Next Midwest City To Build A Tower Over 700' Tall

[SIGSEGV]

Originally Posted by Emprise du Lion

I mean, now that Stag has become metro St. Louis' answer to hipsters drinking PBR, why not? Fun fact: Belleville is the largest city in Southern Illinois for the moment.



It's a floodplain. That's why there's 76 miles worth of levees along the Illinois side of the Mississippi going from Madison County in the north, through St. Clair County (where ESL is) and the east riverfront, and all the way south into Monroe County.

The city of St. Louis is sitting on higher ground. It's become an island disconnected from its flooding suburbs in years past due to it being higher.

Ah I guess I assumed that levee was enough. I guess not! Yeah, I guess the fact that what ought to be the most desirable part of ESL is a floodplain is not doing ESL any favors. So are the villages like Venice and Brooklyn just surrounded by levees?

What's this about nuclear testing in the Metro East? It was my understanding that the waste from the Manhattan Project ended up in a factory in downtown St. Louis and the West Lake Landfill in Bridgeton.



East St. Louis actually had suburban style development on its eastern edges decades ago. Some of it still constitutes some of the most intact portions of the city. I'm talking over by the borders with Belleville and Caseyville.

Also, the "Illinois doesn't care about anything south of Chicago" is such a Republican talking point. Pritzker played well in St. Clair County, and he's there often. The trouble is that everyone has tried over the decades to fix ESL and little has worked.

In terms of today though, Illinois has been investing in the Metro East. A project that comes to mind is Illinois' decision to extend the MetroLink to MidAmerica Airport that's due to be complete by 2023.

Another fun fact though: The Metro East is the largest (sub)urban area in Illinois outside of Chicagoland.

Durbin is also from Metro East, which probably helps that region a little bit (probably helped more in the past).

[Centropolis]

Originally Posted by Emprise du Lion

What's this about nuclear testing in the Metro East? It was my understanding that the waste from the Manhattan Project ended up in a factory in downtown St. Louis and the West Lake Landfill in Bridgeton.

former Dow Chemical facility in Venice, IL. I may have said Brooklyn.

Originally Posted by Emprise du Lion

What's this about nuclear testing in the Metro East? It was my understanding that the waste from the Manhattan Project ended up in a factory in downtown St. Louis and the West Lake Landfill in Bridgeton.

I was actually just referring to the general industrial pollution of the area with my "nuclear test site" comment—completely forgot that Centropolis had mentioned the Manhattan project connection.

Originally Posted by Emprise du Lion

Also, the "Illinois doesn't care about anything south of Chicago" is such a Republican talking point. Pritzker played well in St. Clair County, and he's there often. The trouble is that everyone has tried over the decades to fix ESL and little has worked.

I wasn't trying to make it political (and my voting record is solid Dem). Just pointing out that Chicagoland and environs guzzle most of the state's resources. What has been tried over the decades to fix it?

Originally Posted by Emprise du Lion

In terms of today though, Illinois has been investing in the Metro East. A project that comes to mind is Illinois' decision to extend the MetroLink to MidAmerica Airport that's due to be complete by 2023.

Okay, that's one thing. What else? The Metrolink extension to MidAmerica is great but it barely scratches the surface of the Metro East's problems and doesn't make E. STL any more inviting or livable. The insane mess of highway interchange infrastructure on the east side is enough to destroy a small city on its own.

[Centropolis]

the metro east absolutely feels ignored by the state, but so does almost the entire rest of the state. chicago is THE economic engine of the state so on one level its just cruel mathematics.

historically the feds used east st. louis as a proving ground for programs but that doesnt mean much during a period of extended actual austerity.

[Centropolis]

personally i think it is bizarre that a first world country would leave a city in such a state of environmental and physical wreckage. it’s strange to see a place in the first world so collapsed that the physical infrastructure is salvaged for cash such as stop signs, manhole covers, etc. asbestos littering vacant lots in as bad of shape as scenes from aleppo.

a strange imperial mirror.

