There is no plan for next Seattle tallest. Maybe we will have it sometime in future from now.

This thread is for anyone to suggest new ideas for what Seattle future tallest should look like. Please feel free to share your ideas here. Be creative! :)

I really like this rendering for San Fransisco's proposed tallest one that is designed by SOM. I think some parts of this project would fit Seattle skyline or streetscapes well.

http://img510.imageshack.us/img510/6117/retrieveassetcaauo62wzh9.jpg

http://img510.imageshack.us/img510/9348/retrieveassetca2cvd6wik8.jpg

http://img405.imageshack.us/img405/8479/pageresized294gr9.jpg

http://img510.imageshack.us/img510/8133/retrieveassetcazxh6etke9.jpg

http://img510.imageshack.us/img510/5826/retrieveassetcahj70ukaa2.jpg

http://img510.imageshack.us/img510/7293/retrieveassetcaw9f6bqiu8.jpg

http://i135.photobucket.com/albums/q149/btgibson/DSC00074.jpg

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1027/1044062677_23e8a21dc2_m.jpg

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1133/1044062927_2cc8ef6e77.jpg?v=0

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1221/1044062767_6f55e597b2.jpg?v=0

http://i20.photobucket.com/albums/b208/rajaxson/Aerial_LoRez.jpg

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1243/1035676673_38da517618_o.jpg

http://www.transbaycenter.org/TransBay/uploadedImages/Project/Tower%20Plaza.jpg

http://i135.photobucket.com/albums/q149/btgibson/DSC00073.jpg

http://i135.photobucket.com/albums/q149/btgibson/DSC00071.jpg]

http://i135.photobucket.com/albums/q149/btgibson/DSC00072.jpg

http://i135.photobucket.com/albums/q149/btgibson/DSC00075.jpg

http://www.transbaycenter.org/TransBay/uploadedImages/Project/South%20East%20Aerial.jpg

Who is ready to hate me? Alright, we'll see.

Quite personally, I want to see a 1,000 foot tower in Seattle, but I don't want it to look all spiral like, or weird glass looking thing like in many cities. I want some handsome looking tower that will fit in nicely.

Columbia Tower was so close to 1,000 feet.

^^ example? :lol:

I think Seattle's new tallest should be around 1,600 feet tall so it won't mess Seattle skyline up. Maybe it would be nice if Seattle has few supertalls too. Same thing for Bellevue.

I'd love to see something like that SF building crazy posted, wow that is so beautiful, but personally I would never, never want to work in an office that high in earthquake country :ohno:

^^ Seattle isn't bad as California that got more earthquakes than Seattle would have in decades.

True, although the last 6.5+ was here in Seattle, and if the Cascadia subduction zone hits the jackpot in our lifetimes, yikes!

In regard to the Cascadia earthquake. The latest research shows they happen every 300-500 years, (8-9 scale). Last one was 1700. Do the math.
(Could happen tomorrow, or 2199, but more likely somewhere in between)

I realize there are parts of Seattle that have unlimited height limits, but if I'm not mistaken, it would still have to be approved by the city officials. Crazy is correct, there are no current plans.

I'm skeptical of the S.F. tower as well. I believe, same as Seattle, the city would need to approve, and my understanding is S.F. is even less in love with high towers than Seattle is.

But it it is fun to dream. Whether a 1,000+ tower is built on the west coast in the next decade remains to be seen. My guess is probably not, but on the other hand, not impossible either.

Who is ready to hate me? Alright, we'll see.

Quite personally, I want to see a 1,000 foot tower in Seattle, but I don't want it to look all spiral like, or weird glass looking thing like in many cities. I want some handsome looking tower that will fit in nicely.

Columbia Tower was so close to 1,000 feet.

i agree. twisting towers are a gimmicky joke.

To me, Supertalls, ruin most skylines.

