Jacksonville's next Downtown skyscraper

[Wacca Pilatka]

Do you think a height limit, as a general rule, is favorable for developing urban density? 

[tufsu1]

not always, but sometimes height limits are a good thing.

Perfect example...there are many surface parking lots in downtown Tampa....this is because the land owners are holding out thinking they can all have a 70-story building....if there were reasonable height limits, some of these parcels might be more attractive for mid-rise housing

[Deuce]

Sarcasm is difficult to convey without non-verbal cues. Which post was being sarcastic because I missed it too.

[Keith-N-Jax]

 I say its to upscale for Jax because if they had the choice between that building and 3 other more boring modern buildings 9 times out of 10 they would chose the most boring design. Look around downtown and the evidence is already there. Besides the Federal building Jax is a boring  as it can be. The Main Street bridge was the only thing they have done that says wow look at me and it doesnt even work anymore ie typical Jacksonville imo.

[fsu813]

Jacksonville Magazine doesn't conisder the Southbank to be downtown eaither. =P

see their current downtown survey (and the boundaries of downtown)

[heights unknown]

True skyscrapers don't make a City, but if you get nice ones up, especially talls and supertalls, they can sure make the downtown/city skyline look awesome, and give the appearance of a bustling, successful metropolis (even if the city is ho hum). 

As a german friend of mine once said, America's central cores are riddled with tall buildings, but nothing happening in the downtowns or central cores.

Heights Unknown

[jason_contentdg]

Jacksonville Magazine doesn't conisder the Southbank to be downtown eaither. =P

see their current downtown survey (and the boundaries of downtown)

They also had trouble spelling "downtown" when they first released that survey, though.

[Ocklawaha]

Do you think a height xcx, as a general rule, is favorable for developing urban density? 

not always, but sometimes height limits are a good thing.

Perfect example...there are many surface parking lots in downtown Tampa....this is because the land owners are holding out thinking they can all have a 70-story building....if there were reasonable height limits, some of these parcels might be more attractive for mid-rise housing
[/qroup]                                                                                                                                                                                                               

[Joe]

Washington DC has no "skyscrapers" as nothing can approach the height of the Washington Monument.

That's actually a myth. DC doesn't have a uniform height limit. Rather, the zoning prevents buildings from being more than 20 feet taller than the total width of the street below. Since streets are only so wide, the buildings are only so tall, though it will vary from street to street.


Anyway, I think it's easy to blame tall buildings for America's lack of urbanism, but it's a false correlation. People just see that the US has both really tall skyscrapers and really bad urbanism, and they think they've made a connection, when there really isn't.

Frankfurt has skyscrapers and Brasilia virtually none. Yet the former is urban, and the latter is the antithesis of urban. Beijing has stricter height limits than Shanghai, yet the latter is more urban, and the former is an auto-centric commie-block mess.

At the end of the day Jax's lack of height limits certainly won't inhibit urbanism. (Hell, by worldwide standards, we have neither skyscrapers nor urbanism!!!)

[reednavy]

Actually DC does have a height limit. No buildings are to be built taller than the Capitol Building's rotunda.

[Lucasjj]

^ That is incorrect. The hieght limit is restricted by what Joe said. 

This is from Wikipedia:

"The original act restricted the heights of any type of building in the United States capital city of Washington, D.C., to be less than the United States Capitol building. The United States Capitol building rises to 288 feet (88 m), which restricts the heights of other buildings in Washington to rise less than that specific height.In 1910, the 61st United States Congress enacted a new law limiting building heights to the width of the right-of-way of the street or avenue on which a building fronts, which is the main law presented by this act."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heights_of_Buildings_Act_of_1910

[reednavy]

Even since, nothing has been built higher than the Capitol, and likely will not see it happen. Many skyscrapers right now have been built in Arlington as of late. Anyways, who cares about DC, we need to concentrate on wth is going to happen here next.

[ProjectMaximus]

You're both right. I doubt there are any ROWs in DC with a width greater than the length of a football field.

Anyway, it's because of this restriction that DC most resembles urban European cities.

[stjr]

Washington DC has no "skyscrapers" as nothing can approach the height of the Washington Monument.

That's actually a myth. DC doesn't have a uniform height limit. Rather, the zoning prevents buildings from being more than 20 feet taller than the total width of the street below. Since streets are only so wide, the buildings are only so tall, though it will vary from street to street.


Anyway, I think it's easy to blame tall buildings for America's lack of urbanism, but it's a false correlation. People just see that the US has both really tall skyscrapers and really bad urbanism, and they think they've made a connection, when there really isn't.

Frankfurt has skyscrapers and Brasilia virtually none. Yet the former is urban, and the latter is the antithesis of urban. Beijing has stricter height limits than Shanghai, yet the latter is more urban, and the former is an auto-centric commie-block mess.

At the end of the day Jax's lack of height limits certainly won't inhibit urbanism. (Hell, by worldwide standards, we have neither skyscrapers nor urbanism!!!)

Wikipedia:

The Washington Monument is a large, tall, sand-colored obelisk near the west end of the National Mall in Washington, D.C. It was constructed to commemorate the first U.S. president, George Washington. The monument, made of marble, granite, and sandstone, is both the world's tallest stone structure and the world's tallest obelisk in height standing 555 feet 5⅛ inches (169.294 m)....

....At the time of its construction, it was the tallest building in the world; it remains the tallest stone structure in the world.[n 2] It is still the tallest building in Washington, D.C.; the Heights of Buildings Act of 1910 restricts new building heights to no more than 20 feet (6.1 m) greater than the width of the adjacent street. (There is a popular misconception that the law specifically states that no building may be taller than the Washington Monument, but in fact the law makes no mention of it).[17] This monument is vastly taller than the obelisks around the capitals of Europe and in Egypt, but ordinary antique obelisks were quarried as a monolithic block of stone, and were therefore seldom taller than around 100 feet (30 m).

Joe, thanks for the update/correction.  I don't recall hearing it stated this way before so it never occurred to me to question it.  I knew there was a limit and just accepted that "myth" as appropriate and, apparently, so have a lot of other people .

[Coolyfett]

Many cities have their downtown split by a river.

Man that sucks...what other cities have that feature?