan Am Building). So I'd suggest people look for a city with a corporate headquarters of a company so successful it has the ego and cash to build (or lease enough of to put its name on) a vanity HQ in these difficult times.

Steely Dan Aug 2, 2020 2:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pedestrian (Post 8998668)
^^Very tall towers only make economic sense where land is scarce and expensive.

And yet, many of the US cities in the multiple 700'+ club (Chicago, Houston, Atlanta, Dallas, Minneapolis, Cleveland, Charlotte, Denver) don't have unusually high land scarcity/prices like one finds in the big coastal cities.

In these places, the very tallest towers must be driven by more than just pure profit. Ego and culture do factor into the equation.

US cities with multiple 700'+ skyscrapers:

NYC --------------- 80
Chicago --------- 28
Houston -------- 12
Los Angeles ---- 9
Philadelphia ---- 7
Miami -------------- 7
San Francisco - 5
Atlanta ------------ 5
Seattle ------------ 5
Dallas ------------- 5
Boston ------------ 3
Minneapolis ---- 3
Cleveland -------- 2
Charlotte --------- 2
Pittsburgh ------- 2
Denver ------------- 2

Source: CTBUH

mhays Aug 2, 2020 4:34 AM

Most of those are pre-S&L crisis. Very different world back then.

Steely Dan Aug 2, 2020 4:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mhays (Post 8998810)
Most of those are pre-S&L crisis.

Technically, no.

US 700'+ skyscrapers built pre-1993: 88

US 700'+ skyscrapers built post-1993: 99


However, of those 99 post-1993 towers, 56 (57%) are in NYC, and 16 (16%) are in chicago, so the rich have been getting richer, so to speak.

Your gist isn't off target.

And to that point, no Midwest city (outside of Chicago) has built a 700'+ skyscraper since the early 90s, so the landscape for really tall buildings out here has changed.

But I still have faith that a Midwest city other than Chicago will eventually get there, sooner or later. Detroit got really fucking close with the Hudson Tower project at 680', so 700' in the Midwest isn't exactly mission impossible.

Pedestrian Aug 2, 2020 8:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steely Dan (Post 8998750)
And yet, many of the US cities in the multiple 700'+ club (Chicago, Houston, Atlanta, Dallas, Minneapolis, Cleveland, Charlotte, Denver) don't have unusually high land scarcity/prices like one finds in the big coastal cities.

In these places, the very tallest towers must be driven by more than just pure profit. Ego and culture do factor into the equation.

US cities with multiple 700'+ skyscrapers:

NYC --------------- 80
Chicago --------- 28
Houston -------- 12
Los Angeles ---- 9
Philadelphia ---- 7
Miami -------------- 7
San Francisco - 5
Atlanta ------------ 5
Seattle ------------ 5
Dallas ------------- 5
Boston ------------ 3
Minneapolis ---- 3
Cleveland -------- 2
Charlotte --------- 2
Pittsburgh ------- 2
Denver ------------- 2

Source: CTBUH

There's more to the value of being in a downtown core--and hence the value of land there--than the physical inability to sprawl (as exists in NY or SF). Lawyers want to be near courts for example and techies tend to cluster together for mutual inspiration (which is one reason why the ability to work from home may not be the death of offices). But in cities without industries that feel the need to cluster--and I won't try to catalogue all the reasons myself--there should be no reason not to put up low rise buildings on cheap land in the suburbs rather than expensive tell ones in the core. That pretty much leaves the reason to buiold tall in such places to ego and there's a limited market for expensive office space where ego is the only reason to shell out the extra cost (back to the lawyers--they really like to pay up for fancy offices because they think it gives the clients confidence, hence it does have an economic motive).

Centropolis Aug 2, 2020 12:08 PM

commercial real estate is fucked.

mhays Aug 2, 2020 4:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steely Dan (Post 8998818)
Technically, no.

US 700'+ skyscrapers built pre-1993: 88

US 700'+ skyscrapers built post-1993: 99


However, of those 99 post-1993 towers, 56 (57%) are in NYC, and 16 (16%) are in chicago, so the rich have been getting richer, so to speak.

Your gist isn't off target.

And to that point, no Midwest city (outside of Chicago) has built a 700'+ skyscraper since the early 90s, so the landscape for really tall buildings out here has changed.

But I still have faith that a Midwest city other than Chicago will eventually get there, sooner or later. Detroit got really fucking close with the Hudson Tower project at 680', so 700' in the Midwest isn't exactly mission impossible.

I mean in many cities...Denver, Houston, Dallas, Atlanta, Minneapolis, Seattle, etc.

