daily menu » rate the banner | guess the city | one on oneforums map | privacy policy | DMCA | news magazine | posting guidelines

Go Back   SkyscraperCity > Continental Forums > North American Skyscrapers Forum > United States > Southeast > Local Forums > Tampa Bay Area

Tampa Bay Area Includes Pasco, Hernando, and Citrus Counties
» Transportation and Infrastructure



Global Announcement

As a general reminder, please respect others and respect copyrights. Go here to familiarize yourself with our posting policy.


Reply

 
Thread Tools
Old July 30th, 2015, 12:15 AM   #101
Havatampa
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 68
Likes (Received): 50

Quote:
Originally Posted by densitymatters View Post
I like the architecture a lot, I was anticipating something more like crescent bayshore but find this much more visually appealing. . but yeah the biggest thing is the underutilization of such a major lot. It would be like building a 12 story building on the trump site.
I like the design too. I wish there were public access along the river though. I'm fine with 400 units on 4 acres too. There are so many empty lots in the downtown area it's not an issue to me. It's not like this Hong Kong or something. Adding 500-600 residents in a 4 acre space seems good to me, especially on the west side of the river. If you had a density of 100 people per acre in 1 square mile, that would equal 64,000 people living in that square mile. I think everyone would be happy if there were 64k people living in DT Tampa. Though sure, there are lots on the east side of the river and in Channelside where I'd like to see more density and taller buildings.

We'll see what it looks like when it gets built, but based on the rendering I think it will look ok from the east side of the river.
__________________

ChuckScraperMiami#1 liked this post
Havatampa no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old July 30th, 2015, 12:26 AM   #102
bueller
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: tampa
Posts: 400
Likes (Received): 561

crude-- but funny

[IMG]trib 3 - by bueller006, on Flickr[/IMG]
__________________
bueller no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 30th, 2015, 12:35 AM   #103
FloridaFuture
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Tampa/Gainesville
Posts: 8,901
Likes (Received): 4042

^No salt in the wound please. :/

Quote:
Originally Posted by Havatampa View Post
I like the design too. I wish there were public access along the river though. I'm fine with 400 units on 4 acres too. There are so many empty lots in the downtown area it's not an issue to me. It's not like this Hong Kong or something. Adding 500-600 residents in a 4 acre space seems good to me, especially on the west side of the river. If you had a density of 100 people per acre in 1 square mile, that would equal 64,000 people living in that square mile. I think everyone would be happy if there were 64k people living in DT Tampa. Though sure, there are lots on the east side of the river and in Channelside where I'd like to see more density and taller buildings.

We'll see what it looks like when it gets built, but based on the rendering I think it will look ok from the east side of the river.
I agree with the second part, it's the back end I'm really worried about looks-wise. The first part I would agree with except not all sites are created equal (this is an exceptional site and should be exceptionally developed) and of course not every square inch of downtown could be covered in residential space (far from it) so your numbers are way off.
__________________
URBN Tampa Bay

ChuckScraperMiami#1 liked this post
FloridaFuture no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 30th, 2015, 12:38 AM   #104
FloridaFuture
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Tampa/Gainesville
Posts: 8,901
Likes (Received): 4042

bueller, whose image is that? Mind if I post it to URBN? (I'll credit you if it's yours of course)
__________________
URBN Tampa Bay

ChuckScraperMiami#1 liked this post
FloridaFuture no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 30th, 2015, 12:48 AM   #105
bueller
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: tampa
Posts: 400
Likes (Received): 561

it is a quick, raw photo-shop of their rendering for fun
__________________

ChuckScraperMiami#1 liked this post
bueller no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 30th, 2015, 01:17 AM   #106
Havatampa
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 68
Likes (Received): 50

Quote:
Originally Posted by FloridaFuture View Post
I agree with the second part, it's the back end I'm really worried about looks-wise. The first part I would agree with except not all sites are created equal (this is an exceptional site and should be exceptionally developed) and of course not every square inch of downtown could be covered in residential space (far from it) so your numbers are way off.
Actually, my numbers are correct. 100 people per acre would equal 64,000 people in 1 square mile. No, you are not going to get that in DT Tampa (at least not any time soon) and I didn't mean to imply that you would. Strictly speaking, the traditional definition of DT Tampa (which does not include west of the river where this project is located) is 521 acres. So just 50 people per acre would give a populations of about 26k. Right now, fewer than 10k people live downtown. Well, the 2010 census had 6784 living there, so add whatever has moved in since then. Either way, a density of just 50 per acre would greatly increase the amount of people living downtown.
__________________

