It's different when there is more of a unified front towards policy and planning. Austin was able to lay the ground work for much of their development because the council members do not represent a geographic part of town; they are elected at large. There was more of an interest for everyone to see developing the inner core as something for the city instead of questioning why one district may be getting all of the dollars.
That is not to say that is the only difference or reason why Austin took off, but it certainly helps in removing roadblocks. Now whether that is a good thing or not can be debated. Long time residents in some neighborhoods probably feel like the city has not looked after their concerns as much as the wishes of developers, but who can they hold accountable?
As far as height, I would agree with jeffreininger, build something that is smart, aesthetically pleasing and creates a comfortable environment. Don't chase all development dollars for the sake of getting something; have a plan, stick to that plan. It's all about quality. Somewhere people want to be, and I can see it starting to take hold north and south of downtown by the activity in those areas when I visit. I wouldn't call it bustling (although it does at times), but it certainly isn't comatose any more.
At the same time, there are huge dead zones in and around downtown. So, long way to go, but hopefully the city's current and future leaders stay committed. One thing I would do is stop annexing, maybe even give some territory up, and focus on a more manageable area.
So way off topic. As far as the Joskee's building, I think there has to be a better use of that space than what they have proposed. I don't really have a lot of faith in the current owners. I didn't like the changes they made to the look of the mall. It didn't make sense with the supposed changes they were going to make to Joskees building. They don't seem to really know what they want to do at this point.