Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Colorado > Denver
 [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 05-08-2011, 11:02 PM
 
Location: Littleton, CO
3,158 posts, read 6,094,514 times
Reputation: 5619

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by KaaBoom View Post
Where do you get your info that those cities have "way bigger towers" then Denver? Except for Atlanta, Denver's skyline is very comparable to any of those cities right now. Hell, they are so comparable, that all it would take for Denver to beat most of those cities (height wise), would be to add several 100 foot tall antennas on top of a couple of Downtown buildings.

IMHO, Denver's skyline as it is, is one of the greatest for a city it's size. Just sayin.

1. Atlanta, Bank of America Plaza 1,023 ft. 55 floors.
2. Cleveland, Key Tower 947 ft. 57 floors.
3. Atlanta, SunTrust Plaza 871 ft. 60 floors.
4. Atlanta, One Atlantic Center 820 ft. 50 floors.
5. Minneapolis, IDS Tower 792 ft.57 floors.
6. Miami, Four Seasons Hotel & Tower 789 ft. 64 floors.
7. Minneapolis, Capella Tower 776 ft. 56 floors.
8. Minneapolis, Wells Fargo Center 773 ft. 57 floors.
9. Atlanta, 191 Peachtree Tower 770 ft. 50 floors.
10. Miami, Southeast Financial Center 764 ft. 55 floors.
11. Atlanta, Westin Peachtree Plaza Hotel 723 ft. 70 floors.
12. Denver, Republic Plaza 714 ft. 56 floors.
13. Denver, 1801 California Street 709 ft. 53 floors.

14. Cleveland, Terminal Tower 708 ft. 52 floors.
15. Miami, Marquis Miami 700 ft. 63 floors.
16. New Orleans, 697 ft. 51 floors.
One of the reasons many large cities have really tall buildings, is because they needed places to put radio and tv antennas so they can broadcast further. We have a 730 ft antenna on top of Lookout Mountain (elev 7581 ft.). This puts the top of the tv antenna about 3000 feet about downtown Denver. Why build a tall building when mother nature did it for us?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-09-2011, 06:23 AM
 
Location: Coos Bay, Oregon
7,138 posts, read 10,979,431 times
Reputation: 7807
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidv View Post
One of the reasons many large cities have really tall buildings, is because they needed places to put radio and tv antennas so they can broadcast further. We have a 730 ft antenna on top of Lookout Mountain (elev 7581 ft.). This puts the top of the tv antenna about 3000 feet about downtown Denver. Why build a tall building when mother nature did it for us?
Sorry thats an interesting theory, but that is not a valid reason why skyscrapers get built. Nobody, and I mean nobody builds a $2 billion building just to put a TV transmitter on top. It's not necessary. You don't need a building for that. The tallest structure in North America is the KVLY-TV mast. And it is not on a mountain or on top of a building. It sites in a cow pasture in North Dakota. Its way taller then any skyscraper and costs a fraction of the price.

As a matter of fact, I can't think of any cities other the NY and Chicago that have transmitters on top of skyscrapers (though I'm sure there are more). And in those cases, I think it is more a matter of land value, then it being the best place for a transmitter. Just sayin.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-09-2011, 06:27 AM
 
Location: Weymouth, The South
785 posts, read 1,874,107 times
Reputation: 475
Quote:
Originally Posted by KaaBoom View Post
Sorry thats an interesting theory, but that is not a valid reason why skyscrapers get built. Nobody, and I mean nobody builds a $2 billion building just to put a TV transmitter on top. It's not necessary. You don't need a building for that. The tallest structure in North America is the KVLY-TV mast. And it is not on a mountain or on top of a building. It sites in a cow pasture in North Dakota. Its way taller then any skyscraper and costs a fraction of the price.

