Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Saturn64
Unfortunately, I don't see a 2000 footer coming up anywhere outside of China and the Middle East anytime soon. But I'd say if it did happen in the U.S, it would more likely to be in Chicago than New York, for the above reasons.
|
While I have no clue if there will be a 2,000 foot tower in the U.S., and don't see why it matters much one way or the other, Chicago would be a somewhat unlikely candidate.
Construction costs soar like crazy over about 700 ft. (mostly because floorplates become tiny because of all the needed elevator space), necessitating absolutely outrageous per square foot sales prices. Chicago isn't a particularly expensive city, and doesn't have extreme prices for high end real estate, nor does it have the global superrich contingent, so wouldn't be an obvious location for superskinny supertalls.
NYC would be the most logical place for such a tower, and then maybe SF, Miami, LA, in theory. But I think, if we ever crossed this threshold, there would be a number of 2,000 ft. towers in NYC before it filtered to other cities, simply because sales prices for superluxury RE are so much higher in NYC (like 2-3x that of the next most expensive U.S. cities).
But do the superrich even want such extreme RE? It isn't clear. The whole point of living high in the sky is views, and I'm not sure the views are better from 2,000 ft. than from 1,000 ft. I would argue they're probably worse, because you're just seeing sky. I would guess your typical billionaire is very happy with the view from somewhere like 220 CPS, which is "only" 952 ft., but has garnered the highest condo sales prices on the planet.