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.
I don't think people realize how much alignment of moon and stars has to occur for that type of development to occur.
3-4 skyscrapers between 500-700ft and
10 between 300 - 500 is a ton of real estate.
Even Dallas isn't seeing that type of growth in its downtown.
People see places like Austin or Seattle throwing up a ton of towers in their respective cores and think they can see that elsewhere.
Well I guess anyone can picture anything, but that type of investment, in this day and age, is only happening in very few places where multiple factors came into play to make things all pull together.
THIS^ is so on point and accurate.
That's what makes the off the charts developments going on in Austin, Nashville and Charlotte so epic and historical. These types of development booms only happen in cities once or twice in their histories for the most part.
These 3 cities are squeezing 70-100 years of development into 10-15 years, and it is unheard of development.
Numbers like these are a dream for any city, and these 3 are absolutely killin' it in the new skyscraper developments today:
Austin
12-13 under construction
50+ planned or approved
Charlotte
5-6 under construction
25-30+ planned or approved
Nashville
8 under construction
40+ planned or approved
I don't think people realize how much alignment of moon and stars has to occur for that type of development to occur.
3-4 skyscrapers between 500-700ft and
10 between 300 - 500 is a ton of real estate.
Even Dallas isn't seeing that type of growth in its downtown.
People see places like Austin or Seattle throwing up a ton of towers in their respective cores and think they can see that elsewhere.
Well I guess anyone can picture anything, but that type of investment, in this day and age, is only happening in very few places where multiple factors came into play to make things all pull together.
St. Louis has already built about 4 300 footers in the past decade (not including Clayton) and this is a slow growth region. I don't think 10 300-500 footers is that crazy at all. Currently, there is a rehab or a massive building that will have about 300 apartments. The building is about 10 stories tall and takes a entire city block. That amount of inventory would have easily been a 400 foot tall high rise in a new Sunbelt city that is more of a clean slate.
That's what makes the off the charts developments going on in Austin, Nashville and Charlotte so epic and historical. These types of development booms only happen in cities once or twice in their histories for the most part.
These 3 cities are squeezing 70-100 years of development into 10-15 years, and it is unheard of development.
Numbers like these are a dream for any city, and these 3 are absolutely killin' it in the new skyscraper developments today:
Austin
12-13 under construction
50+ planned or approved
Charlotte
5-6 under construction
25-30+ planned or approved
Nashville
8 under construction
40+ planned or approved
That's because these cities are essentially starting from scratch in terms of urban development. Legacy cities are either already built out and getting denser or trying to redevelop themselves.
That's because these cities are essentially starting from scratch in terms of urban development. Legacy cities are either already built out and getting denser or trying to redevelop themselves.
They are definitely in-process of fast-building their cores--up and out.
I wouldn't say "from scratch" though, because Charlotte has been a big city for decades now, while Austin and Nashville - although not "huge cities" were mid-sized cities for at least beginning in the 1970s until now.
But, I get what you mean I think, regarding lack of infrastructure downtown, as compared to a "Milwaukee" or "St Louis" or "Pittsburgh."
All 3 cities are booming, for sure. Thing is, they've passed most mid-sized legacy cities in their tiers already buildings-wise. Infrastructure in Charlotte is much better positioned to be competitive to legacy cities than Austin or Nashville, at least up until now.
That's because these cities are essentially starting from scratch in terms of urban development. Legacy cities are either already built out and getting denser or trying to redevelop themselves.
Nashville is not starting from scratch. It is just booming in a way it has not been in the past. Nashville has been building urban development more seriously in the past 20 years. Until the mid 2000s it was mostly low rise commercial and some residential buildings. There were already dozens of converted warehouses into loft apartments and condominiums (see 2nd Avenue, Demonbreun, Commerce, 5th Ave, and of course the Gulch and West End/Mid town neighborhoods). I am not suggesting it compares to St. Louis or Pittsburgh, but it is a false narrative that Nashville is some brand new Sunbelt city.
Nashville is not starting from scratch. It is just booming in a way it has not been in the past. Nashville has been building urban development more seriously in the past 20 years. Until the mid 2000s it was mostly low rise commercial and some residential buildings. There were already dozens of converted warehouses into loft apartments and condominiums (see 2nd Avenue, Demonbreun, Commerce, 5th Ave, and of course the Gulch and West End/Mid town neighborhoods). I am not suggesting it compares to St. Louis or Pittsburgh, but it is a false narrative that Nashville is some brand new Sunbelt city.
20 years is brand new in these terms. Nashville is 100% in the category of brand new sunbelt cities. Every booming sunbelt city is.
20 years is brand new in these terms. Nashville is 100% in the category of brand new sunbelt cities. Every booming sunbelt city is.
The better test would be what happens when the recession hits and things aren't brand new anymore. I've walked under some of those new sunbelt skyscrapers and it's still kind of dead right now. Can't imagine what it's going to feel like when the economy slows down.
I'll speak up for Oklahoma City. It's true that the new tower downtown throws the overall set of buildings out of balance visually. However, I drove through there recently and was stunned at how nice OKC is at the street level. Clean, clean, clean.
Once you've driven around and seen all the brand-new buildings and all the unique little neighborhoods near downtown and midtown of Oklahoma City, the vibe given off by skyline changes.
Most places have tall buildings but are sterile at the street level, and this is one place that actually feels clean, safe and charming right in the heart of downtown. So now when I see the skyline, it just reminds me of how much I liked that city.
Based on the amount of development that's happened in the past few years and what's been proposed for the future. Defintely the most high rise development the city has seen in a very long time. St. Louis has a lot of cranes going up around the city, it's just most of them are not in downtown St. Louis, but rather Midtown, Central West End, or Clayton.
Not sure why Colorado Springs is on this list as so Underwhelming it's only a 750K metro. The mountains in the background IMO would make it look pretty impressive though if they were to add more skyscrapers. It's a defense oriented city so there's really no need to build vertically. Most of the jobs there are affiliated with the bases and contractors associated with the bases.
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.