Our Height-challenged Region

Steely Dan · #1 Posted **Mar 14, 2014, 10:08 PM**

doing the exercise for a thread about 500+ footers built or U/C in the US so far this century, it became apparent to me that the midwest (outside of chicago), perhaps not surprisingly, is really lagging the rest of the country in the construction of tall buildings. so far this century, only 3 buildings over 500 feet have been built in the midwest (outside of chicago):

- Great American Tower, Cincinnati - 665' (2011)

- One First National Center, Omaha - 633' (2002)

- Eagleton Courthouse, St. Louis - 557' (2000)

if we eliminate the 3 big skyscraper construction cities in the US (NYC, Miami, & chicago) from the equation (they are true outliers which together account for 73% of all 500+ footers built or U/C in the US during this time period), that leaves 59 500+ footers built or U/C in the rest of the US since 2000. here's a break down of the 4 major US regions as defined by the census bureau:

south: 26
west: 22
northeast: 8
midwest: 3

it didn't always use to be so dismal for tall building construction in our region. back in the go-go '80s/early '90s (1980-1993), midwest cities (outside of chicago) combined to build 21 500+ footers during those 13 years:

minneapolis: 7
columbus: 3
cleveland: 2
indianpolis: 2
kansas city: 2
st. louis: 2
des moines: 1
detroit: 1
milwaukee: 1

but ever since the commercial real estate crash in the early '90s (20+ years ago), it's been few and far between for 500+ footers in the midwest (outside of chicago). to its credit, minneapolis has built 4 buildings in the 450-500' range so far this century, so they're at least trying, but just falling a tad short of the mark each time.

is there any hope for more tall buildings on the horizon in the midwest (outside of chicago)? well, milwaukee has two 500+ foot proposal on the boards right now, so if they both go up, that should shake things up.

are there any other solid 500+ foot proposals out there right now in the midwest?

the urban politician · #2 Posted **Mar 14, 2014, 11:14 PM**

^ I think it has more to do with the decline in the Midwestern economy and stagnant population than anything else. Most Midwestern cities' downtowns just don't have the kind of demand necessary to generate a 500+ ft proposal

Chef · #3 Posted **Mar 15, 2014, 12:06 AM**

Minneapolis has had a significant construction boom both before and after the financial crisis but it has been mostly midrises, nothing to brag about height wise but it has done wonders for the city at street level downtown, in the Warehouse District, Uptown and Dinkytown. We got our skyline in the '80s and '90s, now we are becoming a more urban city in terms of fabric. Ideally I would like to have both street level density and height but at this point if I had to choose one for Minneapolis I would go with the density.

JonathanGRR · #4 Posted **Mar 15, 2014, 1:50 AM**

^
I'd say your thoughts would apply fairly well to Grand Rapids also (although we did receive a new tallest building last decade). Since we still have a ways to go before downtown and the surrounding areas are filled in completely, I'd say mid-rises over high-rises is for the better right now. Plus, many of our recent developments (along the Medical Mile on Michigan Street) are situated on a hill--thus giving the appearance of a higher skyline regardless of measured height.

ColDayMan · #5 Posted **Mar 15, 2014, 4:35 AM**

Not in this state. The only possibility are the rumors of Western & Southern building a new tall flagship building (they literally just dumped Queen City Square yesterday) in Cincinnati. Columbus is doing the 7-story infill land; Cleveland is doing sporadic hotels; and D-A-T-Y (Dayton/Akron/Toledo/Youngstown)...no.

TallBob · #6 Posted **Mar 15, 2014, 5:55 AM**

Their are a couple proposals in Minneapolis that might well be over 600'...(nowhere near the tallest, but good height just the same). And like Chef said including the projects getting ready to come out of the ground!

Avian001 · #7 Posted **Mar 15, 2014, 6:27 PM**

Interesting statistics! There is still a lot of building going on though. While shorter, there are still five 300-footers going up in Minneapolis and 2 more just under 300 feet. There are a couple more that will break the 500 foot mark but they are yet to be "official."

untitledreality · #8 Posted **Mar 16, 2014, 5:16 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by the urban politician

Most Midwestern cities' downtowns just don't have the kind of demand necessary to generate a 500+ ft proposal

Exactly.

Why on earth would a developer take a risk on building a single 500+ foot building in any of those cities when there is so little incentive, and enormous risk? None of the mentioned cities have staggering real estate costs, pent up office or housing demand, strong economies capable of supporting high rents, etc etc

These cities need to relearn how to walk before then can even think about running.