I would really like to see someting like this tower, designed by Shin Takamatzu, redesigned to be around 1,100 to 1,200 feet tall and put some place just north of the Colombia Tower.

http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b142/Dancer-2/ela4.jpg http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b142/Dancer-2/ela2.jpg http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b142/Dancer-2/ela1.jpg

Something around this kind of design would be perfect!

http://i20.photobucket.com/albums/b208/rajaxson/Aerial_LoRez.jpg

I usually post on SSP, but howdy to you! IMO, The Bank of China Building by IM Pei in Hong Kong is Seattle's dream tower. The color is great, it would stand out on a rainy winter day, and the triangles echo Mt. Rainier and the rest of the mountains. the lack of symmetry and unusual angles would break up our very square buildings. to me, it may be the most beautiful building (modern) in the world.

http://i20.photobucket.com/albums/b208/rajaxson/Aerial_LoRez.jpg

That version is the best! I love the simple beautiful lines. And that roof top garden/park is great on the lower long roof. Cap I-5 and build something right along side it. Seattle next tallest should be East of I-5. Do not let I-5 block us in. Hide that hideous thing underground.

...put some place just north of the Colombia Tower.

I agree it should be north of Columbia Center. Seattle already looks like a set of stairs from Alki.

I would want something like the Bank of China tower in Hong Kong:

http://i192.photobucket.com/albums/z41/connorc14/2110e.jpg

Well thats 2 votes for the Bank of China Tower and I have to say its hard to go wrong with I.M. Pei. Its also the right height for Seattle

I love Dancer, Westseattleguy, and M'sFan ideas. How's about get all of them built? :)

I agree with NW Mike about burying I-5 with parks.

Here is some pictures of our current tallest and all it's glory. :) Pictures by me. :)
Columbia Tower for life!
http://img166.imageshack.us/img166/5751/ajmseattlecolumbia2ws1.jpg
http://img247.imageshack.us/img247/1002/ajmseattledowntown4wa0.jpg
http://img133.imageshack.us/img133/3798/ajmseattlewiresss2.jpg
http://img130.imageshack.us/img130/861/ajmseattlecolumbiaks6.jpg
http://img130.imageshack.us/img130/8224/ajmseattlecoltallxv5.jpg
http://img130.imageshack.us/img130/5240/ajmseattleyardskylinefz9.jpg
http://img130.imageshack.us/img130/9422/ajmseattlebustopik1.jpg
Enjoy.

I always liked the Columbia tower. Not necessarily my favorite in the city, but simple, elegant, not overly flashy, but has a strong presence. I wouldn't mind it staying the tallest of a quickly growing number of high-rises.

If my memory is correct, the Columbia Tower was going to top out at around 1000 ft. but the FAA wouldn't allow Martin Selig to build it that tall because it was in the flight approach path, so unless those guidelines have been changed, I doubt Seattle is going to get anything taller, at least in the business district. Sorry guys.

I think most of us know about the FAA rules but it is fun to dream. :)

FAA has the power over height limits in Seattle, my friend thought it's 2000 ft height for national FAA rule but it's really 1000 ft height limit in downtown Seattle so we're stuck with maximum of 1000 ft even in unlimited height zone in CBD area.

I think Seattle could use two or three supertalls. I say two or three because just one may skew the skyline. Perhaps a number of towers anywhere from 90 to 120 floors would give downtown Seattle a towering presence over the whole area.

As for the style of architecture, I can't be too specific... but I think they should take notes from Hong Kong and Dubai, while still retaining the traditional pacific northwestern style of architecture.

In my own understanding that FAA could be flexible if the developer agrees to apply for spercial permission to build over the height restriction just like Chicago did that in the past with WTBs but they never get it built. Las Vegas is doing right now with Crown Las Vegas Tower. I think Seattle can do it too by apply the permission and have it approved by FAA to build taller skyscraper.

Mr. USAPatriot, I really, really like the pic of the Columbia Center looking up through the atrium. A very nice shot of a truly underated building.

