Hacker News Reader

Comment by RubenSandwich | Hacker News Reader

I'm going to dispute this claim. Pittsburgh, PA has skyscrapers[1], defined as any building with or over 40 floors, and is more affordable then Chicago[2]. In fact Atlanta, GA also fits in this category as well.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tallest_buildings_in_P...

[2] https://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/compare_cities.jsp?cou...

View on HN

According to your source (Wikipedia), Chicago has around 78 buildings over 550 feet. Pittsburgh has 19 and Atlanta has 16.

So the article is right and Chicago is still in a league of its own in that regard.

That Chicago number will be over 80 by the end of the year.

Which buildings are you thinking of? I'm aware of two that are under construction (the wavy building on the river near lakeshore east and the building at michigan and roosevelt), but I don't think either will be open by EOY.

The article specifically mentions Boston, San Francisco, Washington and New York as other skyscraper cities. I think their "definition" of skyscraper city is a more about density than just the number of 40+ story buildings.

I think possibly the only legit "skyscraper city" that has been left out according to the article's "definition" would be Philadelphia which is affordable still.

Wikipedia doesn't show anything in Washington, DC, higher than 15 stories, for what that's worth. I certainly have never thought of it as a "skyscraper city".

Washington D.C. has a height limit for buildings[1]. I think the article was just mentioning it as an example of an expensive city, not trying to call it a skyscraper city.

[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Height_of_Buildings_Act_of_191...

The urban area of DC is much larger than literal Washington DC and many places there that are technically suburbs certainly do have skyscrapers. For example, "Crystal City", which is technically in Virginia but functionally part of DC.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crystal_City,_Arlington,_Virgi...

This is very astute, I was using the term "skyscraper city" primarily as colorful contrast with low-density Sunbelt cities.

Philadelphia is indeed the other contender! They weirdly haven't seen explosive job growth though, despite being an excellent city. They also don't have innovative land use policy. But the vast, partially abandoned north Philly is a "reserve army of underemployed land" keeping a check on prices--as is the excellent, fully electrified suburban regional rail network inherited from the Pennsy. Maintains a wide swathe of commutable land w/in 45 mins of CBD.

The tallest building in Iowa is 44 stories in Des Moines, and it's far more affordable than any of the three. But I would never call DM a skyscraper city.

EDIT: Downvoters, what's up? Do you object to "Tallest building in IA is 44 stories" or "DM is more affordable" or "DM is not a skyscraper city"? None of these are particularly controversial, and the first two are empirically true.

The argument here is about how zoning can create dense cities with tall buildings in an affordable way. At a fifth of the population density of course Des Moins is going to have cheaper land.

I agree. That was my point; it's silly to say "there is at least one skyscraper in ${CITY} and ${CITY} is more affordable than Chicago, ergo ${CITY} is a skyscraper city", which is the argument the OP made about Pittsburgh and Atlanta. I just demonstrated the silliness of the reasoning by taking it to its extreme conclusion with Des Moines.

It was not obvious to me whether Des Moins was a sky scraper city or not. So by being too terse you just confused me, do you mean that is true for the post about Atlanta and Pittsburgh as well.

I suspect it really means 60+ stories in the "supertall/megatall" skyscraper category, of which there are quite a few in Chicago. Chicago is biased however, as the technology to build supertall and higher skyscrapers was invented by a Chicago architect. The same tech in the Sears/Willis tower is used in the Burj Khalifa in Dubai.

Originally from PA and I really like Pittsburgh but its inner city area is pretty much a dead zone. It's really no comparison to a place like Chicago or New York.

I didn't read the entire article and then got blocked by a paywall but I do not believe "skyscraper city" is well defined, so not hard to dispute.

According to this list https://skyscraperpage.com/cities/?10=1 Chicago has the second most skyscrapers of any US city. Philadelphia is #7 on that list and is still affordable. If Philly is not considered a "skyscraper city" than that means there were only 6 or less of them in the United States to begin with.

Philly would actually be #8 on that list if all non-US cities were removed. But still.

Ah, I missed Honolulu.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com