HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForumSkyscraper Posters
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Buildings & Architecture > Never Built & Visionary Projects

    West Energy Tower at City Center in the SkyscraperPage Database

Building Data Page   • Midland Skyscraper Diagram
            
View Full Map

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #101  
Old Posted Mar 24, 2014, 6:31 PM
tgannaway89 tgannaway89 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Midland/San Antonio
Posts: 379
The project appears to be scaled back into two smaller towers.

http://www.mrt.com/business/article_...9bb2963f4.html
__________________
WATCH TV
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #102  
Old Posted Mar 25, 2014, 7:41 AM
LMich's Avatar
LMich LMich is offline
Midwest Moderator - Editor
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Big Mitten
Posts: 30,121
From the article, above:

Quote:

Reports are spreading that Energy Tower at City Center may become two smaller towers, a sign that the building developers have heard the concerns of the people.

Tower developers have seriously considered converting the 53-story skyscraper into two 25-30 story towers, as revealed in a Reporter-Telegram Business Insider magazine interview with Midland Chamber of Commerce President and CEO Bobby Burns. He said Midlanders could see the potential change as a positive step.

“Two towers with 25 or 30 stories may provide a much more palatable addition to our downtown than one massive structure,” Burns said in the interview.

Current Mayor Jerry Morales and former Mayor Wes Perry both said in separate interviews that they too have heard the reports about the redesign but not from the developers themselves. Both believe making two smaller buildings would be welcomed by the community that has created an uproar ever since the high-rise was announced almost one year ago.
This seems to address even some people's concerns, here. That said, it's not like this was going up in some residential area, so I'm a bit confused by the "uproar" from Midland unless we're just talking each individual's personal aesthetics and preferences.
__________________
Where the trees are the right height
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #103  
Old Posted Mar 25, 2014, 10:42 AM
ATLksuGUY's Avatar
ATLksuGUY ATLksuGUY is offline
FriskyDingo
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Atlanta
Posts: 554
Quote:
Originally Posted by LMich View Post
From the article, above:



This seems to address even some people's concerns, here. That said, it's not like this was going up in some residential area, so I'm a bit confused by the "uproar" from Midland unless we're just talking each individual's personal aesthetics and preferences.
This is a little sad to hear. This project was everything , (almost) that I like to see outside of NYC, Chicago etc. It was ambitious, different, a little wild and a symbol of growth and progress. Two towers that are shorter will still make an impact, but it won't have the level of drive for a new skyline in a growing city. I hope midland still gets this project either way. Good for them, and Texas.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #104  
Old Posted Mar 25, 2014, 3:46 PM
Zapatan's Avatar
Zapatan Zapatan is offline
El Barto
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Las Americas y Europa
Posts: 3,031
That's sad, the taller version is obviously better, what were they thinking?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #105  
Old Posted Mar 25, 2014, 4:53 PM
jg6544 jg6544 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 977
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zapatan View Post
That's sad, the taller version is obviously better, what were they thinking?
Probably that a building that size could absorb all of the office demand between Ft. Worth and El Paso with room to spare. Nobody wants to build another see-through building.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #106  
Old Posted Mar 26, 2014, 8:00 AM
LMich's Avatar
LMich LMich is offline
Midwest Moderator - Editor
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Big Mitten
Posts: 30,121
But, that's the thing, they aren't talking about building less space, rather simply building two towers. Now, the real reason beind this may very well to do it in phases and then announces there is no demand for a second phase. But, their excuse at the moment is that they are bowing to public pressure to split the project up, not that the demand isn't there for the space.
__________________
Where the trees are the right height
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #107  
Old Posted Mar 26, 2014, 5:14 PM
KevinFromTexas's Avatar
KevinFromTexas KevinFromTexas is online now
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: sunshine and taco trucks on every corner
Posts: 43,663
The problem with two towers is it would mean the need for at least twice the amount of street level retail, and I doubt they care about that anyway.
__________________
it's just a jump to the left and then a step to the right.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #108  
Old Posted Mar 26, 2014, 6:34 PM
toxteth o'grady's Avatar
toxteth o'grady toxteth o'grady is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,409
Quote:
Originally Posted by dc_denizen View Post
Nice tower, but $75 MM seems a steep price for a municipality to pony up for.
There is no reason for municipal agencies to be funding private development unless they get a piece of the equity. These developers are big boys; they know how to get money from the private sector. More socialism for the rich.
__________________
"This will be good for the city"
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #109  
Old Posted Mar 26, 2014, 10:43 PM
SLO's Avatar
SLO SLO is offline
REAL Kiwi!
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: California
Posts: 5,292
Much better proposal for a place like Midland.
__________________
He said he'd cure your ills, but he didn't and he never will
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #110  
Old Posted May 2, 2014, 4:25 AM
tgannaway89 tgannaway89 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Midland/San Antonio
Posts: 379
New renderings of the double tower project:



