Jump to content

Skyline Balance


cheshireguy

Recommended Posts

I see your point GRDad, agreed... now we can't exactly have a 40 story factory or warehouse, can we? And admin and production typically reside under the same roof. Unfortunately the 200,000 sq ft manufacturing space just doesn't lend the same excitement as a flashy spire downtown. (Don't get me wrong, the more the better) Can a blanket statement be made that where you have a high concentration of insurance or financial headquarters, you will have a proportionate number of high rises?

Now you got me thinking, I need to find a comparably sized city to GR with a similar employment demo/industry base and see what over weighted conclusions I can jump to. Using all the big modifiers such as tax incentives, schools, education levels... too much work. :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Replies 111
  • Created
  • Last Reply

I see your point GRDad, agreed... now we can't exactly have a 40 story factory or warehouse, can we? And admin and production typically reside under the same roof. Unfortunately the 200,000 sq ft manufacturing space just doesn't lend the same excitement as a flashy spire downtown. (Don't get me wrong, the more the better) Can a blanket statement be made that where you have a high concentration of insurance or financial headquarters, you will have a proportionate number of high rises?

Now you got me thinking, I need to find a comparably sized city to GR with a similar employment demo/industry base and see what over weighted conclusions I can jump to. Using all the big modifiers such as tax incentives, schools, education levels... too much work. :lol:

:lol: Good luck, I've tried. Grand Rapids is really an anomoly in the U.S.. The closest I've come so far seems to be Greenville, S.C. They too have a lackluster skyline, but a lot of growth on the periphery over the last 10 - 20 years, and a lot of manufacturing (like BMW and its supply base). They have a small university (Clemson) that sits out in the suburbs with a fast-growing campus. They're surrounded by mega cities of Charlotte and Atlanta. They're close to a large natural resource/recreation area (Smoky Mountains).

I don't think we're like any other midwestern city, IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In regards to cnordstroms sketch up, the 3 additions really do dwarf all existing GR buildings. No comparison. I agree that by putting up just one with that big of a height discrepancy would look very odd...why not 3...why not 5?? I do like the hypothetical placement as well. A very "Centered" skyline, with an easy focal point.

I peeked at the Des Moines skyline on Emporis, why are they so far ahead of GR? Most of their height, barring the borrowed tower, is very well established. It doesn't appear there was a huge boom recently. They have the same city proper population, and rougly 2/3 of the metro. What gives? The site noted an abundancy of insurance HQ's are there, never would have guessed that.

After surfing around a little more, most every market with a comparable population has a more vertical if not exciting skyline that GR.

I read somewhere that Des Moines has about 55,000 people working in their downtown area. Compare that to about 25,000 for downtown GR.

I love the look of two 600 footers and a 700 in Gr. as far as placement, i think that the Amway owned lot on Fulkton and Market will more than likely be one of the locations of seeing a tall signature type building someday, even if it may not be in the best location to help balance the skyline, as was discussed on this forum sometime last year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:hi: Just spit-ballin' here, but there could be a couple of factors at play. Des Moines is the largest city in Iowa, GR is not the largest city in Michigan (yet). Plus we have Chicago in our back yard - they have what... Omaha, Kansas City as their nearest large metro areas? Being the largest city in their area, they would naturally draw a larger concentration of workers. One question is how much of their vertical growth took place prior to the advent of high-speed communications and increased computing power? In the days before these benefits existed, it was much more necessary for an organization to cluster its many workers, departments and functions together in order to gain efficiencies - ie: in a tall skyscraper. Email, fax, scanners, the internet, even FedEx have made much of this obsolete. Nowadays, your accounting department can be in Lansing, your sales office in Grand Rapids, your marketing department in Chicago, your manufacturing in China and your customer service operation in India. I would love to see a 700 ft. tower in downtown GR, but who or what's going to fill it?

Say... How high can you build a parking structure? [ducks]

It's fun to hypothesize about what formula yields the desired result. We can figure out "A" and "B", but variable "X" well, that's why it's "X". And X has friends, Y and Z, and on and on. I agree having two very big brothers close by, Detroit and Chicago, does weigh heavy on GR. We are lucky to have some things like Broadway shows, Ballet, to name a few. Omaha and KC are not on par with the hubs that surround GR. Shoot, Des Moines doesn't even have a Kalamazoo equivalent to compete with that I see. I'm sure it's relative isolation from competing markets only strengthens it's regional play. Yup, and it's a state capital as well.

I understand the logic with the communication age and high rise construction. So if the trend is away from 1 or 2 large tenants with nearly all departments in 1 tower... and towers continue to rise, in many markets, are they now occupied by many tenants with smaller and only a few corporate functions/departments each?

