Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Change isn't bad. Who said you can't see the mountains AND Buildings? Common' people, its common sense. The mountains wont just disappear.
A taller skyline would give Albuquerque more reconization. How will a 650ft building over take a mountain? Really people.
Did you just call me common?!
I don't think anyone is suggesting that the mountains will disappear, I just know I don't want to look at tall buildings when I could instead see MORE of the mountains, volcanoes, etc. I also don't think that a 650 foot building would be economically viable for Albuquerque, and that the only recognition we might get would be others talking about how Albuquerque doesn't make good decisions. A skyscraper would be a bad idea, but a skyscraper with a low occupancy rate would be worse, and I think that's what would happen here.
Tall buildings don't make a city. NY is the only city I can think of that I think about their skyline.
LA . Nope
Seattle. Nope
Denver. Nope
San diego. Nope
Portland. Nope
How about similar sized cities? Nope. Simply cannot imagine someone would say, I'm going to visit Abq because they have tall buildings.
Come on, Seattle has a great skyline that is instantly recognizable. Tall buildings don't make a city, but great architecture and a lively downtown can definitely enhance a city.
I don't think the city should build tall empty buildings just for the sake of having a nice skyline. But if a developer wants to build a tall building in certain areas(downtown) they should be encouraged to do so. Another few buildings downtown isn't going to block anyone's view of the Sandias 5000 ft above the city that isn't already blocked by the buildings downtown.
I don't think anyone is suggesting that the mountains will disappear, I just know I don't want to look at tall buildings when I could instead see MORE of the mountains, volcanoes, etc. I also don't think that a 650 foot building would be economically viable for Albuquerque, and that the only recognition we might get would be others talking about how Albuquerque doesn't make good decisions. A skyscraper would be a bad idea, but a skyscraper with a low occupancy rate would be worse, and I think that's what would happen here.
I actually agree with most of this. But I didn't say ABQ needs buildings (for economical purposes), and much as it would just look 10x better with them!
I actually agree with most of this. But I didn't say ABQ needs buildings (for economical purposes), and much as it would just look 10x better with them!
So let's just build skyscrapers for aesthetics? If so they should just be skeletons, with no interior. Put some lights inside and you'll have what you want at a fraction of the price!
There so many empty building in dowtown it is not funny. The Simms building is 25% occupied. Both the old Federal buildings are empty. I could go on and on about all the vacancies. Concentration should be on renovating existing buildings and occupy them then building new. There are so many amenities missing from downtown also. Want a decent selection in groceries? You got to drive miles to get to one. Need some sort of electronics choice? Same thing. Office supplies? Something after 6pm?
Not only do they need to update the skyline, but visiting downtown is weak too, that needs lots of improvement.
Who is "they" again? I think we could all use some improvement.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.