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.
I know right. It seems also that my post about the positive effects of skyscrapers went over a few heads as well. Never did I state anything about a skyscraper district being the most fun area of a city, but people went there any way.
I know right. It seems also that my post about the positive effects of skyscrapers went over a few heads as well. Never did I state anything about a skyscraper district being the most fun area of a city, but people went there any way.
Everyone got your point. It's a meaningless criteria for a city's "success" if there's no real urban core surrounding it. It's not a problem unique to Charlotte; as previously stated every post-car city has the same issue. Pyongyang has neat buildings in their central urban district, but nobody lives there.
Everyone got your point. It's a meaningless criteria for a city's "success" if there's no real urban core surrounding it. It's not a problem unique to Charlotte; as previously stated every post-car city has the same issue. Pyongyang has neat buildings in their central urban district, but nobody lives there.
Here's just one sentence from my post that everyone missed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by urbancharlotte
My point is that there's logic behind measuring a city's success by looking at the building density and building heights of its downtown.
"Building density" was a nod to the shorter urban office markets out there like DC (ie, the urban markets that have created an extremely impressive street level without a single skyscraper). Charlotte is NOT a DC. However, Charlotte does have decent height with uptown (which kinda makes up for what Charlotte lacks in DC-styled developments). Like I said, my post went over alot of heads simply because people didn't read it carefully.
I think a perfect example of what I was saying can be found in uptown Charlotte. At the corner of Trade and Tryon (The Square) there is the 1.2 million sq/ft BofA Corporate tower. 5 or so blocks to the west of The Square is the Gateway Village area (which also has 1.2 million sq/ft of office). Gateway is a better stroll district because it's much shorter, it includes restaurants, apartments, a few bars, and a YMCA. However, BofA functions better as an easier place for workers to park their cars (or get off a bus or light rail), go to their offices, hit the Overstreet Mall during lunch, then head home. Simply put, both models have their purpose and function and they both help with a city's success. Obviously, the casual visitor sees little value in the skyscraper (other than snapping a few pics of it), but my post had nothing to do with the casual visitor's impression of highrise towers. All I did was point out some of the benefits to having tall office and residential structures. Even Raleigh is starting to build Skyhouse now next to the PNC Center downtown. This is a good thing IMO for both cities to keep building up.
Last edited by urbancharlotte; 05-01-2013 at 03:05 AM..
Here's just one sentence from my post that everyone missed.
"Building density" was a nod to the shorter urban office markets out there like DC (ie, the urban markets that have created an extremely impressive street level without a single skyscraper). Charlotte is NOT a DC. However, Charlotte does have decent height with uptown (which kinda makes up for what Charlotte lacks in DC-styled developments). Like I said, my post went over alot of heads simply because people didn't read it carefully.
Height isn't a substitute for density and can even work against such. And although downtown DC isn't the most active and impressive part of the city, it does have some urban retail and an increasing residential base.
At any rate, I'd argue that nothing really went over anyone's head since building height was obviously the major point in your argument and it actually has more of an inverse relationship with urban density.
Height isn't a substitute for density and can even work against such. And although downtown DC isn't the most active and impressive part of the city, it does have some urban retail and an increasing residential base.
At any rate, I'd argue that nothing really went over anyone's head since building height was obviously the major point in your argument and it actually has more of an inverse relationship with urban density.
Eh bo , you know I respect your opinion, but there is a direct relationship between height, building density, and people density. The population of uptown Charlotte has increased rapidly since the 2000 census. This was the same time that uptown and South End made putting rental units on top of other rental units a top priority. The population increase of both areas clearly mimic the building trends of both areas. Now, you can deny this if you wish (which might get you a few more cheers from some folks on this thread), but the facts are the facts. Based on your logic, uptown should have lost people during the skyscraper boom.
Last edited by urbancharlotte; 05-01-2013 at 04:04 AM..
You didn't specifically mention population density, but rather urban/building density which are two different things. The first refers to persons per square mile; the second refers to the extensiveness of the urban fabric.They can be *related* concepts but are still distinct.
You didn't specifically mention population density, but rather urban/building density which are two different things.
Actually, I did.
Quote:
Originally Posted by urbancharlotte
However, due to the massive heights of many towers, we have an office district with 75,000 workers, 15,000 residents, 20,000 students, and several thousand daily visitors all confined to a 1.8 sq/mile area of the city.
This line alone shows that I was talking about a certain number of human bodies within a specified land area.
Only in passing. It wasn't the major thrust of your argument though.
You're a mind reader too? What's my lucky lotto numbers tonight? All jokes aside, I was in a hurry and I probably could have written that post better. Just know that I was not talking about anything that you thought I was talking about. I do understand that the measure of a city isn't the skyscrapers alone; this is something that I don't need a lesson in from you or anybody else.
However, I've come to understand that skyscrapers do tend to "get the ball rolling" for many post-automobile cities that never had the good-old-fashion/hardcore/pre-auto urbanization of San Fran and Boston. In cities such as San Fran, the urbanization came first then the skyscrapers came later. In cities like Atlanta and Charlotte (Charlotte moreso), the skyscrapers came first then the urbanization of streetcar suburbs surrounding those skyscrapers took off. There are several other economic factors behind this reality that I won't bother to get into on this thread. Just know that office skyscrapers helped tip the economics behind urban center city living into Charlotte's favor. It certainly was NOT a lack of land availability like water-front cities with urban rivers.
Last edited by urbancharlotte; 05-01-2013 at 04:49 AM..
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.
All jokes aside, I was in a hurry and I probably could have written that post better. Just know that I was not talking about anything that you thought I was talking about. I do understand that the measure of a city isn't the skyscrapers alone; this is something that I don't need a lesson in from you or anybody else.
