I remember when the Barnet Bank tower was finished (very young), nothing since then. It's cheaper to buy land in the burbs and build out rather than up i guess........any educated guess as to when the next skyscraper might be built?
I'll say in 5-8 years plans to build another will be in place.
Is your definition of a downtown skyscraper only a commercial building in the North Bank, cause I would consider the apt buildings on the south bank as skyscrapers downtown.
That's kind of a weird statement, since a 350-foot skyscraper was constructed directly in front of the Bank of America tower not more than two years later. Nevermind the fact that Jacksonville's 4th tallest was recently completed on the Southbank.
My assumption is that one of the "dead" condo proposals will be Jax's next skyscraper. Once the real estate market improves, a developer will revive some of the plans and build a new tower within 5-10 years. The most likely candidates are the empty sites on the Southbank - next door to Aetna, next door to the Peninsula, the old Radisson hotel site, the JEA site, etc. On the Northbank, it's possible that Riverwatch or the Shipyards could be revived. Additionally, the Riverside Ave corridor has always had a few empty riverfront lots in which developers have shown interest. Although nothing serious was proposed.
Anyway, like you said, it's going to be 5 years bare-minimum, and I would speculate it will be longer than that.
i don't consider the southbank to be downtown really....
What's your height cut off limit for skyscraper? The new federal courthouse, Hyatt and Berkman were all built within the last ten years or so.
Your definition of "downtown" is too limiting - the City considers the Southbank part of downtown.
The new WOlfson's Tower will be our next tower to go up.
What reasons would someone have for not considering the southbank part of downtown? Because a river runs through it? (separating north from south)
Hopefully the next skyscraper is the St. Johns.
I agree with Reed, the Wolfson's tower is next. Also, look for the courthouse (although probably not included in the "highrise" category). I actually think they will be comparable in height...
I was REALLY hoping for the Riverwatch Tower to go vertical.
You and everyone else, such a shame. Of course, I'm glad that San Marco Village or whatever didn't go up on the JEA site, mainly because that IS NOT SAN MARCO.
Lets have this conversation when something over 50 stories is built not just planned. I dont consider any of the condos in Jax as skyscrapers. My opinion!
^Under that definition, Jacksonville doesn't have any skyscrapers. Really?
Quote from: Joe on June 08, 2009, 10:43:42 AM
That's kind of a weird statement, since a 350-foot skyscraper was constructed directly in front of the Bank of America tower not more than two years later. Nevermind the fact that Jacksonville's 4th tallest was recently completed on the Southbank.
My assumption is that one of the "dead" condo proposals will be Jax's next skyscraper. Once the real estate market improves, a developer will revive some of the plans and build a new tower within 5-10 years. The most likely candidates are the empty sites on the Southbank - next door to Aetna, next door to the Peninsula, the old Radisson hotel site, the JEA site, etc. On the Northbank, it's possible that Riverwatch or the Shipyards could be revived. Additionally, the Riverside Ave corridor has always had a few empty riverfront lots in which developers have shown interest. Although nothing serious was proposed.
Anyway, like you said, it's going to be 5 years bare-minimum, and I would speculate it will be longer than that.
Probably the Vue. As the economy heals and prospers, and the banks begin issuing credit again like there's no tomorrow, look for several developments to be taken off of the planning shelves and quickly approved.
Heights Unknown
Quote from: fsu813 on June 08, 2009, 11:47:33 AM
i don't consider the southbank to be downtown really....
You may not consider Southbank Downtown but the City does, and I do as well because it's right across the River from the Northbank, and the growth that the Southbank has or will have is actually an off shoot of what already exists on the Northbank, this is only my opinion; it only makes sense to include it in downtown anyway from a business standpoint and the fact that there are skyscrapers, in which the majority are businesses, right across the river from the Northbank.
Heights Unknown
Quote from: Charles Hunter on June 08, 2009, 05:16:47 PM
Your definition of "downtown" is too limiting - the City considers the Southbank part of downtown.
And the eastern most section of Brooklyn bordering the River going south into Riverside.
Heights Unknown
Quote from: reednavy on June 08, 2009, 05:59:28 PM
The new WOlfson's Tower will be our next tower to go up.
