^^^^
I wonder if they would consider further modifying the land code. The prices in Seattle are through the roof, would be nice to have many more units to ease some of the demand, maybe with an affordable component.
But no complaints on my end. Whats been going on in crane city (Seattle) has been very uplifting. Its like the whole city is u/c.
Bellevue is also a nice sleeper tower that has seen some nice infill. I'd like to see more there as well.
Its just one of those things that bothers me with a lot of West Coast cities, their potential that is hindered by highly aggressive NIMBY's (a virulent strain of Bubonic NIMBY's) and lackluster zoning.
Maybe that will change, but Seattle has been doing good work.
With respect to 400m, I think Los Angeles could pull it off. In fact, I think Los Angeles could be a skyscraper capital if it really wanted to. So much land, so much potential, but sadly hindered by a plethora of internal issues that stifle development potential. Oh well...! We shall see. If not Los Angeles, maybe Miami.
Miami is similar to NYC in that the demand for tall residential, investment towers... will always be there so long as the city remains on land. Location, Location, Location!