Taller Buildings - When and where will we see them?

[mikeg19]

Oh, yeah. Sounds like a reasonable, objective viewpoint, rooted in actual market demand...

I'm just stating that 90-95% of new construction in Detroit would most likely look like midtown Manhatten - 5-10 story buildings. How's that not reasonable or indicitive of market demand?

[Gistok]

mikeg19.... are you sure you don't mean Midtown Detroit?

http://s269.photobucket.com/user/egf.../72ae.jpg.html

[mikeg19]

Everything in between lower Manhatten and the Empire State building is in the 5-25 story range [[for the most part).

I apologize, as I didn't realize Midtown basically stopped at the Empire State Building. I'm thinking the area with a lot of density, mid rise buildings. Chelsea, SoHo, Tribeca, etc. And to a lesser extent, a much denser midtown Detroit.

[Bham1982]

Everything in between lower Manhatten and the Empire State building is in the 5-25 story range [[for the most part).

That's a pretty big exaggeration. There are supertalls being built south of the Empire State Building and north of Lower Manhattan. There's more office space in this rough area than in Lower Manhattan itself, or in downtown Chicago.

But I think your point is that you're saying that Detroit can be like the lower-scale neighborhoods south of 14th Street and north of Canal. I think that's crazy, for a million and one obvious reasons. You are talking pre-civil war fabric, some of the most desirable real estate on the planet, the biggest celebrity/hanger-on scene on earth outside of LA, a half dozen four-track subway lines, almost zero parking, even in new buildings, cobblestone streets, cast iron architecture, etc. etc.

There will not be another SoHo in North America, ever. Even NYC couldn't replicate SoHo.

[Gistok]

Bham1982... he's only talking modern building of mid heights... you're going off on other tangents such as historic structures.... subway lines and cobblestone streets.... don't see that in his comments anywhere... Yes in NYC from downtown to Midtown there are a huge amount of historic well built buildings.... but that's not his point....

[canuck]

Bham1982... he's only talking modern building of mid heights... you're going off on other tangents such as historic structures.... subway lines and cobblestone streets.... don't see that in his comments anywhere... Yes in NYC from downtown to Midtown there are a huge amount of historic well built buildings.... but that's not his point....

Yeah, Bham is on the tail end of StPatty's day celebrations. He reminds me of the pugnacious Fighting Irish's mascot swinging at cobwebs.

Nobody said anything about replicating Old New York. I think the idea that downtown and Midtown could have more mid/highrises and fewer skyscrapers is just as desirable as the quest for new heights.

Montreal has a bylaw restricting skyscrapers to a maximum height equal to Mount Royal so as not to impede visually on the mountain's preeminence. To me, streetlife and a good flow are more interesting than trophy architecture...at all cost. Good architecture is what we should lookout for and criticize the schemes we don't like. Architecture is something we have to live with, we can't tune it out like a bad TV show or a loud commercial.

[rex]

Build out not up. Detroit has a lot of space

This again and again. We dont need taller buildings as long as we have space to grow in the downtown thru midtown areas. You build up when there is no longer space to build out. This is assuming Detroit is able to even fill the downtown and midtown areas in the next 20-30 years. Population in the city is still declining as far as Ive been able to gather. Gilbert and Co. are moving jobs downtown and some people have moved down there to be closer to work but this is a local phenomenon. Young professionals from elsewhere in the nation aren't moving in droves to be part of Detroit's renaissance

[animatedmartian]

This again and again. We dont need taller buildings as long as we have space to grow in the downtown thru midtown areas. You build up when there is no longer space to build out.

Absolute no city in the world grows like that. Building up reduces the distance needed to travel to get to another area or to put it in other terms, reduces sprawl.

A lot of people point out European cities as a model, but they grew outward because literally it was impossible to build over several floors up until about 3 century ago [[most European cities have been around for many more centuries than that). Obviously, there were no elevators which limits how many floors people are willing to climb among other things. But once high rise building became feasible, European cities all over started building them. Why? Because it's the smartest and most efficient way to build a city.

I'm not saying every new development in Detroit needs to be a high rise, but neither should they be limited to some arbitrary height which has no significance here. You might as well call LBP and tell him Detroit residents are ready for some sprawl because that'll sure fill up vacant land fast.

[mikeg19]

Bham1982... he's only talking modern building of mid heights... you're going off on other tangents such as historic structures.... subway lines and cobblestone streets.... don't see that in his comments anywhere... Yes in NYC from downtown to Midtown there are a huge amount of historic well built buildings.... but that's not his point....

Precisely. I forgot that speaking in generalities without MLA citations on this forumn gets your dick kicked in.

[Bham1982]

Bham1982... he's only talking modern building of mid heights... you're going off on other tangents such as historic structures.... subway lines and cobblestone streets.... don't see that in his comments anywhere... Yes in NYC from downtown to Midtown there are a huge amount of historic well built buildings.... but that's not his point....

Sorry, but no. 99% of the buildings in SoHo are not "modern buildings of mid heights". You could hardly pick a less representative neighborhood in the U.S. for that building typology.

It makes as much sense to say "Midtown Detroit will one day be Auburn Hills" as "Midtown Detroit will one day be SoHo". Both places, like most places on earth, happen to have some midrise buildings of somewhat recent vintage.

[mikeg19]

Sorry, but no. 99% of the buildings in SoHo are not "modern buildings of mid heights". You could hardly pick a less representative neighborhood in the U.S. for that building typology.

It makes as much sense to say "Midtown Detroit will one day be Auburn Hills" as "Midtown Detroit will one day be SoHo". Both places, like most places on earth, happen to have some midrise buildings of somewhat recent vintage.

Holy crap man. It was a blanket statement.

Midtown Detroit has some tall buildings, then there is a lull toward downtown in height, then Downtown has tall buildings. Midtown Manhatten has tall buildings, then there is a lull in height, then builds up again toward the financial district. Ya see what I'm getting at here????

In no way am I comparing building typology, exact geographic boundaries of the burroughs of NYC in relation to height, or any other crazy exactitude you'd like to expand upon.

[Gistok]

Holy crap man. It was a blanket statement.

Midtown Detroit has some tall buildings, then there is a lull toward downtown in height, then Downtown has tall buildings. Midtown Manhatten has tall buildings, then there is a lull in height, then builds up again toward the financial district. Ya see what I'm getting at here????

In no way am I comparing building typology, exact geographic boundaries of the burroughs of NYC in relation to height, or any other crazy exactitude you'd like to expand upon.

Your "intended" audience on this forum knows what your talking about... no point in trying to explain it any further....