Skyscrapers in Columbus's Future? (Cleveland, Springfield: 2014, hotels, employment)

[98PanAm]

Development is typically profit-driven, and building vertically is almost always more expensive than building out unless the equation is changed by sufficiently strong demand in an area with a nearby geologic feature that absolutely prevents building out. In other words, a city located along a major geologic feature such as lake or river that for some reason the area in high demand cannot straddle. In that situation, a squeeze for office, retail, or living space drives up land prices to the point where stacking becomes more cost effective or the only possible alternative. Developers who crunch the numbers, see a profit potential, and want to get into the game are forced to build up instead of out. Some examples of geographically hemmed-in cities that have experienced demand high enough to push development skyward are NYC, Chicago, Miami, and Toronto.

In the case of the Toronto metro area, the effect of high demand combined with a geographically limiting feature (Lake Ontario) can be seen even in the suburbs. For example, Mississauga was not incorporated as a town until 1968 and as a city until 1974, but now has nearly the population of Columbus (est. 734,000 vs. 822,000 in 2013) in only half the space (111 vs. 223 sq. miles). Its proximity to Toronto has resulted in extremely high demand and rapid development, and due to its location along the lake, there is nowhere for high density development to go but up. The result is a densely developed business district with 50+ story buildings in what essentially began as a suburb just a few decades ago.

As for Columbus, there is currently no compelling economic demand for the kind of floor space a true skyscraper would provide, and no geologic or other physically limiting features that dictates where office space can be built. Like most cities, especially in the Midwest, there is plenty of inexpensive room to grow outward if the demand is present. Unless an entity has a strong financial or logistical reason for building downtown, it typically makes more financial sense to build where you can get the land cheaper, and where your flexibility to design and expand as needed won't be as limited.

In the case of four of the seven tallest buildings in Columbus, demand was driven by expanding government entities that wanted to be located downtown and for which profit is not a concern. Three of the top five are state government buildings, which dictated remaining in close proximity to the Statehouse in an area that would allow only vertical expansion, and which were financed primarily by an entity (state government) that did not have to attract profit-driven investors in order to get the towers built.

[Mplsite]

Geography has very little to do with it. If the zoning isn't in place for dense development, among other policies, then it's not going to happen.Downtown has roads with as many lanes in Chicago's Loop and that city alone dwarfs the entire Columbus metro. Those combined with a plethora of highways and suburban-style arterials throughout the city pulls development away from the core.

[Rahlee boy]

Originally Posted by Zen_master

+1.

In my professional experience many former tenants of downtown office space have opted to move to suburban office and several more current downtown tenants are considering the move. With the traffic congestion, crime, and cost of parking that comes with a downtown presence it is less desirable than it once was unless you must be downtown (e.g. attorneys & proximity to the courthouse).

Where you are likely to see additional development is in the suburban office space. Easton Gateway is a good example. Similarly, Kenwood Collection just outside of Cincinnati is another similar development. You may seen renovation of existing downtown buildings but skyscrapers are unlikely in the near future.

The opposite holds true to my home....>Raleigh, North Carolina had more focus on suburban areas in the 80's & 90's. Now, downtown Raleigh is the hot spot....will be adding a few skyscrapers in the next 10 years

[Rahlee boy]

Originally Posted by robertfoshizzle

City population really means nothing in relation to amount of skyscrapers. In reality, Columbus is much smaller than its city population would lead you to believe. Metropolitan area population is much more indicative of a city's size, and in that measure Columbus only ranks 32nd, compared with 15th in city population. The reason for this is that the city limits of Columbus reach all the way to the edges of the county as a result of annexation. Some other cities, such as Cincinnati, did not annex as aggressively, and the boundaries of the city only expand a few miles from downtown.

You are correct. My city( Raleigh, North Carolina) holds a 431,000 population, but The Raleigh/Durham region is over 2 million people. Atlanta is around 450,000....but Metro Atlanta is around 5 million. Charlotte is around 800,000, but like Columbus, is around 2.5 million in the region.