Anyone know how high/tall that will be? In my opinion anything over 200 feet is a skyscraper; basically any building under 200 feet doesn't even look tall or look the part, and really looks like a squashed tall.
Heights Unknown
Quote from: Seraphs on June 08, 2009, 06:35:07 PM
What reasons would someone have for not considering the southbank part of downtown? Because a river runs through it? (separating north from south)
Well think about it; if the river had never been there, and Jacksonville was still the City it is, that would be downtown...i.e., there would probably be buildings where the river runs through downtown, and the urban/downtown sprawl probably would have spilled over into that section anyway.
Heights Unknown
Quote from: Seraphs on June 08, 2009, 06:37:06 PM
Hopefully the next skyscraper is the St. Johns.
Or the Vue, that one will be tall as well.
Heights Unknown
Quote from: Keith-N-Jax on June 08, 2009, 10:00:06 PM
Lets have this conversation when something over 50 stories is built not just planned. I dont consider any of the condos in Jax as skyscrapers. My opinion!
Why not? A skyscraper is a tall building, not just tall office building, but any type of building; I don't think there is any height cut off limit in the definition of a skyscraper. Here is the definition of "skyscraper:"
sky·scrap·er (skī'skrā'pər)
n. A very tall building.
So that sums it all up.
Heights Unknown
Skyscrapercities.com categorizes highrise buildings as over 200ft, Skyscrapers as over 650ft, and Supertalls as being over 1000ft. I think under these terms our disscusion should be Jacksonville's next highrise.
Jacksonville's "next skyscraper" should have been a 30+ story County Courthouse. Less city blocks, likely less expensive, and a great addition to the skyline. But, no, the judges designed it and, being math challenged, didn't want any floor numbers in "double digits"! :D
Quote from: stjr on June 09, 2009, 08:50:59 AM
Jacksonville's "next skyscraper" should have been a 30+ story County Courthouse. Less city blocks, likely less expensive, and a great addition to the skyline. But, no, the judges designed it and, being math challenged, didn't want any floor numbers in "double digits"! :D
Well, not really.
Well in my opinion, jacksonville should building another 600 footer maybe 3 blocks west of the bank of america tower. Also a 700 footer would be nice on the south bank.
Quote from: JeffreyS on June 09, 2009, 07:17:10 AM
Skyscrapercities.com categorizes highrise buildings as over 200ft, Skyscrapers as over 650ft, and Supertalls as being over 1000ft. I think under these terms our disscusion should be Jacksonville's next highrise.
That's their categorization and their opinion of what skyscraper is or should be; remember, a skscraper is just a "tall building." A tall building can be 200 feet or even 150 feet; they're certainly taller than a tree.
Heights Unknown
Keith n Jax, have you ever been in the southbank towers? I don't know about anyone else, but 38 floors qualifies as a skyscaper to me. The balcony at the top of the Peninsula is deadly scary. I will agree that San Marco Place and, possibly the Strand, fall short of skyscraper, but definitely not the Peninsula.
I think the St Johns or Baptist will be next. No chance for the Vu
What would the new Everbank Plaza on Riverside Avenue be considered according to MetroJax users?
Mid-rise
Here are a few old images I threw together showing what a couple new towers could do to the downtown skyline. Throw in some good street interaction and the CBD will easily become very dense and very walkable.
Here is the first image showing a completed Riverwatch Tower (grey bldg) and a new "tallest" that tops 700'.
(http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y74/asonj23/Google%20Earth%20Snapshots/VacantLot-4.jpg)
(http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y74/asonj23/Google%20Earth%20Snapshots/VacantLot-5.jpg)
Next we throw in a few more towers in and around the Times Union Center and CSX building and we instantly have a central buisness district that would rival or beat cities that have recently moved ahead in terms of development and walkability.
(http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y74/asonj23/Google%20Earth%20Snapshots/JaxoftheFuture-3.jpg)
(http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y74/asonj23/Google%20Earth%20Snapshots/JaxoftheFuture-1.jpg)
(http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y74/asonj23/Google%20Earth%20Snapshots/JaxoftheFuture-5.jpg)
(http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y74/asonj23/Google%20Earth%20Snapshots/JaxoftheFuture-9.jpg)
Skyscrapercities.com Wikipedia Skyscraperpage.com
Highrise 200 75(6 floors)
Skyscraper 650 492 12 story
Supertall 1000 984
All about Skyscrapers .com
Any very tall building that towers above the rest of the sky line. Originally a nautical term for tall sails.
