AUSTIN | Projects & Construction II

[KevinFromTexas]

Originally Posted by OU812

There must be over 1000 high rises on that island alone..

According to Emporis.com, New York City in fact has at least 5,792 high rises. That number only includes buildings that are inside of New York's city limits. This number is referring to buildings that are 115 feet tall or taller, or that have at least 12 floors. By the same classification, Austin has about 170 high rises.

New York doesn't even have the highest number of high rises of any city. There are cities in South America and Asia with more high rises by as many as several more thousand buildings.

[shanny]

so I cant be the only one who went out and took pictures today...

[KevinFromTexas]

I went Monday. I grabbed a photo of the skyline from the Austin Motel like you had asked a while back.

Nice pics. I'm glad you went up to the hill. I went on Monday, but got there after dark.

[Mopacs]

Here are a few distant shots I took this week and last:











Last week's hazy daze of May.
This is from Mopac and 183 in Northwest Austin.

[hookem]

Great pics. I think Kevin mentioned earlier in the thread how the skyline view from the airport is shaping up. I was there today, and boy is that right! Driving west on 71 as you leave the airport area, the skyline is really looking great. The biggest surprise, to me, is how much Legacy contributes from that angle. It stands out against the hills, with the cluster of 360/Austonian/Ashton to the right and finally Frost standing out as always. Makes the hills and the skyline look bigger somehow! Wish I had a pic.

[NThomas]

Construction pics from last weekend of Gables Park Plaza. I never thought this would have turned out as good as it has!

[Strayone]

That would be correct, the first time I saw a picture of Sao Paulo, I was startled by the endless sea of what appears to be 20 story cinder block apartments. It's the equivalent of a human ant hill and it must be the most crowded spot on the planet.

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

.

New York doesn't even have the highest number of high rises of any city. There are cities in South America and Asia with more high rises by as many as several more thousand buildings.

[StoOgE]

Originally Posted by OU812

Austin's skyline vs. NYC (& Chicago) is really an applies to oranges comparison. Esp NYC...it's not only the height but the sheer density of Manhattan skyscrapers that's on a whole different planet/solar-system/galaxy than Austin's. The 1st time I visited in '99, the plane flew alongside the island on the way to LaGuardia. I sat on the right side with a perfect view under clear skys. The plane even banked to the right for an even better view as we approached lower Manhattan. I was absolutely stunned.....There must be over 1000 high rises on that island alone.. The largest skyline I had seen previous to that trip was Dallas', and I thought Austin's was tiny in comparison;-))

oh, don't get me wrong. It's not even close. and I'm not trying to compare the two at all.. just mentioning that the changes in the last 2-3 years have managed to make Austin slightly less unimpressive when I returned home.

[OU812]

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

New York doesn't even have the highest number of high rises of any city. There are cities in South America and Asia with more high rises by as many as several more thousand buildings.

Yup. But I think what makes Manhattan unique is how their skyscrapers are squeezed onto this fairly small island. There are probably other cities outside of the US that might look similiar, but I've never seen them firsthand, so I can't comment. In pictures, Tokyo and Bangkok appear to have very impressively dense skylines.

[OU812]

Originally Posted by StoOgE

oh, don't get me wrong. It's not even close. and I'm not trying to compare the two at all.. just mentioning that the changes in the last 2-3 years have managed to make Austin slightly less unimpressive when I returned home.

Yeah Austin's downtown is starting to look like a "big" city's downtown- even though we're still rather mid-sized, or 2nd tier. Which brings to mind something I hear alot: Austin is the largest American city without a pro sports team. I wonder when we'll get one and what sport it'll be.

[crewer]

Originally Posted by OU812

Yup. But I think what makes Manhattan unique is how their skyscrapers are squeezed onto this fairly small island. There are probably other cities outside of the US that might look similiar, but I've never seen them firsthand, so I can't comment. In pictures, Tokyo and Bangkok appear to have very impressively dense skylines.

I was recently in both Bangkok and Tokyo, and though they have skylines, I didn't find them to be as impressive as Hong Kong's skyline, which is especially dramatic since the skyscrapers are built directly on surrounding hills/mountains.

Tokyo and Bangkok, though densely populated, sprawl everywhere, but the skyscrapers, unlike NYC, are not as concentrated.

Bangkok went through a huge building boom in the late 90's, but was hit hard during an economic downturn. Amazingly enough, you can still see abandoned skyscrapers that were never completed throughout the city.

[Northcrossed]

Originally Posted by OU812

...pro sports team. I wonder when we'll get one and what sport it'll be.

We won't. UT provides all the pro-quality sports we need. The athletics industry doesn't work without taxpayers lavishing hundreds of millions of dollars on the already-wealthy franchise owners for underutilized facilities that will get torn-down 25 years later because they're not shiney and new anymore. Austin taxpayers will never pay for that.

Also, Austin isn't a large-enough TV market. UT has a natural statewide audience, but an Austin team wouldn't mean much outside of central Texas.

