Which city needs the most new skyscrapers? (bigger, Atlanta, life)
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.
Unfortunately, it wouldn’t be possible for some areas. A portion of Downtown is under height restrictions as well. Our current tallest building was cut down a few floors and so was our previous tallest buildings. For Example: The National was cut down 96 ft in the 1960s to 627 ft because of Love Field. At the time, it still was the tallest building west of the Mississippi. Uptown is an even greater example. Skyscrapers simply cannot be thrown up there either. Uptown is very similar to Midtown Atlanta but without the height.
Offices are simply going to the suburbs because that’s were the talent and majority of the middle class transplants are moving to. It’s simply a reflection of that more than anything right now.
Edit: original Bank of America Plaza plan called “Main Place”. The twin tower was supposed to be lined in purple lights at night. Also, notice the additional floors and pyramid crown
People also don’t remember that Dallas isn’t the only center of DFW and the region is multipolar. So when people say the skyline isn’t proportionate to its MSA, it’s important to take into account that Dallas doesn’t operate the same way as an Atlanta or Chicago or Houston where the entire MSA radiates around 1 core.
Detroit has a solid downtown already, some beautiful older architecture and the Renaissance Center makes for an iconic riverfront skyline, but Detroit would look amazing with a couple new tall buildings further inland maybe north of Grand Circus Park.
NYC, Chicago, L.A., Atlanta, Houston, Philly, Miami, S.F., Seattle...the biggest MSA's have the biggest skyines.
And look at the variance in skyline size between the cities you listed... There is correlation in, but not enough correlation to where similarly sized cities will have similarly sized skylines. There's to many economic factors outside of raw population that determines skyline size.
NYC has larger skyline than Tokyo despite being half it's size.
Chicago & Miami have larger skyline's then LA, despite all being having millions less in their MSA.
Seattle has a skyline larger than Philly, Atlanta & DFW despite having millions less in it's MSA.
Las Vegas, Austin & Nashville have larger skylines than Charlotte & Baltimore despite have 700-500k less people in their MSA.
Hell, Honolulu has a larger skyline larger than any MSA smaller than 4 million.
Sky scrapers will soon be a thing of the past unless it's for residential use. The need for office space is still dropping dramatically.
This.
A city like Dallas doesn't need skyscrapers since it has all the land in the world to continue expanding. While I'm not too supportive of endless sprawl, developers would say otherwise.
I'd be happy if the city would build typical mid/high-rises on all the parking lots, create more parks, convert one-way streets to two way, and enhance connectivity across the neighborhoods.
Why is it too many of the new skyscraper projects are only announced in Nashville and Austin? No offense to those 2 cities(which do have good skylines, don't get me wrong), but new skyscrapers should be spread to more cities besides those 2.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CCS414
Sky scrapers will soon be a thing of the past unless it's for residential use. The need for office space is still dropping dramatically.
While I don't necessarily agree across the board with office skyscrapers becoming a thing of the past, I will say that this is an issue that the city of St. Louis has been dealing with for years. The redevelopment happening downtown with our vacant highrises and skyscrapers is primarily based on residential, hotel, and other mixed uses, not straight up office space. There's just no demand to build a new office skyscraper in downtown St. Louis, not when our second tallest skyscraper (which is actually the largest by square footage) is awaiting redevelopment. Even Clayton is feeling the pinch of this with Centene pulling back on its office space and terminating the plans for phase II of its HQ last year.
As for the city, there's only two skyscrapers of 300 ft or more looking viable in the near term. The 30 story Albion West End in the Central West End is supposed to start construction this fall (fingers crossed), and there's a proposal for the world's tallest timber tower in Downtown West on what's currently a parking lot, which would be 29 stories. Both towers are residentially focused.
As for Clayton, I might be behind the times, but there's two towers currently in the planning stages. One is supposed to be 25 stories and the other 21 stories.
I voted for Dallas because it has the most potential for new high rises IMO. There's not a lot of "need", but I think Dallas could be a really cool city with a could super talls. I thought about voting for Detroit because I would love to see it become a renaissance city, but they don't need high rises to accomplish that.
People also don’t remember that Dallas isn’t the only center of DFW and the region is multipolar. So when people say the skyline isn’t proportionate to its MSA, it’s important to take into account that Dallas doesn’t operate the same way as an Atlanta or Chicago or Houston where the entire MSA radiates around 1 core.
San Francisco is 1/7th the size of Dallas, also has a competing major city within an MSA half the size, and has 10 more skyscrapers than Dallas.
People also don’t remember that Dallas isn’t the only center of DFW and the region is multipolar. So when people say the skyline isn’t proportionate to its MSA, it’s important to take into account that Dallas doesn’t operate the same way as an Atlanta or Chicago or Houston where the entire MSA radiates around 1 core.
San Francisco is 1/7th the size of Dallas, also has a competing major city within an MSA half the size, and has 10 more skyscrapers than Dallas.
It always didn’t.
That small size forces SF to build up. In Dallas, that’s not a problem. Dallas proper isn’t builtout yet. The only areas that are seeing a lot of high-rises are areas that are limited on space. Uptown, Knox-Henderson, and Deep Ellum are examples. Many residents there don’t want skyscrapers and sometimes they fight to get high-rises cut down shorter. That’s even with the height restrictions. Skyscrapers are very expansive to build and it has to make sense financially. There’s still plenty of space downtown for skyscrapers…supertalls I am not too sure about. The only way they’ll get built nowadays if they’re mixed use. No purely office skyscraper is gonna get off the ground in Dallas.
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.
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.
