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

Go Back   SkyscraperCity > World Development News Forums > General Urban Developments > DN Archives



Global Announcement

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


Closed Thread

 
Thread Tools
Old June 14th, 2007, 05:54 AM   #1661
djcody
Registered User
 
djcody's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 312
Likes (Received): 0

All these great proposals, and no businesses to back them. I really wish we had the economic power to really push these ahead and get them off of the ground and in the air. We really could rival minneapolis if businesses would take a chance on us, man i really would love to see a World Trade Center in milwaukee... 60 stories sounds nice.
__________________
GB Superbowl XLV World Champions!!
djcody no está en línea  

Sponsored Links
Old June 14th, 2007, 06:05 AM   #1662
MilwaukeeD
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Milwaukee
Posts: 679
Likes (Received): 2

Quote:
Originally Posted by Boatnurd View Post
Thought the third ward had a height limitation? Why would there be a concept building of aprox 40+ stories?
There are "landmark" sites outlined in the plan that allow for taller buildings at certain key spots, this being one of them.

I may be alone on this board, however, I do not particularily like this building, especially at that location. If something more modern were to go in the Third Ward like this, I would like it to be more transparent. And I am just not a fan of those odd-shaped windows that everyone seems to want to put on buildings lately (Sydney Hih, for instance). I have no problem with the height though and I do really want to see something developed at that site.
MilwaukeeD no está en línea  
Old June 14th, 2007, 06:17 AM   #1663
Skyking2
BANNED
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 499
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by MilwaukeeD View Post
There are "landmark" sites outlined in the plan that allow for taller buildings at certain key spots, this being one of them.

I may be alone on this board, however, I do not particularily like this building, especially at that location. If something more modern were to go in the Third Ward like this, I would like it to be more transparent. And I am just not a fan of those odd-shaped windows that everyone seems to want to put on buildings lately (Sydney Hih, for instance). I have no problem with the height though and I do really want to see something developed at that site.
I like the building just fine -- but this location would just suck. With all of the areas that need filling in downtown, why in the H would you want to spread out the skyline even more?!! I don't want to get ahead of the cart, but c'mon already with these willy nilly proposals spread all over the damn place.
This sort of a building should be built on the block immediately east of the Pfister. There's an open half block that would suit this building perfectly -- and actually do something for the skyline!
Skyking2 no está en línea  
Old June 14th, 2007, 06:21 AM   #1664
Skyking2
BANNED
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 499
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jesse276 View Post
I'll try, maybe one of these will help...
Skyking2 no está en línea  
Old June 14th, 2007, 06:21 AM   #1665
NLouisianaJay
american forester
 
NLouisianaJay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Louisiana
Posts: 136
Likes (Received): 0

I agree that the building would look out of place if it were to be built at the pictured location. But an interesting random Milwaukee vision as always!

I would like to know how many cranes are currently up in Milwaukee. I passed through the downtown in late May and saw cranes and construction everywhere!!!! Obviously some of the cranes are up because of the M.I.
__________________
For-um-er Milwaukeean.
(UWMilwaukeeJay)
NLouisianaJay no está en línea  
Old June 14th, 2007, 06:31 AM   #1666
djcody
Registered User
 
djcody's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 312
Likes (Received): 0

Skyking, i absolutely agree with the location thing. That would def help the skyline if it were put somewhere in the pfister vicinity, i think it would kinda put a peak to the skyline. Why is it that we tend to spread out our buildings????
__________________
GB Superbowl XLV World Champions!!
djcody no está en línea  
Old June 14th, 2007, 06:33 AM   #1667
ClarkWGriswald
User, Registered
 
ClarkWGriswald's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Cedar Rapids, IA
Posts: 294
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by Skyking2 View Post
but c'mon already with these willy nilly proposals spread all over the damn place.
LOL Skyking, that just cracked me up....willy nilly!! Well done!

My opinion on this building...while I actually kind of like it, I definitely do not like how it would seemingly clash with most of the character of the rest of the buildings in the third ward. I mean, in the entire downtown area, how many mainly glass buildings does the city have? Put this thing anywhere but south of 794 and I'd be content.
ClarkWGriswald no está en línea  
Old June 14th, 2007, 06:47 AM   #1668
Skyking2
BANNED
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 499
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by djcody View Post
Skyking, i absolutely agree with the location thing. That would def help the skyline if it were put somewhere in the pfister vicinity, i think it would kinda put a peak to the skyline. Why is it that we tend to spread out our buildings????
I do not know. Look at Minneapolis (not to compare exactly) and the vertical density that city has. My goodness, they have one kick-ass skyline -- in a pretty confined downtown development district. If developers could be encouraged (not talkin' TIFs here) to build within a more condensed area, Milwaukee could truly have a significant and memorable skyline people could associate with.
And when I say density, I don't mean building on top of each other (KT and UCT!!). While I like some of the proposals being floated for the Park East, those buildings will only spread out the skyline more.
Skyking2 no está en línea  
Old June 14th, 2007, 06:50 AM   #1669
Dr Dooms Love Child
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 26
Likes (Received): 0

I dont think it would be too out of place. Its not that far from the main cluster and a tower built at the Chase garage would be a nice bridge. I just like the idea of this tower on the river.

