A few photos from this rather chilly afternoon.

http://i.imgur.com/ikrSQ8O.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/CzhgW5Q.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/OGeP6VJ.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/LY8bgSJ.jpg

I'm really liking the impact Northshore is having. I never really cared for that view of AMLI on 2nd, and I thought the gap between 360 and the W looked awkward. I hated seeing the view of the One American Center going away there, but I think the one of Northshore will be a good compromise since the two are somewhat similar.

Awesome shots!

Google Earth has updated their imagery for Austin. They now have 3D images of just about all the new buildings, including the Bowie and others. I'm not sure if you'll need to download the newest version of it or not. I had done so a few days ago.

:banana:

Austin needs a super tall really bad.

With an observation deck too! Something really futuristic looking would be nice...............

Not even a supertall specifically but something over 700' or 200m in the right location will really help give some dynamic to the skyline with the Austonian

Why does it need it "really bad"? It has 1 building over 200m and the current plateau is mostly around 400'.

Why does Austin NEED it over cities such as: Dallas, Miami, Boston, Toronto, Montreal, Pittsburgh, Vancouver, Minneapolis, Denver, Calgary, Seattle.... (and of course, Philadelphia and San Francisco until theirs are built) Always makes me think :koko::koko::koko: when people proclaim that these small cities suddenly NEED a supertall. How about starting with a second building that actually has a top floor over 500'?

Pittsburgh, Denver, and Vancouver aren't really bigger. The rest of your list definitely are larger, but those are in the same tier or set of tiers of metro as Austin:

Denver: 2.7 million
Vancouver: 2.4 million
Pittsburgh: 2.4 million
Austin: 1.9 million

Calgary, in fact, is smaller and in the tier beneath Austin with cities like Tucson, Birmingham, and Raleigh.

Raleigh: 1.2 million
Calgary: 1.2 million
Birmingham: 1.1 million
Tucson: 1.0 million

The other cities you listed fall into three other separate tiers:


DFW: 6.8 million
Toronto: 6.1 million
Philadelphia: 6.0 million
Miami: 5.8 million

Boston: 4.6 million
San Francisco: 4.5 million

Montreal: 3.8 million
Seattle: 3.6 million
Minneapolis: 3.5 million

If any of those cities "needs" a supertall, it's Dallas, and they're almost certain to get one proposed within the next couple of years. Toronto technically already has one, Philadelphia has one under construction, Miami will never have one because of height restrictions. Boston doesn't have the right development atmosphere. San Fran, of course, is getting one. Montreal's skyline couldn't support one currently, but a supertall would not look out of place in either Seattle or Minneapolis.

Denver could easily have a supertall fit in because of it's preexisting buildings, but Pittsburgh and Austin I am not sure about. Vancouver has height restrictions that are hard to work around, so it will likely never.

As for Calgary, they've got an impressive skyline for their size for sure, but I'm not sure that a city of that size has the necessary market forces to support taller structures. That actually probably applies to Pittsburgh as well, though not because the metro is small. Austin and Denver certainly have strong enough economies that it's within the realm of possibility, though certainly not likely by any stretch of the imagination.

I find it strange that posters like DZH22 - and he's not alone - have such concerns bordering on resentment about other city's skylines. I wish every city could get a supertall. My panties certainly don't get in a wad when someone makes a casual comment about any particular city needing a supertall.

Wow, Happy Birthday Austin, you don't look a day over 174

I don't know if Austin needs a supertall more than any other city but I do know that the Austin skyline has changed more in the past 10 years than just about any city in North America. In the past decade it has gone from being one of the weakest skylines to very competitive with other similarly-sized cities and for that,
http://rockbodychallenge.files.wordp...ipping_hat.jpg

I'm really just talking about skylines here. Every city I mentioned already has a larger skyline than Austin (even with its current construction), and a supertall would "fit in" better.

Actually, it might. New mayor, who is a big union guy. A 685' currently U/C with a 700'+ (full height still unknown) in prep phase. The city is expected to more than double its total amount of 600'+ towers (currently 5 completed) within the next 5-6 years, and there are a couple specific sites that could support a supertall. Plus, the Olympics might be coming! (God help us)

If Montreal's skyline couldn't support it, why could Austin's? Montreal's skyline is significantly larger.

I like to see skylines grow "organically". What I mean by this is I don't want to see new tallest buildings utterly dominate their respective skylines, so much as complement them. I feel like Austin would do better to build, say, 4-5 more buildings over 500', with at least one of them having a roof or crown (not just spire) topping 700', preferably 2. At that point a new ~1000' pinnacle would fit in better. It would rule the skyline without BEING the skyline. I want cities all over to build new tallest buildings, but I feel like "supertalls" are wholly unnecessary until those skylines reach a certain level.

If a single tower is too much taller than the rest of the skyline, then the tower will look like it stands by itself. I'm not a fan. I realize in ways I am being hypocritical because of the way Boston developed with the Pru, but that finished in 1964 and I wasn't born until the 80's. If I was around then I probably would have thought that looked stupid too.

By the way, clearly you do get your panties in a wad over some things. In this case, it's somebody stating their opinion that a skyline should develop a little more before building something outlandishly taller than its surroundings. There are plenty of skylines that have stagnated, and would "need" that supertall more than booming Austin. (which, as somebody pointed out, went from atrocious to really solid in only a decade) I think an Austin supertall would make a lot more sense about a decade from now than it does today. Maybe a little sooner if it keeps growing the way it has been.

Oh also, I visited Austin in 2009 when I was debating moving there. A big reason was my excitement over the building boom. I'm not resentful at all. Don't pretend like you know me.

Austin is gonna have an awesome cityscape in 10-15 years!

I grew up in the Austin area. I graduated high school around the time Frost was built - and it had a crazy impact on the skyline at the time. Crazy to see how things are coming along. I get back every year or so, and every time I come into town it's exploded yet again.

^I know right! It seems like since Frost was built which is around 2004(correct me if I'm wrong) the skyline just metamorphosed/exploded! A beautiful sight to see indeed.

x-posting from the Austin sub-forum:

Not only is it a fat ugly box, but its walkways are elevated which is cancerous to street life and activity. It destroys the relationship between the building and the surrounding city. It might as well be in the suburbs.

It's infill. It's better than a big empty lot. But it sucks. I wouldn't hate it so much if it, at least, didn't have elevated walkways and they spruced up the look of it a bit more. This is 2015 Austin not 1978 Austin. Come on, people!

Austin, TX Downtown from Castle Hill
 

Where does it show the elevated walkways? I've only seen the one angle.

In the one angle. You don't see the steps?

I would just like to see a supertall in the form of a cool iconic public observation deck like the CN Tower, Tokyo Sky Tree, and of course most famously- the Eiffel Tower. I know it's kind of a waste of money, but perhaps a billionaire who made his fortune here might want to immortalize himself....cough cough Michael Dell cough cough....and PAY for it himself too....