Next Midwest City To Build A Tower Over 700' Tall

[Shawn]

FYI Hines has been long-gaming the air rights above Boston’s South Station since 2002. They finally broke ground on the 720 foot South Station Tower last November. Almost 20 years after first announcing the project.

Hines absolutely plays the long game.

[Steely Dan]

^ Hines certainly can play a good long game when they need to, but it's also not their only game plan.

We have two recent-ish Hines 700+ foot office towers here in chicago, 300 N Lasalle and River Point. 300 N Lasalle was built relatively quickly on a conventional office tower development timeline, but river point was put on hold during the great recession and it took them an extra 8 years to build it while they waited for the correct market conditions.

[MPLS_Const_Watch]

Saw this report today and thought of the discussion in this thread-- despite all of the doom and gloom regarding the office market in 2020, the Minneapolis CBD submarket had significant positive absorption both overall and in Class A. Compare the Class A 150k positive absorption in the Minneapolis CBD to the Class A 399k negative absorption in the 494 Corridor (the largest suburban submarket). At 11.9%, the Minneapolis CBD has the lowest Class A vacancy rate in the metro.

The Class B rate is super high at 31.9%, looks ripe for some office to residential conversions.

http://cbre.vo.llnwd.net/grgservices...57595921685c8f

[Steely Dan]

Well, now that Sherman-Williams has finally unveiled the design for their new HQ tower in Cleveland (616' | 36 floors), we can now officially lay to rest that last shred of hope for the next midwest 700 footer (o.o.c.) .

unfortunately, the 3-decade long wait will continue......



but on the plus side, at least the midwest is seeing its most active period of 500 footer activity in roughly 30 years:

1. Detroit - Hudson Tower - 680' - U/C
   
   
2. Cleveland - Sherwin-Williams HQ - 616' - proposed
   
   
3. Milwaukee - Northwest Mutual HQ - 550' - completed 2017
   
   
4. Minneapolis - Eleven - 550' - U/C
   
   
5. Milwaukee - The Couture - 537' - site prep
   
   
6. Detroit - Monroe Block - 536' - proposed
   
   
7. Minneapolis - RBC Gateway - 519' - U/C

[DCReid]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

Well, now that Sherman-Williams has finally unveiled the design for their new HQ tower in Cleveland (616' | 36 floors), we can now officially lay to rest that last shred of hope for the next midwest 700 footer (o.o.c.) .

unfortunately, the 3-decade long wait will continue......



but on the plus side, at least the midwest is seeing its most active period of 500 footer activity in roughly 30 years:

1. Detroit - Hudson Tower - 680' - U/C
   
   
2. Cleveland - Sherwin-Williams HQ - 616' - proposed
   
   
3. Milwaukee - Northwest Mutual HQ - 550' - completed 2017
   
   
4. Minneapolis - Eleven - 550' - U/C
   
   
5. Milwaukee - The Couture - 537' - site prep
   
   
6. Detroit - Monroe Block - 536' - proposed
   
   
7. Minneapolis - RBC Gateway - 519' - U/C

Maybe Sherwin Williams will at the last minute add a spire at the top of their HQ! They could be like Chrysler in NY = from wiki - "Van Alen obtained permission for a 125-foot-long (38 m) spire[81][82][c] and had it secretly constructed inside the frame of his building."

[Steely Dan]

^ anything is possible, I guess.

But pickard-chilton aren't really known for spire-topped office towers.

[mhays]

It must be nice to live in a city without height limits (no idea about Cleveland). In my city, every tower goes to the allowed height and not one inch more. And there's very little room for architectural flourishes at the top.

[Steely Dan]

^ generally speaking, here in the Midwest, building heights are typically far more governed by economic realities than government mandate.

If some developer proposes a 900' trophy tower for downtown Indianapolis or Detroit or Kansas city, those cities are likely going to approve said tower. Whether or not it actually gets built, of course, is an entirely different story.

[harryc]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

^ generally speaking, here in the Midwest, building heights are typically far more governed by economic realities than government mandate.

If some developer proposes a 900' trophy tower for downtown Indianapolis or Detroit or Kansas city, those cities are likely going to approve said tower. Whether or not it actually gets built, of course, is an entirely different story.

A notable exception being Madison Wisconsin - undergoing a major boom - but nothing - and I mean NOTHING can be taller than the capitol.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

^ generally speaking, here in the Midwest, building heights are typically far more governed by economic realities than government mandate.

If some developer proposes a 900' trophy tower for downtown Indianapolis or Detroit or Kansas city, those cities are likely going to approve said tower. Whether or not it actually gets built, of course, is an entirely different story.

