There are a few other cities that might manage it in the US. Seattle, Boston, maybe D.C.
Certainly not anything like Kansas City or Tucson, because you have to have enough density pressure around the city to actually require tall buildings. If you can satisfy all the local housing demand with single family homes and still have plenty of empty land within reasonable distance of the city center, there isn't enough reason to compress it into a smaller area just to have taller buildings and put things a little closer together. But those cities also don't have anything near the same traffic problems either.
Where you're really screwed is in places like Los Angeles and Houston, where you have large populations but also so much sprawl and undeveloped land that taller buildings aren't really justified. So they end up in this unhappy medium with enough population density to have bad traffic but not enough to have good mass transit, and weak demand for higher density housing.
But that still doesn't justify the zoning restrictions that exist in a lot of these places. Houston largely doesn't have them while Los Angeles does, and you can check for yourself the difference in rent. Even if without them Los Angeles still wouldn't be New York, because it would at least be better than it is.