HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Buildings & Architecture > Never Built & Visionary Projects > Cancelled Project Threads Archive


 

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #41  
Old Posted Nov 23, 2015, 5:12 PM
mrnyc mrnyc is offline
cle/west village/shaolin
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 11,586
wow what a proposal -- hmm, the 3rd one seems the most seattley to me
     
     
  #42  
Old Posted Nov 23, 2015, 5:27 PM
mSeattle's Avatar
mSeattle mSeattle is offline
Socialism 4 Extreme Rich?
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: here
Posts: 10,073
^Yes, and many of us wish to climb out of the "box" and stomp on it.
     
     
  #43  
Old Posted Nov 23, 2015, 6:31 PM
1Boston's Avatar
1Boston 1Boston is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Quincy, MA
Posts: 370
I like the second design the best, but I think it would be even better if it was turned upside down. So that it went from curved to box.
     
     
  #44  
Old Posted Nov 24, 2015, 5:36 AM
TallBob TallBob is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 3,135
Proposal #1 or #2! Not liking #3 at all!
     
     
  #45  
Old Posted Nov 29, 2015, 6:01 AM
N830MH N830MH is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 2,967
Quote:
Originally Posted by TallBob View Post
Proposal #1 or #2 are my picks!
Only 1 at a time. You have picks one, but not 2.
     
     
  #46  
Old Posted Nov 30, 2015, 12:41 AM
viewguysf's Avatar
viewguysf viewguysf is offline
Surrounded by Nature
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Walnut Creek, California
Posts: 2,028
viewguysf

Be very leery of Crescent Heights since they have recently built several looser towers here, one of which is particularly hideous and prominent.

"Jasper" is the scourge of Rincon Hill and most of us hate it because of its blank west side that faces the city. It is by far the worst tower of the eight others constructed in the area. http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/show...115515&page=21

"NEMA" started out to be promising, but is cheap, not well done, and is already not aging well. http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/show...128011&page=18

Crescent Heights has two other very prominent development sites in the City that are definitely a cause for concern.
     
     
  #47  
Old Posted Nov 30, 2015, 2:22 AM
CHELSEANYC CHELSEANYC is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 1
Neither of those looks bad to me. And we can see the design here in detail. No blank walls.
     
     
  #48  
Old Posted Nov 30, 2015, 5:25 AM
TallBob TallBob is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 3,135
N830MH: OK....Maybe I'd like to see both #1 & #2 built!!
     
     
  #49  
Old Posted Dec 2, 2015, 11:15 PM
SFView SFView is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,071
Quote:
Originally Posted by viewguysf View Post
Be very leery of Crescent Heights since they have recently built several looser towers here, one of which is particularly hideous and prominent.

"Jasper" is the scourge of Rincon Hill and most of us hate it because of its blank west side that faces the city. It is by far the worst tower of the eight others constructed in the area. http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/show...115515&page=21

"NEMA" started out to be promising, but is cheap, not well done, and is already not aging well. http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/show...128011&page=18

Crescent Heights has two other very prominent development sites in the City that are definitely a cause for concern.
This may be true for the two projects you mentioned in San Francisco, but the conditions for 701 Fourth Avenue in Seattle are not the same. The design quality may be different as a result. The same goes for the newer projects in San Francisco. As you know, projects by others, even with great designs and good reputations sometimes get value engineered with great disappointment. Large projects are typically complicated and often unpredictable. Limitations may arise that force difficult compromises. We'll just have to wait and see. Hopefully these designs for the newer towers turn out much better.
     
     
  #50  
Old Posted Jan 5, 2016, 1:28 AM
mSeattle's Avatar
mSeattle mSeattle is offline
Socialism 4 Extreme Rich?
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: here
Posts: 10,073
This one might probably be a bit shorter than proposed:


Proposed 102-story tower would be too tall for FAA approval
http://www.seattlepi.com/local/artic...AA-6735891.php
     
     
  #51  
Old Posted Jan 5, 2016, 1:42 AM
Dale Dale is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Charlotte
Posts: 4,776
I'm not sure if this is a knockout. I'd look to see a compromise at least.
     
