5 ms·
Skyscrapers are expensive to build and maintain. They are built as a solution to high population density (the only place to go is up) combined with high demand
by jqpabc123 3y ago
Skyscrapers are expensive to build and maintain.
They are built as a solution to high population density (the only place to go is up) combined with high demand and standard of living that can and will absorb the added cost.
Oklahoma City fails to meet these criteria.
To see this, compare OKC to a nearby major city like Chicago.
- Population density of OKC is 1100 per sq. mile. Chicago is 12000.
- Per capita income in OKC is $36K. Chicago is $46K.
Based on demographics, this sort of tower in OKC looks out of place --- more like maybe a marketing/financing gimmick rather than a serious proposal. I doubt it will ever be completed as proposed because most bankers/financers are likely to reach the same, rather obvious conclusion.
https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/chicagocityillinois,oklahomacitycityoklahoma/PST045222 https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/chicagocityilli...
- beams_of_light 3y agoIt is odd, because OKC is a large city, but it's not dense. However, the Bricktown area of downtown is a cultural hub, which hosts the NBA team as well as lots of dining and activities.
- jqpabc123 3y agoAtlanta, GA has 3 times the population density of OKC and it hosts NBA, NFL and MLB teams. All without any apparent need/justification for the tallest building in the country. There are lots of other similar examples. The justification for this in OKC just isn't there IMO --- and is unlikely to ever be there for one major reason --- limited water supply. https://www.koco.com/article/oklahoma-city-utilities-department-water-conservation-request/46446110 https://www.koco.com/article/oklahoma-city-utilities-departm... Major high density cities demand a large water supply.
- NoMoreNicksLeft 3y agoOKC is a bit weird, in that it's the center of a particular sort of religious movement. "Prosperity doctrine" types. The headquarters of Hobby Lobby and several other major "christian-owned" brands are there. This is more about them proving themselves ascendant, than anything else, if I don't miss my guess. A better model might be Dubai, also home to some famously tall skyscrapers... its density is probably lower than can justify those, but they were built anyway to prove how ascendant their form of Islam is.
- bobthepanda 3y agoRecord setting skyscrapers are usually a leading indicator of a bust, since they get financed when credit is at its easiest to get and there aren’t more pressing priorities to invest in. Burj Khalifa is named so because Sheikh Khalifa of Abu Dhabi had to bail out both the Burj Dubai and the government of Dubai during the 2007 financial crisis.
- jqpabc123 3y agoThis is more about them proving themselves ascendant In other words, it's all about marketing --- not logic, reason, economics or good urban planning.
- lupusreal 3y agoEven in cities that rationally justify tall buildings, the "tallest building" competition is always about showing off. They set the records with tall spires on top that don't have any usable floorspace.
- jqpabc123 3y agoYes, the spires on top of rationally justified buildings is showing off. In OKC, it's not just the spire but the entire building that is about showing off. The rationale is missing --- which is why I doubt it will ever be built as proposed.
- criddell 3y agoThis would be the sixth tallest building in the world. How many of the five above it meet your criteria? This building would become a major tourist attraction. Will the leases and other income generated by the building be enough to pay off the bankers? If so, then it will likely be built.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- jqpabc123 3y agoHow many of the five above it meet your criteria? All of them have higher population density and per capita income in the area than OKC. For example, Kuala Lumpur has 17X the population density of OKC.
- irrational 3y agoYes… a major tourist attraction in… Oklahoma. I’m sorry, but nobody is looking to go to Oklahoma on their vacation, especially not to see a tall building.
- m_myers 3y agoNor was anyone looking to go to the Arabian Peninsula on their vacation 30 years ago, and yet here we are.
- irrational 3y agoI did not know that was a hot vacation spot. But, even if it is, it has the advantage of being foreign and exotic. That can’t describe Oklahoma except in a negative sense.
- indecisive_user 3y agoIt's like a 90min flight and $120 ticket for me. I would absolutely make a trip out there to see the tallest building in the US, especially with how out of place it would look next to the rest of the skyline.
- subsubzero 3y agoAll day on HN I hear the same song and dance, we need more housing density to combat high real estate prices. And then you see a city being proactive and doing something about it and you criticize it. Good on OKC to get ahead of the issue and make more housing stock available.
- CamperBob2 3y agoHave you been to Oklahoma City, or to Oklahoma in general? This makes as much sense as proposing that an expansive stockyard be constructed in the middle of San Francisco. Among countless reasons not to build something like this in Oklahoma City, the place is basically nuked by tornados every so often.
- chmod600 3y agoAre tornados a threat to skyscrapers?
- CamperBob2 3y agoThey won't take the building itself down, but let's just say that whoever owns the local glass shop is going to be a happy camper.
- realityenigma 3y agoHave you ever been to Oklahoma City yourself. It is not "nuked" by tornadoes all the time like you imply. We've had a couple large ones, and all of you outside idiots think they happen daily. Most tornadoes are small, most Oklahomans have never seen one in their lives. Every city has its own natural disasters. For the record, Oklahoma has the largest casino in the world (https://www.gambling.com/us/online-casinos/strategy/the-7-largest-casinos-in-the-world-1535500 https://www.gambling.com/us/online-casinos/strategy/the-7-la...) and that is in freaking Thackerville.
- bcrosby95 3y agoA tower like this is insanely expensive to build.
- amadeuspagel 3y agoLook at any skyscraper and you see that it's not merely an attempt to use space efficiently but rather to inspire awe. In economic terms, a skyscraper tries to create, not merely to supply, the demand to live and work in it. Many buildings are purely about inspiring awe (and creating demand), such as the Eiffel Tower, the St. Louis Arch and the Las Vegas Sphere.
- zokier 3y agoThere are tens of thousands of skyscrapers out there. Only fraction of them are awe-inspiring prestige projects, majority are most likely just pragmatic.
- jqpabc123 3y agoEiffel Tower, the St. Louis Arch and the Las Vegas Sphere. Yes, these are awe inspiring works of art --- not intended or designed to provide housing for people. In other words, not really comparable to the proposed OKC tower.
- amadeuspagel 3y agoA building is not a unix command line tool. Any building has several functions, and inspiring awe is often one of them.
- jltsiren 3y agoSkyscrapers also enable moderate density in car-dependent cities. If most people drive, you need more space for traffic and parking. That leaves less space for the city itself than in cities where most people use public transit. To achieve the same density, you have to build up. Supertall skyscrapers are obviously prestige projects. But ordinary skyscrapers make sense in cities with a relatively small business district surrounded by low-density suburbs.
- quickthrowman 3y ago> I doubt it will ever be completed as proposed because most bankers/financers are likely to reach the same, rather obvious conclusion. I agree, if I was a lender I wouldn’t extend $2-3B to build ~1800 housing units in Oklahoma City. At a $2.5B price tag, that’s $1.4M per unit. The financials don’t make sense. Maybe if we were still in ZIRP, but the federal funds rate is currently 525-550 bps.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]