A 1,000+ height may certainly be approved, but it would have to be well north of Columbia Center (BofA)...However, that might be nice, giving Seattle a book-end feel similar to Chicago. The FAA is pretty restrictive when it comes to such issues, but a supertall, say, in the Denny Regrade, or even the Denny Triangle might be approved. But, Crazy, 1600 feet is not going to work. Bellevue? Anything and everything is possible there, as we have seen.

^^ True. I agree any supertalls should be built just north of Columbia Center to help balance Seattle skyline better. Reality 1600' possibly will not happen in Seattle. It might be more likely to be built up to 1200' depends.

Bellevue... That would be nice but I want Seattle to stay top no matter what. Bellevue will always come second. No offensive to Bellevue.

I just saw the other day that Nashville is building a 1000 + ft tower. As a skyscraper front runner and a world class city we should be able to stay taller than Nashville. Nothing against Nashville at all but it would surprise me if they surpassed Seattle's height.

I wasn't sure about the height limits though. That could make a 1,000 footer pretty difficult to build.

I think a new supertall skyscraper in Seattle should be really tall to put us in the record books. The design should be something related to the Pacific Northwest, like an Evergreen tree, a salmon (fish), or something related to Microsoft's presence in Seattle. Look at Taipei 101; the architects designed 101 so it would look like a (Taiwanese) stalk of bamboo. So basically, something related to Seattle. That would be awesome!

I vote for a giant mountain shapped building!

I vote for a giant mountain shapped building!

The only problem with a mountain building is it would probably look too much like the Transamerica Building in San Francisco.

The only problem with a mountain building is it would probably look too much like the Transamerica Building in San Francisco.

Or the Ryungyong Hotel in North Korea....

http://www.synthstuff.com/mt/archives/Ryungyong.jpg

Something about that place just doesn't sit right with me...

OK, I sense a bit of sarcasm in the last several posts.

In reality, a building taller than Columbia Center (BofA), could be built, but it would need to be further north in the downtown core. I could see the Westlake Mall area, or Denny area. Trump, do you check these sites? :)

Since S. Lake Union is becoming a new residential and commercial area, how about a building at the north tip this area? Oh, wait...the building heights don't work there. In essence, the only area the city has allowed for unlimited height is, (guess what?), still in the Sea-Tac flight path. I think we've been "had".

In all seriousness I would like a building that goes back to the roots of older styles of building. Classical look, less glass. Something with a little color would be nice. Think classic Chicago or New York style.

Given the somewhat extreme elevation gain in the downtown core up from sea level, a building of any height on one of the upper avenues would "appear" to be taller, as seen, say from the west. So what we may never get in reality we may in virtuality. Therein we have an advantage over flatland cities.

The fact Columbia Center is exactly 1042 ft tall above sea level. It sits at between 106 to 160 ft elevation above sea level from the lowest and highest point for the entrances of the building.

How's about having Seattle's new tallest buliding would look something similar like this...

Fedation (sp?) Tower in Moscow, Russia that is under construction right now.
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y237/MetroGuy03/280px-2599.jpg

Or... How's about Al Hamra Tower in Kuwait City?
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y237/MetroGuy03/alhamratower2rs.jpg

How's about this? Proposed World's tallest building in Kuwait City...
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y237/MetroGuy03/untitled2er.jpg

Last thing... What do you guys think of this old design for tallest building that is under construction in Hong Kong... This rendering never built... I think it would be perfect for Seattle.
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y237/MetroGuy03/som.jpg

I vote for a giant mountain shapped building!

You mean like this?
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y237/MetroGuy03/x-seed.jpg

Does anyone know how to post images on replies? I tried, but I can't.

Does anyone know how to post images on replies? I tried, but I can't.

Sign up on photobucket.com (its free) and load pictures you want to. Copy the IMG link and paste it here.

Never mind...

http://i229.photobucket.com/albums/ee210/taiwanrules/SeattleTower.jpg

This is my idea for Seattle's next supertall skyscraper. Who'd knew I could create this with Paint? DON'T STEAL MY IDEA!