[migol24]

Originally Posted by Northcrossed

We won't. UT provides all the pro-quality sports we need. The athletics industry doesn't work without taxpayers lavishing hundreds of millions of dollars on the already-wealthy franchise owners for underutilized facilities that will get torn-down 25 years later because they're not shiney and new anymore. Austin taxpayers will never pay for that.

Also, Austin isn't a large-enough TV market. UT has a natural statewide audience, but an Austin team wouldn't mean much outside of central Texas.

larg enough tv market??? even okalhoma city has a basketball team... and even if san antonio has a basketball team who's had a successful franchise, how does austin not qualify?

[priller]

You may remember Austin's voters turned down the expansion baseball team several years ago. It was as Northcrossed said, they came in wanted money, stadium, tax breaks, etc, from the city. All the while tellings us what a great investment it was and how much money it would bring in. The voters responded by saying -- and rightly, I think -- that if it was such a sure-fire money maker then they shouldn't have any problems finding private investors for their venture. We voted it down. So they just went to Round Rock where it was approved.

[hookem]

Originally Posted by Northcrossed

We won't. UT provides all the pro-quality sports we need. The athletics industry doesn't work without taxpayers lavishing hundreds of millions of dollars on the already-wealthy franchise owners for underutilized facilities that will get torn-down 25 years later because they're not shiney and new anymore. Austin taxpayers will never pay for that.

Also, Austin isn't a large-enough TV market. UT has a natural statewide audience, but an Austin team wouldn't mean much outside of central Texas.

I agree. A mainline pro sports team may come, but it is a loooooong way off. If SA's TV market can just barely support an NBA team (not saying they don't love their Spurs, I love them too, but just saying it's not a large market), even without the competition of a huge college team in the same town... I don't think there is any way Austin can support a major pro franchise until the metro is at least 3.5 million people. And that could be 20 years. But by that time, there just might be enough TV-addicted, non-political, sports fan suburbanites to actually approve a taxpayer funded facility. Which is why any stadium for pro sports would probably end up in Cedar Park or Round Rock.

[Downtown_Austin]

Originally Posted by hookem

I agree. A mainline pro sports team may come, but it is a loooooong way off. If SA's TV market can just barely support an NBA team (not saying they don't love their Spurs, I love them too, but just saying it's not a large market), even without the competition of a huge college team in the same town... I don't think there is any way Austin can support a major pro franchise until the metro is at least 3.5 million people. And that could be 20 years. But by that time, there just might be enough TV-addicted, non-political, sports fan suburbanites to actually approve a taxpayer funded facility. Which is why any stadium for pro sports would probably end up in Cedar Park or Round Rock.

Pigs will fly and Jeff Jack will architect a residential tower before Austin gets a pro-sports franchise. Let's hope none-of-the above happen.

[Northcrossed]

Originally Posted by migol24

larg[e] enough tv market??? even [oklahoma] city has a basketball team... and even if san antonio has a basketball team who's had a successful franchise, how does austin not qualify?

OKC is the #46 Nielsen TV market with 673,700 households. Austin is #54 with 583,700 households, and the Spurs are a 1.5 hour drive away (or 2 hour-ish commuter train ride, some day). BTW: SA is #37 with 793,500 households.

But, hey, let Cedar Park and/or Round Rock pay for a billionaire's sports arena-hotel-condo-mall-restaurant-convention center-water park-pipe dream...it's their bond rating at risk, not mine.

Now, if someone will mention Austin not having an amusement park we can reprise that classic topic too.

[JGFrisco]

Here's a question. Austin is significantly larger than OKC...and the radio market size is larger (I checked), but the TV market is smaller. Why?

[Paul in S.A TX]

Austin is looking sexy!! great pics!

[migol24]

Originally Posted by Northcrossed

OKC is the #46 Nielsen TV market with 673,700 households. Austin is #54 with 583,700 households, and the Spurs are a 1.5 hour drive away (or 2 hour-ish commuter train ride, some day). BTW: SA is #37 with 793,500 households.

But, hey, let Cedar Park and/or Round Rock pay for a billionaire's sports arena-hotel-condo-mall-restaurant-convention center-water park-pipe dream...it's their bond rating at risk, not mine.

Now, if someone will mention Austin not having an amusement park we can reprise that classic topic too.

i'm not even sure how that figure adds up. i'm not too big on the idea myself of having a professional franchise team... (although it kinda would be cool). i'm just comparing population to households how those numbers are figured. oklahoma has an estimated pop. of 537,734 according to wikipedia, but then there are over 600,000 households?? i mean that would mean every person has a house... and some others have more than one?? am i missing something? am i that stupid here?

austin has an estimated pop. of 743,074. how does austin have lesser households?

even if you went by metropolitan pop. austin beats it 1.6 mill to 1.2 mill. not to mention considering that austin has been the second largest growing metro population in the nation, after raleigh, nc. that's according to forbes.com, wikipedia, and census bureau.

btw, i always take an hour to get to san antonio when i drive there.