How Tall Is Tall?

[ToysNoiz]

This is something that has been on my mind for a long time. What height does a building need to have to be considered tall? By popular definition, any building over 75 feet is a "high-rise". But I wouldn't call that tall. So I'm curious as to what you guys think is tall. Personally, I say anything 235 ft. or higher is tall.

The tallest [tallest] building in a city in the Mountain West is Denver's 728 ft. Republic Plaza,



...and the shortest [tallest] building is Boise's 323 ft. 8th and Main Tower.

[SLC Projects]

For me anything taller then 12 stories is a highrise and anything taller then 20 stories is a tower. However after traveling to bigger cities and seeing much taller buildings, I don't even think we truly have "skyscrapers" here. I guess anything taller then 350FT is a "skyscraper" for us here in SLC.
I would like to see SLC get a few ( one or two ) real skyscrapers, somewhere between 35-40 stories.

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by ToysNoiz

...and the shortest [tallest] building is Boise's 323 ft. 8th and Main Tower.

No, it's not. I know you guys forget this because it hurts too many folks' feelings, but Colorado Springs has a larger MSA than Boise. (668,353 vs. 637,896, 2012). And the Wells Fargo Center in Colorado Springs is only 247 feet.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wells_F...ado_Springs%29

And no, it is not tall.

[Sawtooth]

I would drop your threshold to 171 Feet to include the 171 foot McEuen Terrace in Coeur d'Alene as well as the 213 foot Parkside Tower and the 216 foot Coeur d'Alene Resort Tower.





http://coeurdalenephotos.mmoverview....bruary_072.jpg









http://www.parksidecda.com/_img/indexSlide4.jpg

[ToysNoiz]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

No, it's not. I know you guys forget this because it hurts too many folks' feelings, but Colorado Springs has a larger MSA than Boise. (668,353 vs. 637,896, 2012). And the Wells Fargo Center in Colorado Springs is only 247 feet.

My apologies.

[BoiseAirport]

I'm not sure how to define tall, it seems too relative from city to city, region to region. Tall for me will always be what's tall relative to it. Zions Bank in Boise is "tall" to me, but obviously it wouldn't be tall if it was placed in Seattle.

As an aside, I think we on SSP (myself included) have a tendency to put too much emphasis on tall. Give me a better built urban environment that's more people friendly and human scale; with ample variety in architecture and quality of materials; that's easy/comfortable to get around without a car and with the lowest number of surface parking lots as possible. I'd rather have twelve 5-story buildings that contribute to that vs. two 30 story buildings which don't.

[Future Mayor]

Originally Posted by BoiseAirport

I'm not sure how to define tall, it seems too relative from city to city, region to region. Tall for me will always be what's tall relative to it. Zions Bank in Boise is "tall" to me, but obviously it wouldn't be tall if it was placed in Seattle.

As an aside, I think we on SSP (myself included) have a tendency to put too much emphasis on tall. Give me a better built urban environment that's more people friendly and human scale; with ample variety in architecture and quality of materials; that's easy/comfortable to get around without a car and with the lowest number of surface parking lots as possible. I'd rather have twelve 5-story buildings that contribute to that vs. two 30 story buildings which don't.

I agree completely with you on this, and I've said it many times in our discussions on the SLC thread. I would rather have three 20 story buildings with good street/sidewalk engagement, also spreading the city out, than 1 50-60 story tower.

[simms3_redux]

Low-rise < 8 floors < Mid-rise < 25 floors < High Rise

*To roof heights (aka no spires of "features", just the wall of the structure)*

Short <120 ft < Getting there < 350 ft < Kinda' tall < 500 ft < Tall < 750 ft < Very tall < 900 ft < Makes me dizzy in an awesome kinda' way (aka only Chicago, NYC, Houston, Seattle, Philadelphia, and LA can give me this sensation)


The "tallest" cities are definitely Chicago (the spatiality of that city and the resi highrises make it seem "taller" to me than NYC, plus the true supertalls), New York, Houston (this city is TALL), Los Angeles, Dallas, Atlanta, Seattle, Philadelphia, and Miami.

I think SF has an opportunity to join this list with the TB Tower and 181 Fremont under construction. It's definitely a tweener - on average taller than the below cities but not "tall" like the above in that it doesn't have enough 700+ ft buildings.

Next tier = Minneapolis, Boston, Pittsburgh, Charlotte, Denver, Austin, Kansas City, Indianapolis.

Everything else is small potatoes, but it doesn't mean a city doesn't have a fantastic skyline or a beautiful cityscape or a bustling vibrancy.

BTW a solid 600 ft office building with ~44-48 floors or a 500 ft residential high rise with 45-50 floors can seem really tall.

[ToysNoiz]

Originally Posted by SLC Projects

For me anything taller then 12 stories is a highrise and anything taller then 20 stories is a tower. However after traveling to bigger cities and seeing much taller buildings, I don't even think we truly have "skyscrapers" here. I guess anything taller then 350FT is a "skyscraper" for us here in SLC.
I would like to see SLC get a few ( one or two ) real skyscrapers, somewhere between 35-40 stories.

I'd say Utah's "real" skyscrapers are COB, Wells Fargo, 99 West, and Key Bank tower and One Utah (which are both the same height).

As was said, I do agree that it depends on the height of surrounding structures to determine if something is tall or not. But there's gotta be some limit. 100 ft. building next to twelve 70 footers ain't tall.

