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.
Definitely not as far as skylines. Oakland NIMBYs fight tall buildings.
At street level, I don't want Oakland to head in the direction of Brooklyn.
Downtown Oakland is softer and brighter imo because of the lake. DT has the HQ of Kaiser Permanente, the HQ of Clorox, the HQ of Blue Shield, the HQ of the University of California system, a massive port, a bustling chinatown, scores of high tech start ups and artists etc. and thousands of new housing units. Oakland grew by 12% in the 2020 census, adding 50,000 people, much of that in downtown. The issue that scares me is the gentrification. It's happening super fast already and I dont like it.
So respectfully, I love DT BK and likeness to Oakland has been made in the past, but I like Oakland the way it is.
Yea, I don't think skyscrapers are necessarily the way to go for everywhere. I think mid-rise would work well for Oakland especially replacing surface parking lots and gas stations. It'd be great for downtown Oakland to remove the ramps on I-980 between 18th and 11th street and cap it to provide more greenspace for that growing population and so West Oakland isn't surrounded by freeways on all sides.
Yea, I don't think skyscrapers are necessarily the way to go for everywhere. I think mid-rise would work well for Oakland especially replacing surface parking lots and gas stations. It'd be great for downtown Oakland to remove the ramps on I-980 between 18th and 11th street and cap it to provide more greenspace for that growing population and so West Oakland isn't surrounded by freeways on all sides.
It seems to me like residential mid-rises don't pencil out very well in modern LA. We mostly get 7 stories or less or over 20 stories. We've been getting a few mid-rises lately, but I think that they have almost no parking. Is that just an LA thing or do California earthquake standards make mid-rise residential hard to make profitable?
It seems to me like residential mid-rises don't pencil out very well in modern LA. We mostly get 7 stories or less or over 20 stories. We've been getting a few mid-rises lately, but I think that they have almost no parking. Is that just an LA thing or do California earthquake standards make mid-rise residential hard to make profitable?
I believe it's California? You're right--most of the LA construction has been 5 to 8 stories with what seem like wooden structures for multiple higher levels potentially on top of what seem to be concrete podium lower levels. Perhaps someone here knows exactly what is making this so popular. I suspect it's something along the lines of after a certain height, cheaper wood frame construction is no longer allowed.
5 to 8 stories are also pretty good for Oakland. Going from Google Streetview, it looks like quite a bit of new construction is that. Honestly, 5 to 8 stories built to edge of the property with mixed-use, maybe basement level for utilities/storage, maybe a central airshaft/courtyard possibly up to the concrete platform bit, rooftop garden and/or solar, and no parking en masse around good transit would be pretty awesome.
These are kind of that though missing the mixed-uuse and rooftop usage bits. Ground floor apartments in these multilevel apartment buildings, especially with the invention of elevators and backup power storage, strike me as a bit of a weird choice for modern developments over using that ground floor for community, commercial or retail.
It's crazy to not develop it and get a permanent source of funding for BART if so. This thing should be a bit of underground or podium parking with a lot of mixed-use shops on ground level, maybe first two levels, and then several levels of housing on top. This is basically how East and Southeast Asian transit agencies are able to be profitable and keep maintenance standards high and expansions going.
Last edited by OyCrumbler; 02-28-2022 at 02:30 PM..
My point overall was its a bit of eveything. I see sooo much of PHL and JC combined in making Brooklyn. Or vice versa. I don't know how to describe it lol
Yeah, I get what you were trying to point out--makes sense.
It's an aged grit sort of look that piles up over time with certain cities. All cities with areas over like 50 years old have those parts of downtown, I think, or parts of their city that look too aged and rougher than newer or redeveloped areas.
There aren't as many, but Houston is still dominated by parking lots and buildings where only one or two sides has any street level activity. DT Brooklyn is dominated by streetwalls of buildings with storefronts on all sides, and has lots of old buildings mixed in with the new ones. There's nothing like a Boerum Hill, Cobble Hill, Brooklyn Heights, DUMBO, or Fort Greene next to DT Houston. And Brooklyn doesn't quite get the magnitude of summer heat/humidity (especially in shoulder months) as compared to Houston, and tropical storm/hurricane impacts are less likely. Sea breezes are more common in Brooklyn as well, either from the ocean or the estuaries. Plus, Houston doesn't have a subway system.
Central Philadelphia comes closest, since its bordering neighborhoods give off the most similar vibes (even if a bit less uppity) than Brooklyn's. The MetroTech Center area resembles the Penn Center/Market West/JFK/Comcast business district with the modern skyscrapers; the Cadman Plaza area a bit like Broad Street near city hall, Brooklyn Heights like Rittenhouse, and Fishtown-like vibes from parts of the southern/eastern fringes. The Fulton St. mall is a lot like Market East in that its the main shopping area that had its best days in the past, but with promising futures ahead despite being below potential in terms of activity. It has a subway system as well.
Hopefully there will be good quality pics of downtown Brooklyn this summer. Most pics are outdated or were done in the winter. The Brooklyn tower is rather a prominent addition to the skyline. I believe Brooklyn is only the 8th downtown in the US with a supertall.
Hopefully there will be good quality pics of downtown Brooklyn this summer. Most pics are outdated or were done in the winter. The Brooklyn tower is rather a prominent addition to the skyline. I believe Brooklyn is only the 8th downtown in the US with a supertall.
I was actually thinking the same thing this weekend. There aren't a ton of updated downtown Brooklyn pictures from the last 2 or 3 years, partly because the skyline has grown and changed so fast.
As you mentioned that, I was looking it up, about the supertalls.
Manhattan: 16 (2-3 under construction)
Chicago: 6
LA: 2
San Francisco: 1
Atlanta: 1
Houston: 1
Philadelphia: 1
Brooklyn: 1
Miami: 1 under construction
It is surprising that there are so few supertalls in the US.
I think other cities that could get one in the next couple of decades are Dallas, Seattle, Minneapolis, Charlotte, Austin, and Nashville.
I was actually thinking the same thing this weekend. There aren't a ton of updated downtown Brooklyn pictures from the last 2 or 3 years, partly because the skyline has grown and changed so fast.
As you mentioned that, I was looking it up, about the supertalls.
Manhattan: 16 (2-3 under construction)
Chicago: 6
LA: 2
San Francisco: 1
Atlanta: 1
Houston: 1
Philadelphia: 1
Brooklyn: 1
Miami: 1 under construction
It is surprising that there are so few supertalls in the US.
I think other cities that could get one in the next couple of decades are Dallas, Seattle, Minneapolis, Charlotte, Austin, and Nashville.
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.