New Orleans needs more skyscrapers (design, architecture, land)

[annie_himself]

Originally Posted by sacreole

Perhaps downtown New Orleans could adopt the "Vancouver" style or become "Brickell on the Bayou."

https://www.spur.org/publications/ur...ancouver-style

https://brickell.com/new-construction/

Please no. Paris needs none of that and it's more beautiful than Vancouver and Miami by far.

[atler8]

Originally Posted by RayNagin504

This is is a prime example of why New Orleans is behind in everything. Close-minded folks.

No... Not so much "close-minded" as realistic and practical as goes the basics that are needed in terms of business conditions & land costs and also general geologic information.

Financing for a skyscraper doesn't just germinate out of thin air but rather it only happens when either very deep pockets come into play or when a business model for a project is validated by due diligence and the financing falls into place

As for soil or ground rock, did you know that there's a fundamental geologic reason why Manhattan has a large gap in terms of it's lack of massive towers in the area between it's lower tip & Midtown?
That gaps is due to the lack of the needed type of bedrock that can adequately support a towering giant.

It's fun to dream about building skyscrapers and altering a city skyline but the basics underlying the reality of getting such a project together and actually building it out are another story.

[imaterry78259]

New Orleans still has the best bones of any city in the south. Copy the Rotterdam model of cities that are below sea level that has a world-renowned port. New Orleans is still a lazy city in contemporary business times.

[annie_himself]

Originally Posted by imaterry78259

New Orleans still has the best bones of any city in the south. Copy the Rotterdam model of cities that are below sea level that has a world-renowned port. New Orleans is still a lazy city in contemporary business times.

You do know they don't really build skyscrapers in The Netherlands right.

[personone]

It could definitely use some updated skyscrapers, but at least it has some signature tall skyscrapers. Baltimore on the other hand, doesn't even have one skyscraper that cracks 600ft. For a major city, that is really disappointing. At least New Orleans has some existing tall, signature buildings. It just needs a few modern buildings to complement the existing ones.

[personone]

Originally Posted by annie_himself

Please no. Paris needs none of that and it's more beautiful than Vancouver and Miami by far.

Paris is obviously a beautiful city, but Vancouver is an amazingly beautiful city too. In terms of natural "beauty," I'd probably put it above Paris. If we're talking about architectural beauty, obviously that goes to Paris.

[imaterry78259]

Paris has tons of skyscrapers!

[annie_himself]

Originally Posted by personone

Paris is obviously a beautiful city, but Vancouver is an amazingly beautiful city too. In terms of natural "beauty," I'd probably put it above Paris. If we're talking about architectural beauty, obviously that goes to Paris.

I'm obviously talking about the built environment, which Paris wipes the floor with many cities around the world.

Originally Posted by imaterry78259

Paris has tons of skyscrapers!

Yeah and no one goes to Paris to see La Defense. They go to see the rows of 5-8 story buildings that all equal to a higher density than Manhattan. We don't need skyscrapers.

[Minato ku]

Originally Posted by imaterry78259

New Orleans still has the best bones of any city in the south. Copy the Rotterdam model of cities that are below sea level that has a world-renowned port. New Orleans is still a lazy city in contemporary business times.

Originally Posted by annie_himself

You do know they don't really build skyscrapers in The Netherlands right.

More than you think.

This is Rotterdam

Rotterdam by Minato ku, sur Flickr

[TexasRoadkill]

Yes skyscrapers with basement swimming pools is exactly what New Orleans needs!