Both are incorrect. Not once did I mention a huge block of beautification surrounding each skyscrapers. Urban...Suburban...whatever. Those two terms are just plain stupid. There is nothing wrong with having grass, trees, shrubs, flowers, and decorations in between the sidewalks and streets.
It's a shame that developer's in Oklahoma can't build something like this (from Philadelphia):
http://www.dwell.com/articles/See-What-Develops.html
Not a fan of the exterior or interior (just not my style) but if others want it and are willing to buy it, go for it.
Yeah, those are total backward style. Plain awful. I would say its fitting for the country side.
I love it as well, looks like some of the houses in SoSA. Weni build in about 2 years its very similar to the style I want, just add solar panels and a wind turbine.
I like it, but I understand that some people don't... Definitely not for everyone.
"Urban planner predicts renewal"
http://newsok.com/urban-planner-pred...rticle/3554047
It would be great to see Reno east of 235 have some urban development!
I guess my point was not the aesthetics of the building, but the low cost, high density look. I can't think of too many residential buildings in downtown that look that much different from the suburbs. Brownstones at Maywood Park and The Hill.
Can a developer build a front-entrance single family home (even attached) in downtown for less than $250,000? Or will the only sub-$250,000 units be condo units?
I don't think that the Brownstones really look suburban, so I disagree with you there. The Hill is much more suburban looking, so I do see where you're coming from. Really though, to me, urban and suburban are not dependent on what the building looks like, but more so the amount of setback, and whether or not it encourages walkability.
I've always thought that this area makes sense for the ever-dreamed of downtown stadium. It has plenty of open space. It's within walking distance to Bricktown. And, a streetcar line could be extended along Sheridan. I have always seen massive development potential here.
Anyone else wish there were more traditional architecture designs in new buildings?
http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/show...176535&page=16
think it is what gives buildings their character. AM all for it.
Gothic is my all time favorite. I would build a gothic style home complete with suits of armor if the wife would let me. When I look at something like Devon Tower, I appreciate what Devon has done but I would have rather had 10 or 12 three to five story buildings like the one pictured above or in your link. Tall buildings are cool from a distance, but up close most of the building is visually wasted since you can't see it. Low-rise building are up close and personal.
Give me this over NYC, Chicago, or Hong Kong any day:
http://www.360cities.net/london-photo-en.html
Zoom in on the old church with the green roof near the bottom... Can't spend too much time on this or I won't get anything done.
Hong Kong definitely. But I think there is something to be said for the density of the skyscrapers in NYC and Chicago.
I really like that building in the above picture. You can tell it's new but it has a timeless look to it. This is definitely not a building that will be torn down in several years to make way for Walmart's parking lot. Or at least, I hope not...
I'm by no means a world traveler, much less a States traveler. I'm going to Denver for a visit and anniversary a week from Monday. I've only been downtown once, and for not very long and in the middle of the night. I ran across this and holy cow.... I love this.
Link
There are currently 9 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 9 guests)
Bookmarks