Next Midwest City To Build A Tower Over 700' Tall

[Centropolis]

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

[Centropolis]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

I assume you meant northWEST Indiana

the metro east and NWI are similar forlorn heavy-industry beasts located on the other side of a state border from their central city.

Unfortunately for St. Louis, all of that mess lies directly across the river from downtown. In chicago's case, the messiest, heaviest industry started moving down to the Calumet River region in the late 19th century, and then spilled over into NW Indiana in the early 20th, So now all of that stuff is 15+ miles south of downtown.

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

[The North One]

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.

[HomeInMyShoes]

Originally Posted by IWant2BeInSTL

^^ the region has sprawled so far west that Clayton is now much closer to the population center. and all of our business "elite" are suburb-minded dinosaurs that live in the wealthy western burbs.

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.

[edale]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Probably the other way around. If downtown St. Louis were a stronger core then that would make East St. Louis more valuable.

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.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Crawford

A 700 ft. tower isn't insubstantial. Outside of NY, Chicago, Miami, not too many have been built in recent decades.

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:

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

US 700'+ skyscrapers built pre-1993: 91

NYC - 27 (includes 3 towers that have since been destroyed/demolished)
Chicago - 12
Houston - 9
Los Angeles - 8
Atlanta - 5
Dallas - 5
Seattle - 4
Philadelphia - 4
Minneapolis - 3
Cleveland - 2
San Francisco - 2
Pittsburgh - 2
Boston - 2
Denver - 2
Charlotte - 1
Miami - 1
Detroit - 1
Indianapolis - 1
Jersey City - 0
Atlantic City - 0
Austin - 0
Oklahoma City - 0
Mobile - 0



US 700'+ skyscrapers built post-1993: 99

NYC - 56
Chicago - 16
Miami - 6
Jersey City - 4
Philadelphia - 3
San Francisco - 3
Houston - 3
Los Angeles - 1
Seattle - 1
Boston - 1
Charlotte - 1
Austin - 1
Oklahoma City - 1
Mobile - 1
Atlantic City - 1
Atlanta - 0
Dallas - 0
Minneapolis - 0
Cleveland - 0
Pittsburgh - 0
Denver - 0
Indianapolis - 0
Detroit - 0


If we include JC's numbers into NYC, then 82 of the 99 700+ footers (83%) built in the US over the recent past have been built in just 3 cities: NYC, Chicago, & Miami.

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.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Crawford

I might even say none at 500 ft.

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.

[edale]

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

[The North One]

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

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

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.

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.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

It's interesting that only 4 cities (NYC, Chicago, Miami, SF) have built more +700' since 1993 than before

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

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Texas cities built 15% of the towers pre-1993, but only 4% post.

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.......

[edale]

Originally Posted by The North One

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

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:

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by edale

I don't know the statistics, but it's probably one of the tallest to be built in the midwest (excepting Chicago) this century.

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" ).

[edale]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

offically, it is the tallest midwest skyscraper built 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 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.

[mhays]

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.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by edale

Also would have never guessed Omaha was building 600'+ skyscrapers.

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.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

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

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

[Tom In Chicago]

Originally Posted by mhays

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.

Welcome to the forum. . .

. . .

[Boisebro]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

but this thread is about the entire midwest, as it's conventionally defined.

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


source

[Buckeye Native 001]

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.