Quote:
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. |
^^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. |
Quote:
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 |
Most of those are pre-S&L crisis. Very different world back then.
|
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
|
commercial real estate is fucked.
|
Quote:
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.) |
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
let's break the numbers below down by city. Quote:
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. |
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. |
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. |
Quote:
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'. |
Quote:
Clayton's recent skyscraper development is really a shame, that should all go in downtown STL. |
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
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:
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. |
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
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....... |
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.