LOUISVILLE | Museum Plaza | 696 FT / 214 M | 61 FLOORS - Page 26

King weatherman3 · #**501** Posted **Sep 20, 2009, 10:04 PM**

still wait under counst. that dead of project

downtown blogger · #**502** Posted **Sep 22, 2009, 2:56 AM**

It will be interesting if this project resurrects since the economy may be on the rebound. It all remains to be seen. Louisville is a fine city.

King weatherman3 · #**503** Posted **Sep 22, 2009, 9:12 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by downtown blogger

It will be interesting if this project resurrects since the economy may be on the rebound. It all remains to be seen. Louisville is a fine city.

When? snice 2 year ago! but still on hold

King weatherman3 · #**504** Posted **Mar 12, 2010, 2:26 AM**

Museum Plaza will be under coust. end of 2010 or 2011, soon get ready be built!!!

Rail>Auto · #**505** Posted **Mar 12, 2010, 3:54 AM**

http://www.whas11.com/news/local/4-y...-83834952.html

Crunked Up · #**506** Posted **Jun 3, 2010, 6:38 PM**

Hope they move forward with it.

Rail>Auto · #**507** Posted **Jun 9, 2010, 2:23 AM**

It'd be nice if there would be some fresh news on it.

King weatherman3 · #**508** Posted **Jun 12, 2010, 2:09 PM**

I heard it Museum Plaza will be Under Construction by 2011

SPIREINTHEHOLE! · #**509** Posted **Aug 8, 2011, 1:57 AM**

Time to lock this thread I suppose. I hate this economy.

http://www.courier-journal.com/apps/...=2011308010020

Quote:

Developers scrap plans for Museum Plaza

Trouble getting construction loan topples Main Street skyscraper

Courier-Journal.com

They spent at least $20 million, lined up a major hotel and secured city, state and federal funding commitments, but the developers of Louisville's Museum Plaza abandoned the futuristic skyscraper project on Monday because of trouble getting a construction loan.

The city will retain ownership of the site near Seventh and Main streets, although there are no immediate plans for its use, Mayor Greg Fischer said.

The announcement brings to an end a seven-year effort to alter the city's skyline with Kentucky's tallest building. The 62-story, $465 million Main Street project envisioned offices, hotels, residences and a museum and attracted admirers and critics alike because of its unconventional design.

SkyscrapersOfNewYork · #**510** Posted **Aug 8, 2011, 3:02 AM**

Well that just sickening....any last remarks before this gets archived?

Onn · #**511** Posted **Aug 8, 2011, 3:42 AM**

Never liked the design, glad it didn't get built. However it's sad they couldn't get a construction loan when banks should be lending money.

Rail>Auto · #**512** Posted **Aug 8, 2011, 4:21 AM**

I can't believe they didn't get the rest of the financing. When they got the HUD loan I figured that would be enough to put them over the hump.

louisville_sky · #**513** Posted **Aug 8, 2011, 5:21 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Onn

Never liked the design, glad it didn't get built. However it's sad they couldn't get a construction loan when banks should be lending money.

I understand a lot of people didn't like the design, but that wasn't the point. This building would have put Louisville on the map and done countless wonders for the city and the region. It would have brought thousands of construction jobs and permanent jobs after its completion, and it would have helped the overall morale of the city. No skyscraper construction since 1993 (save for Waterfront Park Place in 2002, which is arguably not a skyscraper) can really start to wear on a city. Here's to the next project that we can hopefully build. The developers are still taking part in the revitalization of downtown, and I can't wait to see what else they have up their sleeves!

futuresooner · #**514** Posted **Aug 9, 2011, 4:34 AM**

I hate to knock the jobs spill, but this is a skyscraper website and this thing was hardly something I'd want to look at. All it looked like was a bunch of blocks stacked together by a two year-old.

Cashville · #**515** Posted **Aug 9, 2011, 1:14 PM**

Honestly Louisville dodged a bullet with this one. Not only was the design poor but it was out of scale with what the market could support (even in a good economy). The office space would have been overpriced compared to the rest of downtown, and the condos werent needed since the only other luxury condo tower in town still hasnt sold all its units and it was complete almost 10 years ago.

