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.
Bellevue has a lot more towers than that proposed. Just at 600' there's one underway and six proposed.
I don't know what "approved" means. It's not an industry term (land use approval? building permit(s)? Street use permit?).
"Approved" in the context of how it's used here, usually means only building permits/land use approval is completed.
I don't use the term. Either the buildings is U/C or it's planned, thats it. There's and endless amount of projects that get or have gotten green lights and have never come to fruition
I don't know what "approved" means. It's not an industry term unless it's specific to a type of approval (land use? building permit(s)?).
For Chicago 'approved' means a proposal has been given the blessing to move forward after the alderman's dictatorial scrutiny process as they have the power to deny any request within their wards. Then it has gone on to receive approvals from the Dept. of Planning, zoning committee and the full city-council. At that stage its a matter of financing and the market.
It sounds like "approved" typically means a land use permit (including any political approval, a thing in some places) but not a building permit. Or maybe it's literally approval for a land use permit but not issuance of the permit itself, which will often have to pass an appeal period, pay fees, etc.
Building permits are also a hurdle, but with land use approval there's often far less barrier to getting one, and they're pursued much closer to construction.
For casual fans, I'll clarify these permits. A land use permit is about project size, how it meets the street, how much parking is allowed/required, height, aesthetics, etc. A building permit is about the finer details, like this certain HVAC closet requires a two-hour enclosure, and please detail the dimensions of that curb, and I personally interpret code ^*^! to mean that this cabinet requires *(&*(&) plumbing standard...
Not alone, but when a city builds a 1000 foot skyscraper (or even a 600 footer) its kind of hard to not tie it into its overall stature as a city.
The interesting ones are places like Tulsa and OKC that don't have many, but the ones they do have are way taller than you would expect. Coincidentally they are the most important cities for hundreds of miles in each direction.
Another example is San Diego-plenty of high rises but nothing over 500 feet. The cities that are of higher stature than San Diego going up the west coast all coincidentally have much taller buildings.
You could probably also compare the rate of Austin's skyscraper production with their disproportionately high GDP increase rate.
"A timeline isn’t set yet for the final tower, which would be a second phase to the development." An interesting proposal, but I doubt the 1750 tower will happen.
Also, OKC has so many parking lots and open parcels, I would rather see 4-5 new 300' mixed-use towers vs one ridiculous supertall proposal. (IMO)
"A timeline isn’t set yet for the final tower, which would be a second phase to the development." An interesting proposal, but I doubt the 1750 tower will happen.
Also, OKC has so many parking lots and open parcels, I would rather see 4-5 new 300' mixed-use towers vs one ridiculous supertall proposal. (IMO)
Come on, you know on City-Data if a city is not throwing up +800' vanity towers left and right, it's failing and on the verge of economic implosion.
"A timeline isn’t set yet for the final tower, which would be a second phase to the development." An interesting proposal, but I doubt the 1750 tower will happen.
Also, OKC has so many parking lots and open parcels, I would rather see 4-5 new 300' mixed-use towers vs one ridiculous supertall proposal. (IMO)
I'm thinking they just proposed that height to get attention for the rest of the project:
“I believe the ultimate height of the second phase luxury tower will be determined by market demand of those units and the success of the first phase which is an absolutely beautiful design and program.”
That proposed OKC tower looks interesting but I think I've seen that design before. Also can the OKC market support the Rents for a tower of that size?
Out of scale, way too tall, and clunky/tacky in its aesthetic.
Why so tall? I could see it being ok at 400 - 500 feet. This height though, absolutely no.
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.