Always love those images Jason.
Looks like Dallas on the St. Johns River.
In Jacksonville's Architectural Heritage there is a definition of "skyscraper" from Louis Sullivan in the writeup on the Florida Life Bldg. an and argument that based on that definition, it's the city's purest statement of a "skyscraper"...but it's only 11 stories. But that's my favorite Klutho building, so I'll cling to that line of argument. :)
I'm hoping the "Vue" comes back on the proposal table.
Heights Unknown
I was reading an article about the top 100 tallest SS in the US, Jax was not even on the list. Top 100 in US.......
Quote from: fsu813 on June 08, 2009, 11:47:33 AM
i don't consider the southbank to be downtown really....
Huh? What do you consider it?
I see fsu's point. Techically, the Southbank is considered a part of downtown since it's so close, but after working two years on the Northbank and six months recently on the Southbank, it really does feel more cut off from the core.
Example: during lunch time, most of the people I work with hop in their cars and head south down Hendricks, Mandarin or even Southside blvd instead of going to eat at one of the local places downtown.
Whereas during my time on the Northbank people would just walk down the street for lunch. On a rare occasion we'd drive outside of downtown but most of the time, between the hot dog vendors, lunch eateries along with the trolley to Riverside, we didn't need to use our cars too much.
From the southbank, it's a bit of a hike on foot for most office workers to walk across the main street bridge during lunch or after work and limited parking during the day deturs most from taking the short jaunt in their cars across the river.
ahem, Southbank trolley ahem. (yes i know the trains and Main st bridge create logistics problems, but still)
You don't really get that urban feel when walking anywhere on the Southbank either given how most of the taller buildings have built in parking garages, so each building is basically a bubble in which very few leave.
Many cities have their downtown split by a river.I dont see why anyone would think the Southbank is not apart of downtown just because its not right next to the main part of downtown. So is BcBS, Fideilty, etc are those part of downtown. Downtown is downtown, doesnt matter if seperated by water or if people choose to leave that specific area to eat else where!
The Southbank once had the "tallest building in the South" for thirteen years; That would be the Aetna Building that was built in 1955. That's quite a high-rise history for an area that "some" don't even consider to be DT Jax.
Um,, Aetna wasn't the tallest in the SE for 13 years, Nashville's L&C Tower was built in 1957 at 409ft.
Quotehop in their cars and head south down Hendricks, Mandarin or even Southside blvd instead of going to eat at one of the local places downtown.
This doesn't surprise me. While Mandarin or Southside are too far for lunch (I would question whether those folks are actually taking an hour for lunch), they are a lot of great places to eat just south of the Southbank that are not replicated over the river. Just to name a few: Panera, Tropical Smoothie, Marie's kabob house, Sushi Rock, and the soon to open Oral Explosion. If I worked on the Southbank, I doubt I would ever head over the bridge to eat.
I'd take the water taxi if I worked on the Southbank. It is cheap and reliable because most people are not going to croos the MSB in summer with heat and thunderstorms.
Quote from: reednavy on June 10, 2009, 09:04:08 AM
Um,, Aetna wasn't the tallest in the SE for 13 years, Nashville's L&C Tower was built in 1957 at 409ft.
The Riverplace Tower was the world's tallest pre-cast, post-tension concrete structure when it was built. The exterior is the only structural support which leaves the entire interior free of obstructions (minus the elevator shafts). I'm pretty sure its still in the top 5 of its kind.
Quote from: Coolyfett on June 09, 2009, 10:09:37 PM
I was reading an article about the top 100 tallest SS in the US, Jax was not even on the list. Top 100 in US.......
the existence of skyscrapers has nothing to do with whether a city is great or not....San Diego is pretty nice and they have a 500' height limit
:o wow l love those pics of what Jacksonville could become in the next ten years. Now we have to somehow convince the downtown development team to look at this pictures and make it a reality. ;) I really do love those pics. ;D
Quote from: tufsu1 on June 10, 2009, 10:38:15 AM
the existence of skyscrapers has nothing to do with whether a city is great or not....San Diego is pretty nice and they have a 500' height limit
They need to move that airport yesterday.
