Originally Posted by Zapatan
Hopefully they are still taller than 492' (150 meters) so they are technically skyscrapers.
Why don't they just built in the areas of Seattle that don't have height limits?
Only the very core of the CBD has no height limits, and even there the FAR limits are pretty tight. Not to mention the uncertainties of tearing down something that might be historic is some cases. It would be tough to amass enough land to develop that much space, or lease other people's space.
There's no technical boundary of what's a "skyscraper," only (a) gradients that enthusiasts set up for categorization that otherwise mean nothing, and (b) design requirements (life safety, etc.) tied to certain heights. Either way, as a local, I'd like taller buildings but economic development, density, and ground-level urban design are more important to me.