Give Bombay, India five years and they'll look like Hong Kong - except every building will be 80 stories of customer service!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ouch, you cut deep GRDad. :)

Personally, I don't think our skyline is lackluster. There are many beautiful cities that are vertically challenged, including much of Europe and our very own capital (D.C., not Lansing :P). I would be happy if we kept our eye on the street level, built engaging smaller buildings and let the "monsters" happen organically. I love a big skyscraper just as much as the next guy, but I think a lot of times these buildings are not at all pedestrian friendly which I think is much more attainable than landing a 60 story tower in the center of the city.

Joe

They too have a lackluster skyline,
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ouch, you cut deep GRDad. :)

Personally, I don't think our skyline is lackluster. There are many beautiful cities that are vertically challenged, including much of Europe and our very own capital (D.C., not Lansing :P). I would be happy if we kept our eye on the street level, built engaging smaller buildings and let the "monsters" happen organically. I love a big skyscraper just as much as the next guy, but I think a lot of times these buildings are not at all pedestrian friendly which I think is much more attainable than landing a 60 story tower in the center of the city.

Joe

You're right, "lackluster" was not a good word. It's not as "clearly defined and centrally clustered" like a lot of other cities. But I'm with you that it's not a bad thing. I kind of like how GR is growing several distinct downtown districts. It makes for a much more interesting environment. I've been in cities where it was all high-rise office buildings in a four block area, and dead as a doornail as well.

In fact, I think the amount of construction going on in downtown GR is unprecedented for a city our size. A lot of cities our size have "proposals" for a lot of high-rises, but the majority of those are condo towers (not office buildings) and are not selling well (and probably won't be built), or sports stadiums.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's fun to hypothesize about what formula yields the desired result. We can figure out "A" and "B", but variable "X" well, that's why it's "X". And X has friends, Y and Z, and on and on. I agree having two very big brothers close by, Detroit and Chicago, does weigh heavy on GR. We are lucky to have some things like Broadway shows, Ballet, to name a few. Omaha and KC are not on par with the hubs that surround GR. Shoot, Des Moines doesn't even have a Kalamazoo equivalent to compete with that I see. I'm sure it's relative isolation from competing markets only strengthens it's regional play. Yup, and it's a state capital as well.

I understand the logic with the communication age and high rise construction. So if the trend is away from 1 or 2 large tenants with nearly all departments in 1 tower... and towers continue to rise, in many markets, are they now occupied by many tenants with smaller and only a few corporate functions/departments each?

Give Bombay, India five years and they'll look like Hong Kong - except every building will be 80 stories of customer service!

I think you're right. I don't think the authors were thinking of residential high rises, just corporate office towers. They did point out that most super tall growth (Shanghai, Dubai, Hong Kong, etc.) would occur in areas where the infrastructure was still somewhat lacking compared to what we enjoy and also where there would be government support (financial) because of the philosophy that having the tallest building in the world somehow signals that your nation has "arrived".

and now... back to Grand Rapids. In the parking thread there is the latest news [click here] from GRBJ that the parking commission can't afford to build all the new spaces they claim developers are asking for in order to proceed with a slew of projects. Anyone know anything about any of these projects and why they would require so much more parking? Are they tall? Will they impact the skyline?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are many beautiful cities that are vertically challenged, including much of Europe and our very own capital (D.C., not Lansing :P ).

True... but those cities have incredible density that make up for their lack of height. London, Paris, and DC all have fairly narrow streets with walls of six story buildings forming their own canyons. GR, on the other hand, is very dispersed, even in the heart of downtown, and with the huge amount of land outside of the central core allowing for sprawl, it's difficult to imagine she'll ever have the kind of density of those other cities.

Even Chicago can't match her European counterparts for sheer density. By building vertically, however, we start to draw more people into that same core without seeming as packed in. GR is similar, albeit on a smaller scale. A few tall buildings with setbacks allows for density without seeming overwhelming. The only way the city core will grow is if a few taller buildings get put in. That will draw more people/businesses downtown, and allow for more growth.

On a slightly different point, the move towards living in highrises (as opposed to just working) is really a relatively new phenomenon around here. Sure, people have lived in highrises along the lake shore for a years, but living downtown has never been as appealing and you've certainly never seen condo building in the business district like you're seeing now. For a smaller city like GR, I suspect it will be a while before people begin to embrace the idea of living in the sky... having a lawn is much more tempting!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On that note, didn't somebody post an image of GR's master plan drawn up back in the late 1800's? That image depicted GR as having the look and feel of a European city.

I believe you are referring to the illustration I have of Downtown. :dontknow: The image is from the Grand Rapids city plan of the 20s. Fun Facts from the City Plan: Developed by the famous Harland Bartholomew and states that Grand Rapids of 1927 was capable of accommodating 400,000 residents. A few interesting notes. Due to the frequent freight and passenger rail services downtown it was decided to elevate the trackage throughout. In some places it is noted to subway some streets and railways to accommodate the safety of city dwellers. Included are ambitious projects to run streetcar services through out much of the city offering as little as half-mile to a stop.

