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.
What cities have the strongest neighborhood control groups, which hold a city back from developing its city and skyline? Zealous historical preservationists which want to preserve anything and everything to the detriment of developers and the city? And irrational height limits?
San Francisco immediately comes to mind with the hill people not wanting any building to block their views of the Bay, and add in the historical preservationists to the nightmare.
Minneapolis is another city that comes to mind, a city that could have a much more exciting downtown area and skyline.
What other cities come to mind that could have a world-class skyline if you let developers have all the freedom they wished?
Even Las Vegas to a certain extent, they recently scaled back (or canceled) a nearly 2,000 ft skyscraper because of the airport.
Phoenix, Tucson, ABQ...but the tide is turning.
NIMBY's are one thing, FAA height restrictions due to an airport's proximity to a city's downtown are a completely different animal (Phoenix and San Jose).
Even Las Vegas to a certain extent, they recently scaled back (or canceled) a nearly 2,000 ft skyscraper because of the airport.
The original Stratosphere tower was designed to rise to 2000 feet but the FAA had them reduce it to 1149'. A crying shame! And, yes, that new tower near the Sahara was to rise to 1888' or so. But it wasn't due to neighborhood control groups. That's a different matter.
The only time, as I recall, a neighborhood group came forth (the Huntridge group) to denounce a development that I can recall near the Strip was Stupak's Titanic proposal which was to be built across the street from the Stratosphere.
The Huntridge group, undertandably, were opposed to looking out their backyard's at a 250 foot tall iceberg everyday. Myself, I think it would have been cool! LOL!
But I'm just thankful that there were no historical preservation groups here to oppose all the demolitions of all the landmark hotels on the Strip the past 10 years, as the Strip would be a different animal had they won.
Well they have all the freedom they want in Houston but I wouldn't call Houston any architectural masterpiece.
(citydata)
On the other hand, development is strictly controlled in Paris and imho, it shows. If it doesn't make Paris more beautiful, it doesn't get built. Maybe that gives fly by night developers nightmares, but it is a dream come true for the people of the world who appreciate quality. That's why Paris is the most touristed city in the world and Houston is not. If that gives developers nightmares, then I say bring on Freddy Krueger.
Boston is basically impossible to develop in. Between the proximity of Logan Airport, tons of city ordinances, rabid neighborhood groups who oppose any kind of development, and the high number of historical buildings, getting a project off the ground is extremely difficult.
yea I was gonna say, wasn't Boston supposed to be getting a supertall sometime soon, and they either scratched the project or scaled it back because of FAA restrictions, just like Vegas?
Last time in Paris, I traveled out to the modern areas of Paris. Modern French architecture sends me into orbit, some of it so sensuous. If I lived in Paris, I'd be in one of those big high-rises outside the central core peering down at the old city with their never-ending 7-story height-limited structures.
To me, NYC successfully mixes old with the new. Just imagine, NYC with 7, 8,9, 10 story height limits, having protected all the old buildings of the past.
And all the modern skyscrapers would be in Hoboken, the Bronix, Brooklyn, Jersey City, or wherever.
Oakland is very difficult to do anything in. For all the wrong reasons.
We have a bunch of misguided socialists(Im liberal btw) trying to preserve the ghetto because they don't think we're worth positive change of course they'll never admit it. Its ridiculous and self-defeating.
We have a $3 Billion project in limbo because they are claiming that it blocks public access to a small section of the waterfront-but this small section of the waterfront is an abandoned pier that is locked behind a chain link fence-so there isnt any public access in the first place. And nobody ever goes there for recreation to begin with.
Well they have all the freedom they want in Houston but I wouldn't call Houston any architectural masterpiece.
(citydata)
On the other hand, development is strictly controlled in Paris and imho, it shows. If it doesn't make Paris more beautiful, it doesn't get built. Maybe that gives fly by night developers nightmares, but it is a dream come true for the people of the world who appreciate quality. That's why Paris is the most touristed city in the world and Houston is not. If that gives developers nightmares, then I say bring on Freddy Krueger.
(wikipiki)
To prove your point; you show a picture of a stadium???
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.
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.
I love the modern, all the way!
