Originally Posted by louisville_sky
And, in your opinion, a project shouldn't be too large that it hinders future projects in the city? That makes no sense to me. Don't develop too much at once because it would hinder future development? Doesn't development equal development no matter how much is done at once?
What would you rather have for your city, one 60-story tower, three 20-story towers, or six 10-story towers?
Most urbanites would not choose the 60-story building. Ego is the only reason to choose the tallest building. A tighter urban fabric of 10-20 story buildings, on the other hand, is better for the city in almost every way.
So no, development does not equal development. Plenty of cities overbuilt with large projects and left their downtowns trying to catch up for decades. Fortunately, I suppose, in today's lending environment, it'll be almost impossible to finance a large project unless demand for the whole thing existed yesterday, so overbuilding is unlikely. A new 60-story building in a small city is unlikely to begin with, though, especially now. Want to end your 20-year construction drought? Maybe you should be cheering for 20-story buildings. Build three of them over the next decade - they're easier to get financed and out of the ground - and I can tell you, having cranes perched over your downtown for a decade will do a lot for downtown's image, even if the projects being built are somewhat smaller.