World's Tallest Building in Chicago, Los Angeles or Houston? ........ yeah, right

[mcfinley]

Originally Posted by Trae

Why doesn't Houston or LA have the economy to support a building like this?

LA might, along with some other coastal cities, but between the earthquakes and the FAA, it's not going to happen.

But I can't imagine anyone paying $1000+ per square foot in Houston (I'm guessing that's about what it would cost to break even).

[vid]

"Younan pointed to his acquisition of a Dallas building, the 30-story One Dallas Centre, as a small-scale test of that vision. He's rebranding the building as Patriot Tower, and plans a museum dedicated to American veterans."

Lord.

I'm going to make a 6,000ft tower and call it "America and Hot Dogs Tower" and it's gunna have a demolition derby inside!! YEEHAW!

[JMininger]

Originally Posted by Trae

Why doesn't Houston or LA have the economy to support a building like this?

While Houston is small relative to Chicago, LA or NY, it probably does have the economy to support something like this. I think there are other factors to consider, such as demand. Houston and LA are car culture cities that are far less accustomed to high-rise living. The Chicago Spire is somewhat of a speculative project that is counting significantly on international demand and is probably a good test case for this type of building in the US. I don't know that Houston would have the same international draw as Chicago although LA certainly would. If the demand was there in Houston or LA, then I would expect to see similar volume of high rise residential development as what you are seeing in Chicago and NY. I think NY and LA would pose significant barriers for approval. Houston and Chicago would not. If I was a developer, I might see how sales for the Spire go before I decide to go anywhere. The people in Dubai financing those projects can afford speculative projects of that magnitude. You could lose your shirt here in the US.

[ammiel]

I Dont Care Where Just Build It!!!

[Trae]

Well, if they break the building up like: a couple hundred feet office, a couple hundred feet residential, a significant sized hotel, and some retail at the bottom.

[ChiPsy]

Originally Posted by Dalton

I pointed to two reasons why WTBs are being built. In Dubai and other Middle East oil kingdoms they are building and/or proposing WTBs for purely egotistical reasons. And with oil over $70/bbl and a ready supply of workers who can be paid $7.00 per day, stroking that ego becomes affordable. The Burj Dubai will probably cost under $1 billion to construct. But it would cost 3 times as much to build in Los Angeles or Chicago. Furthermore, Chicago and Los Angeles are older cities with stabilized population growth. And in the case of Chicago, the population of the inner city has been dropping for decades. Who knows how fast Dubai will grow? In a couple decades it might be much larger than Chicago.

I agree with most of this analysis, but the population issue requires some nuance: The population of near-downtown Chicago is *skyrocketing*, and Chicago's metro area -- what most people mean by the term "Chicago" -- is growing steadily. Much of the rest of the city-limit-defined area is replacing large-family households with smaller households via gentrification, hence a population loss for the "city" of Chicago that's very misleading to folks from places like Houston, where the city limits keep expanding to capture what elsewhere would be suburban growth.

That's why all market analyses, including sports-market, residential and office-space analyses, are done using Metropolitan Areas (LA 14 million, Chicago 9 million, Houston 5 million, etc.), not with city limits. Ever wonder why San Antonio (city limits = 8th largest US city; metro area = 28th largest US city) has no NFL or MLB team while places like Atlanta (small city limits but actually a huge city) and St. Louis (small city limits but actually a pretty sizeable city) have both? That's why.

Otherwise I completely agree: This tower ain't gonna happen.

[Derek]

Originally Posted by AdrianXSands

Houston and L.A. don't have the economy to support a building like this. if this guy is going to build a WTB anywhere in the US, it'll be in Chicago. we're already getting a 2,000 footer, why not a WTB? but i really doubt the seriousness of this guy.

Isn't the Spire cancelled?

[Lecom]

The US' last real shot was when the Freedom Tower was first introduced - back then Taipei 101 wasn't even topped out. However, due to incredible bureaucracy around Ground zero, New York is going to end up its very first skyscraper that is the city's tallest yet not the world's tallest.