A 900' trophy tower in Detroit would be controversial, but for different reasons than it would be in Seattle.

Personally, I don't think supertalls look that great in skylines without a certain amount of quantity. This may be an unpopular opinion around here but NYC, Chicago, and Toronto are the only cities in North America that should be building 1,000 footers unquestioned. Next to those, I'd say Philadelphia and SF are on the bubble.

[Steely Dan]

Well, I didn't say anything about supertalls or their appropriateness in Midwest skylines, I was just using the example of a 900 tower to demonstrate that the economic hurdles of such a project would be much tougher to clear than the governmental approval ones in most cases in Midwest cities.

Drop the height from 900' down to 750' and my example still works.

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

A 900' trophy tower in Detroit would be controversial, but for different reasons than it would be in Seattle.

Personally, I don't think supertalls look that great in skylines without a certain amount of quantity. This may be an unpopular opinion around here but NYC, Chicago, and Toronto are the only cities in North America that should be building 1,000 footers unquestioned. Next to those, I'd say Philadelphia and SF are on the bubble.

Um?

Miami? Houston? Atlanta? Vancouver? Los Angeles? Denver? Seattle? Austin? Charlotte? Boston? All of these skylines already have or could easily visually support one or two supertalls, or one or two more, given their existing heft.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by wwmiv

Um?

Miami? Houston? Atlanta? Vancouver? Los Angeles? Denver? Seattle? Austin? Charlotte? Boston? All of these skylines already have or could easily visually support one or two supertalls, or one or two more, given their existing heft.

I don't think a +1,000' tall building exists anywhere in Canada except the CN Tower. And I stand by what I said regarding the rest of those cities.

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

I don't think a +1,000' tall building exists anywhere in Canada except the CN Tower. And I stand by what I said regarding the rest of those cities.

Did I say Vancouver has a supertall? No. I did not:

All of these skylines already have OR could easily visually support one or two supertalls, or one or two more, given their existing heft.

And 984’ (300 meters, not 1000 feet) wouldn’t be out of place or scale in any of those skylines. You really don’t think one single 984’ building would look out of place or scale in Vancouver, with its hundreds of highrises, current tallest at just under 700’ and soon to be a top ten entirely composed of 500’+ structures? Please actually explain without just saying a yes or no or stating your opinion. Give us the why, please.

[homebucket]

Yeah, half of those cities already have at least one supertall (Philly, SF, LA, Atlanta, Houston). Whether or not its economical to build more supertalls is another issue, but I think we are all in agreement that more supertalls would not look out of place visually, in any of these cities. Super skinny ultrasupertalls (400 m+) probably out of place, but 300-400 m would be totally fine.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by wwmiv

And 984’ (300 meters, not 1000 feet) wouldn’t be out of place or scale in any of those skylines. You really don’t think one single 984’ building would look out of place or scale in Vancouver, with its hundreds of highrises, current tallest at just under 700’ and soon to be a top ten entirely composed of 500’+ structures? Please actually explain without just saying a yes or no or stating your opinion. Give us the why, please.

A tower that's 300' taller than the next tallest tower in Vancouver would look a bit weird and out of scale, IMO.

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

A tower that's 300' taller than the next tallest tower in Vancouver would look a bit weird and out of scale, IMO.

I would agree with you IF there wasn’t any bulk to and filler in the skyline, a la OKC, but when youre surrounded on all edges by miles of 300-500’ skyscrapers, with more than 10 towers between 500 and 700, 984’ suddenly just seems like a high peak rather than an erect pencil surrounded by flat paper.

[Steely Dan]

^ bring it back to the Midwest, I think there's enough existing height and/or bulk in Minneapolis, Detroit and Cleveland to visually support a 1,000' tower, but it might be too big of a scale jump in most of the others. However, time can always cure that too.

Has anyone ever seen pictures of how ridiculously out of scale Chicago's John Hancock center was with the rest of the north Michigan avenue skyline when it was first built roughly a half century ago? But it's now a perfectly natural fit with all of the supporting 700+ foot towers around it that were subsequently built over the ensuing decades.

[DanielG425]

Originally Posted by harryc

A notable exception being Madison Wisconsin - undergoing a major boom - but nothing - and I mean NOTHING can be taller than the capitol.

I know this is a skyscraper forum, but I love dense cities with height restrictions like this. Not San Diego-style height restrictions, but Madison/Washington D.C.-style height restrictions. It does so much more for the cityscape than any skyline could ever do. I'd take walkable over height any day, but I prefer a generous mix of the two. I'm in Houston though so all we have is height.

[Centropolis]

St. Louis could have potentially benefited from a stricter and lower DC style de jure height restriction downtown instead of a de facto rule (the arch).