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

[Trae]

I had no idea where to put this:


Zaya Younan wants to build the world's tallest building — in Los Angeles, Houston or Chicago.

Towering ambition

July 26, 2007
Chicago Sun-Times
BY DAVID ROEDER - droeder@suntimes.com

Zaya Younan is not crazy. Since starting a real estate business in 2002, he has become one of the largest office landlords in Texas, and accumulated property worth about $1.5 billion, claiming strong and steady returns for investors.

Now he wants to build the world's tallest building. He wants it in Chicago, Los Angeles or Houston. He wants it for the glory of the United States of America, and to take advantage of long-term trends that he said will lead to more vertical living in major cities.


Full Article: http://www.suntimes.com/business/484...unan26.article

_______________________

As much as I would love new supertall in Houston, this idea is a little out there. I would much prefer short towers than this one. If he wants to build a 1100-1400 foot tower in Houston, go for it, but 3,000 feet is a bit much. Even if it was built I wouldn't want it Downtown, or Uptown. I would much rather have it out by NASA or on the Bay somewhere and let it be some sort of tourist attraction.

[Red UM Rebel]

::woohoo::

He has my vote, as I have commented in another blog, I have no idea if that would even be allowed in US, but I am all for it! I though do not live in any of the considered cities, and probably will never live in Houston or LA. I know the building would be a killer to any skyline, so I can see why he would meet fierce opposition everywhere.

[dimondpark]

He wants it "for the glory of the United States"??

For a second there, I thought I was reading The Onion.

anywho,
I hope he builds it, wherever that may be.

[tintinex]

i heard this this morning on the radio...I was waiting for someone to post the article here...nice...There's a good place for it in Chicago, and that place is called Wolf Point.

[Steely Dan]

i was hesitant to even move this thread into this forum because it has BS publicity stunt written all over it. i'll pay attention to this malarkey when this guy actually has a city, a site, and a plan pinned down, otherwise, this belongs in fantasyland.

[Steely Dan]

i know that quoting one's self is usually the height of forum dorkery, but this REALLY needs to be said again. soak it in an absorb it.

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

i was hesitant to even move this thread into this forum because it has BS publicity stunt written all over it. i'll pay attention to this malarkey when this guy actually has a city, a site, and a plan pinned down, otherwise, this belongs in fantasyland.

[Defiant6]

A tower that tall would look out of place in Houston in my opinion even Los Angeles as well. I'd say go for Chicago, but wherever he decides to build it, I hope it does bring the title back to the US as world's tallest building.

[PIZ]

Originally Posted by Defiant6

A tower that tall would look out of place in Houston in my opinion even Los Angeles as well. I'd say go for Chicago, but wherever he decides to build it, I hope it does bring the title back to the US as world's tallest building.

I agree, Chicago has the only skyline that would fit such a tall building. You need other tall building to compliment it, Sears Tower and the Spire would fit this criteria, not to mention Trump's, Hancock, Aon, and others about to pop up. This would not look good in LA and especially Huston.

[Derek]

The FAA would never allow anything like this, regardless if any airports are in the vicinity or not.

[j korzeniowski]

Originally Posted by Derek loves SD

The FAA would never allow anything like this, regardless if any airports are in the vicinity or not.

i thought that whole faa approval thing was a myth. i would be more worried about the national geological survey intervening on this if l.a. were chosen. i could not imagine living on the 200th floor of a building in l.a.

anyways, as steely said, this is a guy who wants his name in the papers. maybe he pulls something off, but it is years and years away before anything materializes.

[Buckeye Native 001]

It would stick out like a sore thumb in LA, and I think the FAA would get pissed seeing as how downtown is on the flight path into LAX, and if you've ever been downtown and seen airplanes flying overhead, you know they're not all that far up (I'm guessing maybe an altitude of 4000 to 6000 feet max?). A 2000+ foot tower would cause way too many headaches, not to mention the task of making it structurally sound in the heart of a major seismic region.

Chicago, Houston: I'll let you guys fight over this one. LA don't need it

[Crazy Ivan]

He'd never get financing on it. First of all, I doubt he'd find tennants to fill it (especially in this market). I think the construction cost of Burj Dubai is >$1 billion, and thats being built with some of the world's cheapest construction labor. I wouldn't want to see a 3,000' building in Chicago anyway. Let him build it in Texas, the land of "big".

[WonderlandPark]

I say Chicago, but Houston is also welcome to try.

[BrandonJXN]

Originally Posted by WonderlandPark

I say Chicago, but Houston is also welcome to try.

That doesn't look half bad.

[Dalton]

Originally Posted by ThreeHundred

That doesn't look half bad.

You're correct. It looks 3X bad.

It's now too expensive to build tall solely for ego in the United States as they are in the Middle East oil kingdoms. And there isn't sufficient population density in any American city, like there is in Asia, to economically justify a World's Tallest in the United States for the forseeable future. The battle will be between Asia and the Middle East for the increasingly fleeting honor of WTB.

[Pandemonious]

Originally Posted by Dalton

You're correct. It looks 3X bad.

It's now too expensive to build tall solely for ego in the United States as they are in the Middle East oil kingdoms. And there isn't sufficient population density in any American city, like there is in Asia, to economically justify a World's Tallest in the United States for the forseeable future. The battle will be between Asia and the Middle East for the increasingly fleeting honor of WTB.

Population density has already been proven to be unrelated to being able to build supertall buildings. The Burj Dubai sits where sand dunes were just years ago. Let us not forget that Chicago had proposed buildings this tall decades ago.. why not today?

[Dalton]

Originally Posted by Pandemonious

Population density has already been proven to be unrelated to being able to build supertall buildings. The Burj Dubai sits where sand dunes were just years ago. Let us not forget that Chicago had proposed buildings this tall decades ago.. why not today?

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.

[JMininger]

Originally Posted by Dalton

You're correct. It looks 3X bad.

It's now too expensive to build tall solely for ego in the United States as they are in the Middle East oil kingdoms. And there isn't sufficient population density in any American city, like there is in Asia, to economically justify a World's Tallest in the United States for the forseeable future. The battle will be between Asia and the Middle East for the increasingly fleeting honor of WTB.

Perhaps. Manhattan has an extremely high population density to go along with a very tight market on commercial and residential space. The vacancy rate for class A space is absurdly low and developers building new class A space are able to demand top dollar ... they are making a fortune. Thing about it though, I can't see office space over say 1200' to 1500' being practical at all ... like I want to spend half my lunch break in the elevator. It wouldn't be too hard to imagine a state of paranoia in NYC (justified or not) about living in a building that sticks out that much from the rest. I think the building would be hard to fill in NY.

[mcfinley]

My two cents. I call BS unless he Younan wants to burn through his wealth just to leave a legacy behind him...I can respect that. Personally, I would think that New York and Chicago are the only feasible places to put up a tower that tall, but there are a lot of barriers to both. NY is probably the only city with a market that could finance this project, but there seems to be an unofficial code not to build higher than the WTC. On the flip side, I bet you could get a ginorma-ubertall approved in Chicago without too much difficulty, but you'd be taking a loss on the project.

[bbeliko]

Originally Posted by Dalton

You're correct. It looks 3X bad.

The battle will be between Asia and the Middle East for the increasingly fleeting honor of WTB.

except that the middle east is IN asia