dallas
miami
tampa
charlotte
denver
boston
las vegas
pittsburgh
minneapolis
cleveland
seattle
san francisco
philadelphia
detroit
indianapolis

sorry forgot to press poll option

Innapolis/ Miami/ Philly. I am leaning toward Philly

my money would be on miami or vegas.

Miami or Seattle would be my bet. Perhaps boston...

Seattle or Miami.

I fixed your poll....


btw, I removed Tampa, because it has an FAA imposed hieght restriction of around 650ft. I doubt we will ever see that exceeded by so much. I also removed Boston, since FAA rules and local zoning will also generally preclude anything this tall from ever being built.... In thier place, I added Houston and Atlanta.

Houston & Atlanta already have 1000 Footers

Either new Wachovia or BOA may towers in Charlotte may go over 1000' even if they "cheat" like Atlanta's BOA tower. :wink2:

I have "heard" that Indy's soil won't support a structure taller than 800' because of its inability to support that much weight. Can anyone support this?

Houston & Atlanta already have 1000 Footers

Thats right the one in Houston is 1002, and the one in atlanta is 1023.

Even though Chicago currently only have 4 1000footers, there is one more that was so close, the 2 prud, building that is 995 feet, talkign about close.

I dont think buildings that tall are very economical anymore in places where there is space to build .... I think it will probably be at least 5-7 years before you see something that tall, but what do I know.

Seattle cannot build a 1,000 foot skyscraper, due to the Downtown Proximity to the airport.

Why would any of these cities need a 1,000 footer?:
tampa
charlotte
denver
boston
las vegas
pittsburgh
minneapolis
cleveland
detroit
indianapolis

What ever happened with the whole KC world's tallest?

Seattle cannot build a 1,000 foot skyscraper, due to the Downtown Proximity to the airport.

Why would any of these cities need a 1,000 footer?:
tampa
charlotte
denver
boston
las vegas
pittsburgh
minneapolis
cleveland
detroit
indianapolis

exactly,

Tampa, charlotte, boston, pittsburg,cleveland, detriot doesnt look right with 1000ft.

Denver, whats everyone been smoking?
Boston, cant be higher than 1000 I think.
LV- why, its just a tourist attraction, thats like Niagra Falls, On, WIS Dells, or Orlando having an 1000ft.


Minneapolis, Indianapolis is a good choice(why not Illipolis too, just playing, FYI its a real city in downstate IL).

But, Atlanta have an 1000 ft, even though its a tiny city.

Why would Houston? What kind of dumb-ass question is that? Most of these cities are the HQ of major banks which are the prime reasons that tall towers are built....look at the name of Houston's tallest. Las Vegas could support it based on the tourist appeal alone. Detroit is a bigger metro than Houston, though granted it's largest are unlikely to build a tall tower.

Atlanta is a small city???? When did 5 million become small? Especially when you think Indy is a more likely candidate.....

Its only 416,474 and thats small. Even LA's suburbs of Long Beach is bigger.

* Metro area population dont count, I count the city limits

Azn....that's awesome that you don't count metros, but the reality is when it comes to real estate, and office demand, and companies location concerns, metro population is much more relavent.......hell, in your mind, Charlotte is almost 50% more deserving of a 1000 ft. than Atlanta...

hell, in your mind, Charlotte is almost 50% more deserving of a 1000 ft. than Atlanta...

I don't think it's a matter of which city is more deserving, but which is more likely to build something that tall. In that respect, Charlotte might be considered on par with Atlanta. Considering the prominence of bank HQs, the high-profile projects going on, and the density of the Uptown area, it's not totally crazy to think that Wachovia or BoA could splurge on some ridiculous landmark tower. Atlanta, at least from what I know of the city, is not really a fertile ground for super-scraper development at the moment.

Having said that, I don't think either of the two cities is particularly likely to do something like this anytime soon. The office-tower craze seems to have subsided for the time being.

You guys must be unaware that Cleveland already has a 950 ft building, but you are right one 50 more feet tall would look strange LOL.