In all seriousness I would like a building that goes back to the roots of older styles of building. Classical look, less glass. Something with a little color would be nice. Think classic Chicago or New York style.

http://www.condohotelcenter.com/images/elysian-tower.jpg
So something like the 60 story Elysian Tower going up in Chicago? I really like this style but feel that bif this style were used in Seattle, it would be best suited on a less prominent building or at least not the tallest. Its a great style and works with the Seattle skyline but a Seattle tallest really should embody the city's technological stronghold.

@ taiwanesedrummer360- That's way to tall for my taste.

http://i229.photobucket.com/albums/ee210/taiwanrules/SeattleTower.jpg

This is my idea for Seattle's next supertall skyscraper. Who'd knew I could create this with Paint? DON'T STEAL MY IDEA!

Reminds me of a Christmas tree.

Taiwanesedrummer36,

Interesting design... It is a bit arabic architecture to me. It would look better without "wing" and different colors. Last thing, cut the spire off. I don't know about the top part... It looks like "devil" to me.

^^ Shorten it down too.

^^ No that height is good enough but need to move north away from Columbia Center.

^^ That height would be enormous. It's top should be even with the Columbia tower in that picture.

This is what I want Seattle to look like:

http://i192.photobucket.com/albums/z41/connorc14/Settlemap.jpg

(sorry that it looks sloppy, I quickly did it on paint)

^^ That is pretty reasonable for taller skyline for Seattle. This supertall you drew look pretty lonely... Need friends surrounding it. :lol:

^^ That is pretty reasonable for taller skyline for Seattle. This supertall you drew look pretty lonely... Need friends surrounding it. :lol:

Super Tall don't need no friends. Friends need supertall :D

^ The Columbia Tower was lonely too ya know. LOL.

Does this look any better??

http://i192.photobucket.com/albums/z41/connorc14/Settlemap-1.jpg

^^ That looks much better! BRAVO! :applause:

Columbia Center isn't really that lonely... He has a friend (Key Bank Tower) next to him. :) Columbia Center need a several new friends to be built just south of him.

Super Tall don't need no friends. Friends need supertall :D

:lol: :lol: :lol: Good one!

Or the Ryungyong Hotel in North Korea....

http://www.synthstuff.com/mt/archives/Ryungyong.jpg

Something about that place just doesn't sit right with me...

Is it just me, or is that a little girl standing in the middle of a road directing traffic?! Man, North Korea (Kim Jong-ill) is f***ed-up.

Yeah, I admit, the design for my tower is a little weird, but I still think the height ROCKS! :banana: :nuts:

^^ I always wonder what people who live in Pyongyang think about that hotel, do they believe international tourists stay there or is it just another surreal reminder of their state of affairs?

Say the 1000 footer was closer to say the Westin Hotel, Seattle could have a more Chicago style skyline.

One thing to remember in the Columbia Tower's favor is that it is on a 150 foot hill and that makes it appear to be around 1100 feet tall from the waterfront and from the Sodo district.
Anyone know why the lower height limit was made for the Denny Triangle and the Regrade? I see no reason for it to be in place.

One thing to remember in the Columbia Tower's favor is that it is on a 150 foot hill and that makes it appear to be around 1100 feet tall from the waterfront and from the Sodo district.
Anyone know why the lower height limit was made for the Denny Triangle and the Regrade? I see no reason for it to be in place.

Maybe it's because of the Space Needle. If you look at pictures of the Seattle skyline taken from the west, you can see a lot of emptiness around the Space Needle/Denny Triangle area.

One thing to remember in the Columbia Tower's favor is that it is on a 150 foot hill and that makes it appear to be around 1100 feet tall from the waterfront and from the Sodo district.
Anyone know why the lower height limit was made for the Denny Triangle and the Regrade? I see no reason for it to be in place.

