San Antonio Skyscrapers (merged threads) (Houston, Dallas: casinos, restaurants, floors)

[gy2020]

I'll get back to what I said before. If you want the bldg, then save the money and go out and build you one. Spare us.

[SanAntoQT]

Originally Posted by imaterry78259

I just visited Austin and saw all the multiple story skyscrapers they are building downtown. I just wonder if SA would ever build any multipe story buildings > 50 stories downtown. Other than the riverwalk-Austin downtown is putting SA to shame. I guess Austin will become the dominant city in the region, Please do not respond about suburban bldg

Um, so when are you moving to Austin? I'm sure they'd love to have you.

[Sweetie Pie]

Originally Posted by TexHwyMan

Not to mention the fact that most European cities, outside London, Paris, and Frankfurt, have very few skyscrapers. Cities like Munich, Berlin, Stuttgart, Dusseldorf, Rome, Milan, Barcelona, Amsterdam, and Brussels are all world cities, yet have virtually no skyline. Even London, one of the biggest and most powerful cities on the planet, has a mediocre skyline for its stature, at least by American standards.

I hate to sound catty, but am just in that kind of mood. Didn't the U.S. bomb they're sky scrappers in WW-ll?

[imaterry78259]

Originally Posted by SanAntoQT

Um, so when are you moving to Austin? I'm sure they'd love to have you.

I want San Antonio not Austin but I want SA to have a taller DT. Size does matter.

SA's DT look like a city of 500K.

[gunadz]

Europe proper only has 1 skyscraper within the 75 tallest buildings in the world and its in Russia. There really wasn't much in the way for high buildings before the first world war. Before WW2, countries were still pretty much rebuilding.

I personally don't think that San Antonio's downtown could support a large (700ft+) tower without causing a major visual shift downtown. I mean, its not as if they could just place it just anywhere downtown. Maybe once they finish up with River North...

[SanAntoQT]

Originally Posted by imaterry78259

I want San Antonio not Austin but I want SA to have a taller DT. Size does matter.

SA's DT look like a city of 500K.

Sounds like a personal issue. Skyscraper envy?

[oldmanshirt]

Originally Posted by schertz1

What in the world is prowness?

Washington is arguable the most powerful, vibrant city in the world, defiantly the U.S.. What about Boston, Phoenix, San Jose, San Diego, Saint Louis? Los Angeles does have a great skyline, but not much better than Houston or Atlanta. Does that mean Houston and Atlanta are almost as vibrant and powerful as L.A.?

Really?? Washington is more "powerful" and "vibrant" than Tokyo? London? New York? Hong Kong? Paris? Shanghai? Want me to keep going?

LA's skyline and downtown are acutally pretty mediocre for its metro size. I'd argue San Francisco's is better in terms of density, if not height.

Most cities in the US that have skylines out of proportion with their populations are that way because of height restrictions. This is the case with DC, Phoenix, San Diego, even Dallas is limited by flight paths into Love Field. As far as I know, SA has no restrictions other than no building casting a shadow over the Alamo, and that development along the riverwalk has to allow a certain amount of sunlight to reach the river. Other than that, SA just is the way it is. Its been developing that way for too long now to just dump a 900ft skyscraper right in the middle. It would look ridiculous.

I for one accept downtown the way it is, realizing that many cities (including the one I live in now) would kill for a fraction of the foot traffic SA experiences everyday in its core. Let's focus on more important things that will bring a real benefit to the city, like expanding business, education, and medical services.

[majormadmax]

Originally Posted by Sweetie Pie

I hate to sound catty, but am just in that kind of mood. Didn't the U.S. bomb they're sky scrappers in WW-ll?

No, the skyscrapers of Europe are mostly a post-war phenomenon. Oddly enough, concerns about aesthetics and fire safety had likewise hampered the development of skyscrapers across continental Europe for the first half of the twentieth century (with the notable exceptions of the 26-storey Boerentoren in Antwerp, Belgium, built in 1932, and the 31-storey Torre Piacentini in Genoa, Italy, built in 1940). The rest of Europe slowly began to permit skyscrapers, starting with Madrid, Spain, during the 1950s...

The Commerzbank Tower in Frankfurt, Germany is the tallest completed skyscraper in the European Union at 850 ft (for comparison, the Tower of the Americas is 750 ft tall). It was the tallest in Europe until 2005, when it was surpassed by the Triumph-Palace in Moscow.

Cheers! M2

[winst0n]

Originally Posted by majormadmax

No, the skyscrapers of Europe are mostly a post-war phenomenon. Oddly enough, concerns about aesthetics and fire safety had likewise hampered the development of skyscrapers across continental Europe for the first half of the twentieth century (with the notable exceptions of the 26-storey Boerentoren in Antwerp, Belgium, built in 1932, and the 31-storey Torre Piacentini in Genoa, Italy, built in 1940). The rest of Europe slowly began to permit skyscrapers, starting with Madrid, Spain, during the 1950s...

The Commerzbank Tower in Frankfurt, Germany is the tallest completed skyscraper in the European Union at 850 ft (for comparison, the Tower of the Americas is 750 ft tall). It was the tallest in Europe until 2005, when it was surpassed by the Triumph-Palace in Moscow.

Cheers! M2

very informative... thanks

[imaterry78259]

Ok,natives I guess DT SA will look like Dubuque