The rising Western skyline
 

Even if a few of them are a bit tall and might somehow "threaten the view", I think it's great that cities are trying to densify by building upwards, rather than sprawling further and further out. I don't think they're all gonna necessarily do what Austin has done over the last several years, but a few skyscrapers that are "new talls" for a city skyline wont hurt.

Only slight issue I have here is that density isn't really gained by building a few very tall buildings, but instead by building huge numbers of mid rise buildings or even just very dense housing like row homes. There's plenty of cities in the US with some very impressive skyscrapers but incredibly low density (like say Atlanta).

oh heaven forfend, the parking lots on the east side of denver's downtown might get filled up, displacing residents' cars...

huh?

Wasn't Denver's supertall just a fantasy concept? And I thought Seattle's one thousand footer was dead or in limbo.

I can't help but laugh at the idea of a skyscraper somehow blocking a mountain/ocean view (for other than maybe a handful of people in condo towers), this is the dumbest article ever.

Shows how little you understand the mentality of the view-blessed west. You really keep posting from a very narrow perspective.

Much of San Francisco's NIMBY mentality owes its vigor to hillside residents not wanting views blocked. Whole neighborhoods like Mission Bay have had heights restricted by residents of adjacent 'hoods for this reason. I can recall at least 2 ballot initiatives, both of which passed, trying to block a "wall on the waterfront".

One of the greatest ironies of current development in the city is how the owner-residents of the Four Seasons Residences took an adjacent, taller project to court and probably delayed it by a year or so. That project, once it won the case (because courts have repeatedly held, in numerous cases, that there is no right to a view) and got going was sold to . . . Four Seasons. But the fact there have been numerous cases is the point here. People keep trying, sometimes successfully and sometimes not, to protect their views.

Don't get me wrong. I agree with you there. Lower density is what makes these cities grow a lot faster. I see a lot of this in Kansas City. Besides old building renovations and the occasional new 25 story towers, brand new complexes ranging from 4 to 6 stories are going up left and right from south of downtown to midtown throughout, and it's really making a difference in that part of the city. I think my post was more in response to cities who are afraid to build upwards to 50 to 60 stories. I don't think it hurts to have a few towers sprinkled in there, just so as long as it doesn't start to look like Hong Kong, or even Vancouver.... (no offense, Vancouver). ;)

I think out of the cities on that list Seattle is densifying the fastest by far. We probably don't need 4/C, I think the Columbia Tower is a great tallest and still the most numbers of floors on the west coast.

I'm a bit surprised that Phoenix hasn't done much with their skyline, for a city that will likely be approaching 2 million possibly by 2030, and a metro area that's growing even faster. I do realize that Downtown Phoenix can't put up anything taller than what's already there due to the airport nearby, but I'm surprised that there's not much going on in the pipeline. I'm also surprised that suburban enclaves like Mesa (approaching 500,000), Chandler, Scottsdale, Glendale, and Gilbert, (Approximately 250,000) haven't tried to come up with a semi-rival skyline, kinda like what Evanston, White Plains, Bellevue, and Clayton has successfully done. :sly:

Yes to both (the proposals and that it's a stupid article), as cool as it would have been.

Please do not restrict your comments in this thread to the 4 exemplary cities mentioned. I think the authors of the article mean it to apply to others and there's no reason it shouldn't. Even LA and SF are fair game even though from an East Coast perspective those are often taken as already mature metropolises and so not used as examples.

I think if Tucson were planning anything tall, for example, it would be very relevant. But it seems to have had a late 20th Century growth spurt resulting in a skyline of sorts but nothing much has really happened regarding tall buildings in several decades now (though the population of the metro continues to grow).

Tempe has Phoenix's semi-rival skyline. And that is where most of the urban development in their metro is going. Tempe has the same issues as downtown with regards to height and the airport. I wonder if Midtown has the same restrictions. If not that will probably grow into the supertall skyline if it ever comes to Phoenix.

While it's true that downtown Phoenix's skyline isn't spectacular in comparison to other city skylines, let's not pretend as though not much is going on in the pipeline. Downtown has seen a tremendous difference in the past few years and will continue to moving forward. Tempe has exploded as well. You can always visit the actual Southwest forum to find out more: http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/forumdisplay.php?f=643

I would say Phoenix slightly underperforms for its size, but there isn't nothing. There are currently 3 200+ ft. residential towers going up, with a fourth about to start, and 1 office tower. I would say there are probably about a dozen proposals in and around downtown at varying states of progress and varying likelihoods of being built. And like a lot of other metros, there's a constant stream of the 4-5 story wood construction urbanish apartments going up in the central core. There's less construction probably than an Austin or other metros with big construction booms, but most Phoenix-area folks are pretty happy because it's currently so much better than we're used to.

As a general rule, Midtown does not have the same restrictions (or at least the restrictions there are much higher than downtown, which generally ranges from 400-600 feet).

Mesa has tried its damnedest to get any sort of urbanish development going downtown, pretty much to no avail. They've invested heavily in light rail, and will entitle basically anything that comes its way. I was hopeful a year or two ago because there was a spate of proposals for city-owned parking lots in and around downtown, but none of them seem likely to be built at this point. Its latest hope is that a satellite ASU campus will spur development. We'll see.

Gilbert has been very successful in revitalizing its little downtown as a bar/restaurant/nightlife destination with sort of a more family-oriented bent than Tempe or Scottsdale. Will be interesting to see if they can (and want to) parlay that into office and residential development.

Tempe and Scottsdale are where most of the development is. Tempe seems more willing to go up--there are at least a half dozen 100+ ft buildings either under construction or with building permits.

I probably should have mentioned Tempe, since I did check out their skyline on Google Earth. I know much of it is centered around the campus, but it looks pretty decent, nonetheless. Hopefully they continue to build up.

I guess I should have clarified when I said, not much is in the pipeline for Phoenix. I was looking at proposals on Wikipedia, and only saw a few buildings around 200 feet that were approved or currently under construction. I guess I was thinking more of buildings closer to 400-500 feet. Oh well. Hope they can continue densifying downtown. :)

This makes no sense, a two story building would block your precious hillside view so we should have no development at all.

Denver, Sacramento and Long Beach are all flat so nobody on the ground is getting their view obstructed. Even in those select hilly cities a skyscraper might only block views for a handful of people but for many more people it greatly enhances their views.

Oops!! I was looking at the wrong source. Need to explore this site a bit more carefully..lol

:tup: :cheers:

I'll get killed on here for this but....


I've always imagined Phoenix having a Dubai-like skyline scattered across the metro.