It's exactly 1042 ft tall from the roof to sea level. :)

I did a photoshop morph of the skyline. I added Shanghai World finance center (old rendering) to the existing skyline. I did this few weeks ago and decided to share with you guys. :) Sorry it barely fit in the picture, though.

http://a684.ac-images.myspacecdn.com/images01/106/l_66e3f21c170cf33a05f4278433184ecb.jpg

If it was a little bit shorter and a little bit smaller around it would be great.

I did a photoshop morph of the skyline. I added Shanghai World finance center (old rendering) to the existing skyline. I did this few weeks ago and decided to share with you guys. :) Sorry it barely fit in the picture, though.

http://a684.ac-images.myspacecdn.com/images01/106/l_66e3f21c170cf33a05f4278433184ecb.jpg Thats damn cool but I agree with WESTSEATTLEGUY

http://img501.imageshack.us/img501/4617/skylinemorpwl2.jpg

Is that better? :)

better, but a teeny tiny bit shorter.

^^It'll be better if there was other skyscrapers to fill in. :) It looks a bit empty in my opinion.

^ Yep. It needs something right on it's side.

not bad looking!

http://i237.photobucket.com/albums/ff140/taiwanesedrummer36/ProposedSeattleskyline.png

I added another idea of mine next to the other tower, just for perspective.:)

This is almost exactly what Im looking for. I love this design

http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b142/Dancer-2/aerial20view20looking20oq1.jpg

^^ EWWWWW I hate that design. That is so third world tower to me. Seattle is too classy to have this tower.

This tower could look better if red frame to white one and change the rooftop to make it look more attractive as Two Union Square.

http://img501.imageshack.us/img501/4617/skylinemorpwl2.jpg

Is that better? :)

I think it would look better if it moved just south of Columbia Center. I know it will make Seattle skyline look more like stairway but this SFWC design look fit in that spot.

Moving the SFWC south of the CC would look pretty stupid, honestly. The skyline should have a symmetrical stairway design, with the middle (highest tower) around Westlake Center - Rainier Square.

^^ EWWWWW I hate that design. That is so third world tower to me. Seattle is too classy to have this tower.

This tower could look better if red frame to white one and change the rooftop to make it look more attractive as Two Union Square.

I like the overall design but I agree with you on the red color. I would also taper it a bit as it got taller, like 7 ?????? (chicago/never built)

http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b142/Dancer-2/7_south_context_website_309.jpg

^^ OMG! I always wanted that tower to get built in Chicago but too bad it never get built. :( It would be nice to have something like this to get built in Seattle. :)

^^ I like that tower alot more then the spire being built.

Hmm...seems a bit out of place wherever you would place it. I would like another new tallest, but only slightly taller than BofA-Columbia Center. Besides, if Col. Center had problems with the FAA, then this tall of a structure would never past muster. As I think I mentioned before, a new tallest would have to be further north to get out of that Sea-Tac approach.

Hmm...seems a bit out of place wherever you would place it. I would like another new tallest, but only slightly taller than BofA-Columbia Center. Besides, if Col. Center had problems with the FAA, then this tall of a structure would never past muster. As I think I mentioned before, a new tallest would have to be further north to get out of that Sea-Tac approach.

I would have to agree. Why does it need to be some kind of sore thumb type tower? I like westseattleguy's plan for the skyline. Fill out, not up.

I see no reason as long as it is just dreaming why we cant go up and out. The whole idea is about a future tallest so I dont like the sore thumb idea either but I would love to see a new tallest.

I was looking at downtown Seattle on Googl Earth trying to find a possible spot for a future tallest. Is the full block bounded by Marion, Fourth, Columbia, and Third or the block directly west of it bounded by Marion, Third, Columbia, and Second possible spots? It looks like the buildings currently occupying the sites are all low and mid rise and I believe these blocks are in the 'no height limit' zone. Can anyone confirm?

That's correct. I hope they'd save some of the existing buildings and use TDRs though. I'm not really knowlegeable about how these things work.

How's about having Seattle's new tallest buliding would look something similar like this...

