iamjacobm wrote:ILexpat wrote:mcarch wrote:Waste of space. If we want density we need to stop allowing suburban buildings from being built.
By what measure? I guess we could let the plot sit and wait for that 100 story Creighton dorm. Come on now.
What are they even talking about...
So on the site, I have spoken about using land for better use. An example: out in the suburbs there are apartments being built on high ground where single family houses could have taken better use of the views (city views)... all in the name of density... as so I was told.
Then when I state areas downtown shouldn't have 2 story buildings taking up so much space, I get told that we shouldn't care about density?
So if its in downtown we don't care if we have suburban buildings, as long as the suburbs produce density?
That piece of land is huge. They could have taken the 2 story building and put it on top of itself (4 floors, not 100) and saved 1/2 the land for another building. But instead they'll place the 2 story building, then later somewhere else (possibly more land in north downtown as Creighton always "seems" to run out of room) they'll place another 2 story building, taking over land that could be "better" used for something else.
We need to stop taking "what we get" to fill in a vacant lot. A great example was Hilton... the other proposal by Marriott should have been chosen. We would have had larger conventions then instead of waiting until we were told "well we would have come if you had more hotel space." So instead of 1 building, we have had tons more hotels that needed to be built. Yes, I agree that its good they filled space, but what could that space they filled been better suited?
Always ask yourself, if we take this, what in the future might we get that's better? The statement shouldn't be, well that vacant lot needs to be filled so I guess we'll take what we can get. We usually regret it later.
And "we" meaning the city as a whole.