I was just wondering... once you reach a certain height of a buliding, does it really do any good?
i mean, in the distant (or not so distant? dun remember, my painkiller medication has been making me go through woozy periods right now) past i ventured into a forum where there were lots of chicagoites and torontoites hanging out or duking it out. but the principle argument that i saw for the torontoites was that X number of 12 story buildings makes for a much more urban environment than Y number of 500ft+ buildings. (x being > y, forgot actual numbers).
i think i'm starting to lean toward their case. i mean, really, why do you need a 60 story residential apartment (espeically one using the podium design... ugh)? i mean, just looking at the aesthetics of chicago v austin downtown, i liked austin downtown alot more. sure there were tall buildings (i think like up to 30 stories?), but things were at a much more pedestrian/human level. you could see the sky, and the way the view corridors worked, it was nice being able to have dramatic views of the state capitol or town lake and yet still see the great frost bank building going up into the sky. cambridge, mass didn't have that many skyscrapers (nor really boston, relatively), and yet again, it was alot more human scaled, yet still with a lovely compactness and diversity in height.
i mean, i suppose, wouldn't it be better if instead of concentrating such high rise development into such a focused area we spread out more medium/low rise development over a larger area? we could still have the density for alternative transit modes and the density to support businesses and areas in a compact area fashion... right?
of course, there's also i suppose the issue of the difficulty in sustaining such huge projects, i think. not that i know much about it, but i think maintaining a 20-story building at decent occupancy levels is easier than a 60-story building. not to mention maintenance, getting a sufficient size anchor tenant to get it finished in the first place, etc.
furthermore, if you have a sudden residential boom (i suppose like chicago) where you're doubling a residential population in a very condensed area (the loop)... is that smart growth? you're focussing a lot of strain into a little area? i suppose it beats the alternative of fringe growth, since then the city doesn't have to spend money extending services out to the new devcelopments...
and keep in mind that i took some morphine-esque pills a half an hour ago (painkillers my doc subscribed) so my brain may not be wired properly as i write this.
i mean, in the distant (or not so distant? dun remember, my painkiller medication has been making me go through woozy periods right now) past i ventured into a forum where there were lots of chicagoites and torontoites hanging out or duking it out. but the principle argument that i saw for the torontoites was that X number of 12 story buildings makes for a much more urban environment than Y number of 500ft+ buildings. (x being > y, forgot actual numbers).
i think i'm starting to lean toward their case. i mean, really, why do you need a 60 story residential apartment (espeically one using the podium design... ugh)? i mean, just looking at the aesthetics of chicago v austin downtown, i liked austin downtown alot more. sure there were tall buildings (i think like up to 30 stories?), but things were at a much more pedestrian/human level. you could see the sky, and the way the view corridors worked, it was nice being able to have dramatic views of the state capitol or town lake and yet still see the great frost bank building going up into the sky. cambridge, mass didn't have that many skyscrapers (nor really boston, relatively), and yet again, it was alot more human scaled, yet still with a lovely compactness and diversity in height.
i mean, i suppose, wouldn't it be better if instead of concentrating such high rise development into such a focused area we spread out more medium/low rise development over a larger area? we could still have the density for alternative transit modes and the density to support businesses and areas in a compact area fashion... right?
of course, there's also i suppose the issue of the difficulty in sustaining such huge projects, i think. not that i know much about it, but i think maintaining a 20-story building at decent occupancy levels is easier than a 60-story building. not to mention maintenance, getting a sufficient size anchor tenant to get it finished in the first place, etc.
furthermore, if you have a sudden residential boom (i suppose like chicago) where you're doubling a residential population in a very condensed area (the loop)... is that smart growth? you're focussing a lot of strain into a little area? i suppose it beats the alternative of fringe growth, since then the city doesn't have to spend money extending services out to the new devcelopments...
and keep in mind that i took some morphine-esque pills a half an hour ago (painkillers my doc subscribed) so my brain may not be wired properly as i write this.