Consequences of rapid population growth & development on resources and culture & economy of Hawai'i. (Honolulu: buying, luxury)
OahuIncludes Honolulu
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.
This is what I completely agree with. I've suggested building more towers and developing walkable neighborhoods like Kakaako in order to fit more people onto a smaller footprint and stop all the outward sprawl. But I'd also keep the current height limits and not provide exceptions.
There are an amazing number of poorly constructed or under utilized low-rise buidlings that could be replaced with new 400 ft high-rises in the downtown to Waikiki corridor. The governament has an opportunity to develop a really nice comprehensive plan with parks, bike paths, public art, wide sidewalks and natural vegitation.
At the same time, concentrating this limited height development here, would allow preservation of the rest of the island by stopping the ever expanding sprawl from crawling around the island.
Exactly. There are so many low-rise walk-ups in town that can be razed and filled with moderate-height and sustainable buildings. My banker friend told me one of his clients is building the country's tallest self-contained 100% solar-powered building right in the McCully area. He said it's 8 stories tall and can even go off the grid and run entirely independent from HECO - a world's first. Any taller and he said the building could not generate enough power to be true net zero so the developer capped the height to keep it energy-sustainable. Still, at 8 stories and the potential to go off the grid with HECO just as a back up source is truly amazing. That will be a world's first right here in our city. This kind of development is exactly what we need. Not these atrocious concrete and glass monsters that offer nothing but unsustainable hot boxes with views that will inevitably be blocked by future development.
I could get behind this - the area around Moana Pacific is a prime example of derelict properties that should be demolished and more Moana Pacific like properties built......
Personally, I don't think even 40-story towers are the right option. I think a city full of 8-10 story buildings provides a good compromise of vastly increased density (from what we currently have in most of the urban core) yet we can still preserve views, collect enough rain water on site to cover at least 50% of the building's future water needs and generate enough electricity via photovoltaics to provide 50% of the building's energy consumption.
High rise buildings reduce propinquity and feed class inequality. They are costly to build, maintain and power. The taller they are, the more material they need to build per square foot and the more energy they need to operate for perpetuity. And of course the overwhelming majority of people would prefer to see open mountain and ocean views rather than concrete and glass, regardless of how "beautiful" the architecture is, which is highly subjective. To the vast majority of us, nothing beats views of nature, especially those that reside in Hawaii.
The only benefit to these highrise buildings is the view through the hot glass windows but even that benefit (unless you live in a condo directly overlooking the water) will vaporize at some point. In the near future, these condo owners will have gorgeous views of not mountains or oceans... but other people through the glass of condos that will be built directly in front of them.
I find it so strange that people looking to buy a unit in a highrise condo will pay a premium for a view that will only last for a finite period of time. Yet they will be paying for the mortgage for half a life time and maintenance fees forever.
Exactly. There are so many low-rise walk-ups in town that can be razed and filled with moderate-height and sustainable buildings. My banker friend told me one of his clients is building the country's tallest self-contained 100% solar-powered building right in the McCully area. He said it's 8 stories tall and can even go off the grid and run entirely independent from HECO - a world's first. Any taller and he said the building could not generate enough power to be true net zero so the developer capped the height to keep it energy-sustainable. Still, at 8 stories and the potential to go off the grid with HECO just as a back up source is truly amazing. That will be a world's first right here in our city. This kind of development is exactly what we need. Not these atrocious concrete and glass monsters that offer nothing but unsustainable hot boxes with views that will inevitably be blocked by future development.
At the same time, I think it needs the local government to get behind a large scale master plan and proclaim this is the future we see for the type of sustainable development we need going forward. And provide some sort of overall direction and plan for the promotion of the "livability" portion of the area (parks, bike paths, public art, etc). Then, through use of zoning and tax incentives, promote the changes.
Without proper zoning and plan, you'll end up with a hodge-podge of things that aren't cohesive in the end. Plus, who'd want the 8 story building if high-rises are then built all around it and block out 50% of it's access to the sun for the solar aspect.
This is what I completely agree with. I've suggested building more towers and developing walkable neighborhoods like Kakaako in order to fit more people onto a smaller footprint and stop all the outward sprawl. But I'd also keep the current height limits and not provide exceptions.
There are an amazing number of poorly constructed or under utilized low-rise buidlings that could be replaced with new 400 ft high-rises in the downtown to Waikiki corridor. The governament has an opportunity to develop a really nice comprehensive plan with parks, bike paths, public art, wide sidewalks and natural vegitation.
At the same time, concentrating this limited height development here, would allow preservation of the rest of the island by stopping the ever expanding sprawl from crawling around the island.
Why does all this congestion have to be between Waikiki and Town? Build it in Kapolei where the rail is! It was supposed to be a second city anyway. What view would they be blocking out there?
Why does all this congestion have to be between Waikiki and Town? Build it in Kapolei where the rail is! It was supposed to be a second city anyway. What view would they be blocking out there?
I'm guessing people don't want views of smoke stacks that litter Campbell's?
