Do you think the US/West will one day dominate the tallest skylines once more?

[Capsicum]

The trope/story goes that the US used to dominate supertalls/impressive skylines etc. back in the day because the world was behind American wealth, engineering, clout (e.g. Chicago, NYC, Philly) but now the rise of the non-West, the Mid-East, SE Asia, China etc. The trope is now the US/West has either given up on the superlatives (e.g. super talls, most eye catching towers, most monumental urban canyons, e.g. biggest malls etc.) or can't build so any more because of bureaucratic red tape etc.

So the trope is either the rise of the non-west eclipsing the west was inevitable (economic, population wise) so the ceding of the biggest, densest, grandest etc. also associated with relative loss of status.

But another perspective is the West can still build just chooses not to (e.g. it's seen as vain, crass, some would call it in more crude terms like a genitalia-measuring contest for say NYC to want to beat Shenzhen, Dubai, Taipei etc. like it's a race but the easing of this mindset kind of reminds me of the idea of new money being all obsessed with bling but mellows and old money becomes more muted in obsession with monumental displays).

Is this true? I'm not saying I want to see America "beat others" that strongly (I'm Canadian though I admit it is cool to see US/Canadian cities rise up too) but it would be cool to see some old timers at least be neck and neck with the new kids on the block. I don't think its inevitable that the west would have to decline in monumentalism.

The question is, is the desire for the US or other western nations not to play this "build big" game a deliberate cultural choice (notably Europe was never as big on skyscraper building vs. keeping older historic buildings... is the US trending this direction?) or inevitable as others boom (note that I don't think it's so clear cut that just because Asia is big it would dominate the superlatives just based on that... e.g. you could still have a choice to have dense cities be full of more even moderate densities like Europe -- some of the densest regions in Europe are not too far from Asia's densest at country/region/state levels if not cities).

Also, it's not like the rise of the east means the west can't grow too (e.g. East Asia or even the Mid east don't have high fertility rates any more and of course western nations still have immigration). Yes, you can argue that the population momentum favors Asia (though by that logic, Africa is still up and coming and might eclipse Asia too in urbanization speed or rate). Yet, it's not inevitable that more people = more desire for monumentalism. Sure, China's big population-wise but so is the US still worldwide at 3rd and in any case that's not the only factor --Taiwan, UAE, Malaysia have roughly in the range of 10, 20, 30 million and are renowned for supertalls but this is similar in range of population sizes to say Australia, Sweden, Canada.

[Steely Dan]

No.

[iheartthed]

When did the US lose its skyscraper dominance?

[Crawford]

Probably not. Extremely tall skyscrapers generally don't make economic sense. They're cultural totems/marketing tools for emerging economies, mostly.

There are a few places, like NYC and HK, where really tall skyscrapers might pencil out, but it's probably just as likely you'll see 2,000 ft. skyscrapers in the desert or in Pakistan and the like.

Of course regular skyscrapers are still mostly constructed in Western nations. China has massively downshifted skyscraper construction, and most of the hotspots are Western cities like NYC, Toronto, Miami, etc.

[dimondpark]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Probably not. Extremely tall skyscrapers generally don't make economic sense. They're cultural totems/marketing tools for emerging economies, mostly.

It does feel this way sometimes.

I was recently in Bangkok and Manila again and was extremely impressed by the massive amount of gleaming new towers in those cities.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by dimondpark

It does feel this way sometimes.

I was recently in Bangkok and Manila again and was extremely impressed by the massive amount of gleaming new towers in those cities.

Oh, yeah. Bangkok has a ton. Same with Jakarta and KL. These are all relatively poor cities by first world standards. Especially Jakarta, which makes Mexico City look like Zurich. But, at least in terms of supertalls, they probably outbuild any Western city outside of NYC.

[mhays]

Countries and cities don't build skyscrapers in NA. Developers do, helped by investors and limited by local land use codes and US FAA limits. Developers/investors are doing it for the cost/risk/profit projection, not grand ideas about cities' global status.

The tallest buildings tend to be harder to pencil and riskier than shorter ones. They only make sense when the specific location brings enormous value, like being right next to Grand Central. That's true for 1,000' buildings and especially for 1,500'. And especially in earthquake zones.

The FAA's 2,000' limits mean nobody will challenge the world's tallest even if they have crazy (literally) money behind them. They also have flight-path limits that reduce what's possible in many cities.

Many cities also have very restrictive zoning, via height limits and floor-area-ratio (FAR) limits. Sometimes they're even lower than what's already built.

In other countries sometimes public money backstops the financing, there aren't height limits...

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by mhays

Countries and cities don't build skyscrapers in NA. Developers do, helped by investors and limited by local land use codes and US FAA limits. Developers/investors are doing it for the cost/risk/profit projection, not grand ideas about cities' global status.

Well, maybe not anymore. But the original WTC wasn't the result of free market capitalism lol.

[mhays]

The US backstopped commercial real estate loans into the 90s (or thereabouts), until the S&L crisis. That was behind a lot of risky spec office towers.

[Zapatan]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

When did the US lose its skyscraper dominance?

When China started booming, but the US is hands down the only Western country with skyscrapers and skylines that are truly impressive on a world stage which is why we're so lucky.

US is still top 2 or 3 globally by most skyscraper categories but it's cheaper to build in China, UAE etc. and as emerging economies they need to make their mark.

US and other Western countries no longer care about making their mark on the world because they don't need to.

