Quote:
Originally Posted by chicubs111
I still think we are under performing ..call me spoiled but when i see NYC having like 12t o possible 15 towers over about 1000 ft or higher going up...basically about 3 times the amount of all our buildings UC at 600 ft plus i cant wonder why Chicago isn't building atleast a 1/3 whats going up in NYC..throughout its history chicago was alwasy about half ( or less) of what NYC was buiilding (buildings over 500ft)...if they had 20 buildings over 500ft being built Chicago was about 10... feel like NYC just exploded with the construction on another scale and were just doing OK relative... Thats why i get upset with super prime sites like wolf point just getting 800 ft is such a letdown..what type of prime property can warrant a super tall then?
|
Part of it is the difference in land values, which pressure NYC buildings to go taller, all else equal. For example, one of those 1000+ towers in NYC is 111w57, which at a height of 1428 ft will have
~316000 square feet of space. Wolf Point East, which will be less than half as tall at 629 ft, will have almost exactly
twice the square footage (628500). Vista is ~1200 feet tall, and has almost 5x the square footage of 111w57.
Building a supertall, superskinny tower like 111w57 is a really expensive way to get revenue-generating square footage. If you aren't space constrained like NYC, it makes a lot more financial sense to build less tall but on a larger lot. Of course I'm cherry picking a bit, but I think it's a good illustration. It's not that Chicago isn't having a building boom, it's that our building boom isn't as squeezed into narrow needle towers.