SkyscraperCity Forum banner

How TALL should Baltimore's new tallest tower be?

Future Baltimore New Tallest question

7K views 20 replies 9 participants last post by  MasonsInquiries 
#1 ·
Hey guys,
I just wanted to know what you guys would say. Here's the question:
"If Baltimore does get a new tallest in one of these potential propsals that are on the board, such as; 414 Light Street, 300 East Pratt Street, etc., how tall do you, or would you like to see it be?
In the 500 ft. range? 600 ft. range? 700 fdt. range? Taller?
 
#4 ·
The actual height of the Legg Mason Tower is 548 feet tall even though most places say it is 529. The State Office Tower is 592 feet tall including the 99 foot spire. Alot of cities are now including the spires of part of the total height so I guess you could say are tallest is 592. I'm hopeful that the St reigs Tower will be 675 Feet tall. I think we could have three 550 ft tall buildings in WestPort as well.
The tallest building ever proposed for Baltimore was a 68 story apartment building back in 1985 for Mt Vernon caddy corner to the Sunpapers where now a 4 or 5 story apartment building is now
 
#5 ·
The reason why...........

Baltimoreguy said:
The actual height of the Legg Mason Tower is 548 feet tall even though most places say it is 529. The State Office Tower is 592 feet tall including the 99 foot spire. Alot of cities are now including the spires of part of the total height so I guess you could say are tallest is 592. I'm hopeful that the St reigs Tower will be 675 Feet tall. I think we could have three 550 ft tall buildings in WestPort as well.
The tallest building ever proposed for Baltimore was a 68 story apartment building back in 1985 for Mt Vernon caddy corner to the Sunpapers where now a 4 or 5 story apartment building is now
The reason why there is debate on the height of Legg Mason is because most stats on heights for towers/buildings start from the city sidewalk and go up. Legg Mason sits down in a little "valley". :D I guess the actual height is around 548 ft., but since they measure from the sidewalk and up.......?

Honestly though, I hope we get at least ONE new tallest out of all these proposed projects. :) You know? I'd be happy with a 600+ footer but I'd LOVE a 700 or 800 footer! :D
Think about 300 east pratt street location. A 700 footer there, (although I know it won't probably happen), would be a perfect balance/centering for a new Baltimore skyline. :)
Along with the St. Regis proposal and one light street and cityscape tower and those westside towers proposed, .......... WOW! :eek2:
There's good chance of us waking up and reading the headlines: "BALTIMORE SOARS WITH CITY'S NEW TALLEST!"
Now wouldn't that just start off your day just right. ;) :D :tiasd:
 
#6 ·
I'm hoping for at least 656 ft, which is a 200m building. That's tall enough to stand out as a respectfully tall building and short enough to stand out. Anything under 200m doesn't seem like a very tall building. And making it slender would help as well. I could go for a 700 footer as well.
 
#7 ·
Furiine said:
I'm hoping for at least 656 ft, which is a 200m building. That's tall enough to stand out as a respectfully tall building and short enough to stand out. Anything under 200m doesn't seem like a very tall building. And making it slender would help as well. I could go for a 700 footer as well.
Yeah, why not? 44 more feet? That would be cool. :D :D :D :cheers:
 
#8 ·
Furiine said:
I'm hoping for at least 656 ft, which is a 200m building. That's tall enough to stand out as a respectfully tall building and short enough to stand out. Anything under 200m doesn't seem like a very tall building. And making it slender would help as well. I could go for a 700 footer as well.
That's what I was thinking when I said a 600-700 footer. Anything taller would stick out like a sore thumb. Now put 3 or 4 of that height, and 800-900 wouldn't be out of the question!
 
#9 ·
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the WTC partially if not entirely block 300 E. Pratt as viewed from Federal Hill? If it is, then anything built there would have to be at least 500 feet in order to just poke above the WTC. That's where adding couple hundred more feet would do wonders!
 
#10 ·
I think B'more is definitely ripe for a new tallest!! 700 would be perfect b/c it's not ridiculous, but it still would dominate the skyline. I say build it at 1 light street, so it's right smack in the middle of the skyline. So far, though, the St. Regis seems like the best chance for a new tallest.
 
#11 ·
SoBoChris said:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the WTC partially if not entirely block 300 E. Pratt as viewed from Federal Hill? If it is, then anything built there would have to be at least 500 feet in order to just poke above the WTC. That's where adding couple hundred more feet would do wonders!
Not from Federal Hill, I don't believe. I may be wrong but the view would be blocked from more southeasternly pan. Say, from, Harbor East or Harbor Point, maybe. Key HWY maybe also. My dream would for the 300 east pratt have a tower from late 600 ft. to early 700 ft. range. Then 414 Light Street to be a tower of simuliar height. then have one light street to be in the late 800 ft. mark. Add the Harbor Tower, (proposed behind 750 east pratt), to be a tower of mid to late 500 ft. range and finally cityscape tower to be in the late 400 ft. range, MAYBE right at 500 ft. :D
Dream, Dream, Dream................... :D
 
#12 ·
CU_rak said:
I think B'more is definitely ripe for a new tallest!! 700 would be perfect b/c it's not ridiculous, but it still would dominate the skyline. I say build it at 1 light street, so it's right smack in the middle of the skyline. So far, though, the St. Regis seems like the best chance for a new tallest.
It still annoys me what happened to the original 1 Light. What was wrong with it that prompted it to be downgrowded to another blocky 20 story building? It was such a jewel and if it were 700 ft, it would be a nationally renowned landmark when people picture Baltimore, perhaps.
 