Charlotte builds all sorts of things so why not, I cant really say much about Tampa....Las Vegas is bold, I am sure someday they will make a 1000 ft residential and hotel its not like it hasnt been proposed...by your logic no one needs a 1000 footer. :)

I fixed your poll....


btw, I removed Tampa, because it has an FAA imposed hieght restriction of around 650ft. I doubt we will ever see that exceeded by so much. I also removed Boston, since FAA rules and local zoning will also generally preclude anything this tall from ever being built.... In thier place, I added Houston and Atlanta.


SOMETHINGS A LITTLE WIERD TODAY,YOU'RE ACTING A BIT TO NICE FIRST THE NEW MIAMI FORUM,AND NOW FIXING A THREAD.WIERD BUT I LIKE IT :jk:

Probably Miami, though I think Atlanta and Philadelphia could use one a little more right now.

why is it that the comcast center in philly is 995ft?,if i was a philly forumer i would pay for a 5ft spire myself

why is it that the comcast center in philly is 995ft?,if i was a philly forumer i would pay for a 5ft spire myself

It's 975 feet ;)


I say it'll be Philly, just 'cause they're so damn close already...just 25 feet!!!

Other than Philly, Miami and Vegas are my bets. :)

BofA has one in the works for Charlotte (not the already announced 40 story building)......it won't start construction until about 2011-2012, so I'm not sure that it will be the first of these to get one.

I think Miami has a decent chance, but it would likely be residential, and I'm not sure someone would go that high there.....but then again, Met 3 is close.

Philly's best chance was Comcast IMO....

Las Vegas might just for the sheer tourism factor.

Denver is still too overbuilt I think.

Houston and Atlanta already have one so they shouldn't be on this poll.

Cleveland, Detroit, and Pittsburgh are unlikely, just because, IMO.....but things could pick up.

Dallas certainly is a likely candidate.

San Fran. maybe, but I think the residents would go ape-shit.

Seattle....they raised the height cap, but it's still less than 1000 right?

Indy and Minneapolis seem possible, though I don't know enough about them.

So I will guess Dallas (though they are having some vacancy problems at the moment) or Charlotte.

seems like an office boom might start in miami*i hope*

new office project 1450brickell ave.
http://www.rileagroup.com/fotos/1450%20Brickell/1.jpg

I have heard that Dallas has a major glut of unused office space... that might put a damper on any chance of building anything super-huge.

BofA has one in the works for Charlotte (not the already announced 40 story building)......it won't start construction until about 2011-2012, so I'm not sure that it will be the first of these to get one.

I think Miami has a decent chance, but it would likely be residential, and I'm not sure someone would go that high there.....but then again, Met 3 is close.

Philly's best chance was Comcast IMO....

Las Vegas might just for the sheer tourism factor.

Denver is still too overbuilt I think.

Houston and Atlanta already have one so they shouldn't be on this poll.

Cleveland, Detroit, and Pittsburgh are unlikely, just because, IMO.....but things could pick up.

Dallas certainly is a likely candidate.

San Fran. maybe, but I think the residents would go ape-shit.

Seattle....they raised the height cap, but it's still less than 1000 right?

Indy and Minneapolis seem possible, though I don't know enough about them.

So I will guess Dallas (though they are having some vacancy problems at the moment) or Charlotte.

we got nearly the same choice for the next 1000ft and reasons why some cities such as..Pittsburg are unlikely to have it.

SOMETHINGS A LITTLE WIERD TODAY,YOU'RE ACTING A BIT TO NICE FIRST THE NEW MIAMI FORUM,AND NOW FIXING A THREAD.WIERD BUT I LIKE IT :jk:

lol, I just notice the new Miami thread

seems like an office boom might start in miami*i hope*

new office project 1450brickell ave.
http://www.rileagroup.com/fotos/1450%20Brickell/1.jpg




yup...32 storeys...there's gonna be alotta glass on Brickell:)



I say Miami..there are a few proposed 800 -footers that could potentially decide to increase their height before g/b...

even if that doesn't happen, I really do see a chance of a 1000+ being proposed before 2010

It would be kinda cool to have a thousand foot tower in the middle of nowhere...like in The Two Towers.

