SEATTLE | 701 Fourth Avenue | 1,020 FT | 91 FLOORS

[mrnyc]

wow what a proposal -- hmm, the 3rd one seems the most seattley to me

[mSeattle]

^Yes, and many of us wish to climb out of the "box" and stomp on it.

[1Boston]

I like the second design the best, but I think it would be even better if it was turned upside down. So that it went from curved to box.

[TallBob]

Proposal #1 or #2! Not liking #3 at all!

[N830MH]

Originally Posted by TallBob

Proposal #1 or #2 are my picks!

Only 1 at a time. You have picks one, but not 2.

[viewguysf]

Be very leery of Crescent Heights since they have recently built several looser towers here, one of which is particularly hideous and prominent.

"Jasper" is the scourge of Rincon Hill and most of us hate it because of its blank west side that faces the city. It is by far the worst tower of the eight others constructed in the area. http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/show...115515&page=21

"NEMA" started out to be promising, but is cheap, not well done, and is already not aging well. http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/show...128011&page=18

Crescent Heights has two other very prominent development sites in the City that are definitely a cause for concern.

[CHELSEANYC]

Neither of those looks bad to me. And we can see the design here in detail. No blank walls.

[TallBob]

N830MH: OK....Maybe I'd like to see both #1 & #2 built!!

[SFView]

Originally Posted by viewguysf

Be very leery of Crescent Heights since they have recently built several looser towers here, one of which is particularly hideous and prominent.

"Jasper" is the scourge of Rincon Hill and most of us hate it because of its blank west side that faces the city. It is by far the worst tower of the eight others constructed in the area. http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/show...115515&page=21

"NEMA" started out to be promising, but is cheap, not well done, and is already not aging well. http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/show...128011&page=18

Crescent Heights has two other very prominent development sites in the City that are definitely a cause for concern.

This may be true for the two projects you mentioned in San Francisco, but the conditions for 701 Fourth Avenue in Seattle are not the same. The design quality may be different as a result. The same goes for the newer projects in San Francisco. As you know, projects by others, even with great designs and good reputations sometimes get value engineered with great disappointment. Large projects are typically complicated and often unpredictable. Limitations may arise that force difficult compromises. We'll just have to wait and see. Hopefully these designs for the newer towers turn out much better.

[mSeattle]

This one might probably be a bit shorter than proposed:


Proposed 102-story tower would be too tall for FAA approval
http://www.seattlepi.com/local/artic...AA-6735891.php

[Dale]

I'm not sure if this is a knockout. I'd look to see a compromise at least.

[Zapatan]

Originally Posted by mSeattle

This one might probably be a bit shorter than proposed:


Proposed 102-story tower would be too tall for FAA approval
http://www.seattlepi.com/local/artic...AA-6735891.php

I have a more fiery hatred of the FAA every day... there's a near supertall right next to this that planes come nowhere near. Freakin' c'mon. It's not like downtown Seattle is right next to the f*cking airport.

[viewguysf]

Originally Posted by Zapatan

I have a more fiery hatred of the FAA every day... there's a near supertall right next to this that planes come nowhere near. Freakin' c'mon. It's not like downtown Seattle is right next to the f*cking airport.

I thought Columbia Center's height was reduced because of its proximity to Boeing Field, plus it was not allowed to have antennas.

[InlandEmpire]

There was a statement out today on our local news station that Crescent Heights deals with this in Miami regularly, and the FAA notice of potential hazard is a fairly common issue....they seem confident they will be able to negotiate their way out of this.

[tateyb]

Plans for Seattle Supertall in Jeopardy

The FAA stated it would approve a 302-metre, 992-foot revised proposal — measured from the ground level on the building's western corner along Columbia Street between 3rd and 4th Avenues — which would still make it the tallest building in the city. Each corner is assessed individually by the FAA and more significant restrictions have been placed on the rest of the site, the shortest of which is a 965-foot limit at 4th Avenue and Cherry Street. The current tallest building, Columbia Center, was also slapped with a height decrease from the FAA when it was originally proposed.

[JDRCRASH]

Arrghh, couldn't they allow just another 9 feet??? Would it really make THAT MUCH of a difference??

[shakman]

302m would still be a supertall.

[chris08876]

Originally Posted by JDRCRASH

Arrghh, couldn't they allow just another 9 feet??? Would it really make THAT MUCH of a difference??

Think about the children!!!



....


Well

...

good news still. I mean, as long as its a super tall its a great leap for most U.S. cities. Stupid FAA. See, we will never be like China because of the FAA. Take Miami, 6 super talls in the pipeline as of now (one proposed today), and the FAA nazis make life harder for those who seek to reach the skies.

Speaking of the FAA, a near super tall in JC (99 Hudson) is too much (true story)...

But they settle with 900 ft. Because those extra 90 ft pose a problem (even though there are 20 super talls in the near future just a river away)

[viewguysf]

Originally Posted by JDRCRASH

Arrghh, couldn't they allow just another 9 feet??? Would it really make THAT MUCH of a difference??

Only 8 feet to reach 1,000!

[Flyers2001]

I was hoping it would reach that 1000ft mark for you Seattle, but 992 is nothing to scoff at. Its location and design is far more important. Seattle already has a fabulous skyline and this would most def. be another jewel for it.