#13 ·
Well, after the boom-to-bust early 90's due to those junk bonds and all, the developer told me that the money was not there to justify adding the office componant of the tower, (hense the shorter tower), and that office space was not demanded enough for building it. Banks tend to like signed tenants before loaning money and all. :)
That's what I was told. :)
BTW, when I e-mailed the developer, telling him I and others really liked the older taller proposal and wished he would go ahead and build the taller one, he said, "Send money".

LOL. :laugh: :yes:
 
#15 ·
Yeah, look at Toronto's CN Tower. It makes the skyline look oh so awkward. ;)
You know what though? Even if Baltimore ended up with one tower in the 800 ft. range, it would be a defining part of Baltimore's skyline. People from all over the country, the WORLD, could much more easily recognize the Baltimore skyline.
Think about it. When you think of other cities just here in the USA alone, you think of one or "defining" towers and/or structures.
For example: Cleavland= Key Tower, NYC= Empire State Building, Chicago= Sears Tower, Seattle= space needle, St. Louis= The Arch, L.A.= Library Tower, San Francisco= Transamerica Pyramid/Golden Gate Bridge, Charlotte, NC.= BofA Headquarters Tower, Boston= John Hancock tower/Prudential tower, EVEN Washington DC. has the Washington Monument that stands at 555 and 5 inches tall. See what I mean?
Wouldn't it be nice to be proud of a magnificent supertall structure at or above 800 ft. tall that everyone could identify us with? Our own Key Tower, Transamerica Pyramid, Sears Tower or Empire State Building. You know? :)
 
#16 ·
^^Agreed. It is because Baltimore lacks a definitive building that people see the skyline (and sometimes the city) as just so-so. By the way, are they actually going to build that 20 story building on 1 light street or is it still in planning phase? The original design was sooooo beautiful, it makes me angry they just scrapped it. Especially since they could just add more condos and apartments in place of offices.
 
#18 ·
StevenW said:
The reason why there is debate on the height of Legg Mason is because most stats on heights for towers/buildings start from the city sidewalk and go up. Legg Mason sits down in a little "valley". :D I guess the actual height is around 548 ft., but since they measure from the sidewalk and up.......?
The Legg Mason building actually sits on a pedestal compared to other buildings on Pratt St. The terrain of the entire area slopes down toward the water (starting from Towson) and the LM building has below-grade parking that encompasses the entire block. They put the building on top of the parking so it's level with Lombard St but about 6 steps above Pratt St. From Pratt St that big blank elevated plaza looks like some sort of temple to money. The plaza and building combination is pretty cold.

StevenW said:
Honestly though, I hope we get at least ONE new tallest out of all these proposed projects. :) You know? I'd be happy with a 600+ footer but I'd LOVE a 700 or 800 footer! :D
I'd like to see it, although I hope whoever does it firms up their use and tenancy before they build. Unfortunately, past tallest (or almost tallest) buildings have ushered in floor space surpluses that depressed new construction, especially given that corporations seem ambivalent at best on renting lots of space in the area. The best bet would seem to be a multi-use building that stacks parking on top of street retail, office space above and residential on top.
 
#19 ·
Did you read this:


"Plan could allow 500-foot skyscrapers on shores of Patapsco’s Middle Branch in South Baltimore"

If Baltimore planners’ draft development guidelines for the Middle Branch of the Patapsco River come to fruition, the west banks of the 450-acre estuary could see skyscrapers as high as the tallest downtown building.

-JEN DEGREGORIO
 
#20 ·
StevenW said:
Did you read this:

"Plan could allow 500-foot skyscrapers on shores of Patapsco’s Middle Branch in South Baltimore" .If Baltimore planners’ draft development guidelines for the Middle Branch of the Patapsco River come to fruition, the west banks of the 450-acre estuary could see skyscrapers as high as the tallest downtown building.

-JEN DEGREGORIO
Since I don't subscribe the the Daily Record, do you know what else the article says? The title suggests that 500 footers would be allowed, but allowed isn't the same as planned and paid for. So far I haven't heard or seen anything specific about the Middle Branch area. Lots of speculation but nothing concrete so far.
 
#21 · (Edited)
I think i would definitely have to go with the 500-ft. range. That kind of height would look significantly beautiful on a city this size. I guess over the past 1 to 2 years or so, i've had my hopes up about a tower going up and in the end, i had my feelings shot down. But i feel really good about our next tower going up. VERY confident. :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :)
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top