Next US city to build a 400+ meter building
 

1. 400 meters is 1,312 feet for those metrically challenged.

2. Exclude New York and Chicago

3. As far as North American cities go maybe Toronto or Mexico City have a shot, but let's focus on the US for now.

4. Why 400 meters? It would be nice to see some US cities outside of NY or Chi build a building that's impressive by world standards.


My vote is for Houston, then Dallas, LA, Philly or Seattle.

I would say Philly. Maybe LA. Especially spires are counted in the overall height. Definitely not Houston (or Dallas).

Going to be the negative nancy here (or is that a 'karen' now?) There is no market for a 400m tower outside of NYC or Chicago. Supertalls are a stretch but a possibility. Luxury residential developers don't need to go above 300m in other cities to get those lucrative views. Other cities wouldn't be able to attract tenants for that much space, and even if some company wanted a vanity project they wouldn't need 400m to have an iconic trophy building.
So my answer is... there is no next US city to build 400m other than NYC or Chicago. Outside of the US in NA, Toronto is a maybe.

I wouldn't say you're being negative, but rather realistic, and if we're only talking the next 5 years I would totally agree, but think 10-20 years down the road and how then maybe some rapidly growing cities like Austin, Seattle, Houston etc. could have enough demand for a building that high. Maybe some corporation would like to make their mark just like they did in Chicago or NY back in the 70's (or today).

Even today, if NY or Chicago could pull off a 400 meter building, LA probably could too, despite not really being a skyscraper city historically, as the downtown densifies and new high-rises go up everywhere, maybe it could happen? :shrug:

I know it might sound a little overly optimistic but it would be pretty awesome, hell, even another 3-350 meter building outside of NY or Chi would be huge.

I should've added no spires in my list ;)

Why do you say not Houston or Dallas?

Seattle would never allow it. Nor would the FAA in the most likely area, where a 1,000' tower is running into limits.

Every tower in Seattle goes to the limit of height allowed. We'd build taller if we could.

At that height, there's also the issue of efficiency. You pay a lot per square foot to go that tall. Getting up and down the building isn't quick for occupants either.

well in that case, then chicago has only ever built one 400m skyscraper (sears tower) in its entire history.

it's an extremely rare roof height in the US outside of NYC.

heights that tall simply don't make much economic sense in the US outside of manhattan (and even then.....).

you'd need a healthy dose of ego to pull it off anywhere else.

I'm going to say Cleveland, with the new Sherwin Williams HQ /s

Otherwise I would have to go with LA. I don't think one is economically likely outside NY or Chicago. LA though would probably be the only place then that could come close and have the flair to want to go over the top and do it. Before Covid and the reduction in need for office space, I would have said SF even despite the nimbys.

Good question... maybe Houston during the next oil boom? Toronto could probably do it too.

Cleveland seems like a huge shot in the dark, plus I think that's planned for around 1000', if it even gets built.

I agree with LA though, just due to the sheer scale and importance of the city.

I doubt any city will, but Philly has the tallest building in the U.S. outside of NY and Chicago, so it seems like a good candidate.

Sure but 400 meters isn't what it used to be.

I know they don't make too much economic sense but as you said that's where ego comes into play. Tribune East in Chicago has a shot doesn't it? Why would the developers be trying to build it at that height if it wasn't economical? (Or rather a balance of ego and economics)

I just don't see it happening. 400m without a spire is a beast. The cities mentioned so far certainly can do it, but does it make any sense? American cities just aren't in the building height prestige game anymore.

Sure, although cities like NY or Chicago still have 4-500 meter buildings in the works, because there's enough demand in these cities to support such height.

I guess a better question could be, which US city could be the next NY or Chicago (if ever, and if it is probably not for a while) to support such a skyscraper?

400 meters isn't really that prestigious either, not even sure that would make top 30 globally anymore...

Lack of interest. The big towers that have gone up in the past 20-25 years have maxed out around 50 or so stories. There's less emphasis on tall towers and more interest on sprawling corporate campuses in other areas of town.

Jacksonville, of course.

well, they haven't built it yet, have they?

over the decades we've seen maybe a dozen or so proposals of varying seriousness for towers over 400m in chicago, and only one of them was ever built, way back in the early 70s.

so that should give you some clue as to the economic viability of 400m towers in chicago.

Sure, but a lot of those were not so legitimate, and the ones that were went under due to the 2008 recession.

Are you saying you don't think Tribune will be built then?

Taller buildings will become economical when they're absolutely needed, 300+ meter buildings weren't economical when the Empire State was built but now they are because space is so much more of a luxury in big cities. Maybe someday 400+ will be the new 300.

Tall buildings are expensive status symbols. Especially office space.

I know, but they still get built don't they?

Yea, I could see that in the present moment, but maybe these cities could re-live their glory days of the 90's and erect more 70+ story towers? They're growing immensely fast and that sprawl will fill in.

Big towers are much harder in today's lending environment, vs. the low-risk days before the savings and loan crisis. (This is a HUGE factor that's missing from many of these discussions.)