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.
Right, but wouldn't it be a good idea to look at cities with much higher density way BEFORE we get to that stage, to see how they handled/mishandled it and what worked and what didn't and why, BEFORE throwing skyscrapers at everything?
Right, but wouldn't it be a good idea to look at cities with much higher density way BEFORE we get to that stage, to see how they handled/mishandled it and what worked and what didn't and why, BEFORE throwing skyscrapers at everything?
Every city will have skyscrapers within the CBD... so I don't think anyone is in favor of throwing skyscrapers at everything, as in building skyscrapers throughout all the city. And from your arguments that's what it seems like you accuse us being in favor of.
I also agree that it would be a good idea to look at cities with much higher density and learn from them. That is what Austin is doing. They aren't just throwing skyscrapers at everything. Austin still has a very small downtown skyline for a city its size.
Mind you, many of us skyscraper enthusiasts do respect the CVC and would like to keep it that way. The Capitol is still by far and large the best tower in terms of architectural design so I'd also be bummed to have the building completely blocked from the skyline.
Wait, who said anything about limiting it to 9 stories? That's a "strawman" argument, setting up a phony "either/or" comparison that does not exist. The existing buildings around the site are taller than that.
How is using 9 stories as a max "strawman"? The discussion is to not allow high-rise development. 90 feet is high rise. To not allow high rise would it not need to be under 9 stories? How tall would you suggest THL's ceiling would be on what is acceptable?
Quote:
Originally Posted by FueledByBlueBell
I still want an example of a city that has prioritized mid-sized development with an expanding population. Certainly not saying it isn't possible but a concrete example might help.
There are quite a few who do. But they invest in mass transit. Until Austin invest in transit it will be very hard to do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by austin-steve
Ever driven out Hwy 290W past the Y and seen the Pinnacle Bldg? (now ACC). Big tall black glass "city" building surrounded by - nothing. Completely out of place and weird, It was built in the 1980s boom I think. That just don't look right. I never liked that building.
Steve
The reason for Pinnacle is environmental. You can only have a certain % of land as impervious in that side of town. So they had to go up, rather than out. There are quite a few pretty tall buildings hidden all over Oak Hill and Westlake because of those environmental issues.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasHorseLady
Sure, but that doesn't automatically mean skyscrapers.
In Austin it kinda does. Other options are very limited due to being so heavily restricted against development outside of downtown. Again, until quality transit networks exist within the neighborhoods and areas around downtown, then residential skyscrapers downtown going to keep popping up everywhere. There is a big difference in residential and office uses of skyscrapers and how transit options effect them. The anti-skyscraper points I see you keep using are office, not residential.
I also think you get the impression that those who aren't anit-sky scrapers like yourself, are against mid rises in other parts of the city. Which speaking for myself is just not true. There is lots and lots of mid rises going up all around the city, and I think that is wonderful. But they will continue to be limited to a few roads until 1) transit options improve 2) political will for more housing off those roads changes. Until then outside of the mid rises on those few roads, downtown residential mid rises and skyscrapers is what is going to continue. And to be clear there is lots of non-skyscraper residential downtown where there are height limits. They aren't the only options going up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasHorseLady
Right, but wouldn't it be a good idea to look at cities with much higher density way BEFORE we get to that stage, to see how they handled/mishandled it and what worked and what didn't and why, BEFORE throwing skyscrapers at everything?
There are many things to be learned from those cities, but to avoid their mistakes requires sacrifices. That is just not going to happen in Austin, or Texas. People tend to put their own financial interest before the future of their children. It is human and only natural. Investments into transit isn't going to happen until those who need it today can't get by without it. Which I would guess means we would get it a good 10-20 years after the point we really need it. And of course by then whatever has been voted on and passed would no longer be sufficient.
Americans rarely look to the future anymore. Not like the Germans do where good planning exist.
As someone who is now in my 40s, I am thrilled that someone as young as yourself is as interested and informed on local/global issues as you! I sure as hell wasn't at 17
As someone who also teaches and interacts with young people daily (college-age), I can attest to many other younger folks who are well-informed. Sure, experience is beneficial and necessary for a longer lens, but the case could be made that the older one gets, the less likely they are to accept new ways of thinking.
I applaud you - keep it up!
Agreed. What is also very interesting, in regards to this discussion, is his experience living downtown and in Tokyo.
I do fully understand the charm that mid-sized buildings can bring to an area- Paris, NYC's village, lower east side and Brooklyn. but I love the high rises. What is so wrong with having both? Isn't having different districts within a city the key to keeping it interesting and dynamic?
Burnet Road seems like it will develop into a mid-sized district.
Right, but wouldn't it be a good idea to look at cities with much higher density way BEFORE we get to that stage, to see how they handled/mishandled it and what worked and what didn't and why, BEFORE throwing skyscrapers at everything?
No-one is talking about throwing skyscrapers at everything. This is one building - a residential tower attached to a needed and desired public museum, which it would help pay for, within the boundaries of downtown, and in an area with currently zero pedestrian/urban vitality, but huge potential. I agree with austin-steve that a building like the ACC Pinnacle campus makes no sense where it is. Some tall buildings are very out of place or synch. Aesthetic assessments are obviously subjective - some people hate the proposed design - I think it is marvelous. A mid-rise building on the site would not provide the necessary revenue unless it took up the whole site and the public plaza and green spaces would be lost. Moderator cut: personal attack
I agree that skyscrapers do not make sense everywhere. Le Corbusier's urban fantasies in the Parisian banlieu were unmitigated disasters as were the huge now-demolished housing projects of Cabrini Green in Chicago. This site is different. It is close enough to many other urban amenities. It would provide the beginnings of real residential urban density between the two densest nodes of the city. It would generate enough property tax revenue to finance the planetarium and a range of other public goods.
