Quote:
Originally Posted by ahealy
Yeah, as someone who lives in a 400+ft building I appreciate tall slender towers, but I'm more concerned with density, public transit, and affordable options downtown.
|
I totally agree with the "affordable options" from your comment. I contend that perhaps 10% of the square footage of all residential buildings be set aside for small one bedroom units and studio/efficiency units
AT THE SAME $$/sq.ft. the rest of the units sell/rent for. I know this is "socialism" to a degree, however, "capitalism" as practiced now is buying affordable housing complexes all over Austin and tearing them down to build Luxury Only buildings with few if any small units. I believe many people would live in smaller places they can afford...to live in the hood they want to live in.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OU812
.... What is considered "super tall" -- above 700' ..?? ....
Let's have a 1,000 footer!!
|
A "super Tall" defined on this forum are projects with a minimum height of 300 meters / 984 feet.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Syndic
Count me down as someone who doesn't want a supertall. Those are gaudy and tacky in a city they don't belong in. I want more height across the board. Only then will a supertall not look out-of-place. Right now, a supertall would only be a status symbol and that's not in keeping with Austin's personality.
|
A "super tall" in Austin now would be 750 tall. That height would rise above everything else. Any building higher would probably look "gaudy and tacky' as you mentioned. I certainly do not want a trophy tower in Austin...we are a much more relaxed and self confidant populous than that.