Centropolis · #9 Posted **Mar 16, 2014, 7:18 PM**

yeah, we are definitely relearning to walk, but there has been an uptick in new construction in st. louis city lately. our secondary downtown (clayton) has seen new low-rise construction, recently. have to remember that st. louis was in economic decline with it's 19th century industries before detroit even peaked economically, and we are just touching off rock bottom. we may not build anything big for a while, but we are rebuilding nonetheless. our finances are now in ok shape, however detroit has a ways to go.

we have always kind of been a heavy, low slung city, brick and iron. skyscrapers just weren't/aren't our thing.

LMich · #10 Posted **Mar 17, 2014, 8:38 AM**

I know it's considered blasphemy on a site named "SkyscraperPage", and my younger self would have treated it as such, but living in the state that I've lived for as long as I have, I am so over height as the primary factor for a high-rise. I mean, if we can get it, that's great. But, now, at the end of the day, I'm far more concerned about how something fills the block, what the quality of the materials are, the general architecture...than how high it goes.

There is not a city in my state in which land is at such a premium that it would greatly incentivize building up rather than out. The only incentive left is for bragging rights. And in that vein, Dan Gilbert in Detroit is really looking for a marquee project for the Hudson site in downtown Detroit, and has not ruled out something very tall. In fact, he hired SHoP out of New York to design something for the site It'll be interesting if we've found that he's been courting tenants behind the scenes all along to make this thing skyline-changing, but we'll just have to wait and see. I kind of doubt any over 500 feet, even on part of the site.

Most of the commercial activity in Detroit, though, is filling back in what was lost (i.e. renovations), and that's fine by me. If we start having demand to the point of where a high-rise could be built, but the developers don't want to spend the extra bucks for going vertical, then I'll be a little annoyed.

Oh, here is what SHoP will be working with if anyone is interested:

Quicken Loans Blog

As is apparent, there are multiple sites for buildings on this huge block, and no one seems to know exactly how high they could go over the garage as there is still a question as to how much of the old Hudson's foundation was used for the current parking garage.

Steely Dan · #11 Posted **Mar 17, 2014, 2:43 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by the urban politician

^ I think it has more to do with the decline in the Midwestern economy and stagnant population than anything else. Most Midwestern cities' downtowns just don't have the kind of demand necessary to generate a 500+ ft proposal

of course the economy drives these things, it's just interesting to me that, during the '80s/early '90s building boom, midwest cities were struggling as well, dealing with the effects of deindustrialization, white flight, and stagnant/falling populations, and yet all but 1 of the midwest's major cities got in on the action of building new skyline-defining buildings. the problems facing the region's cities didn't stop the dreamers back then, but this time around it seems different.

the rest of the nation has been building new tall buildings at a pretty good clip for the past 14 years, just like the building boom we saw in the 80s, but this time around it's a phenomenon that has largely passed over the midwest, except for chicago. let's hope the two taller proposals in milwaukee can get the region back on track.

Steely Dan · #12 Posted **Mar 17, 2014, 3:29 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Avian001

Interesting statistics! There is still a lot of building going on though. While shorter, there are still five 300-footers going up in Minneapolis and 2 more just under 300 feet. There are a couple more that will break the 500 foot mark but they are yet to be "official."

please tell me more. i'd love to see minneapolis start going tall again.

jpIllInoIs · #13 Posted **Mar 17, 2014, 4:11 PM**

Outside of Chicago which has completely lapped all other major metros in the midwest with 222 highrises Since 2000 :
Minneapolis is the clear runner up for adding 21 buildings that qualify for highrise status according to SSP definition.
Then Milwaukee with 16 and Madison with 13. St.L, KC and Indy are tied for 4th with 10 highrises.
Super Subs Evanston, Clayton and Windsor showing new millennium momentum.
Notable that Detroit has 6 new highrises but 3 are 12+ floors of parking decks and 2 are Casinos.
Southfield ad St.Paul have lost momentum since 1999.
For all of the good press that Des Moines gets for it's economy, it is not reflected in highrises.

