Quote:
Originally Posted by wwmiv
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:
|
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wwmiv
Boston doesn't have the right development atmosphere.
|
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)
Quote:
Originally Posted by wwmiv
Montreal's skyline couldn't support one currently, but a supertall would not look out of place in either Seattle or Minneapolis.
|
If Montreal's skyline couldn't support it, why could Austin's? Montreal's skyline is significantly larger.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hill Country
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.
|
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.