My Photo

Categories

Feeds and more

  • [ BadgerLink logo ]
Blog powered by Typepad

Stats

Uppity Wisconsin - Progressive Webmasters

« Sarah Palin: Death Squad Governor | Main | Frank Lloyd Wright on Towers. and other Mile High Buildings »

September 22, 2009

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Pete Gruett

I really can't figure out people's antipathy toward tall buildings in this town. I can understand preserving views of the capitol but typically people just seem to have a reflexive hatred of anything over fifty feet tall, whether or not there's anything to see beyond it (or whether or not a shorter building will block the view just as well).

Height saves land, which is what we're actually short of, not air. It would be nice if height restrictions were eased or done-away-with altogether outside of downtown. It might relieve some of the wall-effect you see downtown with buildings built to the exact same height right next to each other so nobody sees anything except the building across the street.

R.J.

I think they tried all your ideas, in a place called Cabrini-Green.

antpoppa

Nice snipe R.J...

Philly Ben

"I think they tried all your ideas, in a place called Cabrini-Green."

Naw...I suspect Paul means the Miracle Mile in Chicago, or the Central Park region of Manhattan, or Center City, Philadelphia. Big, beautiful urban spaces.

R.J., every so often you really ought to turn off Fox News, venture out of the gloom of your parents' basement, and experience life a little more. It's a big, beautiful world out there, and there's no need to be so frightened of it...

R.J.

The ironic part is that the usual control-freakism employed by PS (and libs in general) is what this zoning code is all about.

Actually, the John Hancock is a hell-hole to live in, as most giant towers are. And most of the buildings around Central Park are not sky-scrapers. The location and layout of the bedrock had more to do with building sizes.

New York, Chicago, Philly,...Madison(?)
...great comparisons, you really nailed it.

You guys swoon over anything Euro, so show me all the non-office skyscrapers in London, Paris, or Madrid that aren't now illegal immigrant slums.

Stephen M. Leo

"And most of the buildings around Central Park are not sky-scrapers. The location and layout of the bedrock had more to do with building sizes."

Are you asserting that the buildings around Central Park are less than five stories? As I recall, the focus of Paul's post was a proposed five-story limit in downtown Madison. Suddenly we're talking skyscrapers...

"New York, Chicago, Philly,...Madison(?)
...great comparisons, you really nailed it."

Thanks! Most of America lives in urban areas. A great deal of America's economic and cultural wealth is created in these areas. These cities contain some terrific urban spaces. Maybe the folks who choose to live in these urban areas know something you don't?

"You guys swoon over anything Euro, so show me all the non-office skyscrapers in London, Paris, or Madrid that aren't now illegal immigrant slums."

Wow...I don't know whether to be more amazed by your parochial ignorance or your lack of shame for being so parochially ignorant. Aren't you late for Teabag-a-palooza?

Stephen M. Leo

"Are you asserting that the buildings around Central Park are less than five stories? As I recall, the focus of Paul's post was a proposed five-story limit in downtown Madison. Suddenly we're talking skyscrapers..."

Excuse me, I should have written "five-story limit outside of downtown Madison".

Pete Gruett

So people pay tens of millions of dollars for condos in skyscrapers out of a sense of self-loathing irony? I was at a wedding reception on the 95th floor of the Hancock this summer. "Hellhole" wasn't the word that came to mind, nor did I really ever find myself thinking, "This place would be great if only we were 900 feet closer to the ground."

But Stephen is right, we're talking about Hill Farms, not Hancock.

anon

Which high-rise do you live in, Mr. S?

Stephen M. Leo

The name of the game is density, folks. Greater density in core urban areas means less sprawl out in the boondocks. Greater density makes mass transit economical. Greater density opens the door to greater economic efficiency, especially in a not-too-distant future where cheap gas will be but a winsome memory.

So if you want to keep us lefty, latte-sipping, socialist-fascist-totalitarian-communist-environmentalist-collectivist, secular humanist types (and our money) far, far away from your kids and womenfolk out in God's Country, then you ought to support making our cities as livable as possible so we stay put.

Otherwise we will smarm out like locusts to the 'burbs and rural areas, blighting the landscape with our condominiums and coffeshops and the like. Then we'll register to vote and take over the local governments...bwaaaahaaaahaaaaa.....!!!

Judy

Greater density doesn't necessarily mean high rises. It can mean more living spaces on less land. No McMansions. But PLEASE, no more structures that lead to the unpleasant situation we now have at Gorham and University. Ugly ugly ugly. And Metropolitan Place? Yuck. I like the older homes in the downtown area, although those that have served as student housing downtown have in many cases been beaten to death over the years.
It's not just density, it's liveability. And some sense of appropriate scale. In case you hadn't noticed, we're NOT in NYC.

Michael Basford

Quick question, Paul: I've used The Google and also searched the Draft Zoning Code Rewrite and I can't find where "...a height limit of five stories outside of the downtown area." is. Can you provide a link?

The comments to this entry are closed.