What skyscrapers needed to be taller?

[suburbanite]

I did not know there was a Bank of Montreal (formerly a Harris Bank I would guess) tower in Phoenix.

[plinko]

The original design by HOK was 546ft. Sacto got the badly VE'd version (sorry, don't have a rendering handy anymore)...

Originally Posted by SacTownAndy

Probably because I see it almost every day, but I always thought the US Bank Tower in Sacramento would look better if it were like 1/3 taller. I believe it's 402 ft., 500-550ft would look great with that design.



source: Hensel Phelps https://www.henselphelps.com/project...-capitol-mall/

[urban_encounter]

Originally Posted by plinko

The original design by HOK was 546ft. Sacto got the badly VE'd version (sorry, don't have a rendering handy anymore)...

This one?

[urban_encounter]

Originally Posted by edale

Sacramento might have the worst skyline for a city/metro of its size.

I agree 100%. Sacramento is larger (population wise) than people realize but you surely wouldn’t be able to tell by looking at our modest skyline. Sacramento’s close proximity to the East Bay Counties and San Joaquin county puts close to 5 million people within and hour drive of the Capitol dome. But the skyline of this city is pitiful. I suspect that part of the reason is that the central city really isn’t located ‘centrally’ to either the County or the Metro Area. Secondly, there has always been plenty of surrounding agricultural land. Third, construction prices (for some crazy reason) are astronomical here, making high rise residential towers (like Austin has constructed) cost prohibitive here. The projects just don’t pencil out for Sacramento. Honestly, I wouldn't want to pay for a high rise view of the Sacramento River when I can pay for a view of the SF Bay instead.

We are probably the only mid-large city in America NOT building ‘skyscrapers’. Skyscratchers and groundscrapers? Yes.

Btw, we don’t have FAA flight restrictions. Our airport is located in the middle of nowhere, carved into the agricultural fields northwest of the city.
It’s a nice facility, but in a strange location. imo

[Hudson11]

40 Wall Street is a great Art Deco design and was proper in scale for the 1930s, but was overshadowed by contemporaries and successors. If it were 100 feet taller it would shine over Chase's future trophy tower and the other towers of the iconic art deco trio, 20 Exchange Place and 70 Pine. This thing is smack dab in the middle of the Downtown skyline, a location deserving of the modern superlative supertall status, but was only built to become the tallest in the world at the time (for a very short time) at 927ft.


40 Wall Street by C R, on Flickr

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by edale

Sacramento might have the worst skyline for a city/metro of its size. FAA issue ala Phoenix and San Diego?

I've never really appreciated how short sacramento's skyline is for the anchor city of a 2.4M MSA.

nothing over 500', only 2 buildings over 400', and then a smattering of 300 footers.

looking at MSAs larger than sacramento, only DC and riverside have definitively weaker skylines, and we all know DC's story, and the riverside MSA is, in reality, just LA sprawl.

the phoenix skyline isn't much stronger than sacramento's, and its over twice as large, so it might take the crown of the weakest skyline in the biggest city.

[muertecaza]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

the phoenix skyline isn't much stronger than sacramento's, and its over twice as large, so it might take the crown of the weakest skyline in the biggest city.

Not wrong there. I think that's in part why there's so much anxiety in the Phoenix forum about the current proposed 530' tower in Phoenix that will be the first new tallest in 50 years and is currently going through various zoning and variance approvals. It's a legit proposal though from a developer that has a good record in Phoenix so here's hoping.

[plinko]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

I've never really appreciated how short sacramento's skyline is for the anchor city of a 2.4M MSA.

nothing over 500', only 2 buildings over 400', and then a smattering of 300 footers.

looking at MSAs larger than sacramento, only DC and riverside have definitively weaker skylines, and we all know DC's story, and the riverside MSA is, in reality, just LA sprawl.

the phoenix skyline isn't much stronger than sacramento's, and its over twice as large, so it might take the crown of the weakest skyline in the biggest city.

In the early 2000's there were substantial plans for Sacramento's skyline, including a total of (5) towers between 500-700ft tall. The tallest two of them (twins) actually started foundation construction but were killed by the Great Recession. One was downsized to 400ft (shown earlier in the thread), one was downsized to an 8 story building, and the last was a Daniel Liebeskind tower which made a lot of noise but never actually started. Right now, I think there are only (2) buildings under construction over 300ft in Sacto, with a smattering of 3-5 others over 10 floors.

craigs and I (when we both lived in Sacto around 2002), used to often remark how similar the city was to Austin at the time. 20 years later and Austin has moved on to another planet.

