Interesting for Memphis?

[Bears]

Is such a huge tower neccessary for downtown? I don't think there is enough demand for a 50+ story building downtown but as someone pointed out, maybe in East Memphis. Sure tall buildings that stand out are nice, but if the condo market suddenly goes flat, we have another Sterick on our hands. In a community like Southend, those condos can be torn down and/or converted much easier. I'm not anti-skyscraper but personally, I'd rather live in a mixed use community over a mixed use building. Skyscrapers can be a good thing but that alone isn't what make's a city great. If a Signature Tower does get built in Memphis, not many people will really care. The Pyramid already commands the attention of an average passerby.

[Clobber]

Is such a huge tower neccessary for downtown? I don't think there is enough demand for a 50+ story building downtown but as someone pointed out, maybe in East Memphis. Sure tall buildings that stand out are nice, but if the condo market suddenly goes flat, we have another Sterick on our hands. In a community like Southend, those condos can be torn down and/or converted much easier. I'm not anti-skyscraper but personally, I'd rather live in a mixed use community over a mixed use building. Skyscrapers can be a good thing but that alone isn't what make's a city great. If a Signature Tower does get built in Memphis, not many people will really care. The Pyramid already commands the attention of an average passerby.

If you read my post, I don't think it's *necessary* today. If necessity were the reason for the objections, and not the height, I have no issue with that. It sounds like height alone is an issue for some of the posts, and I wonder whether they feel the same way about Chicago and Cleveland's skylines. I just don't think the height *alone* is a valid objection. And, again, to reiterate my earlier post, I'd prefer a shorter beautiful building (Swiss Re or Frost) over a 65 story box. But once the demand emerges, and if the design is worthy, I wouldn't object to a beautiful tower of the 600+ ft on height alone. In fact, if it were a great design, I wouldn't object at all.

Demand and design are the only factors for me.

[Bears]

Oh I wasn't replying to your post, just adding to it. I wouldn't complain about a 60 story tower either. Just some people think thats a step to Memphis becoming world class when it really won't change anything much more than the skyline.

[Clobber]

Oh I wasn't replying to your post, just adding to it. I wouldn't complain about a 60 story tower either. Just some people think thats the first step to Memphis becoming first class when it really won't change anything much more than the skyline.

Sorry my bad.

[northernbizzkit1]

I personally think that focus for skyscrapers needs to extend to East Memphis as well. Memphis, IMO, would have the true world class feel if the East Memphis skyline was a bit more dense and had the feel of Buckhead in Atlanta. We truly would have two skylines that way.

[cdarr]

Oh I wasn't replying to your post, just adding to it. I wouldn't complain about a 60 story tower either. Just some people think thats a step to Memphis becoming world class when it really won't change anything much more than the skyline.

I think you just summarized my view. Would I get excited if Memphis got a 700' tower? Sure. Is it a requirement for Memphis to be successful? No way. There are a number of large, healthy, growing cities with no buildings over 600 or even 500 feet. For example:

Phoenix - tallest building is 483' and was built in 1972. Nothing over 360' built in past 10 years.

San Diego - tallest building is 500'

San Antonio - Not counting an observation tower, tallest is a 546' hotel built 18 years ago.

San Jose - The city hall, at 285', is the tallest building in the city.

Austin - Tallest is 515'

None of these would be on anybody's list of "dead" cities!

[fieldmarshaldj]

San Diego - tallest building is 500'

San Diego has the problem of Lindbergh Field being adjacent to downtown, hence the height limits, otherwise there'd be a more dramatic skyline there.

[cdarr]

Oh yeah...a few more I came up with...

Portland - Tallest is 546' built in 1972. The tallest recent tower was 372' (2000).

Sacramento - 423' (1992)

Orlando - 441' (1988)

Raleigh 431' (1991)

Cincinnati - 574' (1931). Tallest modern building 468' (1990)

St. Louis - Excluding the arch, tallest is 593' (1989)

Baltimore - 529' (1990)

Of course, Washington DC would fit in here too, but it is a different animal altogether.

[fieldmarshaldj]

Oh yeah...a few more I came up with...

Portland - Tallest is 546' built in 1972. The tallest recent tower was 372' (2000).

Sacramento - 423' (1992)

Orlando - 441' (1988)

Raleigh 431' (1991)

Cincinnati - 574' (1931). Tallest modern building 468' (1990)

St. Louis - Excluding the arch, tallest is 593' (1989)

Baltimore - 529' (1990)

Of course, Washington DC would fit in here too, but it is a different animal altogether.

Including DC, Portland also enacted height limits after the 1972 construction of the Wells-Fargo building (due to public outcry). Sacramento has a whopping 6 proposed or approved high rises all taller than its current tallest building (the tallest being over 600'). Cincinnati was set to build 2 650 footers in 1990, but they fell through. St. Louis also has a proposal on the books to build a high-rise the same height as the Gateway Arch (but they also have a problem that a lot of businesses prefer suburban Clayton, which has a downtown area of substantial size disproportionate to its tiny population). And Baltimore is expected to build the 717-foot "10 Inner Harbor" shortly, which will be the tallest building on the east coast between Philadelphia and Charlotte.

[Clobber]

I think you just summarized my view. Would I get excited if Memphis got a 700' tower? Sure. Is it a requirement for Memphis to be successful? No way. There are a number of large, healthy, growing cities with no buildings over 600 or even 500 feet. For example:

Phoenix - tallest building is 483' and was built in 1972. Nothing over 360' built in past 10 years.

San Diego - tallest building is 500'

San Antonio - Not counting an observation tower, tallest is a 546' hotel built 18 years ago.

San Jose - The city hall, at 285', is the tallest building in the city.

Austin - Tallest is 515'

None of these would be on anybody's list of "dead" cities!

Cross referencing that list with cities reknowned for healthy vibrant downtowns, and you get SD, SA, and Austin. Don't know about SJ, and Phoenix, for a city its size, is D-E-A-D dead downtown, but improving. The city's amazing growth (aka sprawl) has until recently totally ignored downtown.

[cdarr]

Cross referencing that list with cities reknowned for healthy vibrant downtowns, and you get SD, SA, and Austin.

Of all the cities I mentioned, I think San Antonio may be closest to Memphis circumstances. It's downtown is primarily a convention/tourist mecca, rather than a business district. There are some office buildings, but the only memorable one is the historic Tower Life building which would be the equivalent of the Sterick Building (both were built in 1929). No tall office towers of any consequence have been built in downtown San Antonio during the past 20 years.

[sleepy]

Of all the cities I mentioned, I think San Antonio may be closest to Memphis circumstances. It's downtown is primarily a convention/tourist mecca, rather than a business district. There are some office buildings, but the only memorable one is the historic Tower Life building which would be the equivalent of the Sterick Building (both were built in 1929). No tall office towers of any consequence have been built in downtown San Antonio during the past 20 years.

And you go around that interstate loop on the north side of SA, and it's wall to wall midrises and highrises. Functions, I guess as East Memphis does.