Why were NYC, Chicago and Miami the only areas that built numerous high-rises in years past? (living, floor)

[Smallbrake]

It's still hard for me to wrap my head around the fact that NYC, Chicago and Miami were the only places that built a significant amount of high-rises in the past couple of decades.

You would think that with so many large and even just fast growing areas at least a few other places would manage to build a bunch of high-rises like these aforementioned cities.

I'm sure there are different reasons why other cities never built a large number of them for each different city like Houston and Atlanta's etc. reason will obviously be different than L.A. etc.

Is there a certain characteristic about NYC, Chicago and Miami that sticks out compared to all these other cities where they just throw up more high-rises for some reason?

To me it's just really mind blowing that only those three areas built so many more than anywhere else the past couple of decades.

One things for sure though, U.S. cities won't be having a large building boom anywhere close to what those three cities have recently built for a long time, if ever again. It's pretty crazy if you really think about it.

[Chi-town]

Chicago created the skyscraper as we know it. It boomed in them and city-set height limits thru most the 20th century. Had NYC take up the idea and Manhattan as a Island. Took it to the skies. Chicago then lifted limits and got its tall boys.

For this thread.

NYC - Manhattan a Island. Many wanted the views then. Had less choice but to go upward. The Penthouse-view penned there.

CHI - Had the Loop with lake one side and river branchs two others as a self-imposed Island back in the day. Still was NOT a high-rise mecca till the 1960s.

High-rise living on the lakefront for views of Lake and skyline boomed going upward. Then downtown expanded and high-rise to skyscraper living to this day is its legacy.

We want them views of the lake and or urban-scape.

[1200RT]

Foreign money / foreign owners want easy, turnkey property.

Most people dont want to live on top of each other in high density areas as their primary residence.

[indigorunner]

For historical reasons, others have explained quite well.

For recent decades, Seattle has put up a huge amount of towers as well in the last 10-20 years. Many other cities (LA, Houston, Dallas, Atlanta, Nashville, Austin, Charlotte) are building a decent amount as well, but none at the rate of Seattle.

[OyCrumbler]

Sprawl and suburbanization as part of it maybe?


Honolulu has a lot of high-rises for how populous it is. San Francisco also has a pretty densely packed skyline. I think both of these as well as NYC and Miami all have certain geographic qualities that squeeze people in. Chicago's sort of interesting in that it has quite a bit of room to sprawl, but is quite densely built. I'll add that Houston has built pretty similar number of high-rises to Miami though its high-rises aren't clumped together in one area.

[paytonc]

Originally Posted by Smallbrake

It's still hard for me to wrap my head around the fact that NYC, Chicago and Miami were the only places that built a significant amount of high-rises in the past couple of decades.

high-rises are a way many people can share scarce land.
in NYC and Chicago, land within walking distance to commuter rail terminals (which bring millions of well-qualified employees into work) is scarce and in high demand for office towers, and so is residential land within walking distance to those office towers.
in Miami, land within sight of the water is scarce.

nowhere else in America faces these same geographic quirks. commuter rail is a niche transport mode in all other cities, and beaches may be plentiful but Miami as a place is singular. since almost everywhere else in America is filled with people who value on-site monster-truck parking more than they value high-floor views, it's absolutely not a surprise that few other cities have 100s of high-rises.

there's also a supply-side factor; these cities have the private-sector and public-sector know-how to produce high-rises. in many other cities, that know-how is either nonexistent or has to be imported.

[pnwguy2]

Yep, Seattle always gets overlooked. Tremendous amount of new talls in the past 2-3 years. Not as flashy as NYC, Chicago, and Miami, but just as productive. I seriously think Seattle's skyline is in the top 5 in the US.

[masssachoicetts]

Seattle
Austin
Boston
Washington DC
Nashville
Atlanta
San Francisco
Los Angeles

[10sliptothesand]

Originally Posted by OyCrumbler

I'll add that Houston has built pretty similar number of high-rises to Miami though its high-rises aren't clumped together in one area.

No it hasn't. The only reason it would is because Houston is so much larger than Miami expand Miami's land area to the same size as Houston and you will see Miami would have maany more high-rises.

If you are talking about the whole metro area you wouldn't even need to get to the Broward County line before the numbers favor Miami greatly. The Miami metro probably has 10 times as many high-rises as Houston's metro.

Have you ever spent any significant time in the Miami area?

Originally Posted by masssachoicetts

Seattle
Austin
Boston
Washington DC
Nashville
Atlanta
San Francisco
Los Angeles

Is this a list of cities that you think have built the same number of high-rises the past 20 years as either New York City Chicago Miami? If so that's a pretty funny list.

[thedirtypirate]

I think there's two main reasons for why NYC and Chicago have so many:

1. They were already a lot bigger before suburbanization. They easily had the most pre-war towers by a far margin. I think this led to redevelopment into modern office districts easier imo.
2. The types of industries that existed and employed people especially finance. Finance companies have always loved the big HQ in the center of commerce.

Miami was a resort city where people lived right up against the coast. It's just kept growing and growing.