I don't understand why it's important to build so high, but then I don't understand the need to wear a ridiculously long tie either. And adding a mast and trying to say it should count is like... oh never mind.
I'd rather they focus on making the building beautiful, and economically viable. And that it contributes toward a beautiful city that is economically healthy.
Stretching a building so tall almost always comes at the expense of the design,
the Chrysler building notwithstanding. As to its impact on the developer's bottom line I can't predict. That seems dependent on so many additional factors.
Besides, I'm more interested in its future effect on the city.
I'm excited for the new businesses, jobs, and high-quality residences the new tower will create. It will be incomparably better than a parking lot, of course. And the designs we've seen are so much better than the bunkered dystopia that is the RenCen. It will be much better integrated into the city.
I hope this is a strong catalyst for further development. Probably it will be. But should it be even taller? Is my worry misplaced: by building so high, in an ideal location, with major subsidies, will it capture so much of the high end residential market that it will discourage other developers from targeting it, especially without so many financial advantages?
If the additional floors are for a hotel, fine. Otherwise, I'd rather see a second new building, or a renovation, than for this to grow into a supertall.
In other words, I'd rather be able to brag about a thriving city.