[SLC Projects]

Originally Posted by ToysNoiz

I'd say Utah's "real" skyscrapers are COB, Wells Fargo, 99 West, and Key Bank tower and One Utah (which are both the same height).

You just named our five top tallest at 350FT or higher. I agree.

[RyanD]

Originally Posted by simms3_redux

BTW a solid 600 ft office building with ~44-48 floors or a 500 ft residential high rise with 45-50 floors can seem really tall.

As far as skylines / tall buildings go, it all depends on your context.. Denver has a 714ft, 708ft, 699ft as their tallest but they more just blend into each other than stick out looking 'tall'. They are also mixed with a bunch of 300-500ft towers too.. So here, 714ft doesn't really seem that tall.

With that being said, let's look at Mississauga, an outer-lying city in Toronto. They just built the Absolute World Towers which are 585/525ft.


SSP Member Jasonzed

With their surroundings, they look much taller than say our Republic Plaza because everything is short around them. So in SLC, if you guys get a 600ft office building, it's going to look really tall. OKC is another great example. I'm all about balance on a skyline though. If Denver were to build a tallest tower I wouldn't want it over ~1000 ft or else it would just look stupid.

At the end of the day, it's all about urban form. Embrace your 5-12 story buildings and be fortunate you're getting them for the time being

[Brainpathology]

Originally Posted by ToysNoiz

What height does a building need to have to be considered tall?

500 Feet.

And with the explosion of tallER buildings in most of the rest of the world it will, relatively soon, be 1000 ft. Unless you carve out the population of buildings in the US and compare them only to each other; which we just saw the beginnings of last week. I've NEVER seen so much fuss over who had the 9th or 10th biggest d*ck in the room.

[ToysNoiz]

After rethinking, I'd say in the Mountain West, anything 300' or more is tall. But a building can be under 300' and still be big. SLC's Federal Courthouse would find itself in a "Not tall but big" category. So would any capital building or city library.

[delts145]

Originally Posted by BoiseAirport

I'm not sure how to define tall, it seems too relative from city to city, region to region. Tall for me will always be what's tall relative to it. Zions Bank in Boise is "tall" to me, but obviously it wouldn't be tall if it was placed in Seattle.

As an aside, I think we on SSP (myself included) have a tendency to put too much emphasis on tall. Give me a better built urban environment that's more people friendly and human scale; with ample variety in architecture and quality of materials; that's easy/comfortable to get around without a car and with the lowest number of surface parking lots as possible. I'd rather have twelve 5-story buildings that contribute to that vs. two 30 story buildings which don't.

Very much agree BoiseAirport. I've seen too many cities with attractive skylines from a distance, but very sterile when you get into the heart of the CBD.

[PLANSIT]

Blackhawk, CO - Ameristar Hotel/Casino. Population: 118

350+ ft.

[denconyny]

Originally Posted by PLANSIT

Blackhawk, CO - Ameristar Hotel/Casino. Population: 118

350+ ft.

My first post on this site, ladies and gents........ and away we go.

So now, at this point, it seems that not only will there be the Ameristar Hotel Tower, but sometime soon Monarch Casino (formerly the Riviera) is planning to build a 507 room, 22 story hotel tower at the other end of town in Black Hawk....

http://www.monarchcasino.com/news_pr...cle.asp?id=517

"As we have previously reported, the Black Hawk City Council has approved our master plan to expand our facility, subject to certain conditions, which will transform Monarch Black Hawk from a gaming facility with no hotel rooms into a full-scale resort. Once completed, the master plan will nearly double the casino space and will add a 22 story hotel tower with 507 guest rooms and suites, an upscale spa and pool facility, four restaurants, additional bars, a new parking structure and associated support facilities. The planned ten story parking structure will increase total parking on site from approximately 500 spaces to approximately 1,551 parking spaces.”

As per this article, citing an already done city approval....

http://www.weeklyregistercall.com/20...to-black-hawk/

states that the parking structure will be only six stories.

Has anyone seen the design plans?

Anyone fearing that Black Hawk will start looking like (not the Kansas one) Manhattan if this trend continues? Or is it possible that we can eventually have more stories in Black Hawk then population? Will Black Hawk eventually maybe get a tower taller than the mountains surrounding it - and I'd have to wonder how tall is tall for that to be?

[ToysNoiz]

Originally Posted by PLANSIT

Blackhawk, CO - Ameristar Hotel/Casino. Population: 118

350+ ft.

I had always thought of a really small town getting a big fancy skyscraper... but I never thought a super small town of 100 would get this!

I wonder how the people of Blackhawk feel about it?

[EPdesign]

Holy. That is crazy impressive. I bet they all work there

[SLC Projects]

Originally Posted by PLANSIT

Park City in the future?

[The Dirt]

Black Hawk / Central City are just tiny gambling towns so, normal development patterns don't apply. Las Vegas would still be a dusty rest stop on the way to LA if it wasn't for the gaming industry. As such, Black Hawk isn't really a city where people actually live. It's more of an economic zone where an activity is permitted that is otherwise banned elsewhere in the state. Everyone that works there lives in the Denver metro area. Everyone that lives there directly benefits from the gaming establishments, therefore actively promotes their expansion, and usually don't care about typical small mountain town concerns like traffic, car exhaust pollution, crowding, and "certain elements".