That and the land values out there do not justify building up. No developer would build a highrise over 10 stories tall when land is so cheap. The numbers also don't pencil from a rental/resale standpoint. Construction cost alone would exceed the sale price they would be able to get in that area. And rental income would not cover the fully amortized cost of a developer's mortgage. Housing in Kapolei is cheap and that does not bode well for high density development.
This is why all the projects that start out there need a lease secured to them. Without a strong lease in hand, the projects would be entirely unfinanceable.
At the same time, I think it needs the local government to get behind a large scale master plan and proclaim this is the future we see for the type of sustainable development we need going forward. And provide some sort of overall direction and plan for the promotion of the "livability" portion of the area (parks, bike paths, public art, etc). Then, through use of zoning and tax incentives, promote the changes.
Without proper zoning and plan, you'll end up with a hodge-podge of things that aren't cohesive in the end. Plus, who'd want the 8 story building if high-rises are then built all around it and block out 50% of it's access to the sun for the solar aspect.
Your idea works if the cost of construction weren't so high here. There is no flexibility from a developer's standpoint - development here is highly costly and risky. Additional government requirements would only translate into higher costs for developers, less new developments and little chance of gentrification. If the government offered guidance, that's one thing. But if they start forcing developers to build "sustainably", very few would build. It would just be much of the same - old decrepit neighborhoods in prime locations with little chance for improvement. The new building/fire/development codes being adopted are raising construction costs significantly. Building permits can take years to get. This is on top of skyrocketing material costs and in some cases, labor. As high as prices are here on Oahu, large buildings (i.e. anything over 3 stories) are difficult to make a profit on.
You would definitely need a very unique property with corner street frontage (that nobody can build in front of), tiny standalone lots next door (tiny standalone lots only allow short buildings) and/or recently built developments next door (it's less likely a newly constructed building will be torn down in near future) to get a substantial savings with solar. But apparently they are possible according to my banker friend. I'm pretty sure they wouldn't finance the project if they could lose 50% of its production that easily. And while a 100% energy offset by solar would be amazing, many 8-10 story buildings could realize a 40-50% offset with solar if it was built as a high-performance building... and they don't need unique lots to realize that. With a 40-story building, you are looking at maybe a 5% offset.. If you're lucky.
The same can be said for a new highrise building. What if you bought a unit in a building with great views and then 2 years later the lowrise next door is demolished and a 400 ft tower goes in its place just 100 feet away from you. Before you had a great ocean view and full privacy... now you have zero ocean view and 300 residents staring into your living room. I'm pretty sure this would have an impact on the value, no different to the impact on the building's value if it invested in a solar system. And adjacent buildings can only reduce solar production - they can never eliminate it.
I mentioned this before that the building height limits was put into place to protect oahus landscape and gorgeous iconic view. The height limit was one of few measures in place to protect a way of life for a people. Mahalo.
It seems that the sprawl does more to destroy Oahu's landscape and view than taller buildings. I'm not talking about 1,000 foot supertalls, but there is definitely room for infill and replacement in the central Honolulu neighborhoods. Larger buildings concentrate the negative effects of human development in a smaller area. It seems the new, expansive suburban communities taken right out of Southern California are a larger threat to the Hawaiian lifestyle than a concentrated downtown core that can easily be avoided (as many parts of Waikiki/downtown already are by native Hawaiians). These communities are extending suburban America into the unique and priceless Hawaiian landscape and culture.
I guess I'm just not sold on the idea that height limits preserve a way of life (in favor of sprawl). Wouldn't it be better to urbanize 20% of Oahu and preserve the rest for the low-key towns/villages that represent the Hawaiian lifestyle?
It isn't what your saying that is wrong if in practical purposes it worked and thats the line in the sand we don't cross again. Imagine oahu when it was just waikiki and some parts of honolulu that was overdeveloped or Gentrified, each urban spraw or each community after waikiki and some parts of honolulu is just another foot past that line in the sand drawn years ago. If you give an inch. What used to be limitted to waikiki and maybe areas like ala moana 40+ years ago has now consumed the whole oahu except a few small communities on the north shore to now its working on other islands maui, b.i, kauai. A way or lifestyle is far more then scenery, its affordability, its pace, its values and alot more things. Scenery and aina is one of many thinks thou the aina is important. Honestly you should watch the video it really explains the issues in more detail. Its long but good.
Also im not talking just the native hawaiians lifestyle that is effected but locals or anybody whos old enough on the islands to know the difference.
Also what most don't understand is most are not opposed to development or growth. Most of us are in opposition of growth and development that isnt carefully planned out for the future or doesn't cause inbalance in society or life.
hong kong and singapore are top on my list of tourist destinations.
i've always been a fan of singapore urban development. its top notch and well-planned.
home ownership is at 90%. they place home ownership as a priority.
Me too. Well, I've been to Hong Kong and loved it. Singapore is one of my husband's favorite countries and he has been to over 100.
__________________ ____________________________________________
My posts as a Mod will always be in red.
Be sure to review Terms of Service: TOS
And check this out: FAQ
Moderator: Relationships Forum / Hawaii Forum / Dogs / Pets / Current Events
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.
