U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S. > City vs. City
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 01-04-2015, 09:22 PM
 
Location: Washington, DC area
10,705 posts, read 18,493,517 times
Reputation: 5414

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mezter View Post
That thing would totally mess up that perfect skyline...
I HATE supertalls in cities that don't have the mass to support them. OKC comes to mind.

But Minneapolis has a decent skyline. It may not have a lot of 70-80 story buildings, so this would be a dominating structure in the skyline, but I think it would look good and compliment the rest of the skyline. It's not that much taller than other towers in the city and chances are, it will quickly build up around the tower and fill out and expand the skyline.

I like it. I hope it gets built.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-05-2015, 10:48 AM
 
Location: Minneapolis
1,704 posts, read 2,627,549 times
Reputation: 2325
The three next-tallest in Minneapolis are 792', 775', and 774', and the IDS antenna reaches 910'. So the new tower has plenty of support. It's located near the river very close to the core of downtown and it won't disrupt or throw off the balance of any of the major the skyline views. It will stand out, but it will not be overly dominant (like the monolithic Devon tower in OKC). It's also only a matter of time before the Gateway District, North Loop, and Downtown West generally are even more dense and developed than they are now. This will not be Minneapolis's tallest for decades like IDS has been.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-05-2015, 11:25 AM
 
Location: Limbo
6,458 posts, read 5,906,067 times
Reputation: 6224
Quote:
Originally Posted by kcmo View Post
I HATE supertalls in cities that don't have the mass to support them. OKC comes to mind.

But Minneapolis has a decent skyline. It may not have a lot of 70-80 story buildings, so this would be a dominating structure in the skyline, but I think it would look good and compliment the rest of the skyline. It's not that much taller than other towers in the city and chances are, it will quickly build up around the tower and fill out and expand the skyline.

I like it. I hope it gets built.
I agree, but 910' feet isn't significantly taller than the existing tallest buildings. If anything, it will nicely break up the plateau that currently exists in the 775' range.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-05-2015, 12:47 PM
 
Location: Seattle, WA
2,945 posts, read 3,595,946 times
Reputation: 3248
Glad developers in Minneapolis aren't facing problems with trivial height restrictions like developers in Seattle have to deal with.

Allow me to rant about my dislike for height restrictions in an urban center:

Seattle has a forest of cranes building new developments, but all the new buildings are hitting the max height limits. Because of this, Seattle has 20+ towers being built that are all either 500 feet tall or 400 feet, and dozens of midrise buildings being built in South Lake Union at around 200-300 feet tall. The end result is that Seattle's skyline won't be as tall as it could be despite there being enough demand for such high rises. Furthermore, strict height restrictions will result in under-utilizing Seattle's very limited land space.

As an example, Amazon is currently constructing three 500-foot towers, ultimately taking up three city blocks. Had height restrictions not have been so prohibitive, Amazon could have constructed a new supertall for Seattle, which would have potentially freed up two city blocks for alternative uses.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-05-2015, 08:48 PM
 
Location: Minneapolis (St. Louis Park)
5,991 posts, read 7,916,967 times
Reputation: 4208
Quote:
Originally Posted by GatsbyGatz View Post
Glad developers in Minneapolis aren't facing problems with trivial height restrictions like developers in Seattle have to deal with.

Allow me to rant about my dislike for height restrictions in an urban center:

Seattle has a forest of cranes building new developments, but all the new buildings are hitting the max height limits. Because of this, Seattle has 20+ towers being built that are all either 500 feet tall or 400 feet, and dozens of midrise buildings being built in South Lake Union at around 200-300 feet tall. The end result is that Seattle's skyline won't be as tall as it could be despite there being enough demand for such high rises. Furthermore, strict height restrictions will result in under-utilizing Seattle's very limited land space.