Fedation (sp?) Tower in Moscow, Russia that is under construction right now.
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y237/MetroGuy03/280px-2599.jpg

Or... How's about Al Hamra Tower in Kuwait City?
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y237/MetroGuy03/alhamratower2rs.jpg

How's about this? Proposed World's tallest building in Kuwait City...
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y237/MetroGuy03/untitled2er.jpg

Last thing... What do you guys think of this old design for tallest building that is under construction in Hong Kong... This rendering never built... I think it would be perfect for Seattle.
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y237/MetroGuy03/som.jpg

:applause: I like This (no pun intended) " cutting edge " Hong Kong beauty, more appropriately, for L.A. or Miami than Seattle! L.A. and Miami buildings vie more for attention than cohesiveness. This design, at present, is too futuristic to coexist with It's (Seattle) neighbors. Seattle's architecture, while progressive, is generally conservative. And, It's urban density and topography is similar to San Francisco's... with steep hills, even in the CBD, of several blocks containing more than one highrise. The (above) rendering illustrates.... the Hong Kong skyscraper is beautiful but intended to be aloof and monolithic. It's not an offense to say, " It's, just, not Seattle! " ;)

The building is kind of cool, but the plaza looks like a dead space and the massively-wide road would be a disaster.

Hong Kong is best where the streets are narrow and wind around. I've never been to Shenzen or Shanghai, but I don't like the extremely wide roads they have. Horrible for pedestrians.

^^

EWWW! China.....

I don't think any of those buildings is "Seattle" enough.

Wow! it's amazingly awesome!!! :cheers:

http://www.condohotelcenter.com/images/elysian-tower.jpg
So something like the 60 story Elysian Tower going up in Chicago? I really like this style but feel that bif this style were used in Seattle, it would be best suited on a less prominent building or at least not the tallest. Its a great style and works with the Seattle skyline but a Seattle tallest really should embody the city's technological stronghold.

I really like this building. If Seattle were to get a new building around 1,000 ft I'd want it to be classical and simple like this one. Buildings like this look great on their own AND they fit well into skylines.

How's about having Seattle's new tallest buliding would look something similar like this...

Fedation (sp?) Tower in Moscow, Russia that is under construction right now.
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y237/MetroGuy03/280px-2599.jpg

Or... How's about Al Hamra Tower in Kuwait City?
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y237/MetroGuy03/alhamratower2rs.jpg

How's about this? Proposed World's tallest building in Kuwait City...
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y237/MetroGuy03/untitled2er.jpg

Last thing... What do you guys think of this old design for tallest building that is under construction in Hong Kong... This rendering never built... I think it would be perfect for Seattle.
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y237/MetroGuy03/som.jpg

I can't stand these buildings :ohno:. I think people get too caught up on these on an individual level and fail to see how it would look with the rest of the skyline. Have you ever seen a Chinese skyline that you liked? These buildings just don't do it for me, especially in place like Seattle with such a great skyline. I don't want some gimmicky, look at me, building to ruin it.

Although I like the Elysian Tower I have to agree that it's probably not the best for our tallest. The Bank of America Tower in Charlotte is almost exactly what I have in mind for Seattle's tallest. It's classical and modern without being flashy or boring.

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=12139

I was looking at downtown Seattle on Googl Earth trying to find a possible spot for a future tallest. Is the full block bounded by Marion, Fourth, Columbia, and Third or the block directly west of it bounded by Marion, Third, Columbia, and Second possible spots? It looks like the buildings currently occupying the sites are all low and mid rise and I believe these blocks are in the 'no height limit' zone. Can anyone confirm?

I believe most of this block is owned by Martin Smith Co. Its been identified as the only full-block developemnt site in the DOC 1 zone where there is no height limit.

I'd prefer a simple glass-rectangular tower, but with decorative glass designs (like the glass windows Taipei 101 has).

