What does Tampa need?

[FlaNatv]

Future Tampa Skyline?
image hosted on flickr


How long would this take for Tampa? 50 years?

[JBrisco]

Originally Posted by FlaNatv

Future Tampa Skyline?
image hosted on flickr


How long would this take for Tampa? 50 years?

When Tampa becomes part of China. Haha I don't think Tampa will get that big anytime soon. I really doubt it'll ever look like that

[TampaMike]

I have this idea that Tampa could start-up and could be a idea that would spread to other cities. Since inner-city gardens are becoming more popular, what if we had low-rises that were like greenhouses? 3-4 story glass building, climate-controlled, heating lamps if needed, and areas to plant whatever anyone wanted. Could charge $15 a "box" and plant tomatoes or green peppers. And doesn't need to be a yearly contract thing, but people can pre-pay if they want. Of course there will be rules on what can be planted, in case boxes are neglected, and so on. But it will be close to comfort and could be helpful to some who are kind of on a budget.

[HardRocker]

I think those community gardens are unattractive and unnecessary. There's plenty of gardening space around the area, and not enough urban dwellers who would jump to buy a "box." What Tampa needs is a stronger business community. All it takes is one large player in an industry, and the city instantly gains business travelers and can grow, perhaps as a niche city for that industry. With any luck, that business would build a nice 1000 footer right in downtown.

[TampaMike]

Originally Posted by HardRocker

I think those community gardens are unattractive and unnecessary. There's plenty of gardening space around the area, and not enough urban dwellers who would jump to buy a "box." What Tampa needs is a stronger business community. All it takes is one large player in an industry, and the city instantly gains business travelers and can grow, perhaps as a niche city for that industry. With any luck, that business would build a nice 1000 footer right in downtown.

I hardly believe that a business/company would put forward all that money to build a 1000 footer. Maybe if it was 5-6, but that is a large maybe. I'm still keeping up with the Radio Shack rumors. Greensboro announced they were also on the list for possible relocation of their headquarters. I'm hoping there is some back door negotiations going on, but who knows.

[tampasteve]

1000 footer DT is not going to happen unless Peter O' Knight is closed. Even then it is a long shot. I still contend that street interaction and density are more important than height. I would rather have three 300 foot buildings with great street interaction than one 1000. But that might just be me.

Steve

[desertpunk]

Tampa needs gargantuan shopping malls. Tampa needs hundreds of skyscrapers and supertalls all being built at once. Tampa needs palm shaped islands filled with multimillion-dollar villas. Tampa needs indoor skiing. Tampa needs...Dubai.

[TampaMike]

LOL, in some other universe maybe, but not on this planet will Tampa ever be like Dubai.

I actually wouldn't mind the indoor ski slope. Orlando doesn't have one, Miami neither, and I'm pretty sure no one in the Southeast does. Would work great in a place you rarely get snow.

[I-275westcoastfl]

Originally Posted by TampaMike

LOL, in some other universe maybe, but not on this planet will Tampa ever be like Dubai.

I actually wouldn't mind the indoor ski slope. Orlando doesn't have one, Miami neither, and I'm pretty sure no one in the Southeast does. Would work great in a place you rarely get snow.

I agree it would really be a plus for us.

[kevinkagy]

Originally Posted by tampasteve

1000 footer DT is not going to happen unless Peter O' Knight is closed. Even then it is a long shot. I still contend that street interaction and density are more important than height. I would rather have three 300 foot buildings with great street interaction than one 1000. But that might just be me.

Steve

I agree 100% with this. Street level interaction is a million times more important than a skyscraper. What's important is the city life below, not what's isolated above.

[Maxim98]

Originally Posted by desertpunk

Tampa needs gargantuan shopping malls. Tampa needs hundreds of skyscrapers and supertalls all being built at once. Tampa needs palm shaped islands filled with multimillion-dollar villas. Tampa needs indoor skiing. Tampa needs...Dubai.

seriously, if you'd prefer a thousand footer to a dozen 100' buildings, you're clearly not an urbanist.

[HardRocker]

ofcourse street interaction is a must, and tampa desperately needs some, however the skyscraper is an expression of the power of its owner and I think tampa could use the impressive magnitude of a skyscraper that is a symbol of the successful company behind it. something intimidating.

