Tallest Skyscraper in the USA will be Southern

[Mith242]

monsoon:  I think we need a 1600' Walmart tower in Benton, Arkansas to supplant to Sears Tower. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You mean Bentonville. Benton is a suburb of Little Rock. But that would be a scary site. This area is growing quite a bit, but I don't think it will ever get that big around here.

[Brickell]

All that's being said here is that annexation is being used to inflate numbers.  That's all.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Again, if you honestly believe that, you have problems beyond what I can correct.

Numbers might be touted because of annexation but that does not imply that it's the cause of annexation. Please explain why annexation is bad? I'm still waiting for an answer.

[KRC]

Again, if you honestly believe that, you have problems beyond what I can correct.

Numbers might be touted because of annexation but that does not imply that it's the cause of annexation.  Please explain why annexation is bad?  I'm still waiting for an answer.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You're trying to make an arguement out of a point that was never made. No one said it was bad. Please explain yourself. Why are you trying to make this an arguement? I don't get it.

Wait a minute. How old are you? Your discussions seem very playground like. That could be the real issue you know.

[Charleston native]

I can see you don't like this designation, but everyone knows that the South is the epitomy of sprawl these days.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Talk of maturity. Making a blanket statement like that and not provide any credible evidence it. Your bias is as pure as the driven snow. Riverside has provided accurate facts to back up his opinion, and I have to agree with him. You may not want to say it, but there seems to be a bias or dislike against the South. To say that the Southern US is the cause of sprawl or the model of sprawl really shows complete ignorance of other regions and their negative aspects, particularly in the Northeast.

The fact is that the South has developed the way it has because people prefer that way of living. Many people here do not want to be dependent on public mass transit, or living in multi-story "tissue boxes" that are so prominant in Northern cities. That is the beauty of this country. You don't have to live exactly like everybody else.

You talk about how "current gas prices are effecting southern families disproportionately hard because they are so much more dependent on the automobile." You also said, "In the end, that's what will hurt cities that are overly car dependant and little public transit..." What about Northern families and the insanely high rents and mortgage payments they have to pay??! As real estate prices go up, these families up North are hurt more....

AND.....

they end up moving to the South. Go figure.

[satalac]

Wait a minute.  How old are you?  Your discussions seem very playground like.  That could be the real issue you know.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

don't question one's maturity only to follow up with this statement. now back to the topic. i'm not sure if the south will get a super tall or not. if it did, i'd see it going to houston, miami or atlanta. not that i wouldn't mind seeing one in nashville, even though we can't even get a 700 ft tall built. haha.

[KRC]

Talk of maturity. Making a blanket statement like that and not provide any credible evidence it. Your bias is as pure as the driven snow. Riverside has provided accurate facts to back up his opinion, and I have to agree with him. You may not want to say it, but there seems to be a bias or dislike against the South. To say that the Southern US is the cause of sprawl or the model of sprawl really shows complete ignorance of other regions and their negative aspects, particularly in the Northeast.

The fact is that the South has developed the way it has because people prefer that way of living. Many people here do not want to be dependent on public mass transit, or living in multi-story "tissue boxes" that are so prominant in Northern cities. That is the beauty of this country. You don't have to live exactly like everybody else.

You talk about how "current gas prices are effecting southern families disproportionately hard because they are so much more dependent on the automobile." You also said, "In the end, that's what will hurt cities that are overly car dependant and little public transit..." What about Northern families and the insanely high rents and mortgage payments they have to pay??! As real estate prices go up, these families up North are hurt more....

AND.....

they end up moving to the South. Go figure. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

None of that was said. I never said anything derogatory about the south. You're projecting too much. I love your "tissue boxes" statement. Exactly where are they "prominant." It's p-r-o-m-i-n-e-n-t.

[Charleston native]

None of that was said.

[up+down=midtown]

You're trying to make an arguement out of a point that was never made.  No one said it was bad.  Please explain yourself.  Why are you trying to make this an arguement?  I don't get it. 

Wait a minute.  How old are you?  Your discussions seem very playground like.  That could be the real issue you know.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

you're the one who keeps on arguing about how the south is the epitomy of sprawl i think you should look at the west coast instead..you should go play in a playground until you get your facts str8

[Brickell]

None of that was said. I never said anything derogatory about the south. You're projecting too much. I love your "tissue boxes" statement. Exactly where are they "prominant." It's p-r-o-m-i-n-e-n-t.

We've seen what you said. If you'd like to explain yourself a little better then go ahead. I'm not a big defender of southern sprawl, but you both made accusations that can't be backed up.

It should also be noted that the south is far from a uniform region. Painting it all with one broad stroke will leave a rather incomplete picture.

[KRC]

Alright, whatever. I'm not going to debate about what you said or anything like that. I only quoted you directly from one of your previous posts.   

