Tall Buildings

[PhilmerPhil]

Since there was a lot of discussion on the need for tall buildings in the Nicollet Residences thread that was beginning to go off topic, I thought I'd start a thread to further discuss here.

I'll start off by saying that tall buildings are pretty in our skyline, but to me, it's more important to have dense, walkable neighborhoods. I hope that everyone that frequents this site agrees with me, but sometimes it seems like that's not the case. Does anyone think tall buildings are more important to the progression of our city than dense neighborhoods of low rises?

[mplsjaromir]

[snark]Well I am just going to say if it wasn't for the sky ways in tall buildings I would move out of downtown to Cambridge because the Wal-Mart is close to the Applebee's so gas would be cheap. We all know good cities do not need sidewalks, who walks outside after 10pm? Parking lots are just as good as sidewalks anyways. I for one welcome our corporate overlords. [snark]

[Konante]

Totally agree density is the key, and I think everyone gets that but they--and I--get caught up in the 'sex appeal' of the high rises.

[Lancestar2]

I also agree Phil,

I for one love the Loring Park community because it is packed full of dense buildings and the two biggest parking lots are now being converted into additional housing! (401 Oak grove, & Lasalle Tower) However I also think that building tall buildings is important too! for example again look at the Loring community, alot of the open spaces are gone and little options are open for development. Of course Loring is packed full of extremely old buildings that would make sense to tear down and build taller buildings. If Minneapolis in theory builds a lot of smaller buildings 6-12 story buildings they may run out of space and not have as a dense of a community as they could if they had been building 20-30 story buildings. I think it is a balancing act between the to. Mostly building to increase the density while also taking into consideration how dense that space really is! Also for example the 401 Oak Grove was IMO a mistake to limit the floors to 6 or 7 because there is little open space left to create another high rise project. Also the Nicollet Residence building was a very good location IMO to build a high rise at the height of the IDS or higher, because of the location and spacing between the IDS, Wells Fargo building and the Capella. Density is the most important but I would agree there are many other factors that must be weighed in Minneapolis has the BEST skyline of a "medium sized city" and it would be a shame if we as a community didn't maintain it. Also I would doubt the city is ready for another new IDS building this year or even in the next 10 years, however if and when another super tall building is planned it needs to be built in a location that won't throw off the skyline! That is why we are blessed and cursed to have such a pretty skyline, and I think deep down we all know it we need to preserve the look and feel of the skyline too.

[Nathan]

I see a lot of the argument about taller Taller TALLER on all of these message boards. I found this really great graphic of the heights of buildings in Manhattan. Yes of course they have TALL buildings, but most of their best urban neighborhoods are under 100 feet. I will never complain about a beautiful tall building being built in Minneapolis. In fact I would do ALMOST ANYTHING to bring back the Nicollet or better. But why just ask for bigger taller EVERY time. Ok Discuss.

[PhilmerPhil]

Very interesting (and somewhat long) read arguing against changes to DCs current height restrictions. It brings up good points about why large scale tall developments aren't necessarily the gold standard for urban development, as a few posters here seem to feel. (Minneapolis is mentioned about halfway through as an example of a cookie cutter city with tall buildings...) :-/

http://bit.ly/Q63Epf

[mplsjaromir]

The above article has many logical fallacies and uses no data to support its points. The case for height restrictions in DC is absurd.

[John]

For Minneapolis, there is a time and a place for a low to mid-rise building, and other times when a high rise or supertall might be more appropriate. IMO, BOTH are important to creating urban density. It really depends on the site, the context of the area surrounding it, and whether it contributes to the city's character and beauty. This is not a black or white argument.

[FISHMANPET]

The above article has many logical fallacies and uses no data to support its points. The case for height restrictions in DC is absurd.

It looks like I'm not the only one who follow Ryan Avent and Matt Yglesias on Twitter! I was going to say the same thing.

The biggest slap in the face is his assertion that tall buildings don't equal low rent by pointing to NYC and SF with their taill buildings and high rents. Ignoring that NYC and SF are expensive because there aren't enough tall buildings. I'll agree with the author who says that there are many possible view points, and none of them is wrong, especially when it comes to things like character of the city. But when it comes to the economics of it, he's flat out wrong.

[twincitizen]

The Minneapolis skyline is one of the most beautiful in the country. Clearly the demand for new office space downtown is low, and will remain low unless companies like United Health (and friggin Target now) stop building corporate campuses in the suburbs. This makes new 50-story high rises unlikely and I'm ok with that. The skyline is best viewed from further away (like the approach from northbound 35W) so I fail to see how really tall buildings benefit the look or feel of the city when you're actually in downtown.

Short short version: tall buildings look sexy from the highway, don't benefit actual users of downtown (unless there is a real need for the office space)

We need 3-6 story infill all over the city much more than we need even a single tall building of 30+ stories.

[John]

Well, we may see a 50+story convention center hotel go up in the next few years. I can't reveal too much here, but I do know this is actually under very serious consideration. I agree our skyline is magnificant, but it could use a few more tall buildings to fill it out and give it more variety and depth. For us skyscraper fans, the skyline is always a work of art in progress and never complete.

[woofner]

His environmental argument is spot on:

This is supported by research: the environmental benefits of increasing density – including lower rates of driving and stormwater runoff (when measured in the watershed as a whole) – are dramatic indeed as density increases from large-lot sprawl to village-style densities of 20 units per acre or so. But, above a certain point, the environmental benefits of incremental increases in density taper off. There is little additional benefit to these environmental indicators, for example, as density increases beyond about 60 homes per acre, as one might find in a three- or four-story apartment building. Indeed, there is even some evidence that taller buildings create negative environmental impact per increment of additional space compared to building heights typically found in central Washington or Paris. Taller buildings need stronger support materials that require greater amounts of energy to produce.

We have had the technology and energy necessary to carry people above 6-8 floors for less than 1% of the time our species has existed. It's a huge risk to stake our building patterns on that energy remaining available. The ragged steel frames of our skyscrapers may be around far longer than we will be able to use them.

His economic argument is weaker, but I don't really buy the Glaeser line either. If you are positing a world in which it's politically possible to upzone enough of a city to build enough skyscrapers to have an impact on housing prices, it would likely be just as politically possible to allow 6 story buildings in the suburbs. This midrise city would have just the same impact on prices as a larger high-rise center would.

[FISHMANPET]

I have a hard time buying his argument, considering that New York City has some of the lowest per capita energy consumption around. And I also think he's misrepresenting the facts.

His first link, claming that more than 60 units per acre doesn't add much is referring only to stormwater runoff. If that was the only criteria by which we judge enviromental impact than he might be correct, but it's not. His link (which he wrote) even says that there are increesed benefits going above 60 units per acre, they're just not as big as benefits from moving to 4 to 8 or 8 to 16 units per acre.

As for the second link, a lot of that seems to be rallying against the tower in the park concept, and in fact the summary of that article says that its' more than just height, it's about built form as well. I don't think anyone's planning on demolishing a block and building a single tower in the middle of it.

[mplsjaromir]

I think the main point is that DC has invested in a metro system that has a very high capacity. Not allowing building densities that reflect the amount of transit available is stupid, even if you have to use lots of energy once to make the buildings.