[JMininger]

Originally Posted by Derek loves SD

Isn't the Spire cancelled?

Eh? No, if you read the Spire thread in this same forum, you'll see that they have the equipment on site and there is reason to believe that perimeter caissons start tomorrow.

[br.reese]

lets build it in dallas

[RocTX]

Originally Posted by Tom In Chicago

"for the glory of the United States"

If that's why he's building it. . . please keep it out of Chicago. . . Houston is more the testosterone fueled environment for this kind of silliness. . .

Tom..Way off topic, but I have to say I love the Kraftwerk avatar. One of my favorite bands of all time!!

[DUBAI2015]

I say build it in Chicago.

[JMininger]

Originally Posted by ChiPsy

I agree with most of this analysis, but the population issue requires some nuance: The population of near-downtown Chicago is *skyrocketing*, and Chicago's metro area -- what most people mean by the term "Chicago" -- is growing steadily. Much of the rest of the city-limit-defined area is replacing large-family households with smaller households via gentrification, hence a population loss for the "city" of Chicago that's very misleading to folks from places like Houston, where the city limits keep expanding to capture what elsewhere would be suburban growth.

That's why all market analyses, including sports-market, residential and office-space analyses, are done using Metropolitan Areas (LA 14 million, Chicago 9 million, Houston 5 million, etc.), not with city limits. Ever wonder why San Antonio (city limits = 8th largest US city; metro area = 28th largest US city) has no NFL or MLB team while places like Atlanta (small city limits but actually a huge city) and St. Louis (small city limits but actually a pretty sizeable city) have both? That's why.

Otherwise I completely agree: This tower ain't gonna happen.

Off-topic really but I can't help but think about what an interesting dynamic there is in Chicago and a few other cities. The inner-city, once vacated by the upper middle class and wealthy is being repopulated, pushing the lower income and affordable housing further out. Growing up in the inner city of Chicago may not have the same connotation in the near future. "Man, he had a rough life, growing up in the Chicago burbs."

Anyway, I give this a .01 % chance of becoming reality and that is all I have left to say about it.

[mcfinley]

Originally Posted by JMininger

Anyway, I give this a .01 % chance of becoming reality and that is all I have left to say about it.

I'll see your .01% and raise you .05% . Yeah, 1 in 200 sounds about right. Let's see, of all the fanciful world's tallest endeavors, I'd consider the ESB and Al Burj to be the only one's that will/have come to fruition. There has been maybe a thousand rumors in the past century, a few dozen "visions." Bonus points for being from Iran. Maybe it's a stereotype, but middle easterners know how to follow through with inexplicable dreams. 1 in 200?, yeah.

[CGII]

Originally Posted by jstush04

I wonder why he won't consider new york? You know, the one with the population almost 3 times bigger than any other US city?

when buildings start to become this tall, they become sculptures more than buildings, imo.

like i said in chicago boom, I wouldn't want a mile high in chicago, but if it was 3000 and an awe-inspiring design, go ahead! but he brought this thing back down into the land of realism and made it a very respectable 1500', and built it in chicago (), life would be good

I hate to say it, but I think New York's days in the ring of world's tallest are vanishing. Manhattan is almost entirely developed; squeezing in buildings that even break the Midtown plateau is difficult. A building taller than the Chicago Spire or Burj Dubai, even, would require a massive footprin, and not only is the space not there, but the blocks of NY are notoriously narrow. NY's biggest chances for megatall skyscrapers are already essentially passed: the Freedom Tower would've been an oppurtune place for a world's tallest, but red tape and national emotion essentially guarenteed its impossibility since probably 9/12. The other is the West side trains yards, MSF and the area around the Javits convention centre and Lincoln tunnel ramps, and while supertall plans are in line for those, I highly doubt the developers would turn at the last minute and propose WTBs, for the number of unnessecary uphill battles it would throw at them.
NY is going to have to look into waterfront infill or the old projects (particularily Stuy-town) to find new land for such massive developments.