It is definitely Safe to say that "city limit" or "municipal" boundary population doesn't define the actual size of a city, the metro area does.

[chet_kinkaid]

the trend nationally to build suburban office space will probably swing back to smaller footprint higher density office buildings..issues of sprawl,and the attraction of urban centers will probably result in more downtown office towers,especially in cities like Columbus..

[98PanAm]

Opaque logic aside, the prima facie ridiculous claim that geography "has very little to do" with how cities grow and develop was followed by a good but self-contradicting example of how, in reality, the local geography has a profound effect on a city's growth and development. Using the example given in what I suppose was intended as a rebuttal, when a city's lateral growth is not significantly restricted by its physical location (in other words, its geography), thereby giving it room to grow outward (Columbus, for example), and without the increased demand for development in a relatively concentrated area that an adjacent, major geographic feature (i.e. a navigable body of water) can provide, yes, those factors work against the economic feasibility of and tendency toward vertical development.

Along with the other given examples, Chicago is a great example of how geography profoundly affects where, why, and how a city is born and develops. Its location on a large, navigable body of water gave it easy shipping access to natural resources and the world, turned it into a business and manufacturing powerhouse, and fueled long term growth and demand along that body of water while at the same time significantly restricting horizontal development and expansion. That made even more valuable any lakefront land, but especially the area (now known as The Loop) at the confluence of the lakefront and Mississippi River system and Gulf of Mexico access via the Chicago Ship Canal, and made vertical development far more economically justifiable and likely compared to a city not so blessed but physically restricted by its geography.

Extreme vertical development is also economically and structurally feasible only where there is relatively shallow bedrock. Again, geography.

If the simple logic behind these concepts isn't enough, refer to the history of any of the more vertical cities in the world for perhaps a better understanding of the subject matter.

[shyGUY0405]

Indy has three fairly tall buildings downtown. The chase bank building is almost 50 stories and the aul building is over 35 stories and the regions bank is over 30 and their city county building is over 25 stories and their building a high rise luxury apartment and condo complex with retail shopping and dining on the first two levels and this building is suppose to be well over 20 stories

[WRnative]

Originally Posted by ohioaninsc

You have to have the demand for office space in the CBD to get new high rises built. The only new true high rise built in the last decade anywhere in Ohio is Cincinnati's Queen City Square-The Great American Insurance Company building. Most corporations dont' want to spend the high prices it takes to build a skyscraper when they get what they want in the burbs for much less.
I don't think High rises are needed anyway...I'd rather see the downtown surface parking lots all get filled w/ 4-6 floor buildings than just 1 that might get a 40 floor tower.

The Cleveland Hilton Downtown hotel has 32 stories.

Want to stay at the new Hilton Cleveland Downtown hotel? You may have to wait until July 25 | cleveland.com

[WRnative]

Land values -- higher land values justify more expensive development

Construction costs -- skyscrapers are more expensive to build

Energy prices -- among the most important factors; higher energy prices encourage higher densities

Transportation -- this is very important, and perhaps a negative for Columbus; mass transit eliminates the need for massive parking, enables work forces to efficiently commute to and from high-rise offices, and lowers cost of commuting

Density -- high rises raise density by encouraging workers to live nearby, especially if a city has a dynamic downtown, also a problem in downtown Columbus

Financing cost -- lower real rates encourage production

Vanity factor -- major corporations often seek a landmark presence

Strength of local economy, average real wage levels, community wealth

Communication quality, cost -- the development of the internet and the increasing quality and falling cost of communication services clearly discourages high-rise development

A specific concern for downtown Columbus is that much of its downtown economy is dependent on state government. This may be quicksand in coming decades if other cities seek the dispersion of state services facilitated by cloud-based solutions. Additionally, it would be interesting to know how much of downtown Columbus employment is related to Nationwide Medicare operations, which also could be quicksand in coming decades for several reasons, such as more advanced networks with artificial intelligence.

[Tenzo]

Originally Posted by WRnative

The Cleveland Hilton Downtown hotel has 32 stories.
[/url]

I thought we were talking about skyscrapers