ChuckScraperMiami#1 liked this post
Havatampa no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 30th, 2015, 01:39 AM   #107
FloridaFuture
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Tampa/Gainesville
Posts: 8,901
Likes (Received): 4042

Sorry that was poorly articulated on my part. Didn't mean to say your arithmetic was off. I meant the application wasn't practical because roads, parks, public buildings, office and hotel buildings without residential etc. would all be land that would have no residential development. That would mean if all remaining land was built like this Related project we wouldn't achieve 100 people per acre as our downtown density, and therefore those numbers shouldn't be used to justify this project.

Practically speaking, if you want to achieve 100 people per acre in your downtown, then all residential land has to exceed 100 people per acre to do so, probably by a pretty large margin, due to all the land not being used for residential.
__________________
URBN Tampa Bay
FloridaFuture no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 30th, 2015, 08:51 AM   #108
Jasonhouse
Senior Button Pusher
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Tampa
Posts: 16,393
Likes (Received): 2460

50 units an acre means not enough people or not enough room for the things those people want. At least not at an intensity appropriate for an urban downtown competitive with market peers.
Jasonhouse no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 30th, 2015, 05:31 PM   #109
Havatampa
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 68
Likes (Received): 50

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jasonhouse View Post
50 units an acre means not enough people or not enough room for the things those people want. At least not at an intensity appropriate for an urban downtown competitive with market peers.
Actually, 50 people per acre would be 32,000 people per square mile, which is more than enough density for a thriving urban center. San Francisco has a population density of about 17,000 per square mile.
__________________

ChuckScraperMiami#1 liked this post
Havatampa no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 30th, 2015, 07:00 PM   #110
Maxim98
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Tampa
Posts: 1,411
Likes (Received): 270

^That San Francisco number is misleading, though. There are two (unofficial) San Franciscos: the city and the county (east and west, roughly), with vastly different population densities. The "urban" neighborhoods of San Francisco - North Beach, the Mission - have densities in excess of 30-50k people/mile. Chinatown, which has a consistent blanket of midrise buildings, has the highest population density in the United States outside of Manhattan.

http://www.sustainablecommunitiesind...cators/view/75

The characteristics that create a sense of urbanity are wide and varied in typologies and ideals. But building at this particular density won't suffice. You have to remember that just a fraction of the land in the downtown region is available for redevelopment at any given point, and a slimmer portion yet can be profitably developed. If we want significant change, we must build at higher rates than this when we do build, particularly at key sites.

There are a ton of variables here (least of all, what the market can handle), but I join folks in seeing this as a project that just won't do. Population density aside, this is a prime site. This isn't another parking garage on the edge of town. It needs to be developed with the public good in mind, above all with with regards to amenities and access to the waterfront and the potential to generate significant tax revenue for the city.
__________________

Jasonhouse, ChuckScraperMiami#1 liked this post
Maxim98 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 30th, 2015, 07:29 PM   #111
smiley
Registered User
 
smiley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Tampa
Posts: 4,336
Likes (Received): 567

Look, you can play with the numbers all you want, but it is not a good design. It's that simple and nothing else matters.
__________________
Do I contradict myself?
Well then, I contradict myself.
I am large.
I contain multitudes.

I don't pretend 'cause I don't care.

Jasonhouse, ChuckScraperMiami#1 liked this post
smiley no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 30th, 2015, 08:30 PM   #112
Havatampa
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 68
Likes (Received): 50

Quote:
Originally Posted by smiley View Post
Look, you can play with the numbers all you want, but it is not a good design. It's that simple and nothing else matters.
Matter of opinion. I'm ok with the design, though I haven't seen what it looks like on the west side. And a density of 100 people or so per acre on land west of the river is ok with me too.
__________________

ChuckScraperMiami#1 liked this post
Havatampa no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 30th, 2015, 09:11 PM   #113
gstolze
Registered User
 
gstolze's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Hannover, Germany>Tampa Bay, Florida, USA>Hannover, Germany
Posts: 1,868
Likes (Received): 333

Density is one issue but what is absolutley wrong with this project is the lack of urban interaction, especially with the riverfront and also the fact that the parking structure is the tallest part of the building..
__________________

ChuckScraperMiami#1 liked this post
gstolze no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 30th, 2015, 09:24 PM   #114
Jasonhouse
Senior Button Pusher
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Tampa
Posts: 16,393
Likes (Received): 2460

You people do realize that 'comps' aren't just for single family homes, right?

