Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > New Mexico > Albuquerque
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 08-13-2012, 05:40 PM
 
Location: New Mexico U.S.A.
26,527 posts, read 51,840,967 times
Reputation: 31329

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by N8! View Post
I'm not for tearing down De Anza, but I think it's odd the city spends $'s to keep it secure in its current condition but complains about the Anasazi.
Just how much money? How much is involved in both of the structures? I really do not know...


Interesting articles about the De Anza Motor Lodge:
Overhaul of Route 66 motel set to begin

Best Western: The comeback of the De Anza Motor Lodge
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-07-2013, 02:13 PM
 
177 posts, read 406,792 times
Reputation: 79
I am less of an arena enthusiast than I used to be. I do want a clean, safe, exciting downtown, whether an arena should be part of that, I just don't know anymore. Light rail would be a step in the right direction.

Albuquerque is Albuquerque. It is what it is, and it ain't what it ain't.

From what I have read here, maybe the first step for Albuquerque is realizing we are not other cities, and what they do really won't work here, and cannot be applied here.

Austin has an amazing downtown and skyline. Our skyline is more like Regina, Canada. If that.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-05-2013, 02:42 PM
 
295 posts, read 592,628 times
Reputation: 187
Default Some glass is needed in Downtown (Buildings, that is)



We can dream right? Next high-rise? and some other cranes to go along? 2020?

I'll probably be 6 feet under the ground before we get a decent skyline.

Last edited by Dan from NM; 07-05-2013 at 02:55 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-05-2013, 07:10 PM
 
Location: Abu Al-Qurq
3,689 posts, read 9,195,632 times
Reputation: 2992
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan from NM View Post

I'll probably be 6 feet under the ground before we get a decent skyline.
Look at the bright side. Relative to you, at that point the skyline will be 6 feet higher.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-05-2013, 07:34 PM
 
Location: Old Town
1,993 posts, read 4,067,867 times
Reputation: 2051
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan from NM View Post

We can dream right? Next high-rise? and some other cranes to go along? 2020?

I'll probably be 6 feet under the ground before we get a decent skyline.
Count me out on that. I like the views of the Sandias more than that building you PS in there.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-06-2013, 12:46 PM
JBM
 
Location: New Mexico!
567 posts, read 1,100,132 times
Reputation: 511
You can already see the mountains from almost anywhere in town. I don't think a few more 3-4 floor buildings along Central will really bother anyone in the true scheme of things and a few highrises downtown or along Jefferson, should the need ever arise, will not really affect anything. Seattle and Denver have highrises and the sanctity of the mountain-view was not violated. Better cities are more important than mountain views, imho. If we keep spreading, we might end up having the same smog problem SoCal has and then no one will be able to see the mountains. (maybe)

Although I also think skyscrapers aren't really a wonderful symbol of cities themselves though they can be pretty to look at. Building high buildings just to have high buildings is just as silly as fighting them for a view of the mountains few people probably take advantage of daily, anyway.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-08-2013, 07:48 PM
 
Location: Albuquerque, NM
89 posts, read 270,726 times
Reputation: 274
I have not read all 43 pages of this thread, but my understanding is that the nature of the soil (sand to a fairly deep level) prohibits skyscrapers beyond to far above the levels of the current downtown area. That makes sense..... unless there is solid bedrock to anchor too, you can only built to a certainly height.

I'm good with a big city, and a little city feel.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-08-2013, 10:34 PM
JBM
 
Location: New Mexico!
567 posts, read 1,100,132 times
Reputation: 511
^^I think that's totally true, and I think if someone didn't want to be in that region of town where they might one day be obstructed of a mountain view, they should elect to move to an area where such a development won't occur. Perhaps Taylor Ranch? I think part of living in the central area of an urban region is accepting that development will have to occur at some point. And I'm sure many would rather have one 400 foot tall building that has a relatively small width and impact to a really long 9 or 10 floor building that almost acts as a wall of sorts. I doubt either of these will be built anytime soon, but I think if there were some company or organization needing to build here, and they were obstructed in their pursuit to build a high-rise, they'd probably resort to building a long, ugly wall-type building to accommodate their needed space and they'd probably build it far from Downtown, thus impacting even more beautiful vistas (or they'll just take their jobs and money elsewhere). There's a balance. Skyscrapers are good when needed, but not always essential. But lets remember that fighting high-rises is one of several factors that has lead to large rents in San Francisco and DC. Maybe that'll never be a problem with Albuquerque spreading out into the limitless desert, but do we really want to spread out into the desert? Is that sustainable? And is that the type of development that will keep young people with nursing, engineering, and medical degrees here? We can have a little of everything and keep everyone happy. If it's ever needed, we can put the 40 floor buildings downtown, and we'll keep them away from the Cottonwood mall or the Northeast Heights.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-09-2013, 01:02 PM
 
177 posts, read 406,792 times
Reputation: 79
I think that last time Albuquerque built a building of significant height was about 1987. Cities that are prosperous have cranes up all over and buildings going up all the time. Over twenty five years since we built a structure over twenty stories is pathetic and sad.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-09-2013, 01:07 PM
 
177 posts, read 406,792 times
Reputation: 79
For perspective:

Regina, Canada (pop. 200,000)

http://www.focus.ca/sites/default/fi...ion/regina.jpg

Winnipeg, Canada (pop. 664,000)

http://aiphotography.com/wp-content/...nwest-park.jpg

Edmonton, Canada (pop. 818,000)

http://www.jetsetz.com/uploads/profi...n-alberta-.jpg

Albuquerque has a metro area of about 900,000 and a skyline nowhere near as cosmopolitan, ours is more like Regina, a city with a quarter our population.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:




Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > New Mexico > Albuquerque

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top