[Loughlin]

Americas last major tall building was built in the 70s the sears tower, we need somthing new somthing not just a couple hudred feet bigger than the second but thousands, i was reading a popular science about 6 months ago that taiked about a possibul 5000 foot building in china yet i noticed no new large buildings to be built in america, we need somthing much bigger than the rest

[satalac]

Loughlin, on Feb 9 2005, 07:48 PM, said:

Americas last major tall building was built in the 70s the sears tower, we need somthing new somthing not just a couple hudred feet bigger than the second but thousands, i was reading a popular science about 6 months ago that taiked about a possibul 5000 foot building in china yet i noticed no new large buildings to be built in america, we need somthing much bigger than the rest
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

ummmmm, 5000 ft is a bit unrealistic. even 2000 is pushing it a bit. nyc is getting one that is 1776 ft tall though. the reason there are so many new buildings in asia is because of the booming economy.

[Brickell]

It's got to be NYC or Chicago. I think it would look out of place anywhere else. Atlanta is my long shot pick because of their boosterism.

Btw... Miami has just as much a chance as anywhere else. We beat our old tallest already, and have a proposal for new one, and maybe a new tallest after that.

[thumper]

That is a real tough question considering the choices. I didn't go with either Chicago or NY mainly because they have so many tall buildings that new ones don't get noticed that much. So I picked Boston. I think it needs a few new innovative 'scrapers similar to what is going on in London.

[PghUSA]

satalac, on Feb 9 2005, 08:46 PM, said:

ummmmm, 5000 ft is a bit unrealistic. even 2000 is pushing it a bit. nyc is getting one that is 1776 ft tall though. the reason there are so many new buildings in asia is because of the booming economy.
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Booming economy and TONS of government handouts. Petronas I & II were built by the Govt. owned oil company I believe, Taipai 101 was also funded largely by the government. The ones in Dubai, Saudi Arabia, Singapore and to a lesser extent Japan (as well as that empty hole of a 1,000 foot building in 100% government 100% of the time N. Korea--and the ones in government controlled China) were all built with massive government funding, they are pratically government skyscrapers.

If the U.S. Government (through direct funding or ownership of companies or hubris or tax cuts etc.) did this to 1/2 of what the Asian nations my guess is that every major city would have at least a dozen 1,000 footers with a few 2,000 footers thrown in. The magic of American cities is that you get LOTS of creativity (true some of the Asian ones are easy on the eyes but compare the 10 most creative Asian towers to the 10 most U.S. ones and the difference is stark), but the biggest difference is that American skylines are robust and filled out, there are a dozen 500 footers for every 1000 footer etc. Most Asian cities (with the exception of free(er) market Japan and South Korea and the unique circumstance of HK being locked into a very tight and dense area up until recently) do not have much of a "skyline" outside the 3 or 4 1000 footers and a handful of much smaller towers. I see this on the SimCity thread all the time gamers trying to make the critical mass of free market forces to drive up real estate prices and the economy to have skyscrapers go up. Asian SimCity this wouldn't be neccessary, you drill for oil with the Govt. petrol agency sell it on the world market then build a handful of 1500 footers at your whim, don't be concerned if they sit mostly vacant for a decade. Don't mean to knock it, but to take the Federal Govt. here in the U.S. down that road is a little too much government control for me. I have imagined local governments on the city county or even state levels do some of this through tax adjustments and if I ever get elected I'd do a bit more, maybe a type of WPA program for local employment etc. Big question is what should come first, a super tall skyscraper brings economic growth or should economic growth (and thus demand for super high office space) spur construction after the fact. With private financing you won't have private companies writing the mortgage to 1,000 feet without a redhot office space market and tenants ready to move in yesterday. In Singapore or China or Dubai the government can take the loss on 1,000 feet for a few decades, it basically owns most everything else. What the state director of pensions of Alabama is doing with the quasai ownership of USAirways though leads me to believe that a greater government influence is possible in the dealings of American industry building to the sky--just fearful though if that is really how we want things.

[rbhriuthbu1234]

They were just talking about a possible skyscraper at 5000 ft, I really doubt there actually going to build it in the next few decades.

