New skyscrapers downtown? (Indianapolis, Fishers, Carmel: 2014, apartments, hotel)

[jman07]

Originally Posted by grmasterb

Washington D.C. has no skyline and is one of the more dense and vibrant cities in the U.S. Whoever thinks of Boston's skyline? Ditto for the most dense and vibrant cities in Europe.

Yes. DC is "dense". Indy is not dense. Boston also has a great skyline and is also dense. Bad examples!

[grmasterb]

Originally Posted by shayloure

Very true. But I don't think anyone said they did.

Then why the obsession with the skyline? What does it have to do with anything that matters?

[grmasterb]

Originally Posted by jman07

Yes. DC is "dense". Indy is not dense. Boston also has a great skyline. Bad examples!

Your argument is that skyscrapers help build density. I just gave you an example of a dense American city without one. Boston's skyline is no larger than Indy's, but it is a much denser city. I'm not arguing against density. I'm saying you don't need skyscrapers to achieve it.

[jman07]

Originally Posted by grmasterb

Your argument is that skyscrapers help build density. I just gave you an example of a dense American city without one. Boston's skyline is no larger than Indy's, but it is a much denser city. I'm not arguing against density. I'm saying you don't need skyscrapers to achieve it.

Indy doesn't have the population to be dense and spread out like DC. So I guess your plan is to import millions of people to Indy??? DC is only like that because high rises aren't allowed.

[grmasterb]

Originally Posted by jman07

Indy doesn't have the population to be dense and spread out like DC. It's not the capital of the US! DC is only like that because high rises aren't allowed.

Then what makes you think Indy has the population and demand to fill high-rises?

[jman07]

Originally Posted by grmasterb

Then what makes you think Indy has the population and demand to fill high-rises?

Because it has the population to build one high rise 40% taller. It doesn't require as many people as a spread out dense area. Additionally, no one is going to notice 4 smaller buildings as opposed to one glossy high rise.

[grmasterb]

Originally Posted by jman07

Because it has the population to build one high rise 40% taller. It doesn't require as many people as a spread out dense area. Additionally, no one is going to notice 4 smaller buildings as opposed to one glossy high rise.

So, why hasn't a private developer made this happen?

[jman07]

Originally Posted by grmasterb

So, why hasn't a private developer made this happen?

Well it looks like it has to be approved by the city. You can't just build whatever you want. And it costs more per floor to build higher buildings. There is no point of doing that if the price of land downtown is cheap.

[grmasterb]

Originally Posted by jman07

Well it looks like it has to be approved by the city. You can't just build whatever you want. And it costs more per floor to build higher buildings. There is no point of doing that if the price of land downtown is cheap.

So, you seem to be saying the market just isn't there for it in Indianapolis?

[jman07]

Originally Posted by grmasterb

So, you seem to be saying the market just isn't there for it in Indianapolis?

Either the market isn't there or the city wouldn't approve it. I really don't know. When I lived in Indy before, the city would always shoot down high rise developments or high density residential units. I think one got shot down in broad ripple years ago. Not even buildings considered high rises. I would have lived in broad ripple if here was a nice decent urban apt complex walking distance to the bars. Those are things that makes Indy desirable to young professionals.