Has anybody seen this?

[Vertigo]

Although the World Trade Centers now hold a special place in many of our hearts, they are still to this day a terrible design in many people's opinion. They cut that area of Manhatten in half and completely changed the dynamic of the neighborhood when they were built (almost like a major freeway does). That is why so many people wanted to re-connect the streets in the new Freedom Tower design. Just a thought.

Also, if this things gets built in the near future, how are the horizontal sections going to be built if steel continues to skyrocket? I don't think you can do cast-in-place concrete in mid-air

I never really cared one way or another for the World Trade Centers but I agree that they did disrupt the cohesiveness of that area.

In terms of construction, I think I understand this. The elevated museum section will be built on the ground at the same time the three bottom cores are built. It will then be lifted to the appropriate height. Sounds like an upcoming episode of Modern Marvels. At that point, the cores will already be in place on the platform so construction can begin on the upper and lower towers at the same time.

[ppassafi]

The Cincinnati article is interesting but not the least bit surprising. Talk about a tale of two cities....

While Louisville builds Waterfront Park, Cincy installs TWO monstrous stadiums on it's riverfront. Notice these sit empty most of the year.

While Louisville develops 4th Street Live! to entice LARGE crowds into the city, Cincy builds an art museum (while very nice) with nowhere near the drawing power of a late night party venue. Louisville took a cue from Nashville on this one.

The art museum in Cincy was touted as the thing that would 'bring the city back from the brink' . That was ridiculous thinking in the first place. A vibrant downtown offers a wide VARIETY of attractions to cater to a large cross section of the population. Honestly, Cincinnati has one of the most desolate downtowns anywhere and it's due purely to a series of urban planning mistakes. Even the Masionette (five star restaurant) packed up it's bags to move to the suburbs due to a lack of business. That's because everyone is across the river in Newport.

Downtown Cincy was dead before the art museum was built. While downtown Louisville can improve it is light years ahead of Cincinnati in terms of activity and positive development. I honestly thought that would never happen but it has. Museum Plaza isn't intended to save Louisville, it's simply the next step in a long and well coordinated effort to up the city's image. When the 'wow!' factor of Museum Plaza wears off there will still be the Slugger Museum, The Ali Center, Fazier Historical Arms Museum, The Kentucky Craft Gallery, Glassworks, and The Science Center. And that's just within the Main Street area alone. Notice in the article how the author mentions how uninviting the exterior of the museum is due to a lack of activity in the surrounding area.

In Louisville these attractions work as a group to draw a large demographic of the population. A very small number are interested in only discussing how a pile of sticks constitutes 'modern art'. It can't stand on it's own. Cincinnati found this out the hard way.

Exactly. I think there is this perception that Louisville is a smaller Detroit or STL. Maybe that is why that fellow's wife did not like it. As I discussed with someone in the Museum Plaza exhibit, there is a perception of Louisville as old and rusty. However, Nashville is "new and shiny." Projects like this will help shed the image that Louisville does not deserve.

But downtown is exploding in growth, and this is just "another project" in a long line. You say you think this will "take a large part of Louisville's downtown development." Think again. The projects keep coming, there are thousands of OTHER condos set to open soon, new bars and restuarants open EVERY MONTH, and new developers and out of town investors are being attracted to our downtown (how many downtowns this size could attract a restaurant run by NYC's Nobu and Tribeca Grill people???).

To the MP naysayers, how is this project any different than Sig Tower OTHER than its a bold and post modern design? If MP is anti-urban, why isnt Sig Tower? Or why isnt ANY skyscraper in metros under 2 million considered anti-urban? Lord knows Nashville has LOADS of surface parking to fill in just liek any other similar size city! I suggest you guys come up and check out the exhibit (at 609 W Main St.) before you judge the project--the CJ article and video do not do it justice, nor do they explain the true plans for the building.

That said, I really appreciate the honest, and intellectual urban talk we have had here. Why have I been wasting my time at SSC and SSP???? I propose you Nashville guys come up and check out the city--it has changed soo much, and you would probably need an urban nerd like me to show u around.

[ATLBrain]

To the MP naysayers, how is this project any different than Sig Tower OTHER than its a bold and post modern design? If MP is anti-urban, why isnt Sig Tower? Or why isnt ANY skyscraper in metros under 2 million considered anti-urban? Lord knows Nashville has LOADS of surface parking to fill in just liek any other similar size city! I suggest you guys come up and check out the exhibit (at 609 W Main St.) before you judge the project--the CJ article and video do not do it justice, nor do they explain the true plans for the building.

If I'm not mistaken, Signature Tower will have a midsized grocery store and additional retail at street level.

Hey, Gych, you keep on saying that Louisville has 1.3 million in the metro, but that figure in 2000 was only 1.1 million. I'd be willing to bet that L'ville hasn't grown almost 20% in five years. What counties are you including? Is this a newly defined SMSA since 2000? What counties have been added? What's the square mileage?

[ppassafi]

If I'm not mistaken, Signature Tower will have a midsized grocery store and additional retail at street level.

Hey, Gych, you keep on saying that Louisville has 1.3 million in the metro, but that figure in 2000 was only 1.1 million. I'd be willing to bet that L'ville hasn't grown almost 20% in five years. What counties are you including? Is this a newly defined SMSA since 2000? What counties have been added? What's the square mileage?