But, its wishful thinking I guess. We always seem to get these cool ass renderings of towers that just disapeer over time.
Dr Dooms Love Child no está en línea  
Old June 14th, 2007, 07:07 AM   #1670
Skyking2
BANNED
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 499
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Dooms Love Child View Post
I dont think it would be too out of place. Its not that far from the main cluster and a tower built at the Chase garage would be a nice bridge. I just like the idea of this tower on the river.

But, its wishful thinking I guess. We always seem to get these cool ass renderings of towers that just disapeer over time.
Sorry to disagree, but IMO there should be no buildings taller than 12 stories south of 794. Further, I'd like to see a more defined area for high-rises established with the boundaries as 794 (south), I-43 (west) and Kilbourn (north), with the exception of the "Gold Coast" area along Prospect. Actually, I'd like to confine it even further, with Plankinton as the west boundary. For a city its size, Milwaukee's downtown is just way too spread out and -- at the current growth rate of large buildings -- would not fill in until somewhere around the year 2850. I'm afraid I'll be too old to appreciate it by then...
Skyking2 no está en línea  
Old June 14th, 2007, 07:08 AM   #1671
Dr Dooms Love Child
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 26
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by Skyking2 View Post
I do not know. Look at Minneapolis (not to compare exactly) and the vertical density that city has. My goodness, they have one kick-ass skyline -- in a pretty confined downtown development district. If developers could be encouraged (not talkin' TIFs here) to build within a more condensed area, Milwaukee could truly have a significant and memorable skyline people could associate with.
And when I say density, I don't mean building on top of each other (KT and UCT!!). While I like some of the proposals being floated for the Park East, those buildings will only spread out the skyline more.
The cluster thing will not happen in Milwaukee...thank God. We have too good of a waterfront.
Dr Dooms Love Child no está en línea  
Old June 14th, 2007, 07:17 AM   #1672
Dr Dooms Love Child
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 26
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by Skyking2 View Post
Sorry to disagree, but IMO there should be no buildings taller than 12 stories south of 794. Further, I'd like to see a more defined area for high-rises established with the boundaries as 794 (south), I-43 (west) and Kilbourn (north), with the exception of the "Gold Coast" area along Prospect. Actually, I'd like to confine it even further, with Plankinton as the west boundary. For a city its size, Milwaukee's downtown is just way too spread out and -- at the current growth rate of large buildings -- would not fill in until somewhere around the year 2850. I'm afraid I'll be too old to appreciate it by then...
Whats wrong with being spread out? Its one thing to look like Atlanta or Houston with thousand foot sore thumbs all over the place. Most of the towers proposed in Milwaukee are not that far from the "main cluster" anyway. The Moderne, Lake Pointe, Chase, and Ruvin proposals, along with the Intercontinental Hotel are all in the neighborhood of other towers. This "proposal" (if you want to call it that at this point) is right across from the main cluster. The rest of the stuff going in the Park East, Third/Fifth Wards, Eastside, etc. are all smaller towers--under 20 stories. These add to the impressive skyline density Milwaukee has from certain angles--such as the view from the McKinley Ave. bridge, near Pabst.
Dr Dooms Love Child no está en línea  
Old June 14th, 2007, 08:02 AM   #1673
Skyking2
BANNED
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 499
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Dooms Love Child View Post
The cluster thing will not happen in Milwaukee...thank God. We have too good of a waterfront.
My friend, I agree that the lakefront is the single best natural asset we have.
But, the development area that I'm talking about would not hinder access to the lake at all.
Skyking2 no está en línea  
Old June 14th, 2007, 08:07 AM   #1674
Skyking2
BANNED
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 499
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Dooms Love Child View Post
Whats wrong with being spread out? Its one thing to look like Atlanta or Houston with thousand foot sore thumbs all over the place. Most of the towers proposed in Milwaukee are not that far from the "main cluster" anyway. The Moderne, Lake Pointe, Chase, and Ruvin proposals, along with the Intercontinental Hotel are all in the neighborhood of other towers. This "proposal" (if you want to call it that at this point) is right across from the main cluster. The rest of the stuff going in the Park East, Third/Fifth Wards, Eastside, etc. are all smaller towers--under 20 stories. These add to the impressive skyline density Milwaukee has from certain angles--such as the view from the McKinley Ave. bridge, near Pabst.
Nope Sorry, you don't quite get it. There is no real main cluster -- that's the point! The "impressive skyline density Milwaukee has" which you mention is a misnomer, and a contradictory statement when you talk about being "spread out."
Skyking2 no está en línea  
Old June 14th, 2007, 08:09 AM   #1675
brewcityfan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Milwaukee, WI
Posts: 1,664
Likes (Received): 304

Quote:
Originally Posted by MilwaukeeD View Post
There are "landmark" sites outlined in the plan that allow for taller buildings at certain key spots, this being one of them.

