yeah, though minneapolis has better drivers and kc is sort of a dark horse.

oops. yeah i always say northeast indiana because i think of it like i think
of the metro east in illinois.

I'm perfectly happy with never having a Chicago monster tower. I don't like it when towers go above about Hancock Center height.

And the only city in the country that's building Sears tower heights (and not really surpassing it even) is New York with it's insane real estate market which really just acts like a bank.

Indeed. St. Louis has a lot of corporate campus out in Chesterfield which is way past Clayton. The company I worked for their had an office way out there, I was lucky to telecommute from my place in the CWE (half a block from Forest Park), but they were pressuring for me to do the two hour one way commute by transit (or buy a car which I gave up when I moved there.)

Suburb-minded dinosaurs is pretty apt.

No, I don't think that's true. Downtown St. Louis is technically not the eastern edge of the region, but given the dead zone of East St. Louis, you don't actually get to real neighborhoods and commerce for several miles east of the river. And once you've reached the activity on the IL side, it's just regular crappy sprawl-- no real destination or regional draw (someone please correct me if wrong). St. Louis famously sprawls west. As this discussion has indicated, the movement of money and people to the west is a well documented phenomenon in StL. This is how the city developed the impressive central corridor, the secondary downtown in Clayton, etc.

If East St. Louis was healthy and populous, or if the airport or something of regional importance was located in IL, it would have helped Downtown St. Louis remain centered regionally. I know that having the airport in Northern Kentucky has helped retain downtown Cincinnati's significance in the region. Same with having healthy, attractive neighborhoods and business districts. If Northern Kentucky was a wasteland ala East St. Louis, there's no doubt that Downtown Cincinnati would have suffered more than it did, and the locus of control would be fully in the northern suburbs.

For sure.

Only 7 have ever been built in the Midwest outside of Chicago, and all of them pre-1993.

As posted earlier in the thread:

When it comes to top end skyscraper construction in the US, the rich have been getting richer, with NYC way out in front leading the way.

considering that minneapolis has two 500 footers U/C, and detroit has one, 500 feet is a very safe bet because it's happening right now.

Cincinnati came close to a 700 footer with its newish (2012) tallest, but I think Queen City Square topped out at 660'.

^ LOL you mean that thing with the ridiculous giant hat? That sorta stuff doesn't count. It's basically a 500ft tower.

It's interesting that only 4 cities (NYC, Chicago, Miami, SF) have built more +700' since 1993 than before, even though more towers have been built since '93. Texas cities built 15% of the towers pre-1993, but only 4% post.

don't forget about Jersey City, Atlantic City, Austin, Oklahoma City, and Mobile.


yep, texas is a bit of a strange one. for all of its white hot population and economic growth over the past 3 decades, it hasn't translated into much very tall tower building.



meanwhile, in stagnant-ass chicago.......

Ok well whatever your opinion may be, the height of the building is 665'. I don't know the statistics, but it's probably one of the tallest to be built in the midwest (excepting Chicago) this century. The 'crown' or whatever is at least substantial and an undeniable part of the building design. It's not like the Wilshire Grand in LA that stuck a toothpick on the side to gain an extra 100'.

Fun fact: as a publicity stunt for the Cincinnati ATP event (Western and Southern Open), a mini-tennis match was held within the crown on the tower:

https://www4.pictures.zimbio.com/gi/...FnuZS4yO1l.jpg

According to the CTBUH, it is the tallest midwest skyscraper built in this century outside of chicago.

if people want to get persnickety about occupied height vs. architectural height, then the 633' tall One First National Tower in Omaha would take that title.

of course, both will be superseded (by any height measurement) by the 680' tall Hudson Tower currently U/C in Detroit (unless your username happens to be "Crawford" ;) ).

LOL

Thanks for the info...that's pretty cool about Cincy having the tallest building constructed in the Midwest outside of Chicago this century. Me and the zero other people who care about such things will be proud of this fact. Also would have never guessed Omaha was building 600'+ skyscrapers. :cheers:

What does "officially" mean? Since an organization has put a list together with their own standards they're "official" somehow? This sounds like another SSPism.

Well, Omaha isn't currently building any such towers.

It just has the one 633' tall tower, completed back in 2002.

Omaha's 2nd tallest skyscraper is 478' tall.

Yeah, I only counted cities that had a 700' tower pre-1993. Should've added that.

Welcome to the forum. . .

. . .

Sometimes, for some reason, SSC threads remind me of this map:

https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/06...g?v=1571321923
source

Huh, I don't ever remember driving through the Des Moines metro on any of my many trips between Cincinnati and Columbus on 71. Was it hiding behind the Klan barn?

Also: What is the official height of the tiara on Queen City Square in Cincinnati? No way is the building itself only 500 feet. Fun story: ColDayMan taught me how to look at the tower at a certain angle from the Carew Tower observation deck and, at the very least, the building itself is about around the same height as the Carew (574 feet). I hate the tiara, but it's a fine building otherwise.