Building this would have just hindered future projects downtown for the foreseeable future.

louisville_sky · #**516** Posted **Aug 9, 2011, 2:07 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cashville

Honestly Louisville dodged a bullet with this one. Not only was the design poor but it was out of scale with what the market could support (even in a good economy). The office space would have been overpriced compared to the rest of downtown, and the condos werent needed since the only other luxury condo tower in town still hasnt sold all its units and it was complete almost 10 years ago.

Building this would have just hindered future projects downtown for the foreseeable future.

We all have differing opinions over where the city dodged a bullet or not. I, for one, think we did not. Downtown is hungry for skyscraper growth (no significant skyscraper in nearly 20 years), and not everyone believes Museum Plaza was unattractive (I know it's hard to believe on this forum).

How do you know the office space would have been overpriced? And as far as being out of scale for offices, the class A vacancy rate downtown as of the 4th quarter of 2010 was just 6.7%. Downtown is hardly overrun w/vacant office space. And as for luxury condos, there are other smaller towers east and northeast of downtown. Waterfront Park Place is the only luxury condo tower downtown, but not the only one in the city.

And, in your opinion, a project shouldn't be too large that it hinders future projects in the city? That makes no sense to me. Don't develop too much at once because it would hinder future development? Doesn't development equal development no matter how much is done at once?

bunt_q · #**517** Posted **Apr 5, 2012, 2:29 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by louisville_sky

And, in your opinion, a project shouldn't be too large that it hinders future projects in the city? That makes no sense to me. Don't develop too much at once because it would hinder future development? Doesn't development equal development no matter how much is done at once?

What would you rather have for your city, one 60-story tower, three 20-story towers, or six 10-story towers?

Most urbanites would not choose the 60-story building. Ego is the only reason to choose the tallest building. A tighter urban fabric of 10-20 story buildings, on the other hand, is better for the city in almost every way.

So no, development does not equal development. Plenty of cities overbuilt with large projects and left their downtowns trying to catch up for decades. Fortunately, I suppose, in today's lending environment, it'll be almost impossible to finance a large project unless demand for the whole thing existed yesterday, so overbuilding is unlikely. A new 60-story building in a small city is unlikely to begin with, though, especially now. Want to end your 20-year construction drought? Maybe you should be cheering for 20-story buildings. Build three of them over the next decade - they're easier to get financed and out of the ground - and I can tell you, having cranes perched over your downtown for a decade will do a lot for downtown's image, even if the projects being built are somewhat smaller.

gmsalpha · #**518** Posted **Jun 1, 2012, 4:15 PM**

A lot of cities have height restrictions due to their proximity to an airport, such as I believe 500 ft in San Diego. I would rather have three 20-story buildings or two 30-story buildings, personally.

Yes, a city's ego will scream for the 60-story building but ground level is where all the real action takes place and if you have a super tall condo building for instance, that's great and all, but what are the residents going to do? They're hardly going to go running about downtown because the retail, shops, and bars weren't built.

If you can create a vibrant downtown that's pedestrian friendly, the demand will be there for the larger condos, but you have to make downtown a fun place to want to be first. I believe these 20-story buildings are called "infill"? Might not look impressive on a postcard, but it sure will make for a better downtown.

With that said, I'm not opposed to a 60-story building if it looks nice, uses quality materials, and has maximized its street level retail, entertainment, etc. But there are better ways to spend say, $300 million downtown.

Cashville · #**519** Posted **Jun 3, 2012, 6:04 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by louisville_sky

We all have differing opinions over where the city dodged a bullet or not. I, for one, think we did not. Downtown is hungry for skyscraper growth (no significant skyscraper in nearly 20 years), and not everyone believes Museum Plaza was unattractive (I know it's hard to believe on this forum).

How do you know the office space would have been overpriced? And as far as being out of scale for offices, the class A vacancy rate downtown as of the 4th quarter of 2010 was just 6.7%. Downtown is hardly overrun w/vacant office space. And as for luxury condos, there are other smaller towers east and northeast of downtown. Waterfront Park Place is the only luxury condo tower downtown, but not the only one in the city.

And, in your opinion, a project shouldn't be too large that it hinders future projects in the city? That makes no sense to me. Don't develop too much at once because it would hinder future development? Doesn't development equal development no matter how much is done at once?

Sorry, but you are very naive. There is also a reason a significant skyscraper hasnt been built in the cbd for 20 years, simply no need for one.