Interesting artist conception of projects currently under construction.

5/27/2006 3:09:08 PM

god our city looks small as shit

5/27/2006 3:33:12 PM

no shit! you don't say?

5/27/2006 3:35:13 PM

lol and that pic is a good depiction of our ENTIRE downtown?

5/27/2006 3:44:37 PM

5/27/2006 3:49:19 PM

looks a hell of a lot better than it does right now....

5/27/2006 3:54:31 PM

Who exactly are we competing with?

5/27/2006 4:12:06 PM

Yea, I don't really care. I live less than a mile away and I still avoid downtown like the plague it is.

It's actually pretty silly to have skyscrapers when there are giant empty fields just waiting for development only a couple miles away.

5/27/2006 4:23:58 PM

not really... the goal his high density, not sprawl

5/27/2006 4:25:02 PM

ya sprawl sucks

5/27/2006 4:28:11 PM

THERES ROOM IN KNIGHTDALE, LETS JUST ADD ANOTHER BELTLINE

5/27/2006 4:36:09 PM

Quote :

"It's actually pretty silly to have skyscrapers when there are giant empty fields just waiting for development only a couple miles away."

MUST

DESTROY

ALL

AVAILABLE

LAND!

5/27/2006 4:40:40 PM

640 WHAT

5/27/2006 4:40:48 PM

i bet pyro is from cary

5/27/2006 4:47:16 PM

no no no get with the times, 840.

5/27/2006 4:49:52 PM

Whoa whoa whoa, I said a couple miles, not the entire damn county. But who gives a shit, this planet's fucked anyway.

5/27/2006 4:56:02 PM

It'll be a little less fucked if we try to centralize our cities.

Wouldn't it be crazy if you could, like, WALK from one place to another?

5/27/2006 4:58:19 PM

Walking's overrated.

5/27/2006 5:02:41 PM

America will eventually collapse under its own weight

literally and figuratively

5/27/2006 5:06:54 PM

"skyline"

5/27/2006 5:16:21 PM

technology will save us

5/27/2006 5:17:55 PM

don't forget this one



i need to get a newer picture of that one - it's got brick and windows on it now

[Edited on May 27, 2006 at 5:32 PM. Reason : x]

5/27/2006 5:31:49 PM

teh new commuter rail will save us

5/27/2006 5:32:25 PM

"skyline"

well, its better than before

5/27/2006 5:33:43 PM

Quote :

"the goal his high density, not sprawl"

no, the goal is economic prosperity. Building dense costs money. That takes away money from other investments. When building dense makes economic sense, people will do it.

5/27/2006 6:56:46 PM

a thriving downtown makes a helluva lot more money for everyone but suburban developers

5/27/2006 6:59:32 PM

what's the little blue one between the convention center and the marriott?


5^
Is that Quorum?


http://raleighskyline.com/quorum_center_raleigh_views_may_17_2006.html
(great shot of the belltower from the top of the Quorum Center on that page)

[Edited on May 27, 2006 at 7:51 PM. Reason : ]

5/27/2006 7:45:14 PM

that classical south saunders st view is a bad view. the other side is better because it doesnt leave out the progress energy building which is one of raleighs newest, best buildings.

5/27/2006 7:54:51 PM

Quote :

"MUST DESTROY ALL AVAILABLE LAND!"

evidently you have been to Brunswick County

5/27/2006 7:56:10 PM

2005


2005
2012




[Edited on May 27, 2006 at 8:09 PM. Reason : 2005]

5/27/2006 8:06:10 PM

2000

1998



rtp has choked out raleighs skyline. if there was no rtp raleighs skyline would be where it should be would easily rival charlottes instead of winston salems.

also dorothy dix hospital is gonna be removed and that huge land was proposed to become more "downtown". the city rejected it and will probobly create a park and butanical garden in the space
http://www.newsobserver.com/content/multimedia/gallery/20060401_dix/


i read on a forum that one proposal completelly used all the space (3 times land of current downtown area) for urban development with (40) yes forty 25 story buildings.

i dont know where the plan stands now but the demolition of the old hospital is coming up. i knwo the main reason for rejection was fear that the area is haunted because of the crazy nasty wierd things that went on in mental institutions long ago.


ws

[Edited on May 27, 2006 at 9:20 PM. Reason : winston]

5/27/2006 8:56:56 PM

Forced sterilizations on poor whites and blacks as recently as 1974 is not "long ago". Methods included sterilization and outright castration.

Fun little fact: North Carolina was the only state that allowed social workers to submit requests for sterilization. So many people, particularly women, were sterilized to prevent "promiscuous" behavior.

Almost all of these procedures were performed at Dix. There were better reasons to be afraid of that place than ghosts.

5/27/2006 9:31:41 PM

maybe the "dorothea" in the name shouldve been replaced with "we chop off"

5/27/2006 9:34:17 PM

forced sterilization? thats horrible

...now consenting temporary sterilization for welfare recipients... i might be on board with

5/27/2006 9:37:04 PM

5/28/2006 12:36:13 AM

i was waiting for that

5/28/2006 12:37:03 AM

holy cow that is the biggest exageration ever. did you make that? did you even bother scaling or did you just copy paste the first sears tower pic you saw into the background?