Oh, and since we're correcting each other's spelling and grammar, may I point out that "effect" is not a verb. You are to use it as a noun; "affecting" would have been the correct verb to use. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I was trying to defuse an arguement that I didn't want started. I admit, I'm the WORST speller on earth. Thank heavens for spell check. What would we do without it?

[KRC]

We've seen what you said.  If you'd like to explain yourself a little better then go ahead.  I'm not a big defender of souther sprawl, but you both made accusations that can't be backed up.

It should also be noted that the south is far from a uniform region.  Painting it all with one broad stroke will leave a rather incomplete picture.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Okay, according to the Urban League and the Mayors' Conference, Atlanta is, by far, the biggest sprawler. Overall, trends show that the South is sprawling at a faster rate than the rest of the country. NOW, I did not say it had the most sprawl. I think folks in California would be offended to lose their designation, but the South's growth is putting it into a peculiar predicament. You need the land to grow, but it's become more spread out which does make it harder to maintain. It's a catch-22. All I was pointing out was that hot areas in the South should start considering what they will need to do in the future. Can you really tell me that you think any Southern city aspires to be Los Angeles? Sure, LA is an economic power house. But's also heavily segregated and it's wealth is very unevenly distributed. I don't think anyone in Atlanta or Charlotte wants that.

As far as we in the Northeast (particularly in New England) go, sprawl is a never ending problem, but we've pretty much maxed out on land in most areas. However, our cities have the infrastructure to handle regeneration of the urban core because it was there previously. Most Southern cities aren't lucky enough to have that. An excellent example would be Charlotte. They seem to be trying to handle the situtation. Granted their light rail isn't all that much yet, but they have some great plans on the table, right?

[Charleston native]

Okay, according to the Urban League and the Mayors' Conference, Atlanta is, by far, the biggest sprawler.  Overall, trends show that the South is sprawling at a faster rate than the rest of the country.  NOW, I did not say it had the most sprawl.  I think folks in California would be offended to lose their designation, but the South's growth is putting it into a peculiar predicament.  You need the land to grow, but it's become more spread out which does make it harder to maintain.  It's a catch-22.  All I was pointing out was that hot areas in the South should start considering what they will need to do in the future.  Can you really tell me that you think any Southern city aspires to be Los Angeles?  Sure, LA is an economic power house.  But's also heavily segregated and it's wealth is very unevenly distributed.  I don't think anyone in Atlanta or Charlotte wants that.

As far as we in the Northeast (particularly in New England) go, sprawl is a never ending problem, but we've pretty much maxed out on land in most areas.  However, our cities have the infrastructure to handle regeneration of the urban core because it was there previously.  Most Southern cities aren't lucky enough to have that.  An excellent example would be Charlotte.  They seem to be trying to handle the situtation.  Granted their light rail isn't all that much yet, but they have some great plans on the table, right?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That's a much better explanation. I see your point being that Atlanta could be seen as the poster boy for urban sprawl. I would agree with you to an extent, but keep in mind again, people originally from the South and people who move to the South generally prefer a different lifestyle from what is offered in the Northeast and other regions of the US. More people down here prefer to have control over where they go, which inhibits mass transit such as light rail from being an instant success and explains the heavy reliance on automobiles. I, indeed, portray this mentality myself.

There are Southern cities that are preparing for public mass transit using light rail, and Charlotte is indeed one of them. Jacksonville has a DT rail system, and there are plans to expand it throughout the city limits. My hometown of Charleston is also considering areas that can be utilized for light rail. However, the cities' density will need to be increased for light rail to really work.

[Brickell]

So what does annexation have to do with that? If Atlanta were able to annex some of their suburbs, they'd have more control over growth, and easier time building mass transit and less competition for development dollars. Why did you both point to annexation as a negative when it's got nothing at all to do with the subject at hand?

The subject is tallest skyscraper. I don't think density really comes into play here. Sure it helps. The two tallest scrapers in the Southeast right now are in Atlanta and Charlotte. Not exactly model cities when it comes to density. New Orleans has density but no money. Atlanta and Charlotte have money. Miami is one place that has both right now. I wouldn't be suprised to see Atlanta or Houston or even Dallas build something just to make a statement though.

[sonofaque86]

I would say Atlanta

[Mr.Marc]

If you're speaking of the whole South, I'd say Dallas or Houston.

If any city in the Southeast gets it, it will more than likely be Miami.

[RiversideGator]

I chose NYC or Chicago to have the tallest skyscrapers for the next 20 yrs or so. They are still the financial capitals and have powerful reasons for needing additional highrises (i.e. relative lack of open land in their CBDs). If the title is ever taken from these, I would say it would have to be by Atlanta because, for all ATL's faults, they do know how to accomplish things there.

As to the northern interlopers in the Southern USA forums, please leave.

