U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S. > City vs. City
 [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)
View Poll Results: Do you believe Chicago will build something taller than the Freedom Tower?
Yes, it's possible in our life time 37 72.55%
No, not likely in our life time 14 27.45%
Voters: 51. You may not vote on this poll

Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 05-12-2013, 10:00 AM
 
Location: London, U.K.
886 posts, read 1,333,543 times
Reputation: 817

Advertisements

No and it's not needed either. We're not growing as fast as China, India, or the Middle East and they already have claustrophobically dense cities with limited space. They need them, we don't. I.E. Shanghai grew by a hair over 7 million people last decade, that's equal to raw numbers of NYC, L.A., Houston, Dallas, and D.C. combined.

We don't have the market demands for it and BTW, 1776 feet is a very high mark to crack, if any cities could it would only be NYC and Chicago. The US will get more supertalls but I don't think either city is seeing 1800ft + for a long time.

Last edited by BLAXTOR; 05-12-2013 at 10:14 AM..

 
Old 05-12-2013, 10:05 AM
 
Location: Upper West Side, Manhattan, NYC
14,798 posts, read 19,013,424 times
Reputation: 6805
This right now is the best chance of it being done although it won't be for awhile if it ever (who knows) gets approved.

Old Chicago Main Post Office Redevelopment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Old 05-12-2013, 12:57 PM
 
Location: Chicago, IL/Houston, TX
874 posts, read 1,162,343 times
Reputation: 567
432 Park will be even taller than 1WTC (minus the spire/antenna). New York's supertall boom is absolutely crazy right now with all the U/C's and proposals. Chicago's has slowed down quite a bit, rightfully so due to the economy here. I could see New York topping the 1,776 pinnacle themselves with another proposal. Not really sure if that 2nd phase of the Post Office Redevelopment will happen, but that's the next biggest chance Chicago has of topping 1WTC.

Like Blaxtor said, we aren't growing as fast as some of those other countries, so it really isn't needed. I can see more supertalls being built in cities like LA, SF, Miami, and Houston. -- but as far as eclipsing that 1WTC height, it's more likely to happen in either New York or Chicago.
 
Old 05-12-2013, 02:01 PM
 
3,115 posts, read 3,866,784 times
Reputation: 2853
I'm of the philosophy that when figuring out the "tallest" skyscrapers, spires and atennae need to be excluded from the criteria. It's, frankly, stupid to claim a building as being the "tallest" when a big chunk of it isn't even accessible without mountaineering equipment. We're going to reach a point someday where the world's tallest building is going to be some 2 story office park with a spire that stretches halfway to the moon.

And THAT is why I do not acknowledge the Freedom tower as the tallest.
 
Old 05-12-2013, 02:06 PM
 
3,115 posts, read 3,866,784 times
Reputation: 2853
Quote:
Originally Posted by BLAXTOR View Post
No and it's not needed either. We're not growing as fast as China, India, or the Middle East and they already have claustrophobically dense cities with limited space. They need them, we don't. I.E. Shanghai grew by a hair over 7 million people last decade, that's equal to raw numbers of NYC, L.A., Houston, Dallas, and D.C. combined.

We don't have the market demands for it and BTW, 1776 feet is a very high mark to crack, if any cities could it would only be NYC and Chicago. The US will get more supertalls but I don't think either city is seeing 1800ft + for a long time.
It's not that only NYC or Chicago could crack it - it's that they're the only 2 cities with governments that actually place the tiniest bit of importance on such things. About 15 years ago, Bill Gates got a wild hair and decided he'd build the world's tallest building in Seattle and then put all of the area's Microsoft employees into it, and then changed his mind when he realized it'd serve absolutely no functional purpose. Instead, he bought about half of Redmond around the existing headquarters and put up extra campuses and then built a few more reasonably sized skyscrapers in Bellevue.
 
Old 05-12-2013, 02:08 PM
 
Location: Arizona
3,664 posts, read 5,546,332 times
Reputation: 2269
Is the primary purpose of the Freedom Tower business/commercial?
 
Old 05-12-2013, 02:16 PM
 
Location: Upper West Side, Manhattan, NYC
14,798 posts, read 19,013,424 times
Reputation: 6805
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xanathos View Post
I'm of the philosophy that when figuring out the "tallest" skyscrapers, spires and atennae need to be excluded from the criteria. It's, frankly, stupid to claim a building as being the "tallest" when a big chunk of it isn't even accessible without mountaineering equipment. We're going to reach a point someday where the world's tallest building is going to be some 2 story office park with a spire that stretches halfway to the moon.

And THAT is why I do not acknowledge the Freedom tower as the tallest.
Totally agree. That's why the mast in Blanchard, ND at 2063 feet is not considered the tallest building in the US. It's considered the tallest "structure." Most sources do not count antennae or anything like that as part of the official height. If that was the case, Sears Tower would be considered 1729 feet tall, not 1451 feet tall.

1 WTC Freedom Tower will be considered 1776 ft by many people due to its symbolism, but "official" sources will count it at about 1368 feet.

CTBUH Criteria for Defining and Measuring Tall Buildings
Quote:
The CTBUH recognizes tall building height in three categories:
[SIZE=2]1. Height to Architectural Top
[/SIZE]
Height is measured from the level1 of the lowest, significant,2 open-air,3 pedestrian4 entrance to the architectural top of the building, including spires, but not including antennae, signage, flag poles or other functional-technical equipment.5 This measurement is the most widely utilized and is employed to define the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat rankings of the [SIZE=2]"World's Tallest Buildings."[/SIZE][SIZE=2][/SIZE]
 
Old 05-12-2013, 03:42 PM
 
Location: Calera, AL
1,161 posts, read 1,442,634 times
Reputation: 1569
Quote:
Originally Posted by BLAXTOR View Post
No and it's not needed either. We're not growing as fast as China, India, or the Middle East and they already have claustrophobically dense cities with limited space. They need them, we don't. I.E. Shanghai grew by a hair over 7 million people last decade, that's equal to raw numbers of NYC, L.A., Houston, Dallas, and D.C. combined.

We don't have the market demands for it and BTW, 1776 feet is a very high mark to crack, if any cities could it would only be NYC and Chicago. The US will get more supertalls but I don't think either city is seeing 1800ft + for a long time.
This.

Most US cities just don't have a whole lot of density, in most instances it's far more practical to build out than to build up.

For instance, Sioux Falls, SD has about 160K people and doesn't have a single building officially listed at 200 feet (which is rather sad). Perhaps more astonishing is that Phoenix, AZ (city proper of about 1.5M) doesn't have a single building over 500 feet. Little Rock, Tulsa, and Mobile all have at least one building taller than PHX's tallest.
 
Old 05-12-2013, 06:58 PM
 
Location: Earth
2,549 posts, read 3,256,248 times
Reputation: 1202
The Spire was a beautiful design. It would have been cool to see the Freedom Tower and the Chicago Spire go up together at the same time as a stronger sign for America's come back. It seems that Dubai has put more buildings up than both Chicago and NYC combined during it's short boom in the last 20 years.

 
Old 05-12-2013, 07:19 PM
 
Location: Earth
2,549 posts, read 3,256,248 times
Reputation: 1202
I have a question for you folks do you think NYC or Chicago will ever allow for something to be built higher than Dubai's Burj Khalifa 2,722 ft . Does the FAA have a federal height limit across the county for all cities? Can we build a Mile High Illinois Tower?
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.


Closed Thread

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 > General U.S. > City vs. City
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - 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 - Top