[Viper]

I suggest Houston. It's growing far faster than any Northern city and it's not subject to natural disasters of Miami and the West Coast.

[monsoon]

Viper, on Feb 10 2005, 04:27 AM, said:

I suggest Houston.  It's growing far faster than any Northern city and it's not subject to natural disasters of Miami and the West Coast.
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well hurricanes do blow through there.

[BrandonTO416]

Viper, on Feb 10 2005, 02:27 AM, said:

I suggest Houston.  It's growing far faster than any Northern city and it's not subject to natural disasters of Miami and the West Coast.
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

For the record, Houston grew much slower then New York, and it didn't grow more then Chicago.

I voted Philadelphia because its a significantly large city and could use a super-scraper.

[sunshine]

I suggest Walt Disney World, cuz they have the money and no zoning. j/k

[Viper]

heckles, on Feb 10 2005, 08:14 AM, said:

For the record, Houston grew much slower then New York, and it didn't grow more then Chicago.

I voted Philadelphia because its a significantly large city and could use a super-scraper.
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Please take note, and I'm not attmepting to be rude. If I make a statement regarding changes to population, demographics, area, etc...it's factual. I do not post those without consulting an almanac so as not to display myself as ignorant.


1990-2000 % metro pop change.
NYC - 8.8%
CHI - 11.2%
Houston - 25.2%

1990-2003 % city pop change.
NYC - 10.4%
CHI - 3.1%
Houston - 23.3%

[pwright1]

I voted for Dallas. No major skyscraper built there in a while.

[BigCityAttitude]

I voted Boston. I don't think it would look *too* out of place there.

[BrandonTO416]

Viper, on Feb 10 2005, 09:01 AM, said:

Please take note, and I'm not attmepting to be rude.  If I make a statement regarding changes to population, demographics, area, etc...it's factual.  I do not post those without consulting an almanac so as not to display myself as ignorant.
1990-2000 % metro pop change.
NYC - 8.8%
CHI - 11.2%
Houston - 25.2%

1990-2003 % city pop change.
NYC - 10.4%
CHI - 3.1%
Houston - 23.3%
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You are going by percent, not actual population changes.

If that were true, Las Vegas would be growing faster then Houston or New York. The fact is that its not. And Houston is not growing as much as New York.

[PghUSA]

Numbers vs. Percent . . . the old argument. In the circles I run in percentage growth trumps number growth. You would rather have a stock that moved from $1 to $2 then from $11 to $20 wouldn't you? Even though one moved $1 and the other moved $9. Percent is really the truest measure of growth IMHO. Heckles I understand your point though, the law of big numbers takes over eventually . . . smallburg USA would have the worlds best growth rate if it went from 50,000 to 100,000 but metro New York would have to post a 22 million or so increase just to equal that--impossible. To me that is the difference between "growth" and "being large" both are seperate dynamics, but thats just me.

[BrandonTO416]

The New York City metro grew 1.6 million from 1990 to 2000.

Houston metro grew 900,000 from 1990-2000.

New York grew by a few percent because it was already huge going from 20 to 22 million roughly, Houston by over 20 because it went from about 4 to almost 5 million.

Any questions?

[Brickell]

I'll take raw numbers when it comes to population growth.

Look at it from a different metaphor. Would you rather have 1.6 million dollars or 900,000?

[wolfdawg54]

I think that New York City should have it because it is not only the sensible plan but also is the historical choice. Chicago is a far second for me.

This post has been edited by wolfdawg54: 13 February 2005 - 01:40 PM

[Unifour]

The deciding factor of how fast a city is growing comes from SPEED of growth, not numerical increase. In math class, percentage of increase is the factual way to tell how FAST something is increasing or decreasing, etc. It's a non-argument, the only way to tell RATE OF GROWTH is by the RATE (a percentage). Southern cities are growing faster than northern ones and Midwestern ones, and in some cases even Western ones.

[moonshield]

percentage growth is important because the greator the percentage jump the greator the new infrastructure that will have to be put in place.

NY will get the next tall, something to replace the WTCs.