Why isn't Brooklyn packed with more skyscrapers? - Page 2

HomrQT · #21 Posted **Mar 30, 2014, 11:58 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crawford

Really? Why would you think this?

SF has the second highest urban density in the U.S., and probably the second highest property values. So why does SF not have the second most number of tall buildings in the U.S.?

Chicago is the city with the #2 amount of tall buildings in the U.S, yet Chicago is nowhere close to having the second highest property values.

Or, in Europe, London has the highest property values, yet very few highrises.

Or, even in Manhattan, many of the areas with the highest property values have very few highrises. The West Village may be the most expensive urban neighborhood on the planet (at least on per square foot basis) yet few highrises.

You do realize tall buildings aren't typically built in low income, low density areas, right? I didn't say the only two factors of tall construction were density and property values, but to deny that they aren't even factors at all is ludicrous. I think San Francisco and London were poor examples on your part as they each have quite a few tall buildings. Even old city London who was built out well before skyscrapers is demolishing very old buildings to squeeze more skyscrapers into its midst than it already has.

Crawford · #22 Posted **Mar 31, 2014, 12:12 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by HomrQT

You do realize tall buildings aren't typically built in low income, low density areas, right?

They sometimes are, they sometimes aren't.

I mean, half the highrises in Hong Kong are housing projects (not low density, but low income), and, if you go to Europe, most of the highrises are on the suburban fringe. In Latin America, most are on the fringe.

Quote:

Originally Posted by HomrQT

I didn't say the only two factors of tall construction were density and property values, but to deny that they aren't even factors at all is ludicrous.

I think they may be factors, all else equal, but not strong factors. Highrise construction has little to with density and property values, and more to do with regulatory environment and living preferences, IMO.

Quote:

Originally Posted by HomrQT

I think San Francisco and London were poor examples on your part as they each have quite a few tall buildings.

They do? SF has 2 buildings above 700 ft. Compare to Chicago, with almost 10 times as many, or Houston with 5 times as many. Yet SF is far, far more expensive than Chicago (or Houston).

And London has only 3 buildings above 700 ft. and 14 total above 500 ft. Why do cheap, low density cities like Houston have many times more highrises than high-cost London?

HomrQT · #23 Posted **Mar 31, 2014, 12:29 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crawford

They sometimes are, they sometimes aren't.

I mean, half the highrises in Hong Kong are housing projects (not low density, but low income), and, if you go to Europe, most of the highrises are on the suburban fringe. In Latin America, most are on the fringe.

I think they may be factors, all else equal, but not strong factors. Highrise construction has little to with density and property values, and more to do with regulatory environment and living preferences, IMO.

They do? SF has 2 buildings above 700 ft. Compare to Chicago, with almost 10 times as many, or Houston with 5 times as many. Yet SF is far, far more expensive than Chicago (or Houston).

And London has only 3 buildings above 700 ft. and 14 total above 500 ft. Why do cheap, low density cities like Houston have many times more highrises than high-cost London?

You're comparing cities that are hundreds if not thousands of miles apart and have nothing to do with each other. In most of their respective areas they are either very dense in population and/or high property value. Houston, which is a newer city than London and had more space downtown without having to destroy a bunch of uberwealthy buildings had the ability to build up. For Houston, their downtown is a high density, high property value area even if it's not in comparison to another city.

Crawford · #24 Posted **Mar 31, 2014, 12:33 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by HomrQT

For Houston, their downtown is a high density, high property value area even if it's not in comparison to another city.

Downtown Houston has amazingly low property values for a major city. London has amazingly high property values.

And in any case, a large proportion of Houston highrises are located in even lower cost satellite business centers.

In London, four of the five tallest buildings are in relatively undesirable locations (for core London standards).

HomrQT · #25 Posted **Mar 31, 2014, 12:35 PM**

Deleted Post

Perklol · #26 Posted **Mar 31, 2014, 9:47 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by HomrQT

With so many projects happening, Brooklyn deserves its own thread.

I agree. That will help clears thing up a bit.

Perklol · #27 Posted **Mar 31, 2014, 9:51 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by scalziand

Thanks for the list, scalziand.