I have heard that Dallas has a major glut of unused office space... that might put a damper on any chance of building anything super-huge.

Yeah but lately Dallas has been renovating alot of its buildings into residential units. I believe 7-11 is talking about building something probably in downtown. That said. It may be a while for Dallas to get a 1000 footer.

much of the unused office space in dallas is class c office space or vacant buildings all together. without the vacant buildings dallas ranks pretty high, and class a office space is a big hit in downtown right now. anything built that is somewhat luxurious will sell.

I think Boston will only have a chance if the skyscrapers can spread to the Kenmore area. There was a 650ft tower proposed in Kenmore but was scrapped due to stupid Nimbys. If somehow people can force a deal with the Nymbys so that they can build a skyscraper in Kenmore, then there is a huge chance a 1000 ft tower can rise there.

I think Aone of the Sunbelt cities will get it, Dallas or Atlanta.

I have heard that Dallas has a major glut of unused office space... that might put a damper on any chance of building anything super-huge.

Most of those figures are skewed because the estimates don't take into account planned conversions and unusuable buildings. DTD is already seeing office activity...Hunt is planning a tower in the Arts District for their headquarters and there has been speculation of a possible 7-11 tower on the NE corner of downtown. Don't forget that an office tower is already planned for Victory which has unannounced height, but the renderings look about 50 stories.

I think Boston will only have a chance if the skyscrapers can spread to the Kenmore area. There was a 650ft tower proposed in Kenmore but was scrapped due to stupid Nimbys. If somehow people can force a deal with the Nymbys so that they can build a skyscraper in Kenmore, then there is a huge chance a 1000 ft tower can rise there.

I don't think Boston will get one for a while. You have the FAA downsizing things (see the South Station tower) near harbor and Nimbys downsizing things inland (see the Kenmore tower).

What ever happened with the whole KC world's tallest?
I remember that!

I think Miami, Las Vegas, Atlanta, or Charlotte would be most likely to add a 1,000 footer to their skylines.

Atlanta already have one!!!!!!

Another one.....

Atlanta already have one!!!!!!
Well then maybe they'll get another one.

Well then maybe they'll get another one.

maybe. but that'll probably be in a long time.

i would say Miami, Las Vegas or Dallas. Dallas because they don't have one yet. but the first two probably has the best shot.

^Out of the cities mentioned, I think Atlanta has a chance. I don't really see it happening, and if it does, not soon though.

Houston/Dallas -

We arn't likely to build one, because both cities have decided to built mid-rise use. I bet both of these cities would rather see many mid-rises (nicer) then just a 1,000 footer. But if the demand exceeds the supply, who knows?

Atlanta -

I doubt it right now.

Charlotte + rest -

Don't need one.

Well no one "needs" one, but I'm just curious as to why Charlotte/BofA "needs" one less than Houston whose 1000 footer is just a local office for a national bank where-as Charlotte is the national HQ........

I felt bad for Detroit cause it wasn't getting any votes so I voted for it.

Hey, I just realized something . . .

Where's Jersey City?
I think they have a good chance, maybe better than Miami even.

i voted vegas but miami could get one

Miami has a massive amount of high and mid rise development going on, I think they have a pretty good chance to get one.

Most likely, in order


Las Vegas

Miami

Philadelphia (980 foot tower u/c already...so close)

Seattle.

Hey, I just realized something . . .

Where's Jersey City?
I think they have a good chance, maybe better than Miami even.



I'm thinking hard, but I really don't see Jersey City getting one within the next few years

Miami.

well i think atlanta showed us something,all you need to do is build a building and add a huge spire to it.

all of us can do it you can add a 980ft spire to you house a probably have a 1000footer

atlanta has a lot of available office space so dont expect any thousand footers
maybe a couple of residentials 600-700 ft to fill in the skyline !

Seattle or Miami.


Seattle has a height limit. So they won't see a 1,000 footer for a long time.

My bet goes for Miami.

There is a possibility for Atlanta to shoot one off when the economy of the US does much better. They can pull one off easily if they construct a mixed use tower of half residential/half office space. I could see it happening in Buckhead. But I hope downtown.

Las Vegas

Atlanta already have one!!!!!!