If we're lucky I could see a 500+ meter building happening in NYC one day, and hopefully another 400+ for Chicago and 300+ for some other US cities.

Height and size matter but only until certain point IMO.

[DZH22]

NYC has been going crazy and the skyline is taking off in ways that were unimaginable just a decade ago. The rest of the skylines are unlikely to keep pace on the world stage, other than the few high-growth ones like Austin.

But NYC is more dominant than I have ever seen it and now I believe has more 1000' buildings than the rest of the country (maybe even continent?) combined.

IMG_0146 by David Z, on Flickr

[UrbanImpact]

The US government (and other Western nations) is not in the business of funding skyscraper construction like some of the nations in this discussion, which is why the West constructs buildings that make economical sense.

[Capsicum]

Part of the inspiration for this thread is that the observation that aside from immediate practical things, the US still punches above its weight in other things not necessarily (immediately) needed for survival.

For example, science, tech (Silicon Valley), space (NASA). Universities/colleges renowned worldwide. Even entertainment (Hollywood etc.). Yes, the US has ceded some grounds in other areas (economics) as the rest has risen and caught up.

But since as mentioned upthread, skyscrapers and monumental projects are cultural brags, this goes to show the US is not above other examples of keeping cultural clout steady and still up-to-date even as the rest of the world rose up.

[Capsicum]

The argument from economic necessity also overlooks that other US forms of either indirect or soft power (e.g. entertainment, space program) have kept up/held its own. An argument that the "US already won, can pack up and not worry about beating others " is interesting in light of the US (or factions/groups/interests within the US) still being interested in winning other contests that are just as much about making/building/creating cool, big, things as building physically big things.

Originally Posted by Zapatan

US and other Western countries no longer care about making their mark on the world because they don't need to.

[Capsicum]

Non-skyscraper examples of still heavy US/western dominance.

US still top in theme parks (Disney). Though China is there in the top ten now too, still behind the US.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o..._park_rankings

As discussed in another thread, busiest airports. US solidly leading.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...senger_traffic

[Capsicum]

Other examples for comparison.

Roller coasters

US and the west does well on many measures, Americans share rankings with Europe, Canada, South Korea, Japan, others etc. (US tallest steel, but Korea tallest wooden; UAE fastest steel roller coaster, US fastest wooden; Japan longest steel, US longest wooden).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...aster_rankings

Shopping malls. Asia dominates.

US (Mall of America) just outside top ten at 11th.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shopping_mall

Tallest dams. Asia dominates.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tallest_dams

Largest dams (volume).

Pakistan has 1st place, but US still second. Also US and the west has strong showing on the list.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_dams

[jmecklenborg]

The U.S. doesn't really care about skyscrapers anymore. Cities aren't competitive with each other in the ways that they were in the past.

Miami's profile has ticked upwards in the last 10-20 years, but that's not because a line of residential hi-rises have been built along its waterfront.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by Capsicum

Non-skyscraper examples of still heavy US/western dominance.

US still top in theme parks (Disney). Though China is there in the top ten now too, still behind the US.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o..._park_rankings

As discussed in another thread, busiest airports. US solidly leading.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...senger_traffic

Originally Posted by Capsicum

Other examples for comparison.

Roller coasters

US and the west does well on many measures, Americans share rankings with Europe, Canada, South Korea, Japan, others etc. (US tallest steel, but Korea tallest wooden; UAE fastest steel roller coaster, US fastest wooden; Japan longest steel, US longest wooden).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...aster_rankings

Shopping malls. Asia dominates.

US (Mall of America) just outside top ten at 11th.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shopping_mall

Tallest dams. Asia dominates.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tallest_dams

Largest dams (volume).

Pakistan has 1st place, but US still second. Also US and the west has strong showing on the list.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_dams

But those examples are all business projects that ostensibly make money though, and would have (or were expected to) made less money if they were smaller in scale. But past a certain height skyscrapers make less money than a shorter project because of the greater engineering requirements and percentage of floor space given to elevators.

That height threshold will vary by location since it depends partly on the land values and demand for space, but there's always some limit nonetheless. So building megatalls is almost always less profitable than shorter alternatives whether just in economic terms (considering opportunity cost) or also in purely accounting terms. Which means that building such a structure would be more like building monument like a statue or obelisk for the sake of sheer grandeur and spectacle rather than something profitable that is a grand spectacle inadvertently or as an added bonus.

[Zapatan]

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg

The U.S. doesn't really care about skyscrapers anymore. Cities aren't competitive with each other in the ways that they were in the past.

Miami's profile has ticked upwards in the last 10-20 years, but that's not because a line of residential hi-rises have been built along its waterfront.

I think it does at least a little, cities are still breaking records and building new extremely tall buildings (175 Park Avenue, 270 park, Tribune East Tower etc.)

Austin and (hopefully) Miami are entering the supertall club

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Zapatan

When China started booming, but the US is hands down the only Western country with skyscrapers and skylines that are truly impressive on a world stage which is why we're so lucky.

US is still top 2 or 3 globally by most skyscraper categories but it's cheaper to build in China, UAE etc. and as emerging economies they need to make their mark.

US and other Western countries no longer care about making their mark on the world because they don't need to.

If we're lucky I could see a 500+ meter building happening in NYC one day, and hopefully another 400+ for Chicago and 300+ for some other US cities.

Height and size matter but only until certain point IMO.

I'd say NYC and Chicago are still among the top 10. NYC is still comfortably top 5, if not top 2.