Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Alaska > Anchorage
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 05-15-2011, 12:25 AM
 
Location: Wasilla, AK
2,792 posts, read 5,565,978 times
Reputation: 2528

Advertisements

After the '64 earthquake Anchorage passed an ordinance limiting building height to 22 stories. Anchorage sits on an alluvial fan of glacier silt. When shaken in an earthquake it under goes liquefaction. Basically it turns into soup. If you ever spend time in downtown Anchorage, you'll occasionally notice some pipes coming up out of the ground. The best example is in the parking lot on 3rd Street overlooking the Railroad depot. These were installed in the hopes that the circulating air would help to prevent the liquefaction, but they've never had a real test.
For now there's still room to build in Anchorage without going up too high.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-15-2011, 01:04 AM
 
Location: East Central Phoenix
8,017 posts, read 12,161,891 times
Reputation: 9788
Quote:
Originally Posted by insightofitall View Post
The construction of tall skyscrapers isn't dictated by a city's population. It's driven by the need for office space, and other economic factors. There are many cities with populations far greater than Anchorage which still don't have tall skyscrapers to "match their population". For instance, one would think Phoenix would have some of the tallest skyscrapers in the country, because its population is nearly 1.5 million - but its tallest building is only 486'. There are many smaller cities with buildings taller than that. Cincinnati, for example, has less than 300,000 people - but its tallest building is 665'. Granted, Phoenix has height restrictions due to the proximity of its downtown to the airport, but population really has nothing to do with it. There are other examples that could be cited.
I saw this thread on the main page, and had to respond. As a Phoenix resident (and native), I can say that what you stated is absolutely true. There are a fair share of highrises in Phoenix's downtown and Central Corridor areas, but most of them are 20 to 30 stories, with the tallest being 40 floors ... not anywhere close to the heights in cities like New York, Chicago, Houston, etc.

Phoenix is a good example of a western U.S. city that grew on sprawl. The reason Phoenix has 1.5 million people is it covers 500 square miles, and about 90% of it looks & feels like a huge suburb. It is reaching a point where there will be no more room to grow outward ... and once that happens, there will be no other choice for Phoenix to grow but upward. That's pretty much what happened in Los Angeles. For many years, L.A. had few skyscrapers because most of their growth has also been outward, but once they ran out of room to expand, they built taller structures and became more densely populated. L.A. now has some of the tallest buildings in the western U.S.

Unfortunately, Phoenix has one factor that stands in the way of taller structures, and that would be the NIMBYs (standing for "Not In My Back Yard"). They congregate in small, but loud droves and protest to the hilt in order to prevent buildings of a certain height from being constructed ... and it's usually over silly reasons like blocking their view of a distant mountain, or obstructing their sunlight (as if Phoenix really needs any more sun).

Quote:
Originally Posted by insightofitall View Post
I've read there is a height restriction in Anchorage, but I don't know if that's true, or what it might be.
Sarah Palin should have pushed for taller buildings in Anchorage because she would have TRULY been able to see Russia from her house. Sorry, I couldn't resist getting that one in!
()
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-15-2011, 01:07 AM
 
1,446 posts, read 4,581,100 times
Reputation: 990
OK. It appears that as long as Anchorage can still grow out, it will not grow up. However, will the ordinance eventually be repealed once there is no more land to sprawl out in?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-15-2011, 01:14 AM
 
Location: East Central Phoenix
8,017 posts, read 12,161,891 times
Reputation: 9788
Quote:
Originally Posted by lentzr View Post
OK. It appears that as long as Anchorage can still grow out, it will not grow up. However, will the ordinance eventually be repealed once there is no more land to sprawl out in?
I highly doubt that. The land area of Anchorage 1,961 square miles, and a population density of 172 per square mile. I'm sure much of that is preservation land, but there is still lots of room to expand for many years to come. Besides, Anchorage isn't considered a big city by U.S. standards. Its population of 300,000 is about the same size as Bakersfield, CA. And with all that land to grow on, I wouldn't expect too much in the way of skyscraper development.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-15-2011, 12:57 PM
 
Location: Anchorage
1,923 posts, read 4,690,541 times
Reputation: 871
Quote:
Originally Posted by lentzr View Post
OK. It appears that as long as Anchorage can still grow out, it will not grow up. However, will the ordinance eventually be repealed once there is no more land to sprawl out in?

Why on earth would anyone repeal something that could mean life or death to many people??


Oh yeah, money.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-15-2011, 03:23 PM
 
3,774 posts, read 11,176,962 times
Reputation: 1862
Downtown Anchorage is located less than 2 miles from Merrill Field, and less than 3 miles from the runway at Elmendorf AFB. It is 5 miles from the runway at Ted Stevens international airport. This, the lack of need for office space and the UBC zone 4 requirements for earthquake-proof construction are all good and valid reasons for not constructing taller buildings. Anchorage is bounded on the east by the Chugach range, and taller buildings would also restrict the flight paths of three active airfields, not to mention the various lakes and private fields utilized by local private pilots.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-15-2011, 04:53 PM
 
Location: Oregon
65 posts, read 204,929 times
Reputation: 123
The need for building vertically comes when there is insufficient land to build laterally. It will always be safer to build shorter buildings, save for when building in a flood plane. My guess is that Anchorage will need to be much more populated before developers will be willing to increase liability by building higher.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-16-2011, 04:57 PM
 
Location: Homosassa, Florida
2,200 posts, read 4,340,309 times
Reputation: 472
The Old EF Hutton Corporation Building Anchorage. Think might be the tallest. I was lucky having a friend who was a oil executive on the top floor office. Back in 1984 when I was visiting him.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-18-2011, 01:49 PM
 
Location: Clifton Heights, Cincinnati
75 posts, read 175,119 times
Reputation: 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by insightofitall View Post
The construction of tall skyscrapers isn't dictated by a city's population. It's driven by the need for office space, and other economic factors. There are many cities with populations far greater than Anchorage which still don't have tall skyscrapers to "match their population". For instance, one would think Phoenix would have some of the tallest skyscrapers in the country, because its population is nearly 1.5 million - but its tallest building is only 486'. There are many smaller cities with buildings taller than that. Cincinnati, for example, has less than 300,000 people - but its tallest building is 665'. Granted, Phoenix has height restrictions due to the proximity of its downtown to the airport, but population really has nothing to do with it. There are other examples that could be cited.
Your point about Cincinnati is a bit misleading, because we are the center of a metro area of 2.3 million people, the 27th largest in the country. The 296,000 figure I imagine you are referring to is only the City Proper. I find it hard to believe Phoenix has 1.5 Million people in it's City Proper and if it does, I imagine they were fairly busy with annexing surrounding communities.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-19-2011, 12:05 AM
 
4,463 posts, read 6,202,214 times
Reputation: 2046
With the decline in oil and gas which is the bulk of our economy I dont see there being any need for more office space unless alaska has a new economic boom.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Settings
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2020 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Alaska > Anchorage
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top