YOUR BUSINESS AUTHORITY

Springfield, MO

Log in Subscribe

Opinion: Why doesn’t Springfield have skyscrapers? 

From the Web

Posted online

On a recent business trip to Columbus, Ohio, the skyline quickly caught my attention.

Skyscrapers abound in the downtown landscape, and the feeling of a bustling city was easy to notice. The view from my hotel room was especially interesting. One skyscraper changed colors, creating a bit of a kaleidoscope in the sky.

As I returned to the Queen City, I was left with a question: Why doesn’t Springfield have skyscrapers?

I posed that question on LinkedIn, and the resulting comments were incredibly insightful. Springfieldians truly care about their city, and some have had similar thoughts to mine. 

“Living in several larger cities and then coming back home to Springfield, I always wondered that myself,” said local purchasing agent Kim Hopkins-Will.

Ryan Bowling of Old Missouri Bank suggested “a combination of slow growth, ample space for sprawl and low demand for urbanization.” 

And FORVIS’ Sarah Kerner, the city’s former economic development director, said additional building code requirements go into effect when developers take buildings above five stories.

“It doesn’t seem like Springfield had any major businesses growing during the skyscraper-building era of American development ... but lots of businesses boomed in the second half of the 20th (century) when development was moving to the edges of town and corporate campus style developments were in vogue,” she said.

I reached out to the city for comment on whether buildings of certain sizes are restricted to cross that item off my list of possible reasons for a lack of skyscrapers. Melissa Haase, assistant director of public information and civic engagement, said, “In general, there is no ban on skyscrapers in Springfield, but there can be height limitations for buildings depending on how the property is zoned.”

In Springfield, our tallest building is the 22-story, 270-foot Hammons Tower, but by some definitions of the word, it isn’t a true skyscraper. One definition of a skyscraper from The B1M video construction channel indicates they must be at least 492 feet tall. Time will tell how late hotelier John Q. Hammons’ namesake tower will fare in terms of occupancy. Recent moves have included the exit of Husch Blackwell for a new East Sunshine Street building and the addition of the Springfield News-Leader.

Will anything close to the scale of Hammons Tower ever be built again in Springfield? What about something even taller? 

For now, it seems like the answer is no. 

I caught up with commercial real estate brokerage R.B. Murray Co.’s CEO to delve deeper into this topic. To Ryan Murray, there are two main reasons why Springfield doesn’t have skyscrapers: They are too expensive, and the demand is just not there. And demand ultimately dictates the reality of a city.

“We don’t have the bulk users that can absorb that much space at one time in a magnitude to necessitate towers,” Murray said, additionally pointing to financial pressures. “Skyscraper rents would have to cover added expenses.”

Murray spoke, too, about developable land in and around Springfield. Even if Springfield were to fill up, there’s plenty of room in neighboring communities to grow the metro area. 

Murray gave an example of an area where skyscrapers are prevalent and why. Manhattan is more constricted geographically, making it necessary to build up instead of out, and developers can “stomach the cost” of skyscrapers because of the demand, Murray said.

That’s not the case locally.

“We just don’t have the constraints to make it justifiable,” he said.

Beyond geographic and demographic reasons locally, there’s research on the nationwide scale that shows skyscraper development already may have peaked, according to Statista. 

The report shows the largest number of office skyscrapers, at 106, were built in the decade of the 1980s. They’ve dropped every 10-year period since. Residential skyscrapers are a bright spot in the report, as the 2010 decade produced at least 83, a record.

From that standpoint, it’s possible that Springfield missed the wave of skyscrapers, at least on the office side. But there’s no telling what the future holds.

For now, Springfieldians may only be able to look to the sky and wonder. I have hope that our area architects, engineers and contractors can take us in an attractive direction with future builds and rehabilitation of existing buildings. Our city’s skyline, tall or not, matters.

Springfield Business Journal Digital Editor Geoff Pickle can be reached at gpickle@sbj.net.

Comments

1 comment on this story |
Please log in to add your comment
Drew

What about Skyscaprers for luxury living or at least mini skysc****rs? it would help Springfield in attracting people to live and work in the city.

Friday, July 22, 2022
Editors' Pick
From the Ground Up: Republic Intermediate School

The Republic School District is on track to open its Intermediate School for fifth- and sixth-grade students for the 2025-26 academic year.

Most Read
Update cookies preferences