Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
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)
 
Old 05-27-2017, 01:28 PM
 
8,858 posts, read 6,859,567 times
Reputation: 8666

Advertisements

No urban core other than New York challenges Downtown Seattle's 13,000,000 sf of offices that have started (or finished) since 2010. Few challenge the 25,000 new housing units.

That said I love Philly. One of the best urban cores in the US.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-27-2017, 06:56 PM
 
Location: City of North Las Vegas, NV
12,600 posts, read 9,387,320 times
Reputation: 3487
Chicago has 52 high rises under construction!

https://chicago.curbed.com/maps/chic...nstruction-map
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-28-2017, 09:07 PM
 
Location: In the heights
37,131 posts, read 39,380,764 times
Reputation: 21217
Quote:
Originally Posted by SyCo View Post
I never got the restriction rule either. If you have a small area to work with, you obviously have to build up.

On the side-note, I saw the Salesforce tower from Marin yesterday, and damn it looked regal with the afternoon sun reflected off of it.
I think what's odd is that the restrictions in SF proper hasn't lead to high-density high-rise districts in other parts of the Bay Area. It seems like other municipalities, with fewer historic and cultural protections and heritage, would have done well to capitalize on those restrictions. Why hasn't a municipality off of a Caltrain or BART stop(s) been able to capitalize on all of this and build dense and build high?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-28-2017, 09:45 PM
 
8,858 posts, read 6,859,567 times
Reputation: 8666
They would be able, but the local jurisdictions don't allow it. And the State doesn't ask the local juridictions to take their share.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-29-2017, 10:45 AM
 
Location: In the heights
37,131 posts, read 39,380,764 times
Reputation: 21217
Quote:
Originally Posted by mhays25 View Post
They would be able, but the local jurisdictions don't allow it. And the State doesn't ask the local juridictions to take their share.
Right, but I wonder why none of them have taken the leap and given it a shot? I understand perhaps if they were too close to the airports, but there are so many municipalities that could have attempted something.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-29-2017, 10:58 AM
 
8,858 posts, read 6,859,567 times
Reputation: 8666
How often will the majority of a suburb's population be in favor of establishing a real, dense downtown? Especially one with reduced parking as appropriate with good transit?

The region's biggest urbanites are in San Francisco or at least Oakland or San Jose. A suburb without a center doesn't attract people who want urbanity unless they choose it for proximity to work or married a suburbanite or something.

Even Palo Alto apparently tried to tamp down growth.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-29-2017, 11:48 AM
 
Location: Los Altos Hills, CA
36,656 posts, read 67,506,468 times
Reputation: 21239
Quote:
Originally Posted by OyCrumbler View Post
I think what's odd is that the restrictions in SF proper hasn't lead to high-density high-rise districts in other parts of the Bay Area.
Have u ever been to a planning commission meeting in Oakland or Berkeley?!?!? NIMBYS oppose E-V-E-R-Y-T-H-I-N-G.

They are shortsighted and seldlf defeating. The region's progress is being hampered by anti-development nazis. I can think of several excellent proposals that have died due to nonaensical opposition.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-29-2017, 11:50 AM
 
Location: In the heights
37,131 posts, read 39,380,764 times
Reputation: 21217
Quote:
Originally Posted by mhays25 View Post
How often will the majority of a suburb's population be in favor of establishing a real, dense downtown? Especially one with reduced parking as appropriate with good transit?

The region's biggest urbanites are in San Francisco or at least Oakland or San Jose. A suburb without a center doesn't attract people who want urbanity unless they choose it for proximity to work or married a suburbanite or something.

Even Palo Alto apparently tried to tamp down growth.
Right, that will certainly not be frequent, but I'm surprised that with the number of municipalities that are not SF, Oakland, or Berkeley, the lack of affordability, and the potential prize for a larger tax base / more jobs within a community might have tempted some municipality to roll the die either in the last boom or this current one. I understand that it hasn't, so I'm curious about what were the kind of constraints and processes that prevented that from happening.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-29-2017, 12:35 PM
 
4,574 posts, read 7,500,035 times
Reputation: 2613
Quote:
Originally Posted by Facts Kill Rhetoric View Post
So if I read that article that was linked correctly, Atlanta's Opus Place tower is now shorter because a luxury hotel pulled out of the plans? What's the cause of that pull out?


The article mentioned something about an envisioned 74 story tower (for varied multifamily that would've been in the 900+ foot range) scaling back to something like 53 stories (which would top out somewhere in the 700 foot range).


Is that right?
Banks and investors are more hesitant to finance hotel projects, hence why initial plans were revised.

I'm not too flustered either way. Atlanta does not have any proposed supertall skyscrapers this cycle but the latest projects most certainly emphasize greater urbanity/density. To me, that's a much better goal for the city to strive for and achieve. In any event, Opus Place will still be the tallest residential building in Atlanta. Construction is set to begin this fall and going by the latest renderings, it will most certainly be a very sleek addition to the skyline. Can't wait!

Last edited by JMT; 05-29-2017 at 05:25 PM.. Reason: violation of rules for posting images
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-30-2017, 10:36 PM
 
Location: Atlanta
9,818 posts, read 7,928,191 times
Reputation: 9991
Quote:
Originally Posted by nature's message View Post
Banks and investors are more hesitant to finance hotel projects, hence why initial plans were revised.
Exactly. Trump expressed interest, but thankfully that didn't pan out. We don't need that flag here.

It also doesn't help that the Opus site is across the street from the Four Seasons & Marriott Suites, two blocks from the W Midtown and around the corner from the soon to be underway SLS.

Quote:
I'm not too flustered either way. Atlanta does not have any proposed supertall skyscrapers this cycle but the latest projects most certainly emphasize greater urbanity/density. To me, that's a much better goal for the city to strive for and achieve. In any event, Opus Place will still be the tallest residential building in Atlanta. Construction is set to begin this fall and going by the latest renderings, it will most certainly be a very sleek addition to the skyline. Can't wait!
I couldn't agree more! I'll take the incredible amount of infill and midrises happening all over town over a new supertall all day long. Besides, we already have a beautiful skyline to begin with. It is great to witness it beef up and fill out though, especially in Midtown.
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

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - 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, 36, 37 - Top