Next Midwest City To Build A Tower Over 700' Tall

[Hudson11]

Cleveland, Sherman-Williams.

A local developer has been talking about building a 1050 ft tower in downtown STL for about 15 years now. Originally the McGowan-Walsh Tower, but McGowan and Walsh split so I guess it would just be the McGowan tower if it ever gets built. Plenty of empty office space downtown that needs to be filled first, but the USDA just signed a 20-year lease on One Metropolitan Square so the largest is out of the way. Honestly, I'd rather see multiple 300—400 foot high rises go up downtown than a single 700 footer, but wouldn't kick it out of bed for eating crackers either.




image source

[JManc]

Originally Posted by TexasPlaya

I'm going with Detroit. Big Auto either gobbles up or out-competes Tesla and celebrate with a new office tower.

Not with a 277 billion market valuation they aren't. I think Musk alone is worth more than GM, Ford and FCA combined.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by JManc

Not with a 277 billion market valuation they aren't. I think Musk alone is worth more than GM, Ford and FCA combined.

Almost but not quite there. Big 3 (minus Peugeot) 84B vs Musk 68B.

Tesla is insanely overvalued, though.

[TexasPlaya]

Originally Posted by JManc

Not with a 277 billion market valuation they aren't. I think Musk alone is worth more than GM, Ford and FCA combined.

At this point, that valuation is a burden not a blessing for the company.

[SIGSEGV]

Originally Posted by TexasPlaya

At this point, that valuation is a burden not a blessing for the company.

Yeah, there's no way they're going to be live up to that so it will be an exercise in finding someone else to hold the bag.

[llamaorama]

I'm not really qualified to have this opinion other than my time hanging around this site, but I'm pretty sure skyscraper construction does not directly correlate with business activity or wealth. I mean sure, growing and prosperous cities have more development, duh, but then look at Phoenix or Orlando and then compare those places with Chicago. Also, I've noticed that high rise construction comes in waves. Few cities build just one new tall building downtown and that's it. Instead some cities have minimal construction and then one building seems to open the door for more. That sets a precedent where a city is now a "high rise" city. It's like proving that high rise residential breaks a barrier, and soon there's more, a lot more, and they just get taller and taller until the economic cycle ends and things reset. At the end of the day even a very big tower has maybe 300 people in, a rounding error of a percent of a couple million in a metro area, so its not like you need major growth, just interest and desire.

So I'd name Milwaukee, moreso than Minneapolis or any others. Milwaukee has always built at least some tall buildings including residential ones in every decade despite being economically and demographically in the pits and a third-rate metro. There are few other cities comparable to Milwaukee in size that have so many mid-rise apartments and condos in an established neighborhood like going north of downtown to UWM.

To me what that says is developers in Milwaukee embrace taller construction, the downtown and lakefront of the city is comparatively desirable even other parts of it are rough and in decline, and these areas continue to have interest. So, the city doesn't even necessary need a major boom, its just random that some point a developer with sufficient capital could put up a big condo tower in an area where there is proven desire for high rise living.

The problem with Minneapolis and other choices is that they've gone through lulls in development even when their economy and populations were doing alright. Columbus and Indianapolis haven't built any major skyscrapers in like 30 years and high rise living doesn't seem very popular, even despite their healthy outlooks. Those cities have built a lot of low rises and have gentrification in the city but don't go vertical for some reason and to me that suggests even a tremendous growth spurt wouldn't produce tall buildings.

[The North One]

Doesn't St. Louis have height limits? I thought you're not allowed to build anything taller than the Arch?

[craigs]

Originally Posted by llamaorama

I'm not really qualified to have this opinion other than my time hanging around this site, but I'm pretty sure skyscraper construction does not directly correlate with business activity or wealth. I mean sure, growing and prosperous cities have more development, duh, but then look at Phoenix or Orlando and then compare those places with Chicago. Also, I've noticed that high rise construction comes in waves. Few cities build just one new tall building downtown and that's it. Instead some cities have minimal construction and then one building seems to open the door for more. That sets a precedent where a city is now a "high rise" city. It's like proving that high rise residential breaks a barrier, and soon there's more, a lot more, and they just get taller and taller until the economic cycle ends and things reset. At the end of the day even a very big tower has maybe 300 people in, a rounding error of a percent of a couple million in a metro area, so its not like you need major growth, just interest and desire.

