HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForumSkyscraper Posters
     

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

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #41  
Old Posted Apr 4, 2012, 9:22 AM
Aleks's Avatar
Aleks Aleks is offline
cookies, skittles & milk
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Seattle
Posts: 6,258
Quote:
Originally Posted by plinko View Post
^At this point the skyline impacts are the least important part of the project.
I don't think that's necessarily true. It may not be the case with many buildings but Seattleites have begun to pay closer attention to the skyline ever since The Cosmopolitan fiasco (where the condo building lost a huge percentage of views and was overshadowed by a building not more than 30 ft away).

Put the fact that this is amazon on top of that, a ginormous company which people here expect a lot from. While a majority number of citizens won't expect much, I would say a large number of them do.

As for the massing, I'm not overly impressed but it's not a disappointment either. The have a chance to create three classy buildings, perhaps along the lines of London's Canary Wharf. Simple, elegant, stubby. My main concern is how they'll connect this area with the rest of the shopping district. The CBD blends into SD, but you go a few blocks into this proposed zone and it's bare. I don't expect a mall, but it looks like the perfect opportunity to liven up the immediate area!
__________________
...the greatness of victor is equally proportionate to the skill and obduracy of foe...
-Kostof-

Last edited by Aleks; Apr 4, 2012 at 11:42 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #42  
Old Posted Apr 4, 2012, 3:26 PM
mhays mhays is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 15,339
This will go a long way to filling in that underoccupied area, which has maybe 10 acres of buildable land, including some undersized buildings. They have options on more of it.

With the Triangle east of Westlake already filling in, Belltown filling in (kind of booming right now), and the ever-booming South Lake Union to the north, this will help tie the three together. Even just the first tower will go a long way.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #43  
Old Posted Apr 4, 2012, 5:46 PM
Zapatan's Avatar
Zapatan Zapatan is offline
El Barto
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Las Americas y Europa
Posts: 3,019
Quote:
Originally Posted by jd3189 View Post
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 does do a good job of filling the gap between downtown and the SN, I agree with that, but it seems they went out of their way to make these towers shorter, which is really aggravating. Obviously tall buildings don't make a city but since we are all a fan of them and skylines on this forum it would be nice to see something better than these.

I just wonder if supertalls could even be a common option, would it even be possible to build one in Seattle? If San Francisco can do it, Seattle surely can.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #44  
Old Posted Apr 4, 2012, 7:02 PM
mhays mhays is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 15,339
Not really plausible given our zoning. There's a small area where there's technically no height limit, but there is a FAR limit for commercial uses. I think housing isn't subject to that but you'd have to charge a hell of a premium for it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #45  
Old Posted May 5, 2012, 4:57 PM
OhioGuy OhioGuy is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: DC
Posts: 6,915
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #46  
Old Posted May 5, 2012, 7:15 PM
RobertWalpole RobertWalpole is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 1,911
I love Seattle, but these towers suck. Seattle has a very conservative skyline to begin with, and this was an opportunity to do something impressive. Instead, three, short, lame boxes will rise.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #47  
Old Posted May 5, 2012, 7:47 PM
patriotizzy's Avatar
patriotizzy patriotizzy is offline
Metal Up Your !
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Bay Area, CA
Posts: 1,075
I agree with Robert. This was a huge opportunity for this city. Imagine those 3 towers stacked on top of each other. Could have ended up being a new iconic tower for Seattle!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #48  
Old Posted May 5, 2012, 11:18 PM
JiminyCricket II JiminyCricket II is offline
good time not a long time
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: San Jose
Posts: 3,665
^yep, it's kind of what Seattle gets for archaic height limits.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #49  
Old Posted May 6, 2012, 12:10 AM
Illithid Dude's Avatar
Illithid Dude Illithid Dude is online now
Paramoderator
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Santa Monica / New York City
Posts: 2,546
I dunno, I like it. This development really fills in the gaps in the skyline.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #50  
Old Posted May 6, 2012, 12:37 PM
NYguy's Avatar
NYguy NYguy is offline
New Yorker for life
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Borough of Jersey
Posts: 33,697
Quote:
Originally Posted by OhioGuy View Post

A new signature tower for the skyline would have been preferred, but if zoning doesn't allow it, this will have to do.
__________________
NEW YORK. World's capital.