[PoshSteve]

The latest from Sherwin Williams is that they are considering the tower in the 45-55 story range. This is not from an official announcement from them, but is from sources that proved correct previously on developments on the HQ move. On the lower end they are looking at something in the range of the new fourth tallest in the city - between 529ft (Erieview Tower) and 658ft (BP/200 Public Sq). On the upper end they are looking at something just under Key Tower (950ft), not counting any possible crown.

[Steely Dan]

Well, now that we have over 100 votes, it looks like my assumptions about how these cities would rank were mostly correct, though Milwaukee is a bit of an outlier with 7 votes.

[Tom In Chicago]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

Well, now that we have over 100 votes, it looks like my assumptions about how these cities would rank were mostly correct, though Milwaukee is a bit of an outlier with 7 votes.

I'm surprised Cleveland and Columbus ranked so high. . . Minneapolis and Detroit seem like the obvious choices, but anything in Ohio seems like a long shot. . . to me at least. . .

. . .

[edale]

Originally Posted by Tom In Chicago

I'm surprised Cleveland and Columbus ranked so high. . . Minneapolis and Detroit seem like the obvious choices, but anything in Ohio seems like a long shot. . . to me at least. . .

. . .

Why?

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Tom In Chicago

I'm surprised Cleveland and Columbus ranked so high. . .

Cleveland has a bit of a history of building improbably tall towers.

First with terminal tower back in the 20s (tallest building in the world outside of NYC at the time), then with key tower in the late 80s (still the tallest Midwest skyscraper outside of Chicago).

And now with rumors of the new SW HQ potentially being a big tower, it's no surprise to me that Cleveland has come in 3rd in the voting here.

[Tom In Chicago]

Originally Posted by edale

Why?

Because the bias I have based on what I’ve seen firsthand in Ohio given that my company is HQ’d there. . . not a very progressive business environment and the fact that there are /any/ buildings that reach to above average heights is an anomoly for sure. . . just because there are tall buildings in Ohio cities doesn’t mean there’s a culture to more urban friendly high-rise / skyscraper development, based on what I’ve seen during my visits over the years. . .

Same could be said for most of the other cities on the list, I suppose. . . I voted for Milwaukee simply because it’s skyline underperforms, rather than anything I see from a real estate business standpoint. . . whereas Detroit and Minneapolis seem to trend the opposite. . .

. . .

[Tom In Chicago]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

Cleveland has a bit of a history of building improbably tall towers.

First with terminal tower back in the 20s (tallest building in the world outside of NYC at the time), then with key tower in the late 80s (still the tallest Midwest skyscraper outside of Chicago).

And now with rumors of the new SW HQ potentially being a big tower, it's no surprise to me that Cleveland has come in 3rd in the voting here.

Yeah but the amount of time between these buildings of improbable height doesn’t translate that there’s any business reason or underlying culture of urbane lifestyle that’s being addressed by these buildings and could simply be written off as a statistical anomoly. . . not trying to put too harsh a tone on it, I watch the development threads for Ohio cities and always root for them when they’re proposing something new, but I don’t see the same enthusiasm for civic pride from the people that live there to suggest otherwise. . . if that makes any sense. . .

. . .

[edale]

Originally Posted by Tom In Chicago

Because the bias I have based on what I’ve seen firsthand in Ohio given that my company is HQ’d there. . . not a very progressive business environment and the fact that there are /any/ buildings that reach to above average heights is an anomoly for sure. . . just because there are tall buildings in Ohio cities doesn’t mean there’s a culture to more urban friendly high-rise / skyscraper development, based on what I’ve seen during my visits over the years. . .

Same could be said for most of the other cities on the list, I suppose. . . I voted for Milwaukee simply because it’s skyline underperforms, rather than anything I see from a real estate business standpoint. . . whereas Detroit and Minneapolis seem to trend the opposite. . .

. . .

The tallest building in the Midwest outside of Chicago built this century is in Cincinnati. Columbus is the fastest growing major metro in the midwest and eventually I hope some of that growth will start to go vertical. Cleveland just wrapped construction on a residential highrise in Playhouse Square that's just under 400'. They also will be building a new HQ for a F500 company, so it seems like they're a pretty reasonable guess for this thread.