It is a much smaller project that the original anticipated tower.

http://www.mrt.com/top_stories/artic...a4bcf887a.html

http://www.mrt.com/top_stories/artic...9bb2963f4.html
__________________
WATCH TV
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #111  
Old Posted May 2, 2014, 4:44 AM
scalziand's Avatar
scalziand scalziand is offline
Mortaaaaaaaaar!
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Naugatuck, CT/Worcester,MA
Posts: 3,421
Still looks pretty neat, although what's up with those giant fins?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #112  
Old Posted May 2, 2014, 5:06 AM
JoninATX JoninATX is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: The ATX
Posts: 2,644
I like it! I may not be as tall as anticipated. But still very nice nonetheless.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #113  
Old Posted May 2, 2014, 9:51 AM
NYC2ATX's Avatar
NYC2ATX NYC2ATX is offline
Yank in Tex
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 1,939
As far as redesigns go, this is a really good one. The new design is still sleek and edgy like the former proposal, more in scale with the rest of the city, and the taller tower still appears to be a potential new tallest.

And this can still open the door for future taller buildings. Just a demonstration of the investment being there in Midland should be an indicator for other developers of a worthwhile market.

P.S. methinks it's time the mods update the heading for the thread?
__________________
"Also, to be frank, I like dense cities best and care about them most." from The Death And Life of Great American Cities by Jane Jacobs.

BUILD IT. BUILD EVERYTHING. BUILD IT ALL.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #114  
Old Posted Jun 21, 2014, 6:35 PM
tgannaway89 tgannaway89 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Midland/San Antonio
Posts: 379
__________________
WATCH TV
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #115  
Old Posted Jun 21, 2014, 6:39 PM
chris08876's Avatar
chris08876 chris08876 is online now
D1, D2, D3, D4, D5, TAAR1
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: New Jersey - Somerset County
Posts: 17,970
Quote:
Originally Posted by tgannaway89 View Post
I'd rather see a 869 ft tower in Houston or Dallas then here. Maybe its for the best instead of two towers. The original proposal was beautiful.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #116  
Old Posted Jun 21, 2014, 7:13 PM
Dale Dale is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Orlando
Posts: 3,509
Wow, I guess Midlands just doesn't have the goods. Can't even get the squatty version built.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #117  
Old Posted Jun 28, 2014, 2:22 PM
tgannaway89 tgannaway89 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Midland/San Antonio
Posts: 379
New partner brings project back to life:

http://www.mrt.com/news/article_283a...9bb2963f4.html
__________________
WATCH TV
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #118  
Old Posted Sep 11, 2014, 5:51 AM
tgannaway89 tgannaway89 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Midland/San Antonio
Posts: 379
__________________
WATCH TV
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #119  
Old Posted Sep 11, 2014, 1:28 PM
shakman's Avatar
shakman shakman is offline
Chairman
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Frederick, MD
Posts: 2,388
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yackemflaber69 View Post
no way this is going to get built
It sucks to be right.
Reply With Quote
     
     
End
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Buildings & Architecture > Never Built & Visionary Projects
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 3:44 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.