AUSTIN | Misc. Discussions - No Politics

[KevinFromTexas]

There's a neat article on Pilot Knob, the modest little hill in Southeast Austin near the airport that is actually a volcano. My brother and I and our dad used to pick up volcanic rock along FM 812 back in the day.

Looking back at the life of Austin’s once-explosive volcano, Pilot Knob

[Armybrat]

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

There's a neat article on Pilot Knob, the modest little hill in Southeast Austin near the airport that is actually a volcano. My brother and I and our dad used to pick up volcanic rock along FM 812 back in the day.

Looking back at the life of Austin’s once-explosive volcano, Pilot Knob

My UT geology class took several busloads on a field trip out there in 1962. We saw a lot of fossilized seashells, as the instructor described how the volcanic knob had become an islet with a reef formation around it.

[Tech House]

An article titled "Why Can't We Build Skinny Skyscrapers Everywhere?" should be of interest to most on this forum. Most of us would like to see more skinny skyscrapers and fewer Fats Domino -- I mean, fat dominoes. Overall, it would just be nice to see a larger number of towers in the same amount of space, with greater variety in shapes, sizes, and styles. But we do have a lovely developing skyline so I don't mean to complain!

http://www.citylab.com/design/2014/0...ywhere/373493/

[KevinFromTexas]

Originally Posted by Tech House

An article titled "Why Can't We Build Skinny Skyscrapers Everywhere?" should be of interest to most on this forum. Most of us would like to see more skinny skyscrapers and fewer Fats Domino -- I mean, fat dominoes. Overall, it would just be nice to see a larger number of towers in the same amount of space, with greater variety in shapes, sizes, and styles. But we do have a lovely developing skyline so I don't mean to complain!

http://www.citylab.com/design/2014/0...ywhere/373493/

Of course New York and Chicago are skyscraper meccas, but the skinny tower idea is really taking off there. Here are two examples.

The first one is a new 1,000 foot, 70-story tower planned for Brooklyn. It's pencil thin and being built atop the wing of an old lowrise.
http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/show...=212048&page=5

And then there's this 1,002 foot 86-story building in Chicago that will be cantilevered over the airspace of a historic building. Because the old building is historic and is protected from ever being demolished, they were able to sell their "air rights" to the developer next door who will then build tall within their air space. I can also see this as a way of building in Austin where it's desirable to keep old buildings and build above them. It's a good way of compensating for the limitations of density in downtown because of the capitol view corridors.
http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=218947

[The ATX]

I love skinny towers. My current favorite skyscraper on the planet is this super tall in NYC that is almost finished. It's so skinny... so simple... so unpretentious...


http://www.worldarchitecture.org/aut...or-divide.html

[The ATX]

And now for something completely off topic...

Clip on Man Buns!


https://www.groupon.com/deals/gg-ins...inkId=18634299

[the Genral]

Originally Posted by The ATX

And now for something completely off topic...

Clip on Man Buns!


https://www.groupon.com/deals/gg-ins...inkId=18634299

Princess Leia called and wants a percentage of the profits.

[Jdawgboy]

Originally Posted by The ATX

And now for something completely off topic...

Clip on Man Buns!


https://www.groupon.com/deals/gg-ins...inkId=18634299

Why??? Why is this even a thing????

[MichaelB]

Originally Posted by The ATX

I love skinny towers. My current favorite skyscraper on the planet is this super tall in NYC that is almost finished. It's so skinny... so simple... so unpretentious...


http://www.worldarchitecture.org/aut...or-divide.html

Currently working in NYC
Interestingly enough, everyone here I've talked to hates it.
General feeling is that it's cold and out of place.

[KevinFromTexas]

Yeah, I'm not a fan of 432 Park. I guess I just don't get it. I appreciate the simplicity of it, but it's so tall, skinny and plain that it actually feels like it's missing something. If it were maybe half the height it would seem not so odd maybe. On a different and larger lot with a bundled tube design (similar to the Willis Tower), it could be beautiful and more interesting.

[hookem]

What I don't understand is who would pay upwards of $75M for the penthouse, when it must sway significantly on a building like that... I'd imagine you would get used to it, like on a cruise ship, but still it must be enough to swish around water in the bath or toilet. Maybe even move tableware and pictures hanging on the wall. I'm not sure I'd enjoy living more than 40 stories up, especially not in a narrow building like that (although I'd love to visit to check out the amazing views).

[the Genral]

Originally Posted by hookem

What I don't understand is who would pay upwards of $75M for the penthouse, when it must sway significantly on a building like that... I'd imagine you would get used to it, like on a cruise ship, but still it must be enough to swish around water in the bath or toilet. Maybe even move tableware and pictures hanging on the wall. I'm not sure I'd enjoy living more than 40 stories up, especially not in a narrow building like that (although I'd love to visit to check out the amazing views).

But everyone does get their own floor, and a view from each side. I was checking out the one closest to the Empire State Building last year and I really didn't like the way it looked despite the height. But, unless they start popping up all over the city, a couple of them adds to the skyline in a unique way.