It's all a guessing game, but I just don't see why the Ohio cities would be called out as being especially unlikely, when they've been performing better than many in the midwest. Minneapolis has been pretty hot for a while...guess we'll see if that continues in the future. It's not exactly the most stable city right now. Detroit has some ambitious plans for skyscrapers, but we'll see what ends up happening there. It's always been a very boom-bust town, and we're in pretty shakey economic times right now.

[PoshSteve]

Originally Posted by Tom In Chicago

Yeah but the amount of time between these buildings of improbable height doesn’t translate that there’s any business reason or underlying culture of urbane lifestyle that’s being addressed by these buildings and could simply be written off as a statistical anomoly. . . not trying to put too harsh a tone on it, I watch the development threads for Ohio cities and always root for them when they’re proposing something new, but I don’t see the same enthusiasm for civic pride from the people that live there to suggest otherwise. . . if that makes any sense. . .

. . .

There's an incredible amount of Cleveland (and Cincinnati and Columbus) pride and enthusiasm for urbanity and construction. We just aren't on this forum. UrbanOhio is where it's all at

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Tom In Chicago

Yeah but the amount of time between these buildings of improbable height doesn’t translate that there’s any business reason or underlying culture of urbane lifestyle that’s being addressed by these buildings and could simply be written off as a statistical anomoly. . . not trying to put too harsh a tone on it, I watch the development threads for Ohio cities and always root for them when they’re proposing something new, but I don’t see the same enthusiasm for civic pride from the people that live there to suggest otherwise. . . if that makes any sense. . .

. . .

We'll, I was just explaining why I wasn't really surprised to see Cleveland come in third in this poll.

What Midwest city would you have expected to place 3rd?

[Buckeye Native 001]

Originally Posted by PoshSteve

There's an incredible amount of Cleveland (and Cincinnati and Columbus) pride and enthusiasm for urbanity and construction. We just aren't on this forum. UrbanOhio is where it's all at

Someone from almost every Midwest city/region started discussion boards/forums specifically for those areas back between 2003-05. There used to be a strong Midwest presence on this forum that nowadays mostly posts elsewhere.

I don't blame them, and I rarely visit Urban Ohio because I don't have much to contribute (living 1800 miles from Ohio the past 23 years doesn't help) but they're a good group of people over there.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Buckeye Native 001

Someone from almost every Midwest city/region started discussion boards/forums specifically for those areas back between 2003-05. There used to be a strong Midwest presence on this forum that nowadays mostly posts elsewhere.

Except for Chicago!

Minneapolis, Milwaukee, and Indianapolis ended up over at SSC.

Ohio's 3 C's all ended up at urban Ohio.

And Detroit, STL & KC created their own independent urban development forums.

But Chicago, as the undisputed skyscraper construction king of the midwest, stayed put right here at the original (and still the best!) skyscraper internet forum.

[Buckeye Native 001]

Yeah, I've noticed (for like the past 15 years). It's like there's no other cities in the Midwest besides Chicago

Honestly, it's just laziness on my part for not jumping ship, but had I left, I'd have never learned about the random castle apartment/condominium erected in a Grand Rapids suburb.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Buckeye Native 001

It's like there's no other cities in the Midwest besides Chicago

Well, when it comes to skyscraper construction over the past quarter century, are there?



Data source: CTBUH


I kid, I kid.....

It's good to see Minneapolis and Detroit finally stepping up to the skyscraper construction plate again.

And hopefully Cleveland will join them soon (even if the SW HQ doesn't bust through the 700' ceiling).

Milwaukee still has the Couture proposal that keeps limping along, not ever fully going away. Maybe a miracle will happen?

[MPLS_Const_Watch]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

Minneapolis, Milwaukee, and Indianapolis ended up over at SSC.

Most Minneapolis discussion is over on an independent forum, StreetsMN, which evolved from Minnescraper and then UrbanMSP. Today it's probably a 70/30 split between Streets and SSC.