Since then, towers have been tied much more closely to economics. (In Seattle's case, the economics are good but height and FAR limits make tall towers rare.)

mhays Aug 2, 2020 4:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pedestrian (Post 8998847)
There's more to the value of being in a downtown core--and hence the value of land there--than the physical inability to sprawl (as exists in NY or SF). Lawyers want to be near courts for example and techies tend to cluster together for mutual inspiration (which is one reason why the ability to work from home may not be the death of offices). But in cities without industries that feel the need to cluster--and I won't try to catalogue all the reasons myself--there should be no reason not to put up low rise buildings on cheap land in the suburbs rather than expensive tell ones in the core. That pretty much leaves the reason to buiold tall in such places to ego and there's a limited market for expensive office space where ego is the only reason to shell out the extra cost (back to the lawyers--they really like to pay up for fancy offices because they think it gives the clients confidence, hence it does have an economic motive).

Urban cores can make it much easier for companies to attract staff. Companies are often very clear about this when they relocate. It's particularly important with younger staff. The caveat is that this applies only (or mostly) to healthy urban cores.

Being close to transit is a huge factor, and related to the ability to attract workers. It's also a big part of basic tower economics. You can build far less parking in an urban core. If you're two blocks from a train station you'll do better than if you're six blocks or up a hill. Land might be in the four figures per square foot, but you can use much less of it.

Views are another factor, particularly in a scenic city.

The ability to support mixed-use is still another factor. Mixed-use has its own challenges, but you can find win-wins, and each component is a smaller bet. This is easier in a city where office, hotel, housing, and retail are all strong.

Emprise du Lion Aug 2, 2020 5:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steely Dan (Post 8998592)
St. Paul doesn't seem like a logical choice to me, given its lower skyline stature, but it could be a good dark horse option if an ambitious enough local developer ever got the cajones to upstage the bigger brother nextdoor.

In a similar vein, Clayton, MO might also be a long shot contender if some big-balled developer ever wanted to upstage St. Louis.

At this point in time I think Clayton would likely happen before downtown. St. Louis has never built that tall in the past, and there's currently a 587 ft skyscraper still sitting without a tenant in downtown St. Louis after AT&T vacated it.

Steely Dan Aug 2, 2020 6:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mhays (Post 8999000)
I mean in many cities...Denver, Houston, Dallas, Atlanta, Minneapolis, Seattle, etc.

yeah, i figured that's what you meant, which is why i agreed that your overall gist wasn't off target.


let's break the numbers below down by city.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steely Dan (Post 8998818)
US 700'+ skyscrapers built pre-1993: 88

US 700'+ skyscrapers built post-1993: 99


US 700'+ skyscrapers built pre-1993: 91

NYC - 27 (includes 3 towers destroyed by 9/11)
Chicago - 12
Houston - 9
Los Angeles - 8
Atlanta - 5
Dallas - 5
Seattle - 4
Philadelphia - 4
Minneapolis - 3
Cleveland - 2
San Francisco - 2
Pittsburgh - 2
Boston - 2
Denver - 2
Charlotte - 1
Miami - 1
Detroit - 1
Indianapolis - 1
Jersey City - 0
Atlantic City - 0
Austin - 0
Oklahoma City - 0
Mobile - 0



US 700'+ skyscrapers built post-1993: 99

NYC - 56
Chicago - 16
Miami - 6
Jersey City - 4
Philadelphia - 3
San Francisco - 3
Houston - 3
Los Angeles - 1
Seattle - 1
Boston - 1
Charlotte - 1
Austin - 1
Oklahoma City - 1
Mobile - 1
Atlantic City - 1
Atlanta - 0
Dallas - 0
Minneapolis - 0
Cleveland - 0
Pittsburgh - 0
Denver - 0
Indianapolis - 0
Detroit - 0



So other than Chicago & Houston, the only non-coastal cities that have built 700+ footers in the past 25 years have been upstart cities like Austin, OKC, and Mobile.

That's a lot different than the pre-1993 days, when really tall tower construction was much more evenly spread around the interior of the nation. I mean, if we include JC's numbers into NYC, then 83% of the 700+ footers built in the US over the recent past have been built in just 3 cities: NYC, Chicago, & Miami.

And bringing things back to the thread topic, maybe that upstart city trend bodes well for some underdog Midwest city like Grand rapids or Des Moines to be the next to build a 700'+ tower in an attempt to break into the skyline big leagues.

llamaorama Aug 2, 2020 6:51 PM

Mobile's random new skyscraper surprised me. It has a neat little downtown for a city of its size.

I've always loved driving through that tunnel, but if/when they finally put up the new I-10 cable stayed bridge, the towers for that are going to be relatively tall as well and it will factor into the city's skyline given that's going to be right in the middle of downtown.

mhays Aug 2, 2020 7:15 PM

Mobile's building was apparently developed by its occupant, the Retirement Systems of Alabama. It's pretty small for a 700' tower...534,000 square feet. It's also 670' without its spire. In other words, a lighter lift.