Not such a little city envisioned ago....

493779231_7a028a430c.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's the one. Even though I'm a 'scraper fanatic, I'd gladly trade all of our high rises for a modern implementation of this master plan.

I believe you are referring to the illustration I have of Downtown. :dontknow: The image is from the Grand Rapids city plan of the 20s. Fun Facts from the City Plan: Developed by the famous Harland Bartholomew and states that Grand Rapids of 1927 was capable of accommodating 400,000 residents. A few interesting notes. Due to the frequent freight and passenger rail services downtown it was decided to elevate the trackage throughout. In some places it is noted to subway some streets and railways to accommodate the safety of city dwellers. Included are ambitious projects to run streetcar services through out much of the city offering as little as half-mile to a stop.

Not such a little city envisioned ago....

493779231_7a028a430c.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe you are referring to the illustration I have of Downtown. :dontknow: The image is from the Grand Rapids city plan of the 20s. Fun Facts from the City Plan: Developed by the famous Harland Bartholomew and states that Grand Rapids of 1927 was capable of accommodating 400,000 residents. A few interesting notes. Due to the frequent freight and passenger rail services downtown it was decided to elevate the trackage throughout. In some places it is noted to subway some streets and railways to accommodate the safety of city dwellers. Included are ambitious projects to run streetcar services through out much of the city offering as little as half-mile to a stop.

Not such a little city envisioned ago....

Not out of place in that plan from the 20's would be one of my favorite buildings - completed in 1913 - The Woolworth Building in NY. What can I say, I'm a fan of the classics and this baby is nearly 800 feet tall (795). Maybe we need a little retro flair in downtown GR to offset all the new glass and steel. This place is a beauty. Plus, it is converting/converted from business offices to residential...

If Huntington moves to 275 Fulton, I say the washer/dryer should bite the dust and we go gothic. How about this view looking south on Monroe from in front of the Pantlind?

661671054_9d3120c64c_o.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not out of place in that plan from the 20's would be one of my favorite buildings - completed in 1913 - The Woolworth Building in NY. What can I say, I'm a fan of the classics and this baby is nearly 800 feet tall (795). Maybe we need a little retro flair in downtown GR to offset all the new glass and steel. This place is a beauty. Plus, it is converting/converted from business offices to residential...

If Huntington moves to 275 Fulton, I say the washer/dryer should bite the dust and we go gothic. How about this view looking south on Monroe from in front of the Pantlind?

661671054_9d3120c64c_o.jpg

You have great tastes The Woolworth is a magnificent building.

By the way. Nice photoshopping as well. :thumbsup:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Furniture Capital building (I think that is what it was called) that was proposed to be built on the site of the Welsh Auditorium before the depression hit. Anyone have a good image of this one? It would have been a beaut and was intended to show the world that Grand Rapids was the center of the universe for furniture. Darn depression!

Joe

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...

I didn't feel like starting a new thread, so I pulled this one for some discussion about the old Lyon and Ottawa tower proposal.

Chris Knape has pulled a nice big version out of the Rendering Graveyard.

Even the first three or four floors would have made quite a difference for that section of Ottawa (although it looks like 2/3's of the base is parking). Not bad though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't feel like starting a new thread, so I pulled this one for some discussion about the old Lyon and Ottawa tower proposal.

Chris Knape has pulled a nice big version out of the Rendering Graveyard.

Even the first three or four floors would have made quite a difference for that section of Ottawa (although it looks like 2/3's of the base is parking). Not bad though.

This is the first time I've seen high quality renderings of that building. Its a crying shame it fall through because it would have given DT that much sought after signature tower. It would have pulled some visual weight away from the river to give DT a more of a big city look as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is the first time I've seen high quality renderings of that building. Its a crying shame it fall through because it would have given DT that much sought after signature tower. It would have pulled some visual weight away from the river to give DT a more of a big city look as well.

Yeah but pulling Varnum out of Bridgewater and Chase out of, well, the Chase Building, would have been awful. Both of those are huge tenants in their respective buildings. Maybe they would have been able to fill the space, but probably at the expense of older buildings. You might have seen some buildings go nearly or completely vacant.

Key Tower in Cleveland and the RenCen in Detroit are both landmarks and successes in their own right, but both had a severely negative impact on their respective office markets for decades.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is the first time I've seen high quality renderings of that building. Its a crying shame it fall through because it would have given DT that much sought after signature tower. It would have pulled some visual weight away from the river to give DT a more of a big city look as well.

Personally I think the design is a bit clunky near the top. The transition area where it turns into glass and then into the spire area isn't executed very well. Otherwise, the rest is pretty cool.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.