[mhays]

My city, Seattle, is an example where zoning is lower than what already exists in the core CBD. At least it's not what the voters passed in the late 80s, which limited projects to 485' I think, roughly half our tallest building. San Francisco is another example.

Those bigger lots are convenient for Chicago development. But I'd guess it's also a necessity to have sizeable lots in most cases due to parking and the non-stratospheric square foot prices. I'd be curious where parking is required now, and how much, since a lot of towers I saw had large amounts. Of course even a reasonable ratio means a lot is required when you have 600 units in one tower.