As a matter of fact, I can't think of any cities other the NY and Chicago that have transmitters on top of skyscrapers (though I'm sure there are more). And in those cases, I think it is more a matter of land value, then it being the best place for a transmitter. Just sayin.
I entirely agree, the thought that scrapers are put up just for transmitters is silly. They are built in order to get more out of a site. I can only point out though, that very very few buildings cost $2 billion. I think the Burj Khalifa was something around that, but something of a more 'normal' size like the Four Seasons in Denver was around $350 million.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-09-2011, 09:38 AM
 
431 posts, read 1,237,503 times
Reputation: 273
Quote:
Originally Posted by BruceTenmile View Post
I entirely agree, the thought that scrapers are put up just for transmitters is silly. They are built in order to get more out of a site. I can only point out though, that very very few buildings cost $2 billion. I think the Burj Khalifa was something around that, but something of a more 'normal' size like the Four Seasons in Denver was around $350 million.
The new 850 ft. skyscraper in OKC will end up costing around $700 million. It's already paid for, thanks to high oil prices.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-09-2011, 11:57 AM
 
Location: Coos Bay, Oregon
7,138 posts, read 10,979,431 times
Reputation: 7807
Quote:
Originally Posted by BruceTenmile View Post
I entirely agree, the thought that scrapers are put up just for transmitters is silly. They are built in order to get more out of a site. I can only point out though, that very very few buildings cost $2 billion. I think the Burj Khalifa was something around that, but something of a more 'normal' size like the Four Seasons in Denver was around $350 million.

Thank you, that was my mistake. You are right, a new tallest building in Downtown Denver would probably cost about $400 - $500 million, not $2 billion. That is still way too much money to spend on a transmitter site. A free standing 1,000 ft TV tower mast would probably be budgeted at around $1 million. Even if you could put 20 transmitters on top of the same building. It would still generate an insignificant amount of revenue for the building.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-10-2011, 07:22 AM
 
Location: Edgewater, CO
531 posts, read 1,140,802 times
Reputation: 643
I'd rather see parking lots infilled with mid-rise buildings than a single new tallest skyscraper.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-10-2011, 08:55 AM
 
Location: Virginia Beach, VA
11,157 posts, read 13,939,464 times
Reputation: 14935
I know a lot of people here on C-D rag on Denver's parking lots downtown, but here's a thought: they really serve a purpose. The thing about filling in parking lots is that you have to replace them with something. People come downtown and need to be able to find a place to park. Presumably if you are building a new high rise, then a parking structure would accompany it. But would that parking structure be for the exclusive use of those using the new high rise? Remember, Denver has 3 major sports venues and a performing arts complex downtown. Public transportation is not going to do it all. Filling in parking lots without replacing them in some capacity is not wise.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-10-2011, 09:16 AM
 
Location: Denver, Colorado U.S.A.
14,164 posts, read 27,119,475 times
Reputation: 10428
Quote:
Originally Posted by iknowftbll View Post
I know a lot of people here on C-D rag on Denver's parking lots downtown, but here's a thought: they really serve a purpose. The thing about filling in parking lots is that you have to replace them with something. People come downtown and need to be able to find a place to park. Presumably if you are building a new high rise, then a parking structure would accompany it. But would that parking structure be for the exclusive use of those using the new high rise? Remember, Denver has 3 major sports venues and a performing arts complex downtown. Public transportation is not going to do it all. Filling in parking lots without replacing them in some capacity is not wise.
Surface parking lots downtown are a waste of space and a visual blight. The skyscrapers have multiple parking levels either above or below ground. Build a few multi-level parking garages here and there with street level retail if need be, but there's no reason to have surface level parking lots in downtown Denver. I've never had an issue finding parking downtown, and when I lived near downtown, I'd just hop on a bus to get downtown anyway.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-10-2011, 09:34 AM
 
Location: Virginia Beach, VA
11,157 posts, read 13,939,464 times
Reputation: 14935
Quote:
Originally Posted by denverian View Post
I've never had an issue finding parking downtown...
Neither have I. Those street level lots sure do come in handy, do they not?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-10-2011, 09:53 AM
 
Location: Edgewater, CO
531 posts, read 1,140,802 times
Reputation: 643
Quote:
Originally Posted by iknowftbll View Post
Neither have I. Those street level lots sure do come in handy, do they not?
And if a building could be built in the same place, with offices, retail, or even living spaces, and provide more parking spots with a parking garage underneath the building, what's the problem?

Those surface lots are ugly.
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:


Settings
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2020 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram


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 > Colorado > Denver

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