I may be alone on this board, however, I do not particularily like this building, especially at that location. If something more modern were to go in the Third Ward like this, I would like it to be more transparent. And I am just not a fan of those odd-shaped windows that everyone seems to want to put on buildings lately (Sydney Hih, for instance). I have no problem with the height though and I do really want to see something developed at that site.
MilwaukeeD - THANK YOU! The building is utterly hideous. It's a 40+ story building located among max. 14 story buildings. It looks absolutely silly and almost like Ruvin's Kimpton hotel proposal with those ugly white/grey/black blocks. To top it off, it's next to blue glass. Good God please.

And I'm still on the record saying it's stupid for the Third Ward to have a max. height of only 14 stories. It just makes downtown Milwaukee look like a mountain cliff - with 794 being the drop off. I'm glad all the historical junkies are getting their way with preservation....but C'MON.
brewcityfan no está en línea  
Old June 14th, 2007, 10:19 AM   #1676
Jai
ॐ शान्तिः शान्तिः शान्तिः
 
Jai's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Haleiwa, Oahu, HI :. Waianae, Oahu, HI :. DETROIT, MI
Posts: 3,703
Likes (Received): 79

That's an awesome height, but I tend to agree with some of the opinions above... that is definately a building that would look better in a rendering than in real life, imo
Jai no está en línea  
Old June 14th, 2007, 04:28 PM   #1677
MilwaukeeD
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Milwaukee
Posts: 679
Likes (Received): 2

Quote:
Originally Posted by Skyking2 View Post
I do not know. Look at Minneapolis (not to compare exactly) and the vertical density that city has. My goodness, they have one kick-ass skyline -- in a pretty confined downtown development district. If developers could be encouraged (not talkin' TIFs here) to build within a more condensed area, Milwaukee could truly have a significant and memorable skyline people could associate with.
And when I say density, I don't mean building on top of each other (KT and UCT!!). While I like some of the proposals being floated for the Park East, those buildings will only spread out the skyline more.
I think that it really has to do with what land a developer can get his hands on. Park East and Fifth Ward land just seems to be more readily available right now, whereas with that Pfister land the price must be prohibitively high ($$$).

It would be diificult to encourage developers to build tall just right downtown, unless you down-zoned all of the land surrounding downtown to prohibit tall buildings.

And remember, this is milwaukee, any tall building will also need a large parking garage attached to it, and there just isn't room at some of those smaller central lots.
MilwaukeeD no está en línea  
Old June 14th, 2007, 04:45 PM   #1678
roadrunner64
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 9
Likes (Received): 17

New member, Go Milwaukee!

Hey folks, new member here. Came across your forum looking for something else. I found the forum interesting and was happy to see so much going on in Milwaukee. I lived there for a few years but moved away in 1989 and now reside in the valley of the sun. Anyhow, here in the Phoenix metro we have similar issues: we have a very spread out skyline and it is also vertically challanged, even more so than Milwaukee. Phoenix is now a much larger metro area than Milwaukee and our tallest tower is 480 ft. Many here feel we need some more height.

Although our cities share these similarities, they have happened for different reasons. In Phoenix land WAS cheap, zoning was haphazard, and there was plenty of room to sprawl. Phoenix never developed as an urban center. We are more of a huge giant sprawling complex of suburbs. In Milwaukee the main deterent to height is the cost of construction. Downtown Milwaukee sits on the site of a former marshy area, bedrock is way down. Most high rises have to be built on friction piles stuck in the sediment rather than being built on bedrock. That is way more expensive. For that reason, I do not think Milwaukee will see any 50+ storey buildings anytime soon. Even so, if some of the new proposals get built it will fill in your skyline.
roadrunner64 no está en línea  
Old June 14th, 2007, 07:08 PM   #1679
Jesse276
Registered User
 
Jesse276's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Milwaukee
Posts: 905
Likes (Received): 567

Quote:
Originally Posted by brewcityfan View Post
MilwaukeeD - THANK YOU! The building is utterly hideous. It's a 40+ story building located among max. 14 story buildings. It looks absolutely silly and almost like Ruvin's Kimpton hotel proposal with those ugly white/grey/black blocks. To top it off, it's next to blue glass. Good God please.
I have to note this, I wholehartedly agree with brewcity for once. Ok, carry on.
Jesse276 no está en línea  
Old June 14th, 2007, 08:06 PM   #1680
brewcityfan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Milwaukee, WI
Posts: 1,664
Likes (Received): 304

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jesse276 View Post
I have to note this, I wholehartedly agree with brewcity for once. Ok, carry on.
I think God just sent me a miracle with that comment.....
brewcityfan no está en línea  


Closed Thread

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 06:56 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

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

tech management by Sysprosium