HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForumSkyscraper Posters
     
Welcome to the SkyscraperPage Forum

Since 1999, the SkyscraperPage Forum has been one of the most active skyscraper enthusiast communities on the web. The global membership discusses development news and construction activity on projects from around the world, alongside discussions on urban design, architecture, transportation and many other topics. Welcome!

You are currently browsing as a guest. Register with the SkyscraperPage Forum and join this growing community of skyscraper enthusiasts. Registering has benefits such as fewer ads, the ability to post messages, private messaging and more.

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > Highrise Construction

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #21  
Old Posted Mar 2, 2012, 12:00 AM
uaarkson's Avatar
uaarkson uaarkson is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: New York City
Posts: 1,757
Amazon development, amazing development. This is a once in a lifetime chance for most cities.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #22  
Old Posted Mar 2, 2012, 12:40 AM
plinko's Avatar
plinko plinko is offline
them bones
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Santa Barbara adjacent
Posts: 6,640
Quote:
Originally Posted by THE BIG APPLE View Post
Emphasis on the THREE. Three 500 footers are for a city like Seattle, the equivalence to TEN thousand footers at the Dubai Marina. I'd be fine with two 400-500 footers, and one 600-700 footer. In this three tower development, there needs to be a GREAT equalizer, NOT three equal buildings.
Well, since you're not the designer, why don't you leave it to the big kids to figure out how to do something great.

Part of being a real architect is understanding the constraints you are working within, not just saying "I want it because it would be cool!"
__________________
Even if you are 1 in a million, there are still 7,000 people just like you...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #23  
Old Posted Mar 8, 2012, 2:37 PM
yankeesfan1000 yankeesfan1000 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: 10014
Posts: 1,134
Article in the times about this, here's the link, "In Seattle, Amazon Leads an Upswing in Office Space."

Can't wait for renders.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #24  
Old Posted Mar 12, 2012, 1:11 AM
mhays mhays is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 13,158
Or the renderings for that matter.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #25  
Old Posted Mar 12, 2012, 3:09 AM
Dale Dale is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Orlando
Posts: 3,264
Quote:
Originally Posted by mhays View Post
Or the renderings for that matter.
I see what you did there.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #26  
Old Posted Apr 2, 2012, 5:47 PM
Cashville Cashville is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 88
Yay for 3 highrises, but c'mon it sucks to get this much office space and only get a max of 500 feet out of it. If I counted correctly these buildings would tie for the 13th tallest in Seattle, yeah it will add to the skyline but its not going to make much of an impact at all.



http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...tml?cmpid=2628
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #27  
Old Posted Apr 2, 2012, 6:02 PM
Cashville Cashville is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 88
The original article is no longer available, but I guess this is the reason Seattle has height restrictions now:

The proposed zoning changes that will be sent to the City Council this week would allow skyscrapers in the city's commercial core to rise to 700 feet -- slightly shorter than the Washington Mutual Tower.

It would wipe out a cap on downtown building heights that residents -- fed up with a slew of office towers -- voted to impose in 1989.

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/archiv.../t-211908.html


Unfortunately that is from 2005, a 700-800 footer would look really nice in that area with another smaller tower or two but oh well.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #28  
Old Posted Apr 2, 2012, 6:11 PM
plinko's Avatar
plinko plinko is offline
them bones
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Santa Barbara adjacent
Posts: 6,640
^At this point the skyline impacts are the least important part of the project.

Getting the plan correct is far more paramount. I want a take a little better look at these before I comment...











All images from: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...tml?cmpid=2628
__________________
Even if you are 1 in a million, there are still 7,000 people just like you...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #29  
Old Posted Apr 2, 2012, 11:14 PM
NYguy's Avatar
NYguy NYguy is offline
New Yorker for life
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Borough of Jersey
Posts: 29,351
Seems these towers are filling a void.
__________________
Love NEW YORK?

Visit New York's icon. See the City of shores. Walk the Streets of Manhattan.
The evolving skyline, NY Skyscrapers & Construction
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #30  
Old Posted Apr 2, 2012, 11:17 PM
RobertWalpole RobertWalpole is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 1,912
I love Seattle, but these towers are lame.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #31  
Old Posted Apr 3, 2012, 5:13 AM
Zapatan's Avatar
Zapatan Zapatan is offline
El Barto
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: California/Argentina
Posts: 2,033
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cashville View Post
The original article is no longer available, but I guess this is the reason Seattle has height restrictions now:

The proposed zoning changes that will be sent to the City Council this week would allow skyscrapers in the city's commercial core to rise to 700 feet -- slightly shorter than the Washington Mutual Tower.

It would wipe out a cap on downtown building heights that residents -- fed up with a slew of office towers -- voted to impose in 1989.

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/archiv.../t-211908.html


Unfortunately that is from 2005, a 700-800 footer would look really nice in that area with another smaller tower or two but oh well.