We know. It can add another one though. With the booming going on again in Atlanta right now it always climaxes with a tall scraper. Look at the BOA construction in the early nineties. Mind you that the last high-rise boom in Atlanta was in the early nineties and it is happening again now.

I don't think Boston will get one for a while. You have the FAA downsizing things (see the South Station tower) near harbor and Nimbys downsizing things inland (see the Kenmore tower).

There is also the BRA which is always tough. It seems like nearly every skyscraper proposal in Boston will be dropped by at least 10 stories by the time everything is said and done.

I would put Las Vegas or Philadelphia or Miami at the top of possible 1000 footers. Philly has had rough times lately but for some reason I could just see a 1000ft building going up there. Las Vegas really doesn't have a reason to build a 1000 footer, but it's Vegas and they do stuff like that just because it's Vegas. Miami would be another city that could easily get one too, especially with the big construction boom that they're experiencing at the moment.

I really dislike the Nimbys especially ones that dont like anything tall

Miami
Philadelphia
Las Vegas

There is also the BRA which is always tough. It seems like nearly every skyscraper proposal in Boston will be dropped by at least 10 stories by the time everything is said and done.

You know what they should do? They should propese a tower somewhere in the Southend or further down the Masspike and propose a tower 1150ft. So if they decided to lop of 10 stories, it should still be in the 1000ft range. And damn all the stupid Nimbys. Go live in the countryside if you don't like to build big! :)

I'm surprised alotta people voted for detroit

I voted Philadelphia because UP is the direction things are going there.

Miami and Las Vegas (the other top picks) are also very good choices here.

The NIMBY dont like that poor Boston. I am surprise that the onr of the few things that the NIMBY dont like about Chicago is "Block 37".

Why pick on Boston?

Atlanta already has a building over 1000ft.

^You're kidding.

Atlanta already has a building over 1000ft.
Yeah, exactly how tall is it?

Bank of America Plaza, Atlanta 1,023ft

Bank of America Plaza, Atlanta 1,023ft

Exactly!

Didnt we just go through that, maybe more than once on previous pages...

I put San Fran, mainly cause they no more land and the only way to build is up.

Philly for sure!

I put San Fran, mainly cause they no more land and the only way to build is up.
Won't the NIMBY's go crazy if a project of that scale ever gets proposed?

I would vote for Atlanta or Philly...
I find it hard to imagine a 1000 footer in Indianapolis--mainly because I just can't picture how it would fit in the skyline, and how it would relate to the Bank One Robotower. Anyway, I think downtowns like Indy, Minneapolis and Denver would have to build out and fill in a bit before they could reach that height. There are structural considerations that make a 1000 foot building less cost effective per square foot, and I can't imagine a tower in Indy needing to go that high--especially when the Market Square lots haven't filled in yet.

I can see Miami with a 1,000 footer within 15 years.

A developer has already proposed two 1200 footers (Empire World Towers) for Miami but they are going to have to battle it out with the FAA. We'll see how it turns out.

925 ft. 25 ft more and Philly will have a 1,000 footer. :)

925 ft. 25 ft more and Philly will have a 1,000 footer. :)

You're so dumb, Sweet :bash: Just kidding!!! Actually the proposed height for the Comcast Center is 975 feet, but I am praying that we get at least 25 more feet to give us an even 1000 footer.

San Francisco might see a 1,000ft in the future, there are talks of building a tower taller than the TransAmerica Pyramid in the Transbay Terminal Redevelopment. From what I've been hearing it might be as tall as 850ft, it might even have a spire. Let's just hope.
http://www.archnewsnow.com/features/images/Feature0126_04x.jpg

You're so dumb, Sweet :bash: Just kidding!!! Actually the proposed height for the Comcast Center is 975 feet, but I am praying that we get at least 25 more feet to give us an even 1000 footer.
Yea I made a mistake. I meant 975 ft. I'm not dumb! :)

San Francisco

Well if we're into one word posts, here's mine:

Houston.

