Next US cities to build a 250, 300, and 350 meter building
 

Since the hot spot of 400 meters seems unattainable in the foreseeable future for any city outside of NY (or maybe Chi), let's lower the bar a bit and add a few categories. This will replace the 400+ thread.

1. Exclude NY and Chicago
2. Cannot be U/C currently (i.e. no Rainer Square in Seattle for 250+ or Vista for 350+ etc.). Can be proposed though
3. Spires don't really count
4. Cannot be the same city
5. Obviously a 3 or 350 meter building counts as a 250 so it should really be between 250-300, 3-350 etc.

My vote:

250: Austin or Philadelphia
300: Miami or Seattle
350: LA or Dallas

I'd probably swap Dallas with Austin/Philly. Especially when you consider Dallas doesn't have anything over 280 meters and it hasn't built anything over 170 meters in 30 years.

What's the next small town to build a 30 meter water tower?

:haha:

:rolleyes:

No, this thread is just replacing the 400+ meter one since it's a bit more realistic.

It's a good discussion because the US rarely builds anything tall outside of the two major cities.





...

Right, I just figure these super fast growing cities will fill in eventually.

:laugh:

Sorry, I was just being a jerk. And not towards you. I wasn't trying to downplay the value of the topic. It was a cheap jab.

250: I'm going with Philadelphia (and maybe I'm being a bit of a Pennsylvania homer). Seems some good momentum happening there.

300: Probably only a matter of time until Miami gets one of its numerous proposals approved and underway.

No worries, it was actually funny.

I feel like Miami is probably the best bet for 300 because there are just so many proposals (like at least 5 I think?)

350: I'd say SF.
300: Miami or LA
250: Austin or Charlotte

250: Seattle
300: Miami
350: Jersey City

Austin already has a 258 meter tower U/C (6XGuadalupe), and a second one going through the approval process (4th & Brazos). So that one is easy.

My vote is Rockford, IL. :haha:

Austin just popped a legit super tall proposal with detailed renderings and plans. Sorry for lack of link - see Austin forum.

Yep, looks like 98 Red River, if built, would take the 300m title as well. The renderings and elevations show it as ~1,050ft or ~320m.

In this render, height is measured from sea level, not from ground level.
https://i.imgur.com/UjDaDVf.png

Ha, I was gonna post that also. Very hopeful that this one comes into fruition.

With recent ballot initiatives tying allowable office square footage to meeting State housing goals, and reducing office space if the city fails to meet the housing goals, SF's office construction will not be in the supertall range for a very, very long time.

Miami has a 275 meter about to start, Okan Tower (picture is deceiving as it's not located in the middle of nowhere):
https://i.imgur.com/lMgaXxZ.jpg
https://www.thenextmiami.com/unity-o...ding-proposed/

SF just can't get out of its own way, can it? How lame.

Not to get all mansplainy about the ballot initiative, but it's not a matter of getting out of our own way. Rather, it's voters saying no to developers building more offices without additional affordable/workforce housing being built.

https://sf.curbed.com/2017/7/26/1604...ng-ratio-homes
This oldy- but- goody article outlines the huge imbalance between jobs and housing in SF that drove housing prices (SFH, condos and apartments) into the stratosphere. That said, we still have a suspended 250 + meter tower in the works (Foundation is complete, above ground on hold) and a Hines approved project that will hit 250 meters with the mechanical penthouse finish,) But after those two, there is simply no area currently zoned for anything at those heights.