Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

sunshine

Does building supertall affect the city's economy positively or not?

9 posts in this topic

Just thought I will throw this question here for discussion.

I am no economist but do you think building a supertall affect will bring advantages to a city economically.

For example, Kuala Lumpur, building petronas towers bring frame to the city. But does the city needs the office space? Does it drain all the resources out of the city and create glut of excessive office space? Would the city economy develop better if they dont exist?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Mere height will not be sufficient to bring lasting gain to an area. The novelty factor of the Petronas Towers may help them fill the space, but I am curious about the actual vacancy rate there. If there is a need for height, then by all means proceed. Too many places are being deceived by the race to build bigger, taller etc.. What happens when the economy turns sour? I wish cities would think in terms of lasting quality instead of flash and glitter. So what if you have the tallest building? Someone will simply come along and build something taller....until...where does it stop?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My answer to you question would be a yes and a no.

If one tower is built purely as a Phallyc representation of some egocentric billionair or national leader my answer is no. Petronas was built for the national oil company by the governemnt as a way to put the emerging trading city on the map. I think it worked to some degree, but we have no way of knowing how much it helped or hurt in the long run. Kuala Lampur has aspirations of being another Hong Kong, but so do a dozen other Asian market cities such as Shanghi, Singapore, and now Dubai.

An example closer to my home is the City of Hartford.

Back in 1988-1990 there were 5 office buildings in the works that were all as large as or taller than City Place, the 800,000 SQFT title holder. In each buildings case the property was aquired and financing was set, demolition had all ready even happened in most cases. There were even tennants for most of these buildings. Hartford was about to be re built all at once.

the basic info about these projects can be taken from Emporis at this link http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/ci/bu/sk/li/?...;ht=2&sro=1

in addition to the 5 office projects there was also a condo planned.

Since this time there was a huge office demand crash, and many mergers and such that hurt Hartfords office market and its downtown in general. Needless to say nothing has been built since then up untill very recently, and the city still lags well behind where it was in 1988. The damage to the streeet scape has been dramatic with huge swaths of flat vacant land in the muddle of our downtown. With acres of asphalt next to our central downtown park. How can retail flourish without a congruent streetscape to be part of. This city has been a moonscape with craters, crime and all manner of urban blight overr the last 20 years, and now only over the last 5 years has made strides to recover. A great deal of damage was done, and only now is there a bright future little crime and new downtown development.

Now had these buildings been built, and the approximately 1.2 Billion in construction work would surely have helped the city. The difference in taxes collected by the city on 5 office towers and 1 condo tower versus 5 asphalt surface parking lots +3 small low rise buildings over the last 20 years would be astronomical. Now, none of these buildings were "supertalls", but a couple of them would be in the 800'+ range. Hartford would still have had the merger problems, it would likely still gone thru a depression much like the rest of New England. The difference is that the additional 4+ million square feet of class A office space would have made rents in Hartford very attractive. Building owners would have to lowered lease rates making it very attractive to do business in hartford. Hartford has one of the largest and best trained work forces for the financial industry, and I am sure this would have only encouraged more firms to move here. In addition, I bet less jobs would leave or have left to the burbs. An additional benefit would be in the perrception catagory. Currently the skyline in Hartford impresses people unfamiliar with its history as the Insurance capitol of the world, and its past status as American richest city. The city currently has a few buildings around the 500' level, however would have had an additional 850' foot tower, one at 680' one at 620' one at 770' and two others added to those around 450'.

The hartford Skyline in 1993 Could have easily dwarfed that of Boston during this era.

Buildings do not guarantee the status of a city but they can attract the companies you want representrd in your city.

The height of a building does not make one city better than another, but the quality of office space can easily make a city more attractive to a potential tennant.

Tall buildings do not make people move to a city, but they are far better than craters.

The simple answer is that any project is generally better than no project at all. As long as nothing historic is destroyed, or the new project fits in with its environment and is pedestrian friendly, life is good. How can added construction jobs, top flight office space, new residences, posh hotel rooms, and increased city tax income possibly hurt a city?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At least here in the United States, where you see tall skyscrapers being build that are surrounded by miles of low density development, I don't think so. I call these vanity towers and are more a testimate to "look I can build a skyscraper" over has this city grown so much that "we need this skyscraper". There is a big difference but people often make this mistake.

In addition, while most of these supertalls look good from the distance, it's usually done at the cost of destroying the urban environment around it at the base of the tower.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Building these supertalls can hinder downtown redevelopment in cities that are still trying to recover from the ravages of the urban renewal period. Several years of growth can be concentrated into a tower project that may make future downtown construction and renovation unfeasible for years to come.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So would u guys also agree with this scenarios?

One

A city building a super tall, which in term bringing icon to the city. The city got recognize and more business move in. Business want to be in the tower. It in term encourage more towers to be built. Create more jobs. I am not familiar with Charlotte history. Does BofA tower made Charlotte recognizeable? and in turn, attract all the banking business therre.

Two

City build mega tower, all the offcie space concentrate into one building. In turn, it provide a lot of office and discourage other buildings to be built. City sit with empty towers and all the rent are low.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As an insider/outsider to CLT, I tentatively say that yes, BOA begat a Charlotte DT explosion whose importance to such can not be underestimated. Or rather, their role in that explosion cannot be underestimated. The 'burbs and other outlying areas might have absorbed development as usual had BoA not constructed a huge gothic tower in the middle of a collection of mid-rises and quite suddenly given Charlotteans a reason to dream for more. This not only affected CLT's economy but pretty much all future momentum. It is seemingly impossible that such a minor thing as the building of a tower could so drastically affect history, and yet history is full of just such events. So CLT owes Hugh McColl, and should probably be included as at least a footnote in Charlotte's growth to prominence. As far as other citys' building notable skyscrapers, that all depends on the city.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So would u guys also agree with this scenarios?

One

A city building a super tall, which in term bringing icon to the city. The city got recognize and more business move in. Business want to be in the tower. It in term encourage more towers to be built. Create more jobs. I am not familiar with Charlotte history. Does BofA tower made Charlotte recognizeable? and in turn, attract all the banking business therre.

Two

City build mega tower, all the offcie space concentrate into one building. In turn, it provide a lot of office and discourage other buildings to be built. City sit with empty towers and all the rent are low.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


I know some here say that supper tall buildings destroys street life. In some case I would have to agree. However let me throw a monkey wrench into the works by bringing up cities like New York and Chicago. Both cities are forests of tall buildings. One would figure these cities would be as vibrant as cemeteries. But New York and Chicago both have some of the most vibrant street life of any city I know of. This makes make me think that these cities have struck a right chord when it comes to handling skyscrapers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.