And, in addition, i think it would look great! And even if you think it would look hideous, the benefits to the city should outweigh subjective aesthetic considerations. Austin is already full of many very ugly buildings. I shudder every time i have to look at that hideous squat Philadelphia in the 1980s with a lobotomy nostril hair trimmer Frost Bank building, but at least now it is being dwarfed, but it adds jobs, and a few boring restaurants at its base that were not there before.
The goose that laid the slightly stinky brassy egg that is Austin is very much alive. The hippy-dippy business which you love and I also love is more alive than ever. There are more live music venues, more bands, more dive-bars, more thrift stores, more farmers' markets, more edgy art galleries, more skanky creativity in Austin than there has ever been. Some of it may have been priced out of downtown, but it is burgeoning in East Austin (hallo Emo's, the Liberty Bar, Shangri-La, Rio-Rita's and forty other places), South Lamar, North Burnett, the unfairly maligned Rundberg, all over. There are now over 1300 food trucks in the city. There is now decent Asian food in strip malls. The weirdness is in the water. Even fat suburbanites who live in Circle C, and think they are superior to gay people, will end up naked at Hippy Hollow, at least once.
So now there are more yuppies in the mix. They will pay for the artists and musicians. The people who might live in that tower will go dancing at Elysium, eat at Sam's or Blue Dahlia, wear flip-flops to their jobs at Dell or Cirrus. If that did not want to do those things, they would live somewhere else. It is going to get a little more crowded. Parking will be a B I T C H, but more business for the pedicabs.
And the thing I like about that proposed planetarium tower, it's kind of weird - off balance, asymmetrical, too skinny for its size, quirky for its surroundings, holds up its middle finger to the ghastly state offices that surround it. It is an Austin kind of skyscraper.
There will be mistakes, but the spirit of Austin will overcome them - Okay now I am getting sentimental - but it overcame me - a half English, half Italian, born in Australia, lived, loved, lost on 4 continents diplo-brat now wannabe Texan/Austinite pinko commie fa g - Texas wants me anyway kinda person. There is more and better BBQ in the city than when I moved here 11 years ago!
I hope that building gets built, and that THL can learn to love it.
I agree with austin-steve that a building like the ACC Pinnacle campus makes no sense where it is.
That building is nothing more than a monument to Jerry Angermann's ego.
Quote:
Originally Posted by homeinatx
Even fat suburbanites who live in Circle C, and think they are superior to gay people, will end up naked at Hippy Hollow, at least once.
Thanks for invoking the only acceptable stereotype for central Austinites. Who is feeling superior to whom?
Quote:
Originally Posted by homeinatx
There is more and better BBQ in the city than when I moved here 11 years ago!
On this we are in complete concurrence. To think that twenty seven years ago, when I moved here the first time, Pok-e-joes and Iron Works were as good as it got. Think how incomprehensible that is today, with our surfeit of BBQ riches. If all these naturalized Texans enabled this explosion of Lockhart worthy outlets, bring on more of them. Kind of the inverse of plus ça change, huh? The more things change, the better they get.
I've been eating great BBQ in Austin and environs for 40 years now. Not "popular" BBQ, but great BBQ. Some of those places are no longer around because the pit masters are no longer with us, but if there's anything that's been consistent about Austin, it's great BBQ.
Interesting that you should mention the Frost Tower. That building may be the genesis of my apprehension of and insistence on not automatically thinking that skyscrapers are the coolest thing since sliced bread for Austin and shouldn't be questioned, because at the time, someone should have questioned THAT monstrosity and put a halt to it. But it was hailed as wonderful and beautiful and the start of good things for Austin (I can't look at it without thinking Fortress of Solitude, myself), by those who just love tall buildings, and we're stuck with it now.
Those of you who talk about all the ugly architecture that Austin has? Did it ever occur to you that when those were built, your equivalents at the time were saying about them exactly what you're saying about skyscrapers now and wouldn't listen to the "naysayers" who suggested otherwise and that maybe there was a better way? No? Didn't think so. But it's true.
Those of you who talk about all the ugly architecture that Austin has? Did it ever occur to you that when those were built, your equivalents at the time were saying about them exactly what you're saying about skyscrapers now and wouldn't listen to the "naysayers" who suggested otherwise and that maybe there was a better way? No? Didn't think so. But it's true.
And likewise such as yourself there were most likely people who were opposed to the Scarborough Building, the Capitol, the UT tower, the Norwood Tower, Stephen F Austin Hotel, and the Driskill Hotel. They themselves were at the time saying the exact same thing as you were about those wonderful buildings and wouldn't listen to the "yaysayers" who suggested that those buildings were the appropriate buildings to steer Austin in a better way, whether it be aesthetically appropriate or whether it would create a more urban feel to the city. Didn't think so? Well, its true.
Compare the buildings that most everybody hates and tell me they do not compare to the buildings that were built in the 30s or anywhere before the 60s. You wanna know why they don't compare? Because many of those buildings that were built well after the 60s or so are not multi-mixed use buildings. Those were probably the same people who thought that I-35 running right between the East Side and the rest of Austin was actually a good idea.
In other words, migol84, YOUR idea of what's beautiful is DIFFERENT and couldn't POSSIBLY fall into a category that someone just like you, in the future, once you've rammed it through, is going to say, "How ugly! What were they THINKING when they built this monstrosity?"
Yeah, right.
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.
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.