[nashvol85]

Wait...I've been reading through this thread, and density keeps getting brought up. Shouldn't New Orleans have one of the most impressive skylines in the South if that was the case? Why would Charlotte have an almost 900 ft tower? It's not dense! I think tall buildings don't have much to do with density...more to do with the environment, the demand and market, and the willingness for cities, planning commisions, and locals to build such towers.

[KRC]

Wait...I've been reading through this thread, and density keeps getting brought up.  Shouldn't New Orleans have one of the most impressive skylines in the South if that was the case?  Why would Charlotte have an almost 900 ft tower? It's not dense!  I think tall buildings don't have much to do with density...more to do with the environment, the demand and market, and the willingness for cities, planning commisions, and locals to build such towers.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Years ago that was the case, but no longer. Skyscrapers are expensive to build and were only concieved of in an area tha that was dense and required height. That's really no longer the case. New Orleans is dense, but the economy does not dictate the need for taller buildings. Of Atlanta and Charlotte, I like Charlotte better only because it's towers cluster close together (relatively). I put my vote for Miami because it does have some of the strong underpinnings to support such a project.

[KRC]

So what does annexation have to do with that?  If Atlanta were able to annex some of their suburbs, they'd have more control over growth, and easier time building mass transit and less competition for development dollars.  Why did you both point to annexation as a negative when it's got nothing at all to do with the subject at hand?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well, I think a good place to put up to the light and see how it shines would be Indianapolis. They annexed years ago. It appears to have helped the city financially, but density certainly didn't change. If anything, it went down because it swollowed Marion county which contains quite a bit of low density or rural space. Sure the city's official population increased dramatically, but it's land area increased even more. That doesn't lend itself to better transit option on the whole. Did that make sense?

Again, I never said annexation is bad. I think it is good. I think the point being made here is that cities that are doing it are calling themselves more than what they are. Louisville still has a stagnent population, but because it merged with the county it's offical population grew dramatically (which makes sense). However, they make it seem like the city is growing like gangbusters and that's just not the case. Of course, this is all a game of perception, right? If you believe your city is hot, then it is hot to you. That's all that matters. You need to enjoy where you live and have pride in it. I'm sure you feel the same about Miami (I hope that's where you're from) I know I do about Providence. Providence is considered a hot mid-sized city because we want it to be. Miami is, well, Miami. What can you say? It's just a great international city with some fantastic weather. Let's not forget that it wasn't always so. You know, when I was growing up Miami was a dinky city of retierees, then a den of crime and drug dealing (Miami Vice, anyone?) and now is a showplace of international culture. Anyplace can change.

The point? Miami with its reputation could get the world's tallest. You can't say that about, say, Montgomery or Buffalo.

[paulblackgsx]

Atlanta is a horrible example for the "annexation" discussion.

Atlanta hasn't annexed in YEARS. Which also means, it's recent population growth is population growth.

Atlanta doesn't need to annex, it's sizeable (in land area) already and most neighboring areas are developed. There are some areas they could potentially annex that are older industrial areas that might make sense for redevelopment. But then again, there is plenty of that within the city limits. So why annex when you have plenty of available redevelopable land in your own city limits? Don't forget surface parking lots, although disappears from DT and Midtown very quickly, there is plenty of these left in this city.

As for building the tallest, some of the reasons here absolutely crack me up. Worlds or nations tallest don't show up in a city because a bunch of skyscraper enthusiasts on a forum want one.

[RiversideGator]

Years ago that was the case, but no longer. Skyscrapers are expensive to build and were only concieved of in an area tha that was dense and required height.

The big skyscrapers built in ATL and Charlotte were built in the 90s (and still are being built) and lack of density didnt seem to stop them. This is the silliest argument I have heard you make on here, KRC. Why dont you return to your flaccid New England forum? I guess because there isnt much to talk about there in terms of real development.

[paulblackgsx]

The big skyscrapers built in ATL and Charlotte were built in the 90s (and still are being built) and lack of density didnt seem to stop them.

[atlrvr]

Corporate ego is why Charlotte and Atlanta have tall skylines......period.

[azbadpuppy]

Corporate ego is why Charlotte and Atlanta have tall skylines......period.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

True, but don't forget the Texas cities- it's all about ego there too. If I had to choose one of these cities it would beith either Texas city simply because they would do it out of arrogance and not necessity.

This debate is rather irrelevant since the Freedom tower is currently under construction in NYC and will be the tallest building in the *world*, not just the US.

[cooperdawg]

True, but don't forget the Texas cities- it's all about ego there too. If I had to choose one of these cities it would beith either Texas city simply because they would do it out of arrogance and not necessity.

This debate is rather irrelevant since the Freedom tower is currently under construction in NYC and will be the tallest building in the *world*, not just the US.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

They better build it fast then because Burj Dubai is already ahead of the Freedom Tower and will be taller when completed by a healthy 500 feet.

Construction Status of Burj Dubai as of June