Atlanta! I don't know if any of you have been there recently. But, the city is BOOMING! There is an energy there that causes it to deserve the title "Capitol of the New South". I am sure that city leaders are already planning something to put a hamper on the huge problem that is on its way known as urban sprawl. Sandy Springs anyone?!? I'm sure they want to start beefing up that skyline before any new projects go up in College Park or Dunwoody or something....and I'm sure that would include something in the neighborhood of 1000 ft. I could be wrong. But, having been there recently I can say that for being one of the best cities in the country as far as culture, history, and diversity go they definitely deserve one!

Atlanta will.
It techinally does have one with the BofA Building.

It also has thew city boosterism necessary.

Minneapolis.

how is minneapolis beating miami when miami already has 2 1200 footers proposed even a severe reduction (15%) would be 1000 so its highly likely but miami has FAA to get past 1st. but seriously whats up with minneapolis?

wtf hapen last time i check this thread minneapolis had 10 votes all of a sudden it has 31 this is b.s. people have to stop cheating on these threads

Detroit will never ever get a 1000 footer. It will never build higher than the ren cen. It hit its peak height, and it will settle for 10-16 storie buildings. It might see another 400 footer in about 10 years, another 500 footer in about 15 to 20 years, and maybe another 600 footer in about 25 to 30 years. It is a shame, because it used to have one of the top 3 U.S. downtown skylines, and now it is barely one of the top 10 and losing ground as I type this. Detroit just doesn't think big anymore.

It's funny reading this thread now. All of the cities where people are like "No, it'll never happen there because the city won't let them build it..." are the cities getting a 1000 foot tower. San Francisco is well on its way, Boston has a very good chance, and Nashville, which hasn't even been mentioned yet, has a very good chance of having the 1000 foot Signature Tower built first.

But I voted Miami, because it's the only one that should definately get a tower, but doesn't have a solid proposal yet. Other contenders would probably be Charlotte, Dallas, and Minneapolis. I would say Philadelphia, but the Comcast Center hurts its chances of getting another huge tower.

Sky's the limit South of Market
4 of developers' proposed high-rises would be taller than anything else in S.F.

John King, Chronicle Urban Design Writer
Friday, December 22, 2006

San Francisco developers are proposing to build the nation's tallest towers outside of New York and Chicago -- a pair of slender high-rises 350 feet taller than the Transamerica Pyramid.

The plan presented Thursday to the city's Planning Department envisions a cluster of thin towers rising from 2 acres at the northwest corner of First and Mission streets. The cluster would include two 1,200-foot towers, two 900-foot structures and a 600-foot companion.

Threaded between them would be an open plaza, covered passageways and a three-story building that is not part of the project.

By comparison, the Transamerica Pyramid is 853 feet high and the Bank of America building is 779 feet. The only U.S. buildings taller than those proposed Thursday are Sears Tower in Chicago and New York's Empire State Building, which are 1,451 feet and 1,250 feet respectively.

Though unprecedented for San Francisco, the proposal is in line with what city officials have been saying for months -- that extremely tall towers will be allowed on a handful of sites south of Market Street. But details of the project are likely to change during the city's review process, which could take at least two years.

Indeed, one member of the development team on Thursday described the "environmental evaluation application" presented to the city as "a placeholder."

"It is highly conceptual at this point," said Mark Solit, the lead developer. "Conceptual in terms of our discussion with the city, and conceptual in terms of the architects' vision of what they think might be appropriate."

The site is across from the Transbay Terminal, itself the focus of a skyscraper design competition seeking what the guidelines describe as "an iconic presence that will redefine the city's skyline." As many as a half-dozen teams are rumored to be putting together bids.

City planners earlier this year suggested raising building heights around the terminal as a way to attract projects that in turn would generate tax revenue. That money could then be used for the terminal and related transit projects such as an extension of commuter rail lines from the Peninsula.

The lead architect for the proposed cluster of towers is Renzo Piano of Italy, who also is doing the new home of the California Academy of Sciences in Golden Gate Park.

Piano has likened the design approach to bamboo shoots rising from the ground, with different pieces stopping at different heights. The two tallest would be on First Street -- rising 1,200 feet on either side of the Jessie Street alleyway.