Phoenix is building quite a few mid-rise projects right now, but none of them exceed 400ft, which is making the skyline fill in yes, but is making it look more like 1980's Edmonton than something distinctive.

[muertecaza]

Originally Posted by suburbanite

I did not know there was a Bank of Montreal (formerly a Harris Bank I would guess) tower in Phoenix.

BMO got naming rights to that building (taking over for Viad, and before that Dial) in about 2015. But before that BMO had naming rights on a different building up the road which I believe was actually named for M&I Bank before M&I was purchased by BMO.

[urban_encounter]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

I've never really appreciated how short sacramento's skyline is for the anchor city of a 2.4M MSA.

nothing over 500', only 2 buildings over 400', and then a smattering of 300 footers.

looking at MSAs larger than sacramento, only DC and riverside have definitively weaker skylines, and we all know DC's story, and the riverside MSA is, in reality, just LA sprawl.

the phoenix skyline isn't much stronger than sacramento's, and its over twice as large, so it might take the crown of the weakest skyline in the biggest city.

💯

[SIGSEGV]

Why is it that Sacramento sprawls forever to Auburn on the East, but hardly at all to the West? Is that farmland so valuable? Flood risk?

[homebucket]

Originally Posted by SIGSEGV

Why is it that Sacramento sprawls forever to Auburn on the East, but hardly at all to the West? Is that farmland so valuable? Flood risk?

Flood plains from the delta.

[Austin55]

Almost everything by Duda|Paine, the firm that did Frost Tower in Austin and Terminus in Atlanta, both of which belong on the list. In my hometown, they designed Fort Worth's City Hall (formerly Radioshack's HQ). It's probably the most attractive post-war highrise in the city, but only the 7th tallest and a good half-mile from the rest of the skyscrapers in the core. The dark blue building in the back with the rest of the buildings is another Frost tower that could probably make a Texas trio along with San Antonio and Austin, although it is undoubtedly not as pretty as the other two.



Also, if we're throwing unbuilt pre-war skyscrapers in, the never-built Sterling Hotel in Houston should be mentioned. It looks like it belongs in Cleveland, Detroit or Chicago.


https://thebakerhotel.wordpress.com/...el-in-houston/

[urban_encounter]

Originally Posted by SIGSEGV

Why is it that Sacramento sprawls forever to Auburn on the East, but hardly at all to the West? Is that farmland so valuable? Flood risk?

Exactly... The Yolo Bypass is a flood plain 41 miles long and 3 miles wide that relieves pressure on the Sacramento River upstream of downtown. It also serves as a wetlands sanctuary.

[Zapatan]

Skyscrapers I wish were 300+ meters (roof):

1. Liberty Place, Philadelphia (both)
2. Mellon Bank Center, Philadelphia
3. Bank of America Tower, Charlotte
4. Ranier Square Redevelopment, Seattle
5. Chrysler Building, New York
6. MesseTurm, Frankfurt
7. Gherkin, London
8. Bank of America Tower, Atlanta

Skyscrapers I wish were 400+ meters (roof):

1. Library Tower, Los Angeles
2. Wilshire Grand, Los Angeles
3. The Shard, London
4. JHC, Chicago

Skyscrapers I wish were 500+ meters (roof):

1. 1WTC, New York
2. Sears Tower, Chicago
3. Jin Mao Tower, Shanghai
4. 2IFC, Hong Kong

[kool maudit]

Originally Posted by Austin55

Also, if we're throwing unbuilt pre-war skyscrapers in, the never-built Sterling Hotel in Houston should be mentioned. It looks like it belongs in Cleveland, Detroit or Chicago.


https://thebakerhotel.wordpress.com/...el-in-houston/

I never knew about this one! Tremendous.

[202_Cyclist]

Originally Posted by SIGSEGV

Why is it that Sacramento sprawls forever to Auburn on the East, but hardly at all to the West? Is that farmland so valuable? Flood risk?

It is also more pleasant as you start to get into the Sierra foothills. Even at 1,000 - 2,000 feet in elevation, it is a couple of degrees cooler than Sacramento. Additionally, the Sierra foothills are more scenic and interesting than the flat Sacramento valley.

[202_Cyclist]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

looking at MSAs larger than sacramento, only DC and riverside have definitively weaker skylines, and we all know DC's story, and the riverside MSA is, in reality, just LA sprawl.

I remember reading a quote a couple years ago from an architecture professor who commented that the Rosslyn skyline had all of the charm of the refrigerator aisle at Best Buy.

[urban_encounter]

Originally Posted by 202_Cyclist

I remember reading a quote a couple years ago from an architecture professor who commented that the Rosslyn skyline had all of the charm of the refrigerator aisle at Best Buy.