Go look at other projects around the country developed in the same context and fashion as what Related is proposing here. They suck there too.
Jasonhouse no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 30th, 2015, 09:33 PM   #115
TampaMike
Oh Hey!
 
TampaMike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Tampa
Posts: 7,035
Likes (Received): 948

My issue is with the potential for the site. 8 stories is nice for maybe the Heights or even for Channelside, but not here.
__________________
Corporations Are People Too - Mitt Romney
For the People that dress up like Corporations.
TampaMike no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 30th, 2015, 09:39 PM   #116
NaqoyqatZ
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Tampa, FL
Posts: 373
Likes (Received): 189

As for the project I think everything being built along the river needs to be planned as though the Riverwalk will be extended along both sides. Even if it doesn't offer any retail or destination to the public, it needs to at least not be an obstruction to pedestrian activity along the river.
__________________

ChuckScraperMiami#1 liked this post
NaqoyqatZ no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 30th, 2015, 10:33 PM   #117
koopalicious
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Tampa
Posts: 728
Likes (Received): 252

It's probably worth noting that the maximums for this site (without bonuses) are 444 units or around 677,000 sq. ft. of combined uses. I know everything about the project sucks, but as far as I'm concerned, this is another example of us needing to get zoning/land use policies fixed, rather than exhausting ourselves with the consequences (i.e. projects) of their flaws.
__________________
koopalicious no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 30th, 2015, 10:44 PM   #118
FloridaFuture
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Tampa/Gainesville
Posts: 8,901
Likes (Received): 4042

I mean to a degree I don't blame Related for proposing what they did. The city made no effort to activate the riverfront here so why should a developer? There's no easement, no plan for a river walk expansion, no nothing. We can't expect Related to build a riverwalk for us voluntarily. We were lucky to get the retail space we got on the water considering they didn't have to do it, and other developers wouldn't of.

Compare to 315 Ashley where the Riverwalk is already there. The public already has access to their water front so why not take advantage and put prime retail space on it. They may of kept it private if the public didn't already have access. Not the case here though.
__________________
URBN Tampa Bay

Brian72, ChuckScraperMiami#1 liked this post
FloridaFuture no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 31st, 2015, 02:08 AM   #119
Jasonhouse
Senior Button Pusher
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Tampa
Posts: 16,393
Likes (Received): 2460

^Actually there is a plan for the riverwalk along the west bank of the river. They've already identified the path (Columbus to Bayshore). It's part of the Ross J. Ferlita Greenways & Trails System the city is expanding as funds become available. From what I understand, developers are supposed to do their part as their parcel comes up. For example, doing a piece of the riverwalk is baked in to the PD for the HRT site. I suspect that when the site plan for the old Trib site hits the greenways and trails committee or whatever they're called during review, it will come up. The original approval for the Trib building preceded the riverwalk vision, so of course there's no easement or requirement to provide access through the site to the riverfront. I think that would have been a taking at that point? idk.

There's some Q&A in this document from the city that they made for when the riverwalk opened.
http://www.tampagov.net/sites/defaul...alkFAQ2014.pdf
Jasonhouse no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 31st, 2015, 02:42 AM   #120
FloridaFuture
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Tampa/Gainesville
Posts: 8,901
Likes (Received): 4042

Find it hard to believe Related has ignored it in the materials they've released and submitted if they know it is/if it is required.
__________________
URBN Tampa Bay

ChuckScraperMiami#1 liked this post
FloridaFuture no está en línea   Reply With Quote


Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Related topics on SkyscraperCity


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 07:14 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

SkyscraperCity ☆ In Urbanity We trust ☆ about us | privacy policy | DMCA policy

Hosted by Blacksun, dedicated to this site too!
Forum server management by DaiTengu