Here are a couple pictures from the Bank of America Building in Charlotte. This is just about my favorite skyscraper on Earth and what I want Seattle's new tallest to look like :bow: :cool: :bow: :cool: :bow: :cool: :bow: :cool: :bow: :cool:

http://i247.photobucket.com/albums/gg130/wglove35/BofACharlotte1.jpg

http://i247.photobucket.com/albums/gg130/wglove35/BofACharlotte2.jpg:cheers:

Its crown is ugly during the day.

I'd like to see glass. Maybe a vivid blue, something like the millenium tower going up in SF.
http://thesfconnection.files.wordpress.com/2007/10/millinium_2.jpg

I'd gladly take the unused SOM Transbay Tower design--as that is a design that shouldn't go to waste.

I'd like to see glass. Maybe a vivid blue, something like the millenium tower going up in SF.
http://thesfconnection.files.wordpress.com/2007/10/millinium_2.jpg

Now that I like! :banana:

I think 1521 2nd will have a similar prominence. It'll really stand out!

http://i43.photobucket.com/albums/e394/beardieX/seattleskyline1.jpg

Sorry no Photoshop on this computer... not bad for Paint huh :D

Looks good to me. Just add a bunch of 400' towers in the gap and to the left.

the 1000' tower will be the new Amazon.com headquarters :D

PS, I love that building in Charlotte! One of the best newer highrises in the US.

http://i43.photobucket.com/albums/e394/beardieX/seattleskyline1.jpg

Sorry no Photoshop on this computer... not bad for Paint huh :D
I'm not sure the proportions are correct, but looks cool anyway. ;)

That Charlotte tower was freaking amazing! I dont understand how people like those ugly glas boxes. I love that style, it's way to nice for Seattle though, we never get stuff like that.

:applause: I like This (no pun intended) " cutting edge " Hong Kong beauty, more appropriately, for L.A. or Miami than Seattle! L.A. and Miami buildings vie more for attention than cohesiveness. This design, at present, is too futuristic to coexist with It's (Seattle) neighbors. Seattle's architecture, while progressive, is generally conservative. And, It's urban density and topography is similar to San Francisco's... with steep hills, even in the CBD, of several blocks containing more than one highrise. The (above) rendering illustrates.... the Hong Kong skyscraper is beautiful but intended to be aloof and monolithic. It's not an offense to say, " It's, just, not Seattle! " ;)

What building will you say "Yes that's Seattle!"? :) Come on show us what is your idea for Seattle's next tallest. :)
^^

EWWW! China.....

I don't think any of those buildings is "Seattle" enough.

What is your idea for Seattle's next tallest that will make you say "Seattle" enough? :)

I can't stand these buildings :ohno:. I think people get too caught up on these on an individual level and fail to see how it would look with the rest of the skyline. Have you ever seen a Chinese skyline that you liked? These buildings just don't do it for me, especially in place like Seattle with such a great skyline. I don't want some gimmicky, look at me, building to ruin it.

I love Hong Kong and Shanghai skylines. They're AMAZING!!!

Although I like the Elysian Tower I have to agree that it's probably not the best for our tallest. The Bank of America Tower in Charlotte is almost exactly what I have in mind for Seattle's tallest. It's classical and modern without being flashy or boring.

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=12139

I love this building when I saw it in June 2000 when I visited Charlotte, North Carolina. I am not sure if this concept would fit Seattle Skyline. Please prove me wrong! :)

I'd gladly take the unused SOM Transbay Tower design--as that is a design that shouldn't go to waste.

YES!!! I'm huge fan of this design! I'd love to see it to get built in Seattle. I think its fit Seattle skyline perfect!

http://i43.photobucket.com/albums/e394/beardieX/seattleskyline1.jpg

Sorry no Photoshop on this computer... not bad for Paint huh :D

Very nice! Please add few 500', 600', and 800' around the tallest one.