     
  #52  
Old Posted Jan 5, 2016, 4:20 AM
Zapatan's Avatar
Zapatan Zapatan is offline
DENNAB
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: NA - Europe
Posts: 6,042
Quote:
Originally Posted by mSeattle View Post
This one might probably be a bit shorter than proposed:


Proposed 102-story tower would be too tall for FAA approval
http://www.seattlepi.com/local/artic...AA-6735891.php
I have a more fiery hatred of the FAA every day... there's a near supertall right next to this that planes come nowhere near. Freakin' c'mon. It's not like downtown Seattle is right next to the f*cking airport.
     
     
  #53  
Old Posted Jan 5, 2016, 9:03 AM
viewguysf's Avatar
viewguysf viewguysf is offline
Surrounded by Nature
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Walnut Creek, California
Posts: 2,028
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zapatan View Post
I have a more fiery hatred of the FAA every day... there's a near supertall right next to this that planes come nowhere near. Freakin' c'mon. It's not like downtown Seattle is right next to the f*cking airport.
I thought Columbia Center's height was reduced because of its proximity to Boeing Field, plus it was not allowed to have antennas.
     
     
  #54  
Old Posted Jan 5, 2016, 5:26 PM
InlandEmpire's Avatar
InlandEmpire InlandEmpire is offline
Cascadia Rising
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Seattle
Posts: 1,065
There was a statement out today on our local news station that Crescent Heights deals with this in Miami regularly, and the FAA notice of potential hazard is a fairly common issue....they seem confident they will be able to negotiate their way out of this.
__________________
www.kexp.org
     
     
  #55  
Old Posted Jan 5, 2016, 7:39 PM
tateyb's Avatar
tateyb tateyb is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: t dot
Posts: 194
Plans for Seattle Supertall in Jeopardy

Quote:
The FAA stated it would approve a 302-metre, 992-foot revised proposal — measured from the ground level on the building's western corner along Columbia Street between 3rd and 4th Avenues — which would still make it the tallest building in the city. Each corner is assessed individually by the FAA and more significant restrictions have been placed on the rest of the site, the shortest of which is a 965-foot limit at 4th Avenue and Cherry Street. The current tallest building, Columbia Center, was also slapped with a height decrease from the FAA when it was originally proposed.
     
     
  #56  
Old Posted Jan 6, 2016, 1:08 AM
JDRCRASH JDRCRASH is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: San Gabriel Valley
Posts: 8,087
Arrghh, couldn't they allow just another 9 feet??? Would it really make THAT MUCH of a difference??
__________________
Revelation 21:4
     
     
  #57  
Old Posted Jan 6, 2016, 1:11 AM
shakman's Avatar
shakman shakman is offline
Chairman
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: PRMD - People's Republic of Maryland
Posts: 2,666
302m would still be a supertall.
__________________
"I measure the value of life not by how much I have, instead by what I have done.

-sb
     
     
  #58  
Old Posted Jan 6, 2016, 2:12 AM
chris08876's Avatar
chris08876 chris08876 is offline
NYC/NJ/Miami-Dade
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Riverview Estates Fairway (PA)
Posts: 45,694
Quote:
Originally Posted by JDRCRASH View Post
Arrghh, couldn't they allow just another 9 feet??? Would it really make THAT MUCH of a difference??
Think about the children!!!



....


Well

...

good news still. I mean, as long as its a super tall its a great leap for most U.S. cities. Stupid FAA. See, we will never be like China because of the FAA. Take Miami, 6 super talls in the pipeline as of now (one proposed today), and the FAA nazis make life harder for those who seek to reach the skies.

Speaking of the FAA, a near super tall in JC (99 Hudson) is too much (true story)...

But they settle with 900 ft. Because those extra 90 ft pose a problem (even though there are 20 super talls in the near future just a river away)
     
     
  #59  
Old Posted Jan 6, 2016, 8:39 AM
viewguysf's Avatar
viewguysf viewguysf is offline
Surrounded by Nature
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Walnut Creek, California
Posts: 2,028
Quote:
Originally Posted by JDRCRASH View Post
Arrghh, couldn't they allow just another 9 feet??? Would it really make THAT MUCH of a difference??
Only 8 feet to reach 1,000!
     
     
  #60  
Old Posted Jan 6, 2016, 1:56 PM
Flyers2001 Flyers2001 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 856
I was hoping it would reach that 1000ft mark for you Seattle, but 992 is nothing to scoff at. Its location and design is far more important. Seattle already has a fabulous skyline and this would most def. be another jewel for it.
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
 

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Buildings & Architecture > Never Built & Visionary Projects > Cancelled Project Threads Archive
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 9:11 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.