Quote:
Originally Posted by wwmiv
Austin does not have any of the types of skylines you've described. It isn't circular, it isn't square, and it isn't just density along the river. In reality, it is a triangle with the Lamar & the river, 35 & the river, and the State Capitol being the three corners encapsulating its density (although even this understates the degree to which Austin's skyline currently pours over those boundaries, and will ever more so into the future). This will be even more true once the current wave of skyscrapers is finished.
|
Wow. Really?
You honestly interpreted "linear, along-the-lake density pattern" to mean "linear" as it is literally defined by Merriam Webster?
The lake itself doesn't cut through town in a straight line either, so I would think that anyone with common sense would understand that it was simply a phrase used to distinguish the
fact that most of the tower development is happening in a pattern that resembles a dense grouping a stone's throw away from the lake. Obviously there are a few significant towers that have popped up in other areas downtown, but by and large - especially West of Congress - the most substantial development is (as Izppjb noted above) occurring right along the lake.
And if you'd prefer to describe it in such completely literal terms, then breaking news: the skyline isn't a "triangle", either (regardless of the "corners" you set forth as boundaries).
Bottom line, no matter how you choose to categorize the shape of Austin's skyline it in no way falls into that of the cities mentioned in my previous post.