The height would be accented even more by the narrow dimensions of each tower. On the top 300 feet of the tallest towers, the floors would measure just 8,000 square feet -- less than half the size of the upper floors one block away at Fremont Center. That 600-foot-high office tower is currently the tallest high-rise south of Market Street.

The development site is now parking lots and four six-story buildings built in the decade after the 1906 earthquake.

According to the application, the new buildings would contain 600 residential units, 470 hotel rooms, 520,000 square feet of office space and a small amount of ground-floor retail space. However, Solit said, the final mix would evolve along with the project.

Any project of this scale will require detailed studies of how the buildings will affect the wind and block sunlight, as well as engineering studies to confirm that such tall, narrow towers can withstand a major earthquake.

During the past week, Solit and other members of the development team have shown the project to Supervisors Chris Daly and Aaron Peskin and members of Mayor Gavin Newsom's administration. Full architectural details are not expected before summer.

"If we're going to do these kinds of heights, this is the place," said Daly, who also is a member of the Transbay Joint Powers Authority, which will oversee construction of a new terminal. "I like how the project works on the ground -- it's very porous and attractive to people on the street."

Daly suggested the most controversial aspect of the proposal could be the twin 1,200-foot towers.

"Every American is going to look at them and think of 9/11," he said.

Whatever form the project eventually takes, it shows that decision-makers no longer see dramatic building heights as something to avoid.

This wasn't the case in the decades after the Transamerica Pyramid began construction in 1970; that concrete spike at the foot of Columbus Avenue crystallized opposition to the transformation of San Francisco's skyline. An urban design plan the next year capped heights at 700 feet, and a 1986 update sliced off another 100 feet.

In recent years, though, the city has allowed residential towers in areas that before were kept low -- such as the towers now rising north of the Bay Bridge. Three are under construction, and two will top 600 feet.

San Francisco isn't the only city where the sky is now the limit.

Piano has 1,000-foot buildings in the works for the centers of both London and Boston -- two cities once as tower-wary as San Francisco. In Paris, a 984-foot tower proposal was announced last month for a site 3 miles west of the Eiffel Tower. The architect is Thom Mayne of Santa Monica, who designed the soon-to-open federal complex at Seventh and Mission streets in San Francisco

http://sfgate.com/c/pictures/2006/12/22/mn_a01_5star.jpg
http://sfgate.com/c/pictures/2006/12/22/mn_soma_map.jpg

My vote goes to San francisco.
Then Nashville
Then Boston
Then Miami
Then Las Vegas
Philly is so close. :yes:

That looks a little crazy. The whole bamboo thing.

Boston's trying to get a supertall as well.

how is minneapolis beating miami when miami already has 2 1200 footers proposed even a severe reduction (15%) would be 1000 so its highly likely but miami has FAA to get past 1st. but seriously whats up with minneapolis?

Maybe because Minneapolis has far more Fortune 500 headquarters than Miami. Minneapolis is a corporate center that tends to build tall. Miami is a residential & tourist center.

I realize your post was over a year-and-a-half ago. So this thread is pretty much passe anyway.

wtf hapen last time i check this thread minneapolis had 10 votes all of a sudden it has 31 this is b.s. people have to stop cheating on these threads


Yeah, somehow everyone's opinion means everyone is "cheating."

I'm going with Philly

San Francisco currently has 3 in planning stages now.

A short article about the 1000 footer (1200 to spire) proposed for DT Boston. Given the support of the mayor, the large parcel and the wealth of the developer it is very likely to get built (it will be only a few blocks from the SST)


International superstar architect Renzo Piano could wind up designing the tallest tower ever built in Boston.

Developers will unveil proposals tomorrow for a 1,000-foot high, skyline-topping skyscraper.

And Piano is working for Steve Belkin, who is considered to have an inside track on a coveted deal to build a roughly 80-story tower where a crumbling city garage now stands.

Belkin, the Boston travel and credit card magnate who also owns two pro sports teams, has quietly tried for years to build a tower on the Winthrop Square site. Belkin already owns an adjacent Federal Street mid-rise, a key advantage he has over other bidders.

Still, several local development heavyweights have taken out packets on the 1,000-foot skyscraper proposal, dubbed Tommy’s Tower after Mayor Thomas M. Menino’s call for such a project.