And then look at Chicago, which still has plenty of room for downtown to expand (particularily to the North and South, where Cabrini Green's ruins and old train yards await developers), even when there is still some room left to build within the downtown. Plus, the zoning laws aren't remotely as harsh as those of Manhattan.

And then look at Los Angeles, or Houston. Compared to Chicago or NY, they're surrounded by open prarie to build up, and Houston has virtually no zoning.


Mind you, I do believe NY will continue to build 1500 footers, perhaps a 2000 sometime in the future, but I would highly doubt a megascraper to challenge Burj Dubai within our lifetimes.

[newstl2020]

More power to this guy. With regards the the above posted about NY. How long do you think the "tower capital of the world" will be able to hold down its ego before it once again starts seriously threatening the WTB mark? I have to think that the originator of the supertall won't stand by idly for long while the rest of the world shoots upward. Good notes about the land situation in NY though. This would fit Chicago perfectly, as they have steadily climed in height over the last decade and now have many supertall buildings under construction which would give an excellent back-drop for a tower of this size. That and it is rather quietly making itself the place to be in America for tall development, NY better watch its back, this could get outa control. (Although I know the spire isnt exactly a quiet project, there seems to be a changing of the gaurd in the contry in relation to the projects with height.)

That picture of Houston actually didn't look bad at all, although I can't help but believe that has to be undersized a bit. Seems like it would look a bit taller than that to me...

[CGII]

I think the guard was changed as soon as Sears was completed. There has not been a single building with a roof height greater than 1000 feet built in New York since the WTC, while after Chicago got its first 1000 footer, the JHC, in 1969, it proceeded to construct the Sears and Aon, and soon Trump and Waterview, and most likely Chicago Spire, are all under construction and all surpass the 1000 ft. mark. NY will get 1, 2 and 3 WTC, and maybe two more 1000 ft. buildings as part of the Vornado plans, but that's going to be it for a while, along land concerns and demand for greater numbers of 700' towers (which are proposed and built in droves over there). Plus, even with all of the supertall construction in NY, nothing will top Sears Tower, which is built, and won't even scrape Chicago Spire, which certainly looks like it will get built.

[DFW]

Houston has height restrictions downtown since the seventies Chase Tower was originally Texas Commere Bank and was proposed to be 80-stories but was reduced to 75-stories due to Hobby Airport, Hobby is being expanded as well today, it won’t happen there.

So maybe they should consider Dallas instead of Houston.
Dallas has no height restrictions on the western half of downtown.

In LA the developers of those skyscraper purchased the air rights above the library in order to exceed height restrictions and erect their massive structures. (Case: the formerly called Library Tower 1,017-ft) So in other words developers in the downtown LA area must buy the air rights in square footage in order to exceed height restrictions for their tall buildings and only so much can go around downtown. And what about earth quakes?

Chicago is the only one that has a better chance, all flight paths go around downtown skyscrapers.

[Trae]

Originally Posted by DFW

Houston has height restrictions downtown since the seventies Chase Tower was originally Texas Commere Bank and was proposed to be 80-stories but was reduced to 75-stories due to Hobby Airport, Hobby is being expanded as well today, it won’t happen there.

So maybe they should consider Dallas instead of Houston.
Dallas has no height restrictions on the western half of downtown.

Houston doesn't have height restrictions like that Downtown anymore bud. 3,000 feet may be a bit much though. Also, who says it would have to be Downtown? Why not create a new district by the bay?

If you click the link I posted, the guy has most of his work in North Texas (Dallas is the backdrop at the article's home page), but he didn't consider Dallas.

[VA_Gentleman]

I think this is a silly idea as I'd rather see two or three 1K footers over a WTB which would look out of place and make the scale of the other buildings look unimpressive. However, I'm sure this developer won't build a couple of really tall buildings 'cause he wants the tallest, so good luck.