As an example, Amazon is currently constructing three 500-foot towers, ultimately taking up three city blocks. Had height restrictions not have been so prohibitive, Amazon could have constructed a new supertall for Seattle, which would have potentially freed up two city blocks for alternative uses.
Are those restrictions in place because of the threat of earthquakes? I know that doesn't necessarily keep a building down in height by itself but it's probably more costly to build an earthquake-proof tower than one that's not earthquake-proof.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-05-2015, 08:49 PM
 
Location: Minneapolis (St. Louis Park)
5,991 posts, read 7,916,967 times
Reputation: 4208
Quote:
Originally Posted by steel03 View Post
The three next-tallest in Minneapolis are 792', 775', and 774', and the IDS antenna reaches 910'. So the new tower has plenty of support. It's located near the river very close to the core of downtown and it won't disrupt or throw off the balance of any of the major the skyline views. It will stand out, but it will not be overly dominant (like the monolithic Devon tower in OKC). It's also only a matter of time before the Gateway District, North Loop, and Downtown West generally are even more dense and developed than they are now. This will not be Minneapolis's tallest for decades like IDS has been.
That's what they say....time will ultimately tell. Mpls, unlike Seattle or the other cities listed here, isn't a huge market for international and/or speculative investment. So it'd have to be largely organic development.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-06-2015, 02:06 AM
 
Location: Seattle, WA
2,945 posts, read 3,595,946 times
Reputation: 3248
Quote:
Originally Posted by Min-Chi-Cbus View Post
Are those restrictions in place because of the threat of earthquakes? I know that doesn't necessarily keep a building down in height by itself but it's probably more costly to build an earthquake-proof tower than one that's not earthquake-proof.
Seattle's height restrictions is a land use tactic known as incentive zoning.

Incentive zoning is intended to provide a reward-based system to encourage development that meets established urban development goals. Typically, a base level of prescriptive limitations on development will be established and an extensive list of incentive criteria will be established for developers to adopt or not, at their discretion. A reward scale connected to the incentive criteria provides an enticement for developers to incorporate the desired development criteria into their projects. Common examples include (floor-area-ratio) bonuses for affordable housing provided on-site and height limit bonuses for the inclusion of public amenities on-site.

So in other words, Seattle City Council uses height restrictions to bleed out more money from developers. It's a political maneuver that supposedly "benefits" the public by getting developers to meet "community goals," but in reality it just allows the city to suck more money by making developers pay up for reaching higher limits either by paying higher costs to get a master use permit or by developers promising to redevelop a street or build a park out of their own pocket.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-06-2015, 10:29 AM
 
Location: Minneapolis
1,704 posts, read 2,627,549 times
Reputation: 2325
Quote:
Originally Posted by emcee squared View Post
I agree, but 910' feet isn't significantly taller than the existing tallest buildings. If anything, it will nicely break up the plateau that currently exists in the 775' range.
I agree, and I mean 135' isn't even all THAT significant. The difference between Columbia Center and 1201 3rd in Seattle is 161' and I haven't heard anyone complaining that Columbia Center ruins Seattle's amazing skyline. Devon tower in OKC is 344' (!) taller than the next-tallest in the city.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-06-2015, 11:48 AM
 
Location: Seattle, WA
2,945 posts, read 3,595,946 times
Reputation: 3248
Quote:
Originally Posted by steel03 View Post
I agree, and I mean 135' isn't even all THAT significant. The difference between Columbia Center and 1201 3rd in Seattle is 161' and I haven't heard anyone complaining that Columbia Center ruins Seattle's amazing skyline. Devon tower in OKC is 344' (!) taller than the next-tallest in the city.
Believe it or not, at the time of the construction for the Columbia Center, Seattle residents treated the building as if it were the tower of Satan and believed that the black highrise would tarnish Seattle's skyline. These are the same people who live in Queen Anne and get upset over every highrise proposed for downtown because they don't want a new tower to ruin their view... of the buildings already existing in downtown.

It baffles me that homeowners within a major city get upset over the city growing and becoming denser and more populated.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S. > City vs. City
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top