“Office buildings are our factories – whether for tech, creative or traditional industries we must continue to grow our modern factories to create new jobs,” said United States Senator Chuck Schumer.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #51  
Old Posted May 6, 2012, 5:25 PM
seaskyfan seaskyfan is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Seattle
Posts: 3,748
My office is a few blocks away from the site and I like how the area is filling in. I think this is a nice density/scale for a mixed office/residential neighborhood.

I think if we get another signature tower it will likely be in the financial district to the south. The proposed 5th & Columbia tower would be pretty cool if it ever gets off the ground: http://fifthandcolumbia.com/art.html
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #52  
Old Posted May 7, 2012, 7:01 PM
mhays mhays is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 15,339
They look small and stubby (even by Seattle standards) but then you notice the buildings nearby...these are stubby because they have massive floorplates. Maxing out at 500' isn't huge, but it's still substantial.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #53  
Old Posted May 18, 2012, 4:29 AM
NYguy's Avatar
NYguy NYguy is offline
New Yorker for life
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Borough of Jersey
Posts: 33,697
__________________
NEW YORK. World's capital.

“Office buildings are our factories – whether for tech, creative or traditional industries we must continue to grow our modern factories to create new jobs,” said United States Senator Chuck Schumer.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #54  
Old Posted May 18, 2012, 5:08 AM
Zapatan's Avatar
Zapatan Zapatan is offline
El Barto
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Las Americas y Europa
Posts: 3,019
Quote:
Originally Posted by JiminyCricket II View Post
^yep, it's kind of what Seattle gets for archaic height limits.

How did the columbia center get built then?

Those towers are nothing special, but there is a 200 meter building planned in the city center, hopefully that goes through. It does fill a gap though, and three 150 meter buildings does add good quantity, maybe someday soon seattle will get a new tallest signature tower.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #55  
Old Posted May 18, 2012, 5:13 AM
mhays mhays is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 15,339
Columbia Center was entitled in the early 80s. The rules can change over time.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #56  
Old Posted May 18, 2012, 5:28 AM
Zapatan's Avatar
Zapatan Zapatan is offline
El Barto
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Las Americas y Europa
Posts: 3,019
so what's the citywide height limit now? Is there ever a possibility for a taller tower?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #57  
Old Posted May 18, 2012, 5:32 AM
mhays mhays is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 15,339
There's a small area without height limits, literally a hundred acres or a couple hundred. But it has FAR (floor area ratio) limits that I think only apply to commercial, not residential. Housing at that height is hard to make pencil. For offices, with limited FAR, the cost/benefit is often better with a stubbier building. And I think you'd need the whole block to go very tall (more floor area allowed with more land). I've heard it estimated that the most we'd likely see under current rules is 700' or so.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #58  
Old Posted May 18, 2012, 6:11 AM
Zapatan's Avatar
Zapatan Zapatan is offline
El Barto
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Las Americas y Europa
Posts: 3,019
Quote:
Originally Posted by mhays View Post
There's a small area without height limits, literally a hundred acres or a couple hundred. But it has FAR (floor area ratio) limits that I think only apply to commercial, not residential. Housing at that height is hard to make pencil. For offices, with limited FAR, the cost/benefit is often better with a stubbier building. And I think you'd need the whole block to go very tall (more floor area allowed with more land). I've heard it estimated that the most we'd likely see under current rules is 700' or so.
A couple hundred acres isn't that small, maybe a building higher than 700 feet could be residential or mixed if they have no height limits.

Seattle has such a nice skyline, it would be ashame if Columbia Center were the tallest for too long.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #59  
Old Posted May 18, 2012, 2:13 PM
vandelay vandelay is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 663
Not great. It looks like the architects took all the latest fads in architecture and threw them into the proposal. It will probably look dated in a decade and age poorly.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #60  
Old Posted May 18, 2012, 8:15 PM
TallBob TallBob is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 2,897
I lived in Seattle in the 80's and remember when the "CAPS" group of Nimbys forced the city to push for height limits in the DT area. It was an overereach by a missguided group of people that did'nt want Seattle to become Manhattan! Really! These height restrictions need to go it's long over-due. These restrictions seem to be in most large cities in the US and Canada. Vancouver and Calgary have shadowing restrictions and so on. People see a couple of high-rises go up and everybody worries about becomming a "Manhatan"! It's getting rediculous! Anyway.... Dissapointed in the Amazon proposal.
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 1:17 AM.

     

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