This is NOT a stagnant city (Chicago, Lincoln: real estate market, 2013, crime)

[Attrill]

I don't think supertalls should be used as the sole indicator of development, they're more of a reflection on available land in any given city. And NYC certainly doesn't have "dozens and dozens" of supertalls going up, they may build a dozen over the next decade. If supertalls are all that matter to you then forget NYC and look to Dubai and China.

Chicago development is going to be more spread out because there's more land to build on. Many areas need to fill in before we see Manhattan like land prices that make supertalls more common. Even close in to the Loop there is available land around areas like Grand/Milwaukee, and those areas are seeing development.

Outside the central area there's even more development happening. Within just a one mile stretch on Milwaukee Ave. there are a large number of decent sized building being proposed - including a 7-story 128 unit building, a dual 10 and 14-story towers development, and a 6-story 120 unit building. There are also loads of smaller (3-12 unit) buildings already going up just off Milwaukee in this stretch.

Oh - and Houston is nothing like Chicago and is a poor comparison. It is many times the geographic size of Chicago, and if you compare the same land area in Chicago to Houston it has no chance of ever catching up. It's MSA is significantly smaller than Chicago's.

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by Attrill

I don't think supertalls should be used as the sole indicator of development, they're more of a reflection on available land in any given city.

Right. It's such a superficial way of looking at everything. Development should be looked at in terms of new housing (number of units, SFHs), new office space, renovations, etc. Even amount of money spent is kind of superficial since not all buildings and materials cost the same. Not to mention the price of labor varies from city to city.

And NYC certainly doesn't have "dozens and dozens" of supertalls going up, they may build a dozen over the next decade. If supertalls are all that matter to you then forget NYC and look to Dubai and China.

Yes, NYC has 4 current U/C that are over 1000 feet (though one is done and another is topped out now) and another one over 900 feet. Then there's another over 700 feet. The majority of stuff being built in Manhattan right now is under 400 feet and many under 300 or even 250 feet tall.

[edsg25]

Originally Posted by NOLA101

This is a load of bullcrap.

If Chicago had dozens of proposed and u/c supertalls by starchitects, and NYC had none, I guarantee most people in this thread would be using this as evidence that Chicago had a great skyline, and was progressing better than NYC and other cities.

i don't profess to speak for "most people on this thread"; apparently you do. as for me, Chicago is a great city on its own attributes with no need to compare to any place. Including NY. If I....we.....wanted New York, we'd choose it.

Originally Posted by NOLA101

But now that NYC is killing it in supertalls and starchitects, and Chicago is comparatively doing almost nothing, suddenly highrises are a bad thing, and some of the Chicago posters claim they prefer no growth to supertalls.

NYC is "killing".....OMG, man, are a teenager? is there some kind of race to the sky going on (if so, the Asians have cleaned our American clock on that one. and London, as great a city as any on the planet, never played the game in the first place). just what we need: a pissing contest.

Originally Posted by NOLA101

Chicago's skyline is part of its identity, and Chicago has always been a pro-growth, pro-highrise type of town. I don't believe that all the C-D forumers now believe this is a bad thing, and they would prefer embalming the Chicago skyline in amber.

sure the skyline is part of our identity. so are the wide swaths of green that are our parks and the incredibly open lake we abut. not to mention the delightfully scaled neighborhoods that are so charming.

your vision of what you would like NYC to be is a vision from hell.

in a finite world, lapping up resources relentlessly in an endless supply to meet an endless demand where growth for the sake of growth is the norm we make a mockery of the very notion of sustainability and rationality.

[rzzzz]

As mentioned before, the supertall residential buildings in Manhattan are 2nd or 3rd residences for the global mega rich people. NYC turned into an urban resort for those people and their offspring over the past ten years. I got flamed for saying this before (not sure why) but Chicago is not that sort of town. The buildings in Chicago are mostly for "normal" rich people, who actually make their money in Chicago.

Out of curiosity, does Chicago have "air rights" above buildings like in Manhattan?

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by rzzzz

The buildings in Chicago are mostly for "normal" rich people, who actually make their money in Chicago.

When compared to Manhattan, sure.. but there are still rich people who own condos/homes in Chicago and don't live there and didn't make most of their money there like the owner of the Jacksonville Jaguars who owns a $8.3 million condo near Michigan Avenue. He doesn't live in Chicago - he just uses that as a vacation home/business place. You could say the same thing about Vegas, Miami, and Los Angeles as you do about Manhattan though. Many people own places there as vacation homes or whatever. I know some people who live in the suburbs of Chicago and own a $5 million home in Florida who will probably buy something in downtown Chicago soon too (They probably don't count because their money was made in the burbs though).

[MassVt]

I just don't think that Chicago should be in the business of competing with New York. Some people, including me, prefer to think of Chicago as being the more cost-conscious alternative to NYC, and yet offering many of the same amenities. I would think that many long-term residents might object to a dramatic increase in the cost of housing, as then Chicago would lose its appeal as an attractive, yet sane place to live..

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by MassVt

I just don't think that Chicago should be in the business of competing with New York. Some people, including me, prefer to think of Chicago as being the more cost-conscious alternative to NYC, and yet offering many of the same amenities. I would think that many long-term residents might object to a dramatic increase in the cost of housing, as then Chicago would lose its appeal as an attractive, yet sane place to live..

That's how I think of it. And actually, after having been in Manhattan for the last 3 months, I actually don't understand why people would pay that much. It's a cool place, but I can't believe how much some people pay to live there. I'd live in Queens or Brooklyn if I lived in NYC full time.

Prices in Chicago ARE increasing, but it's still a bargain compared to Manhattan, SF, etc and will continue to be so.

[rzzzz]

Originally Posted by marothisu

When compared to Manhattan, sure.. but there are still rich people who own condos/homes in Chicago and don't live there and didn't make most of their money there like the owner of the Jacksonville Jaguars who owns a $8.3 million condo near Michigan Avenue. He doesn't live in Chicago - he just uses that as a vacation home/business place.

That is true but that guy did go to UIUC and started his first business in Illinois.

There are three main places that have exploded in popularity with the super billionaire set: NYC, London and Paris. London is popular with super rich Russians. Paris is more popular with super wealthy Arabs. NYC seems to attract all kinds. Of course these types of people likely all own expensive property in all of these places.

[probablyimnotsure]

Originally Posted by rzzzz

That is true but that guy did go to UIUC and started his first business in Illinois.

There are three main places that have exploded in popularity with the super billionaire set: NYC, London and Paris. London is popular with super rich Russians. Paris is more popular with super wealthy Arabs. NYC seems to attract all kinds. Of course these types of people likely all own expensive property in all of these places.

What about San Francisco?

[rzzzz]

Originally Posted by marothisu

That's how I think of it. And actually, after having been in Manhattan for the last 3 months, I actually don't understand why people would pay that much. It's a cool place, but I can't believe how much some people pay to live there. I'd live in Queens or Brooklyn if I lived in NYC full time.

Prices in Chicago ARE increasing, but it's still a bargain compared to Manhattan, SF, etc and will continue to be so.

A lot of people pay that much to live in NYC because NYC is the only place they can make money. There are a lot of weird jobs that only exist in NYC. My girlfriend would make $800-$1000 a day retouching photos for fashion shoots and in Chicago she would likely be unemployed. If you just have a "normal" job then NYC eventually does become an expensive headache, even if you make a good amount of money. Many of those people simply move out (like I did).