Quote from: reednavy on June 10, 2009, 09:04:08 AM
Um,, Aetna wasn't the tallest in the SE for 13 years, Nashville's L&C Tower was built in 1957 at 409ft.
My bad. Nashville Life & Casualty is taller than Aetna. I'm a bad wiki link "casualty". So I guess Aetna was the South's tallest for about two years; Whatever, my point is the Southbank is unquestionably downtown. :)
Quote from: tufsu1 on June 10, 2009, 10:38:15 AM
Quote from: Coolyfett on June 09, 2009, 10:09:37 PM
I was reading an article about the top 100 tallest SS in the US, Jax was not even on the list. Top 100 in US.......
the existence of skyscrapers has nothing to do with whether a city is great or not....San Diego is pretty nice and they have a 500' height limit
Washington DC has no "skyscrapers" as nothing can approach the height of the Washington Monument. Philadelphia had an unwritten "law" that no one could build higher than the hat of William Penn's statue on City Hall (although that is still something like 50 stories if memory serves me right) until a developer challenged it in the early 80's or so and won in court. I don't think these cities have made their marks based on skyscrapers. By the way, many would argue that, overall, Washington is the prettiest major urban area in America (that's overall, folks. I know they have some bad areas, too!). Washington's "skyscrapers" are in its Virginia and Maryland suburbs - an "inside-out" arrangement as only Washington could have. :D
I think the Philadelphia city hall, counting the statue on top, is almost exactly the same height as the Independent Life* building.
* Sorry, still can't get used to calling it by its current name 12 years later
Quote from: tufsu1 on June 10, 2009, 10:38:15 AM
Quote from: Coolyfett on June 09, 2009, 10:09:37 PM
I was reading an article about the top 100 tallest SS in the US, Jax was not even on the list. Top 100 in US.......
the existence of skyscrapers has nothing to do with whether a city is great or not....San Diego is pretty nice and they have a 500' height limit
In most people's eyes, skyscrapers, especially tall ones are a symbol of economic and financial success and prosperity, especially in America. In Europe not so much, the Far East, Mid East, and Australia skyscrapers are viewed basically in the same light as in America, symbols of economic and financial power, success and prosperity.
Heights Unknown
Quote from: reednavy on June 10, 2009, 02:53:46 PM
Quote from: tufsu1 on June 10, 2009, 10:38:15 AM
the existence of skyscrapers has nothing to do with whether a city is great or not....San Diego is pretty nice and they have a 500' height limit
They need to move that airport yesterday.
I wonder if Jax hadn't closed down Imerson and moved it's Airport way in Northern Duval, would there have been a height limit here (in Jax) as well.
Heights Unknown
(http://www.robertamsterdam.com/gazprom_sunset_rmjm1206glocg.jpg)
Maybe with CSX and Blue Cross scattered all over the town, we could get a single consolidated tower out of them. The new Bahn Tower in Germany (Railroad system) is as stunning as the one in the photo above. Perhaps as an old Italian friend of mine once said, "We could make them an offer they can't refuse..." Anyone ever see the Canadian National RR tower? Wow.
OCKLAWAHA
Thats nice, to upscale for Jax,
Yeah, I could never see a tower like that in Jax; if it did, it would shock me.
Heights Unknown
That tower would shock anyone in any city.
Tower is gorgeous. Would love to see that in Jax! JAX needs more upscale. That's the problem with JAX, it's too downscale! If you want to compete in the information economy, you need to attract members of the creative class. You need upscale for that. Adding more shipping firms is great, adding a biotech firm is better.
With few exceptions, Jax's skyline mostly tracks the City's approach to development: functional, cost effective, no frills other than maybe a few superficial faux details, conservative and traditional, simple, unimaginative, unoriginal, and unsophisticated , noncontroversial, lacking innovation, shying from cutting edge, short term, disposable thinking - lacking a vision and statement for the decades. OK to forgo higher standards if it means getting the project done "yesterday".