All Data from SSP - Sorted by: UC/Site prep>00-14>Total 12+

City       12 Fl+   Since'80 '80-'99 '00-'14 UC+Prep

Chicago	      1151	383	161	222	20

Minneapolis	155	62	41	21	2

Pittsburgh	127	25	19	6	2

Cincinnati	92	31	25	6	2

Milwaukee	88	30	14	16	1

Madison	       27	15	2	13	0

St. Louis	115	26	16	10	0

Kansas City	110	25	15	10	0

Indianapolis	60	29	19	10	0

Clayton, Mo	26	14	5	9	0

Cleveland	110	32	24	8	0

Columbus	71	27	20	7	0

WindsorOntCA	18	11	4	7	0

Evanston, IL	13	8	1	7	0

Detroit	       131	23	17	6	0

Louisville	42	14	10	4	0

Bloomington, MN	21	12	8	4	0

Omaha	        37	8	5	3	0

Grand Rapids	11	7	4	3	0

Rochester, MN	14	8	6	2	0

Covington, KY	9	5	3	2	0

Schaumburg, IL	8	6	4	2	0

Ann Arbor	 8	2	0	2	0

St. Paul	33	11	10	1	0

Southfield, MI	27	9	8	1	0

Des Moines	24	7	6	1	0

Dayton	       23	3	2	1	0

Troy, MI	8	8	7	1	0

Akron	       18	2	2	0	0

Toledo	       16	5	5	0	0

Duluth, MN	13	1	1	0	0

OakBrook/Terrace8	5	5	0	0

Cedar Rapids,IA	8	1	1	0	0

Ft Wayne	8	1	1	0	0

Centropolis · #14 Posted **Mar 17, 2014, 4:22 PM**

i'm surprised that indianapolis has such a shortage of highrises. also didnt realize clayton had that many over 12 stories. ironic considering that i an typing this from clayton.

Steely Dan · #15 Posted **Mar 17, 2014, 7:59 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Centropolis

i'm surprised that indianapolis has such a shortage of highrises. also didnt realize clayton had that many over 12 stories. ironic considering that i an typing this from clayton.

^yeah, it's a little weird to think of clayton as having nearly half as many 12+ story buildings as indianpolis. maybe the stats are off?

i will say that out of the 9 of the 10 major midwest cities i have visited (i still haven't ever made it out to KC unfortunately), indy did come across as the least structurally dense. and there also aren't any secondary nodes of highrises there like you can find in some other midwest cities (CWE in st. louis, the plaza in KC, highrises stretching north along milwaukee's lakeshore, etc.)

that said, indy does take really good advantage of the downtown it does have. it may not be the biggest or the tallest of most structurally dense downtown in the world, but they really do make the most of what they have, and the citizens of indy really seem to actually use their downtown beyond just the M-F, 9-5 office worker crowd. they have real deal big city downtown retail in indy, which is sadly becoming rare in the cities in our region.

jpIllInoIs · #16 Posted **Mar 17, 2014, 8:58 PM**

^ Recounted Clayton and revised to 26 - highrises down from 27.
Still an impressive number for a suburb.

Cincinnati is also getting a small alter ego in Covington.

Steely Dan · #17 Posted **Mar 19, 2014, 3:12 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by jpIllInoIs

^ Recounted Clayton and revised to 26 - highrises down from 27.

i was actually thinking that your numbers may be off for indy. only 60 12+ story bildings seems low to me, but it may be correct.

Avian001 · #18 Posted **Mar 19, 2014, 6:57 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

please tell me more. i'd love to see minneapolis start going tall again.

There is a 56-story multi-use tower making the rounds behind the scenes that would be in the 650-foot range. The renderings have not been publicly released but they do show a slender stone tower with decorative spire. Another 50-story residential tower is also making the rounds.

A new rumor from the industry has popped up that the Magellan/Ryan Companies tower next to the new Vikings stadium will be upped to 50 stories but there is no confirmation on that so I wouldn't count on it yet. But Chicago-based Magellan has been public about their bullishness on Minneapolis. They've had about a thousand serious inquires on their 354-unit apartment tower U/C in Loring Park.

Steely Dan · #19 Posted **Mar 19, 2014, 11:01 PM**

^ Thanks for all the unofficial info! By most measures, minneapolis already has the 2nd most impressive (size-wise) midwest skyline, just ahead of detroit. Building 2 or 3 more 50+ story towers would really open up a big gap between the two.

the urban politician · #20 Posted **Mar 20, 2014, 1:22 AM**

I'm impressed by Milwaukee's performance since 2000. Looks like its big brother to the south has been rubbing off on it