[randommichael]

Originally Posted by HardRocker

ofcourse street interaction is a must, and tampa desperately needs some, however the skyscraper is an expression of the power of its owner and I think tampa could use the impressive magnitude of a skyscraper that is a symbol of the successful company behind it. something intimidating.

I agree. A big tower says something about a city...at least in my opinion it does.

[Maxim98]

but what you're essentially talking about is the equivalent of dick measuring, but on multi-million dollar terms. are such assertions of power actually meaningful in constituting a healthy urban environment?

to be a devil's advocate, even the most tastefully designed supertall poses a number of morphological (experiential) challenges (such as daylight issues -- and, in hurricane-prone Florida, safety concerns). more abstractly, it's also important to consider the types of social and economic circumstances in which towers like this are built; they're not accidental. might those resources -- which are often not entirely private -- be channeled into a more democratic/accessible feature for the urban environment?

in case you haven't noticed, i'm asking particularly tough questions to which there are no easy answers, because i think tampans need to be asking these questions of the planning and development process in order to meaningfully think critically about how their ambitions for the city may, in unintended ways, result in urban spaces that aren't nearly as fulfilling as promised in theory.

... that was a terribly long sentence. i hope it's legible.

[Maxim98]

Originally Posted by randommichael

I agree. A big tower says something about a city...at least in my opinion it does.

certainly it does. but at what point, if any, are these expressions useful to the city beyond a superficial level?

this critique i'm posing is probably too rooted in leftist ways of seeing to really go anywhere, at least in the context of this discussion.

after all, for all that they represent (good and bad), the skyscrapers of new york do have an undeniable allure with which any urban center would, given the imperatives of capitalism, aspire to secure. it's logical in that sense.

[HardRocker]

yeah, thats what I was looking for, maxim, like New York, the feeling you get looking at the towers in New York, that is also, ironically, the only place I can think of that had a skyscraper development that was not private in the world trade center, as you alluded to. I can't think of any others, in America, anyhow. (public development, for private use) as you may know, had the wtc been private, the reconstruction would likely have been completed by now. and some side news, today supposedly Silverstein has been warded some liberty bonds, not too many official details but should be debt worth 2.6 billion dollars, perhaps 2 and 3 wtc can begin soon.

[TampaMike]

We need to work on filling up most of our spaces before working on a 1000 footer. And I'm not really worried about a 1000 footer when we don't even have a 700 footer.

[Maxim98]

Originally Posted by HardRocker

yeah, thats what I was looking for, maxim, like New York, the feeling you get looking at the towers in New York, that is also, ironically, the only place I can think of that had a skyscraper development that was not private in the world trade center, as you alluded to. I can't think of any others, in America, anyhow. (public development, for private use) as you may know, had the wtc been private, the reconstruction would likely have been completed by now. and some side news, today supposedly Silverstein has been warded some liberty bonds, not too many official details but should be debt worth 2.6 billion dollars, perhaps 2 and 3 wtc can begin soon.

yes, in some cases, towers are explicitly funded using public funds, but i was also speaking to the subsidizes the public often gives to private/corporate interests, ranging in scale and quite well documented. this is a particularly significant problem in florida.

[FLAWDA-FELLA]

Originally Posted by TampaMike

We need to work on filling up most of our spaces before working on a 1000 footer. And I'm not really worried about a 1000 footer when we don't even have a 700 footer.

We haven't even crossed the 600' threshold yet.

[DShenise]

A super tall is worthless if you don't have people to fill it. TTT failed because there were nowhere near as many deep pocketed people in the Bay area as they thought and there weren't that many interested in even relocating or investing in it. Generally the upper levels are the residential levels and charge an extreme premium per square foot, numbers unheard of here even during the worst excesses of the bubble. I hate to say it but the Bay area isn't setting the world on fire attracting the mega rich. Most of the $50m. people I've worked with have either bought further south in Naples(because they are old and just want to hang out in Tommy Bahama shirts and drink $100 bottles of chardonay) or Miami (because they are young and want sweaty sex with tan people who only eat celery). So that market is not going to materialize.

Most of the supertalls have substantial commerical in them as well, so where are you going to park all those cars for the worker bees who can't afford the cost of the DT area? What CEO of a publicly trade company is going to throw money at a "my crank is biggest" edifice? What CEO of a private company is going to risk his personal fortune in such a thing?

Its not going to happen, besides there is something to be said about urban development of a more human scale that works for everyone and not just a few. DC is the best example stateside, London overseas is great too.