Recent example: The new Courthouse! ;)
It's also why Jax can bulldoze so many outstanding historic buildings with character and not lose any sleep over it.
Quote from: Keith-N-Jax on June 10, 2009, 07:40:51 PM
Thats nice, to upscale for Jax,
Why, because it's tall, and nice looking? I don't understand how a building can be too "upscale" for a metro. Is Mobile's new "Chrysler like" tower too "upscale" for them? I guess that Bank of America in Charlotte is still too "upscale" for them. Buildings like that will get build, they'll settle in the skyline, then people will accept them. Sound like Jax's classic "low self-esteem" is coming out of peeps.
Of course, some people don't understand sarcasm apparently.
Quote from: reednavy on June 11, 2009, 11:22:10 AM
Of course, some people don't understand sarcasm apparently.
Humor is often in short supply on MJ. And, sarcasm or satire is totally unappreciated. I speak from experience. Go to: http://www.metrojacksonville.com/forum/index.php/topic,4755.0.html where many missed my point of a tongue-in-cheek poll entirely. 8)
Do you think a height limit, 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
Sarcasm is difficult to convey without non-verbal cues. Which post was being sarcastic because I missed it too.
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.
Jacksonville Magazine doesn't conisder the Southbank to be downtown eaither. =P
see their current downtown survey (and the boundaries of downtown)
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
Quote from: fsu813 on June 11, 2009, 08:14:09 PM
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.
Quote from: Wacca Pilatka on June 11, 2009, 12:19:59 PM
Do you think a height xcx, as a general rule, is favorable for developing urban density?
Quote from: tufsu1 on June 11, 2009, 12:36:04 PM
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]
Quote from: stjr on June 10, 2009, 05:34:59 PM
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!!!)
Actually DC does have a height limit. No buildings are to be built taller than the Capitol Building's rotunda.
^ 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
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.
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.
Quote from: Joe on June 17, 2009, 02:45:04 PM
Quote from: stjr on June 10, 2009, 05:34:59 PM
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:QuoteThe 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 ;) .
Quote from: Keith-N-Jax on June 10, 2009, 02:16:52 AM
Many cities have their downtown split by a river.
Man that sucks...what other cities have that feature?
Quote from: Deuce on June 11, 2009, 10:04:43 AM
Tower is gorgeous. Would love to see that in Jax! JAX needs more upscale. That's the problem with JAX, it's too downscale! If you want to compete in the information economy, you need to attract members of the creative class. You need upscale for that. Adding more shipping firms is great, adding a biotech firm is better.
I understand your point of view.
Quote from: Coolyfett on June 17, 2009, 08:14:10 PM
Quote from: Keith-N-Jax on June 10, 2009, 02:16:52 AM
Many cities have their downtown split by a river.
Man that sucks...what other cities have that feature?
You think that sucks. Maybe you havent sat down and had dinner at the Landing with the South Bank in the back ground or watched fireworks from either bank. IMO its a plus not a negative.
QuoteMany cities have their downtown split by a river.
Man that sucks...what other cities have that feature?
(This could be a whole new thread, really)
Prague
Rome
Paris
Cairo
Bangkok
London
Baghdad
Dublin
....................Pittsburgh
Quoteadding a biotech firm is better
With the education system we have here.....good luck. It seems Jerry Mallot has us relagated to building batteries on the west side if the prospect can score a 100 million dollar grant.
Thanks Jerr for the confidence in our youth!
Jacksonville's next downtown skyscaper...maybe a 50-60 story mixed-use tower to replace that surface parking lot across from the Landing! Anything to succeed the height of the BoA Tower.
Quote from: jeh1980 on June 17, 2009, 09:49:11 PM
Jacksonville's next downtown skyscaper...maybe a 50-60 story mixed-use tower to replace that surface parking lot across from the Landing! Anything to succeed the height of the BoA Tower.
And that would be the perfect spot for the next one, also a tall tower would be good next to the Wachovia Bank Tower, another tall would also go good in the parking lot next to the Omni, and I could go on and on.
We could do another thread on proposed skyscraper infills for the downtown core; someone needs to start and open up that thread.
Heights Unknown
The images I posted a few pages back show what the core could look like if all of the major vacant lots were developed. Its night and day.