Potential bidders include Beacon Capital, the powerful real estate empire run by the Boston-based Leventhal family, Pru Tower owner Boston Properties and Ritz-Carlton towers developer MDA.

Meanwhile, Belkin, by combining his office building site with the city-owned garage, may have a large builing pad to work with. That could enable Piano to create a retail and restaurant packed base not unlike New York’s Time Warner tower complex.

Piano is known for works like the Centre Pompidou, an acclaimed modern art museum in Paris. He is also designing the new London Bridge skyscraper, which, at just over 1,000 feet, will be that city’s tallest tower.

“He has the inside track on that one,” said Boston tower builder John Hynes, who opted not to compete. “If he puts together a good plan, he will be hard to beat.”

http://i147.photobucket.com/albums/r289/trixecol/115W-rend-combi1.jpg

On a side note, don't New York and Chicago have their 6th 1000 foot building under construction right now? If so, this is really impressive.
I know this is true of New York, but I'm less familiar with Chicago. Can someone confirm?

On a side note, don't New York and Chicago have their 6th 1000 foot building under construction right now? If so, this is really impressive.
I know this is true of New York, but I'm less familiar with Chicago. Can someone confirm?

Chicago has it's 5th and 6th under construction, Trump and Waterview.

Waterview
http://img226.imageshack.us/img226/4831/waterviewnightviewlowerur3.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

Boston also has a rumor 2nd supertall proposal in the planning stages but there hasn't been much news of it.

Hub developer eyes super-skyscraper idea
By Scott Van Voorhis
Boston Herald Business Reporter
Thursday, September 28, 2006


In a move that could dramatically reshape Boston’s skyline, a top Hub developer is eyeing a bold concept for what could be the city’s tallest skyscraper in the heart of the Financial District.

Young Park, head of Boston-based Berkeley Investments, is exploring a deal to buy an older office building near the corner of Congress and High streets, real estate executives told the Herald.

And one idea Berkeley is exploring would be to build a tower that could reach 1,000 feet, or 80 stories, sources said. It would equal or possibly even top plans now being pushed by City Hall for a similar-sized megatower at the site of a nearby city-owned parking garage.

The move may be just the start of a wave of New York-sized skyscrapers in Boston.

“We could use some variety in our building heights,” said David Begelfer, head of the local chapter of the National Association of Industrial and Office Properties.

Park told the Herald that, while he has had discussions related to the older, Financial District building, he does not have an agreement to buy it. Park also hinted that any development plan would be complicated, requiring other buildings on the block.

While acknowledging the block’s development potential, Park also declined to discuss any plans he may be considering for the site.

“I really don’t want to talk about it,” he said when pressed on the potential height of a possible project on the site. “We have obviously an interest in downtown Boston.”

Park and his Berkeley Investments, once known as a surburban market player, are fast becoming a major force in Boston development. The company recently unveiled plans for a hip new development amid a tract of Victorian-era warehouses it acquired in South Boston’s industrial Fort Point district.

Talk of a new wave of megatowers is also drawing some concerns. With major companies like Fidelity Investments pulling jobs out of Boston, there are real questions about where thousands of workers needed to fill megatowers would come from, executives said.

MSP minneapolis.

I just don't see a 1000ft building going up in Las Vegas, only because well, they build casinos and a casino/hotel that is 1000ft just doesn't seem profitable and will therefore be axed.

Only big international Financial and Business Hubs can get such big buildings like Seattle, Houston, and Philadelphia. San Francisco would if it didn't have that constant threat of a huge earthquake which could turn the city to rubble much like the earthquake in 1906.

I'm gonna have to agree with the 3 leading contenders, MSP, Philly, and Miami. MSP for the huge number of Fortune 500's, plus there was a plan for twin 1000+ towers a year ago. Philly because they're are building something close to 1000 (I believe). And in Miami, the condo boom might produce a super tall eventually.

indianapolis???? a 1000-footer? you must be jokin'. you can't be serious.......lol.

san francisco? maybe, but not anytime soon.

i'll take my chances with philly.:)