[drummer]

I read an article about these going up in Midtown Manhatten and it sounded like they were expecting more and more of these in that area - don't recall the website or anything, but it was just an architectural/urbanism opinion piece.

[austlar1]

Originally Posted by the Genral

But everyone does get their own floor, and a view from each side. I was checking out the one closest to the Empire State Building last year and I really didn't like the way it looked despite the height. But, unless they start popping up all over the city, a couple of them adds to the skyline in a unique way.

They are popping up all over Midtown, especially on W.57th, and there are one or two other super-tall skinny towers happening just north of the financial district. I think they are strange looking and don't really contribute to the skyline in a good way. Maybe I just have an attitude about the kind of people who are living in (or owning) these units, and that causes me to find them distasteful.

[The ATX]

Originally Posted by austlar1

Maybe I just have an attitude about the kind of people who are living in (or owning) these units, and that causes me to find them distasteful.

I really think that is why so many people hate high rises. They see them as evil corporate empires or playgrounds for the rich who are looking down on them.

[austlar1]

Originally Posted by The ATX

I really think that is why so many people hate high rises. They see them as evil corporate empires or playgrounds for the rich who are looking down on them.

I've got nothing against high rises, but I find it distasteful that people spend 50 or 100 million dollars on an apartment that is likely to be occupied for just a few weeks every year. I think it is just vulgar and wasteful. Manhattan has always had very rich people (and some merely well off people too) living in luxury in some of the most wonderful high-rise (well we used to call them high rises) apartment buildings ever built. The kind of super high-rise development taking place along W. 57th St and elsewhere in Manhattan is something else entirely. It has no human scale. The 57th St. buildings cast long shadows that reach into Central Park. W57th used to have a wonderful kind of NYC scale and energy. It was a street where you could still see the sky. The blocks west of Fifth Ave had wonderful almost Old World detail. Much of W 57th is slated to become a dark canyon lined with buildings that are just too tall to be appreciated at street level. I might get used to it, and my NYC days are mostly behind me anyway. I just don't like the skinny towers poking up into the sky in such an arrogant manner.

[Jdawgboy]

This is a very interesting conversation. Who would have thought (at least myself), that there would be concerns over highrise encroachment in NYC of all places.

It's enlightening to get different perspectives on these "supertall point towers" and I've wondered about those kinds of things like how much these buildings would sway for example.

My take on it is as lot space becomes ever smaller and smaller, undoubtedly there will be more proposals for towers like these in a city like New York but it may open the door for similar towers in other cities.

Look at the revived hotel proposal on Congress between 4th and 5th streets. It's not going to be a supertall or anywhere near that but it is going to be the skinniest, if I'm getting my facts right in DT. Then we can look to the Aloft, another building that will be fairly skinny. We may be running out of full city blocks but we still have quite a few half and quarter lots scattered around, yet we are already seeing buildings and proposals on even smaller lots. It makes sense really when you consider that in order to try to become compact, you have to utilize what you have with the space you have.

I know its not the size of the footprint that some on here are not fond of, it's the shear height that these needle point type towers are getting and their overall impact on their surroundings as well as on the skyline. That building going up in Manhattan reminds me of the long Tetris piece. lol

It's going to take some getting used to but like all new and different things, it will eventually be just another type of highrise that will someday become fairly common not just in NYC or Chicago, but in other cities too.

[the Genral]

Originally Posted by Tech House

An article titled "Why Can't We Build Skinny Skyscrapers Everywhere?" should be of interest to most on this forum. Most of us would like to see more skinny skyscrapers and fewer Fats Domino -- I mean, fat dominoes. Overall, it would just be nice to see a larger number of towers in the same amount of space, with greater variety in shapes, sizes, and styles. But we do have a lovely developing skyline so I don't mean to complain!

http://www.citylab.com/design/2014/0...ywhere/373493/

Just a reminder of the link Tech House posted on the current subject which explains why most cities outside of NYC won't be building these super tall, super thins for now.
Having a demographic of a large amount of extremely rich people who can afford to live in one, and the engineering which hasn't evolved enough to build them in seismic prone areas and constant high winds are prohibitive factors. It looks like a 1:30 width to height ratio is at or near the engineering limits at this time. Not sure I would want to be in one during a cat 3 or higher hurricane.

[KevinFromTexas]

I know what 432 Park's roof is missing. A man bun.

Actually, they could make one for the next Trump Tower. Naturally it would fly around precariously in the wind while everyone wonders if it's a legitimate architectural element of the building (designed by the architect and original), or if it was added later.

[the Genral]

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

I know what 432 Park's roof is missing. A man bun.

Actually, they could make one for the next Trump Tower. Naturally it would fly around precariously in the wind while everyone wonders if it's a legitimate architectural element of the building (designed by the architect and original), or if it was added later.

That's freakin funny Kevin may I steal from your quip and suggest the same for the Austonian?