Milwaukee needs more skyscrapers to be taken seriously as a big city (Greenfield: city hall, dorms)

[Tunky]

Just a guess, but I'd bet that companies look more at Tax Structure than Building Structure.

[Nuclear_Art]

Originally Posted by rickat1964

I don't think Milwaukee should pattern themselves like European cities because it won't get them anywhere. The US is a capaitalist society, Europe is not. Europe is very socialist and I would hate Milwaukee be something it is not. I like the skyscrapers, that's the US's trademark and there's nothing to be ashamed about. I like the direction Milwaukee is going.

Capitalism and Socialism are both economic systems, not systems of government. Few nations have pure economic forms but the US and the European nations all follow the economic tenets of the Free Market Economy aka Capitalism. Russia is even a Capitalist Democracy. You may have heard of the G8 which is a Free Market economic organization? To believe as you do is to ignore every single fact and definition known to civilized man. But that is a digression and seriously off topic.

[landshark77]

Milwaukee probably only needs two stratigically placed tall buildings to significantly change the entire look of its skyline. The two most common views to visitors are this one from summerfest--

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/29/Summerfest_Pabst_Showcase_1994.jpg (broken link)

And this one from the lakefront--

http://homepages.dordt.edu/fbe/big_t...es/skyline.jpg



What needs to be done is to make an exception in zoning for the Third Ward. South, across the highway from the U.S. Bank buiding is alot of wasted space and parking lots. If a couple of taller buildings over forty stories were constructed here, the skyline widens across the lakefront to the south. Also this would fill the noticable gap in the skyline, which is obvious to visitors to our great summer festivals. This also would widen the skyline as viewed from the west. Miller Park visitors would no longer see the US bank Building as the southern border of our skyline.

Another stratigic spot for a skyscraper would to the north east of Cathedral Square. A taller multi-use skyscraper there could fill in the gaps in Milwaukee's skyline from multiple angles and would also serve as an asthetic to the Cathedral Park area which has so much more potential.

[Twoaday]

I was just recently in Portland, OR, and noticed it hardly had much of a skyline. BUT it is a fantastic city. Vibrant, busy, active, and walkable.. So are some towers useful or nice? Sure but they won't make or break Milwaukee. That said I do look forward to the Moderne.

[landshark77]

Originally Posted by Twoaday

I was just recently in Portland, OR, and noticed it hardly had much of a skyline. BUT it is a fantastic city. Vibrant, busy, active, and walkable.. So are some towers useful or nice? Sure but they won't make or break Milwaukee. That said I do look forward to the Moderne.

Portland is a great livable city. Some people think it's too boring or flakey. I hear the same complaints about Milwaukee from time to time. Opinions are like buttonholes I guess.

People who reside in bohemeth places like New York, Chicago, L.A. ... many of those extremely urban types have their little motives and justifications for putting down other people's homes, rather than modestly tout the greatness of of their own city. They have an emotional attachment, sometimes an addiction, to a place with overwhelming consumer variety; makes them feel stimulated, more a part of something...bigger. However they are subjected to the much higher cost of lving and daily stress factors by choosing to be near all the shopping, dining, cultural aspects, etc. and sometimes need to justify their choice. It's not a bad choice. It's a matter of taste. IMO, living in those giant sprawling impersonal cites leaves one feeling lost in the shuffle, often times stressed to the point of imbalance. I also feel like I can get a fine amount culture these days without living very close to a major metropolitan area.

I'll take a city like Portland or Milwaukee over a New York or Chicago any day as far as living goes. If I was a rich billionaire and money was no object, I would still only visit the big places and live closer to the smaller town.

[ImaloneJill]

Beautiful picture, Landshark.

[Solas]

Originally Posted by Iburytheliving

I wish there were more tall skyscrapers too...

That said, one thing you have to keep in mind is that downtown is not on even ground, it's rather hilly and that is deceiving. I remember going to San Diego a few years ago and being impressed with their skyline. Then being the building nerd I am, I researched their skyscrapers along with Milwaukee's and it turns out Milwaukee has two skyscrapers taller than any buildings in San Diego (remembering off the top of my head...). San Diego just looked more impressive cause it's downtown is built on almost perfectly level ground... Just food for thought... And San Diego didn't seem as dense as Milwaukee either...

Great point... and one that seems to get lost everytime this debate comes up. There's only two real problems with Milwaukee's skyline and neither has anything to do with a lack of tall buildings.

The first is that Milwaukee actually has plenty of buildings that could make up a very unique and distinct skyline, but they're way too spread out from each other. The 100 East Wisconsin building is the second largest in the city, yet it gets buried in most skyline photos.

The other problem is the lack of a physically distinctive structure or monument in the skyline. St. Louis' tallest building is only slightly larger than Milwaukee's, yet because it has the Arch, it's skyline is photographed as often as Chicago or New York. The art museum somewhat helps address this as it gives Milwaukee something distinctive on the lakefront. But unlike the Arch, it's not visible from most of the city or even most of downtown for that matter.

Of course, it would help if they'd do something to get that f***ing sunburst out of the way of our city's signature building. Maybe they could relocate it to where the Fonzie statue is while relocating Fonzie to the bottom of the Milwaukee River

[just1paul]

Originally Posted by Solas

Of course, it would help if they'd do something to get that f***ing sunburst out of the way of our city's signature building. Maybe they could relocate it to where the Fonzie statue is while relocating Fonzie to the bottom of the Milwaukee River

There was a movement to relocate it when the addition to the museum was being built but it was not moved because the architect Santiago Calatrava built the Burke Brise Soleil, centered on the sunburst. Now the Fonzie statue could be sent to Brooklyn where it belongs. Both of those shows did Milwaukee a grave injustice I feel.

[Solas]

Originally Posted by just1paul

There was a movement to relocate it when the addition to the museum was being built but it was not moved because the architect Santiago Calatrava built the Burke Brise Soleil, centered on the sunburst.

Hm... I didn't know that.

Although I think it's still a bit underwhelming when you're driving down Wisconsin Ave and that beautiful wingspan is blocked by something that, to most people, looks like what a welder with a bucket of orange paint did in a spare afternoon.

Originally Posted by just1paul

Now the Fonzie statue could be sent to Brooklyn where it belongs. Both of those shows did Milwaukee a grave injustice I feel.

Couldn't agree more. The fact that Visit Milwaukee actually expected that thing to bring in tourism shows what an irrelevant, out-of-touch joke they are. Is it so much to ask that people in positions to show our city to the rest of the country to actually know a thing or two about what's going on in 21st century Milwaukee?

[just1paul]

Originally Posted by Solas

Hm... I didn't know that.

Although I think it's still a bit underwhelming when you're driving down Wisconsin Ave and that beautiful wingspan is blocked by something that, to most people, looks like what a welder with a bucket of orange paint did in a spare afternoon.

I totally agree. To me it looks like something fell off the First Wisconsin building during construction, got stuck in the ground and could not be removed.

Originally Posted by Solas

Couldn't agree more. The fact that Visit Milwaukee actually expected that thing to bring in tourism shows what an irrelevant, out-of-touch joke they are. Is it so much to ask that people in positions to show our city to the rest of the country to actually know a thing or two about what's going on in 21st century Milwaukee?

EXACTLY!! It makes me feel SOOOOOOO good when people ask where I am from and then after they hear Milwaukee, inevitably I get a HEYYYYYY! with a thumbs up. ---- how stupid.