5/28/2006 12:50:07 AM

yeah that is nowhere near scale

5/28/2006 12:51:09 AM

sears = compensating for small p33n

5/28/2006 1:21:50 AM

Quote :

"no, the goal is economic prosperity. Building dense costs money. That takes away money from other investments. When building dense makes economic sense, people will do it."

YEA, BECAUSE FUCK THE PLANET WE LIVE ON

I PLAN TO TAKE THE PATH OF LEAST RESISTANCE TO MAKING THE MOST MONEY POSSIBLE

AND HOPE AND PRAY THERE IS SOMETHING LEFT OF IT TO ENJOY WHEN I AM GOOD AND DAMN READY

5/28/2006 9:26:40 AM

I have no numbers to back this up, but I do have questions . . .

How does density cost more than sprawl? My initial reaction is that sprawl requires massive infrastructure improvements that density doesn't necessarily involve, although it could be a matter of mass transit costs vs. new roadway costs.

Second, sprawl increases consumption related to personal transportation. Petrochemicals will become an increasingly valuable commodity and the price of gas (relative or actual) probably will not drop any time in the near future. So the opportunity cost of living further away from where you work will increase in the next 5-25 years.

Like I said, no numbers, just my instinct. Hopefully someone will either intelligently refute me or back me up.

5/28/2006 10:00:53 AM

5/28/2006 10:13:15 AM

ha ha, all these lamers made the same complaints the last time I posted that pic

the pic is to scale, you guys are just dumbos

^ thx tl

5/28/2006 10:34:30 AM

5/28/2006 10:37:40 AM

Quote :

"So the opportunity cost of living further away from where you work will increase in the next 5-25 years."

And as that happens, people will begin building denser.

5/28/2006 11:08:39 AM

because being reactionary instead of visionary is SO FUCKING SMART

5/28/2006 12:00:37 PM

Quote :

"no, the goal is economic prosperity. Building dense costs money. That takes away money from other investments. When building dense makes economic sense, people will do it."

Hi, I'm myopic and opinionated.

5/28/2006 12:30:17 PM

it is to scale. there is not much perspective differential between 2 blocks. also if you dont believe that, pretend that the sears tower is right next to two hannover square and compare. you cannot argue that the sears tower is over 1000 feet taller than bb&t. it may look ridiculous comparing the two buildings, and that because it is. get over the fact that these two buildings are extraordinarily different in height.






take for example this image,


The building in front of the sears tower is over 900 feet tall. taller than most buildings in any cities in the country, and it seems small next to sears. the building is twice the height of raleighs bb&t

now take this image for example.



The older building in front of the sears tower (chicago board of trade) is 600 feet tall, almost 200 feet taller than bb&t.

now consider that bb&t is raleighs tallest building, and keep that in perspective.

http://raleighskyline.com/rbc/panraldtproj.jpg


[Edited on May 28, 2006 at 1:23 PM. Reason : v]

5/28/2006 1:11:59 PM

Quote :

"because being reactionary instead of visionary is SO FUCKING SMART"

Yea, but we have a lot of time. We don't need a 50 year headstart. Sure, building a large building downtown now while it's relatively cheap would pay off if density increases rapidly. However, if you build now, it would probably never pan out.

There isn't much benefit to being visionary before your time. Da Vinci envisioned flying machines, but never made a cent selling airplanes.

5/28/2006 1:24:36 PM

Quote :

"How does density cost more than sprawl? My initial reaction is that sprawl requires massive infrastructure improvements that density doesn't necessarily involve, although it could be a matter of mass transit costs vs. new roadway costs. Second, sprawl increases consumption related to personal transportation. Petrochemicals will become an increasingly valuable commodity and the price of gas (relative or actual) probably will not drop any time in the near future. So the opportunity cost of living further away from where you work will increase in the next 5-25 years. "

Here's a loose unscientiffic comparison.

Compare rents in Raleigh vs. New York City

$650 vs. $2,984 (two bedroom)

Compare property taxes in Raleigh vs. New York City

$1 per $100 vs. $14.16 per $100

Compare transportation costs in Raleigh vs. New York City

Increasing density increases property values. I bet the transportation costs aren't much different either (car+gas vs. taxis, subway, busses, tolls). If density saved on infrastructure costs, you would see lower property tax rates in denser areas. That just isn't the case. Can anyone find an area denser than Raleigh with lower property taxes?

With the rise of information/communication technology, the benefits of urbanization are reduced. Businesses are leaving urban centers like New York for rural areas like RTP because it signifcantly reduces costs with little consequence.

[Edited on May 28, 2006 at 1:35 PM. Reason : ?]

[Edited on May 28, 2006 at 1:42 PM. Reason : ?]

5/28/2006 1:29:42 PM