OKC's tower is much larger, but it's also occupant-developed. No worry about an anchor lease.

Both have adjacent above-grade garages and driveways to their front doors...not the sort of thing that an urban city would build. Though I like their tower aesthetics.

Steely Dan Aug 2, 2020 8:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mhays (Post 8999122)
Mobile's building was apparently developed by its occupant, the Retirement Systems of Alabama. It's pretty small for a 700' tower...534,000 square feet. It's also 670' without its spire. In other words, a lighter lift.

Yeah, that one is a big-time overachiever. It's only 35 stories tall, yet officially clocks in at 745' because of its egregious decorative roof & spire.

And the 670' roof height is really just to the base of the spire, the unoccupied roof structure below that looks to be around 120' tall according to the SSP diagram, giving the tower an occupied height of ~550', much more in line with a normal 35 story office tower than its official height figure of 745'.

The North One Aug 2, 2020 8:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Emprise du Lion (Post 8999047)
At this point in time I think Clayton would likely happen before downtown. St. Louis has never built that tall in the past, and there's currently a 587 ft skyscraper still sitting without a tenant in downtown St. Louis after AT&T vacated it.

What? AT&T Center has no tenants?

Clayton's recent skyscraper development is really a shame, that should all go in downtown STL.

Emprise du Lion Aug 2, 2020 10:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The North One (Post 8999186)
What? AT&T Center has no tenants?

Clayton's recent skyscraper development is really a shame, that should all go in downtown STL.

It's been vacant since AT&T left in 2017. There was an auction last year, but the deal ended up falling through. I had heard there was supposedly another auction back in April of this year but there hasn't been anything else announced since. It's the largest office building in Missouri by square footage and it's just chilling, which is disappointing to say the least.

As for Clayton, it just got its new tallest skyscraper this year with Centene Plaza II at 419 ft. That's taller than anything built in the city since the 557 ft Eagleton Courthouse was completed in 2000.

Steely Dan Aug 3, 2020 4:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The North One (Post 8999186)
What? AT&T Center has no tenants?

Yeah, that had me do a double take as well, but it's apparently true.

A giant 44 story, 1.4M SF modern office tower built in 1986 sitting totally vacant in the heart of a major american downtown for several years..... It's a little hard to believe.

I mean, if it was some decrepit old dinosaur from the early 20th that needed hundreds of millions in updates, I could see it, but a 1986 tower can't be in that bad of shape, can it?



Quote:

Originally Posted by The North One (Post 8999186)
Clayton's recent skyscraper development is really a shame, that should all go in downtown STL.

Yeah, according to the CTBUH, downtown St. Louis hasn't seen the construction of significant commercial office tower over 200' tall since the late 80s.

But two such towers have been built out in Clayton over the past two decades. It seems like it'd be pretty hard to argue that Clayton doesn't hurt downtown St. Louis at this point.

craigs Aug 3, 2020 4:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steely Dan (Post 8999481)
Yeah, that had me do a double take as well, but it's apparently true.

Same here. Wow, that's unbelievable. Some company would have paid something for office space there in almost any other place.

Quote:

Yeah, according to the CTBUH, downtown St. Louis hasn't seen the construction of significant commercial office tower over 250' tall since the late 80s.

But two such towers have been built out in Clayton over the past two decades. It seems like it'd be pretty hard to argue that Clayton doesn't hurt downtown St. Louis at this point.
Well, the counter-argument would be that those towers in Clayton might have ended up being built in Nashville instead. With a half a percent growth rate since 2010, the entire St. Louis region is clearly hemorrhaging people and businesses. Not that it should--it has a lot to offer for a metro its size.

Steely Dan Aug 3, 2020 5:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by craigs (Post 8999485)
Well, the counter-argument would be that those towers in Clayton might have ended up being built in Nashville instead. With a half a percent growth rate since 2010, the entire St. Louis region is clearly hemorrhaging people and businesses.

Well, Chicagoland actually has negative population growth for the decade, and yet it has built 9 new towers over 700' in the current building boom, so skyscraper construction and population growth don't always align.

In fact, KC, Indy, and Columbus are among the fastest growing major Midwest metro areas, yet they have combined to build only 4 towers over 300' over the past 20 years. Meanwhile, stagnant Milwaukee has built 6 such towers over that timespan, and stagnant Cleveland has built 5, so.......

mhays Aug 3, 2020 5:05 AM

Clayton is a midpoint between suburban sprawl and a real downtown, sort of like Bellevue in my area.

Does it grow instead of Downtown or instead of sprawl? Or instead of Nashville? Maybe a mix of all of these.

It's natural and healthy for a city to have secondary urban cores. It gives companies more urban options vs. the binary downtown vs. sprawl.


All times are GMT. The time now is 9:06 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.