That Charlotte tower was freaking amazing! I dont understand how people like those ugly glas boxes. I love that style, it's way to nice for Seattle though, we never get stuff like that.
This is interesting. We have here two-trains of thought among us skyscraper/development fans. A war between modern and p-modern buildings. I personally like a blend between the two. For example, I adore Two Union Square and Washington Mutual. But it's interesting to see some debate on the issue.

Anyway, if we're getting a new tallest, I'd seriously vouch for development in Denny. That real estate is prime for some high-rise action.

Do you mean the Denny Regrade? Denny Triangle? Along Denny Way? Perhaps the Denny Blaine neighborhood?

These buildings just don't do it for me, especially in place like Seattle with such a great skyline. I don't want some gimmicky, look at me, building to ruin it.

http://www.daveltd.com/photo/rolls/1029/1029-34-space-needle-fireworks-edit.jpg

Sorry to bump this thread, but I thought it was very interesting. I would like to see the gap in between the Space Needle and downtown fill up more than I want a supertall. Though a new tallest would be sweet :okay:

I remember so well when Martin Selig managed somehow to Insert the Columbia Tower onto our skyline. The gasp from our many bataphobics and other Envious folk fairly sucked the oxygen out of the city for a time. Typical .. "amid controversy over its architectural value and environmental impact, the project demonstrates inadequacies in the city building code." [from HistoryLink] I think the building is magnificent, but it has always suffered because, after all, the developer wasn't "one of us," was he and, Martin Selig of all people, my gawd, how could this happen? I'd be surprised if we see another 50+ any time soon, but I agree with those above that the Regrade needs filling and has ever since we sluiced it for that very reason. For the long term, at least one or two 60-75's to balance the CT. Nothing 120 or so for me tho - too freakish.

http://i43.photobucket.com/albums/e394/beardieX/seattleskyline1.jpg

Sorry no Photoshop on this computer... not bad for Paint huh :D

Not even possible unless the FAA and Seattle citizenry are on the same page regarding a 1000 ft building. FAA restricts building heights and Seattle anti-business climate helped push through a CAP measure that restricted building heights. Sorry to give a bitter dose of reality but all this wishful thinking is sometimes frustrating.

I guess I just don't understand the FAA's flight path to Boeing field. How is that the unrestricted height area is closer to the field than the Denny triangle area? Is there an angle of flight over the area that I don't get? And since we are talking about Boeing field the volume of flights has to be much smaller so as to make it easier to negotiate flight paths that allow a larger area to have taller buildings or is the runway pointing in a direction that makes that impossible. It just seems to me that if the push is increase density so that a whole series of problems can be addressed that one company and its runway can interfere with some solutions for a whole region is a bit much. I just wonder if there ever has been any consideration at looking at the layout of Boeing Field with the space available there and re doing the runway to make it possible where aircraft have an approach that is over more water.

We discussed the flight path issue before. The 1,000' figure isn't relevant (in fact, the Columbia Center goes to about 1,100'). Also, the ceiling appears to be slanted. I'm just guessing, but with elevation and the slant, the FAA would probably allow a much taller building than 1,000' in the Denny Triangle.

I guess I just don't understand the FAA's flight path to Boeing field. How is that the unrestricted height area is closer to the field than the Denny triangle area? Is there an angle of flight over the area that I don't get? And since we are talking about Boeing field the volume of flights has to be much smaller so as to make it easier to negotiate flight paths that allow a larger area to have taller buildings or is the runway pointing in a direction that makes that impossible.

Boeing Field has a greater number of take offs and landings than Sea-Tac. However, Sea-Tac's flights are generally larger aircraft, less personal craft.

edit

http://amaa.com/portfolio/project/?category=competitions&project=209&redir=L3BvcnRmb2xpby8/IzU4

Haha not until the Old Guard dies off will we be able to build something like that here.

But it gets my vote!

nice building!

I think it is the best way to convince the panel to bend the rules a bit though. I mean, self generated energy, trees in every unit. I don't see how Seattle of all places wouldn't embrace such an idea. Though I do see them pushing to make it shorter.