So wait, is there still a chance that that could happen? I had no idea that Seattle had a height limit...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #32  
Old Posted Apr 3, 2012, 5:42 AM
mhays mhays is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 13,158
That's very old news. These are in a 500' zone, not in the middle of the core where taller is ok (even there, FAR is very restrictive).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #33  
Old Posted Apr 3, 2012, 7:07 PM
Zapatan's Avatar
Zapatan Zapatan is offline
El Barto
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: California/Argentina
Posts: 2,033
Quote:
Originally Posted by mhays View Post
That's very old news. These are in a 500' zone, not in the middle of the core where taller is ok (even there, FAR is very restrictive).
Are these even 500 feet tall? They hardly look it
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #34  
Old Posted Apr 3, 2012, 7:27 PM
Gordo's Avatar
Gordo Gordo is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: San Francisco, CA/Jackson Hole, WY/Bellevue, WA
Posts: 3,727
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zapatan View Post
So wait, is there still a chance that that could happen? I had no idea that Seattle had a height limit...
I think you'll be pretty hard-pressed to find any US city without a height limit of sorts (it may be FAR-related or something similar). I'm not aware of any decent-sized US city where unlimited height/FAR/whatever is by-right.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #35  
Old Posted Apr 3, 2012, 7:30 PM
Zapatan's Avatar
Zapatan Zapatan is offline
El Barto
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: California/Argentina
Posts: 2,033
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gordo View Post
I think you'll be pretty hard-pressed to find any US city without a height limit of sorts (it may be FAR-related or something similar). I'm not aware of any decent-sized US city where unlimited height/FAR/whatever is by-right.
But 300 meter skyscrapers still exist/are proposed in several US cities, so it's obviously possible to still build tall. Height limits need to be abolished as they are not good for development, when cities grow, we want them to grop up not out.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #36  
Old Posted Apr 3, 2012, 7:39 PM
Gordo's Avatar
Gordo Gordo is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: San Francisco, CA/Jackson Hole, WY/Bellevue, WA
Posts: 3,727
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zapatan View Post
But 300 meter skyscrapers still exist/are proposed in several US cities, so it's obviously possible to still build tall. Height limits need to be abolished as they are not good for development, when cities grow, we want them to grop up not out.
Um, yes, but those require special approvals. Anybody can propose a mile high skyscraper anywhere, but by-right development is controlled to be some height in basically every city. Special approvals take time/money/etc. Amazon could propose a taller building here, but they've probably concluded that it's not something that they want or need - OR - they've concluded that it would be unlikely to pass muster with the various folks needing to approve it (including citizens of the city at large), so they're not going to try.

I agree with increasing height limits, but simply abolishing them is unlikely to happen any time soon in the vast majority of cities.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #37  
Old Posted Apr 3, 2012, 7:55 PM
SFUVancouver's Avatar
SFUVancouver SFUVancouver is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 4,353
This is fantastic news for Seattle. Couple Amazon's plan to build a significant amount of downtown office space with the company's already-large downtown office population and you have a major driver of growth and vibrancy. The knock on effect of having a large and growing tech company downtown will reap incredible benefits for Seattle. I am more than a little envious that Seattle has Amazon driving office growth. In Vancouver, the current round of office construction is driven by pension funds and Telus (telco/internet/wireless) which are building new office buildings for law firms and Telus' new downtown HQ. Those are critically important tenants but they won't spin off new companies like Amazon will/does. Well done Seattle! (and what a contrast to Apple building their mothership in the suburbs)
__________________
VANCOUVER | Beautiful, Multicultural | Canada's Pacific Metropolis
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #38  
Old Posted Apr 3, 2012, 7:58 PM
Zapatan's Avatar
Zapatan Zapatan is offline
El Barto
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: California/Argentina
Posts: 2,033
Not really fantastic news, actually downright sad that we won't even get a skyscraper out of that much office space.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #39  
Old Posted Apr 3, 2012, 8:01 PM
Zapatan's Avatar
Zapatan Zapatan is offline
El Barto
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: California/Argentina
Posts: 2,033
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gordo View Post
Um, yes, but those require special approvals. Anybody can propose a mile high skyscraper anywhere, but by-right development is controlled to be some height in basically every city. Special approvals take time/money/etc. Amazon could propose a taller building here, but they've probably concluded that it's not something that they want or need - OR - they've concluded that it would be unlikely to pass muster with the various folks needing to approve it (including citizens of the city at large), so they're not going to try.

I agree with increasing height limits, but simply abolishing them is unlikely to happen any time soon in the vast majority of cities.
I'm aware of that, but I still fail to understand the opposition to tall buildings... people need to get their priorities straight and stop damaging our cities.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #40  
Old Posted Apr 3, 2012, 8:15 PM
jd3189's Avatar
jd3189 jd3189 is offline
A Realist
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Chattanooga, TN/Stuart, FL
Posts: 2,422
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zapatan View Post
I'm aware of that, but I still fail to understand the opposition to tall buildings... people need to get their priorities straight and stop damaging our cities.
I understand your pain but having 1,000 footers doesn't necessary make a city great. Dubai has a bunch, but it doesn't make it better than Tokyo. Quantity, like this project, is what Seattle really needs.The gap between the Space Needle and Downtown need to be closed first before supertalls start to be a more common option.
__________________
It always seems impossible until its done.
- Nelson Mandela

Never stop. Never stop.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
   
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > Highrise Construction
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 5:46 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.