So I'd name Milwaukee, moreso than Minneapolis or any others. Milwaukee has always built at least some tall buildings including residential ones in every decade despite being economically and demographically in the pits and a third-rate metro. There are few other cities comparable to Milwaukee in size that have so many mid-rise apartments and condos in an established neighborhood like going north of downtown to UWM.

To me what that says is developers in Milwaukee embrace taller construction, the downtown and lakefront of the city is comparatively desirable even other parts of it are rough and in decline, and these areas continue to have interest. So, the city doesn't even necessary need a major boom, its just random that some point a developer with sufficient capital could put up a big condo tower in an area where there is proven desire for high rise living.

I went with Minneapolis because they seem to have the corporate (and residential) culture for skyscrapers.

But I get you--I, too, don't have any good argument for Milwaukee, but just watching the return of high rise development to Milwaukee in the last few years, there seems to be momentum for something really tall. I've got a gut feeling that they're going to put up a 700'+ tower, but take that for what it is.

While obviously smaller, it has been pointed out on this forum before that Milwaukee is something of a mini-Chicago in terms of its lakefront-and-river location, with similar land uses (mostly office downtown, high-rise residential along the shore north of downtown). I don't think a new 700-footer in Milwaukee would only be residential though--I'd expect it would be mixed residential-office or perhaps even residential-hotel-office. After COVID is tamed, of course.

Originally Posted by The North One

Doesn't St. Louis have height limits? I thought you're not allowed to build anything taller than the Arch?

just east of broadway, i think, which is about 2 blocks west of the arch grounds. and probably two or three blocks north and south of the arch grounds as well. that leaves most of downtown amenable to > 630 ft.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere

Milwaukee has the influence of Chicago builders though too, and has quite a few tall buildings proposed right now. I could see them doing it too.

While 6 of Milwaukee's 12 buildings over 100m were designed by Chicago architecture firms, I don't think any of them were actually developed by Chicago companies.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by llamaorama

The problem with Minneapolis and other choices is that they've gone through lulls in development even when their economy and populations were doing alright.

Historically true, but Minneapolis has two towers over 500' tall U/C right now, so they FINALLY seem to have gotten their skyscraper mojo back up there, which is why I voted for Minneapolis.

[jbermingham123]

delete

[The North One]

Ya know, technically, Detroit has a 750 ft tower under construction right now, the Gordie Howe Bridge

So Detroit wins.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by The North One

Ya know, technically, Detroit has a 750 ft tower under construction right now, the Gordie Howe Bridge

So Detroit wins.

Yeah, I forgot about that.

SSP lists the new bridge towers at 722' tall, but either way, that'll still make them that tallest free-standing structures (ie. not broadcast antennas) built in the Midwest (outside of Chicago) in over a generation.

They will dwarf the Mackinac Bridge's 550' towers to become the tallest bridge towers in the midwest. In fact, I think they'll be the second tallest in the nation after the Golden Gate Bridge's towers.

[0214685226]

Oklahoma City? Devon Tower two, unrelated to Devon Tower. I think it could be a city similar to OKC that is often not associated with tall buildings.

I would also go with Minneapolis (pre pandemic trends).

[Steely Dan]

^ Oklahoma is generally considered a part of the south, not the Midwest, hence why OKC wasn't included in the poll.

[0214685226]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

^ Oklahoma is generally considered a part of the south, not the Midwest, hence why OKC wasn't included in the poll.

I was thinking a city similar to OKC, a city that sneaks in there from what seems like a logical place like Minneapolis or St. Paul.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by 0214685226

a city that sneaks in there from what seems like a logical place like Minneapolis or St. Paul.

St. Paul doesn't seem like a logical choice to me, given its lower skyline stature, but it could be a good dark horse option if an ambitious enough local developer ever got the cajones to upstage the bigger brother nextdoor.

In a similar vein, Clayton, MO might also be a long shot contender if some big-balled developer ever wanted to upstage St. Louis.

[mhays]

Do these governments encourage or restrict tower heights?

In my area, there are strict limits for floor area ratio for commercial uses, and strict height limits for all uses. Plus millions in fees. Rents are high but so are land and construction costs.

This discussion includes a bunch of factors that don't seem terribly relevant. The land use code, the building code, economics, tenant expectations (like parking), and sometimes specific signed tenants govern these things.