If I am not mistaken, Museum Plaza will NOT ONLY have street level retail connecting it to main st, but will have a small grocery, coffee shop, AND dry cleaners at street level in the base of the Lofts. In fact, all three bases of the tower will have street level retail (basically amounts to the bases of three skyscrapers). So, my friend, tell me the difference btwn this and Sig Tower from a functional perspective? It seems to me the Louisville project is MUCH bigger, and also contains much more retail space on the ground. What everyone needs to see is that this street level retail is in ADDITION to a small amount of retail on the 22nd floor plaza, and not vice versa.

Louisville metro is 1.2 million as of 2004 and includes like 12 counties, but they are all tiny. Sq mileage wise it is still smaller than most metros. In fact, KY has more counties than any state I believe since its counties are so small. Several counties were recently added to the MSA in 2004. The Louisville CSA in 2004 is around 1.35 million.

You can just as easily get this info from the census, but this info is from an Indiana study showing how large that part of the metro is:

http://64.233.179.104/search?q=cache:7m0vD...us&ct=clnk&cd=3

[NewTowner]

If I am not mistaken, Museum Plaza will NOT ONLY have street level retail connecting it to main st, but will have a small grocery, coffee shop, AND dry cleaners at street level in the base of the Lofts. In fact, all three bases of the tower will have street level retail (basically amounts to the bases of three skyscrapers). So, my friend, tell me the difference btwn this and Sig Tower from a functional perspective? It seems to me the Louisville project is MUCH bigger, and also contains much more retail space on the ground. What everyone needs to see is that this street level retail is in ADDITION to a small amount of retail on the 22nd floor plaza, and not vice versa.

Louisville metro is 1.2 million as of 2004 and includes like 12 counties, but they are all tiny. Sq mileage wise it is still smaller than most metros. In fact, KY has more counties than any state I believe since its counties are so small. Several counties were recently added to the MSA in 2004. The Louisville CSA in 2004 is around 1.35 million.

You can just as easily get this info from the census, but this info is from an Indiana study showing how large that part of the metro is:

http://64.233.179.104/search?q=cache:7m0vD...us&ct=clnk&cd=3

The biggest problem with this thang is so bloody obvious I am embarrassed to even point it out. The building's Gimungous Pylon Legs do NOT ADDRESS THE STREET. Retail in their literal bottoms will flank the Parking Garage Entrance, and be DIRECTLY UNDER A GIANT SHADOWY MASS. The people who unconditionally vouch for this hilarious mutant of a building accuse their opponents of lacking imagination--but truly, the inability to imagine how horrible this will be is disturbing evidence that its "Fans" lack imagination. Please, you must all travel to more badly designed places. I hate recommending that sort of treatment, but sometimes you have to be abused by a building before you can spot a real Nasty.

I will try: Imagine the worst shopping mall you have ever been in, tilted on one side, and covered in Anonymous Shiny Material--like oil-drenched Kleenex. Add a big television. Sprinkle a little international mockery. Voil

[soulbrotha]

The copyright is from the photoshop batch frame, i took the photos but i'm not trying to take credit for the exhibit. The when i batch frame the photos the copyright automatically gets created too...

the pics.

[cdub]

If I am not mistaken, Museum Plaza will NOT ONLY have street level retail connecting it to main st, but will have a small grocery, coffee shop, AND dry cleaners at street level in the base of the Lofts. In fact, all three bases of the tower will have street level retail (basically amounts to the bases of three skyscrapers). So, my friend, tell me the difference btwn this and Sig Tower from a functional perspective? It seems to me the Louisville project is MUCH bigger, and also contains much more retail space on the ground. What everyone needs to see is that this street level retail is in ADDITION to a small amount of retail on the 22nd floor plaza, and not vice versa.

Could you point out where something has been printed that states the street level retail will be in Main Street historic structures? I've looked all over and can't find anything, not even the development's website. The diagrams posted in the Courier also don't show anything along Main Street other than the elevator shaft. I'm just curious and would like to see more info.

As for retail being in the bottom of the legs, those aren't at any street level, unless you're considering the alley and I'm not even sure that will be at the same grade because of the way the land falls to the river from Main.

As mentioned before, I wouldn't assume all of us in Nashville think the Sig Tower is a god send. We have an interesting group on our discussions. Those for high rise towers, and those against who are trying to find the fascination with high rise structures because we believe other building types contribute more to the urban environment. I agree that there are tons of open parking lots SCREAMING to be developed and spreading those units around would create a far more vibrant urban atmosphere.

Thinking economics doesn't play a role in the number of units an area can sustain is wishful thinking. There are only so many units the downtown market can withstand. Growth must be done incrementally to avoid stagnation. Just because you build 10,000 residential condos downtown this year doesn't all will be sold even in a few years. Growth must be handled incrementally. Ever hear of all your eggs in one basket?

After reading the Cincy article, I felt it was talking both about the building aesthetic and the hope of turning around downtown? Many of us are very aware of the growth downtown L'ville has seen recently and none of us are saying the MP could be a catalyst. Most against are voicing the opposite.

Related to the aesthetic, I think Newtowner and others are asking you to question the shallow facade. Is this something that in 10 years you're gonna say 'what were we thinking?' Think of fashion and how quickly fads disappear. Look at old photos 10, 20, or more years ago and what do you usually say, 'what were we thinking?' With fad architecture, that's what you get. I don't think any of us are advocating we bring back the White City of the Columbian Exposition or anything extremely classical. There are ways to create beauty in modern architecture. Big, black boxes aren't one of them.

One building in the Louisville skyline always catches my eye as I'm driving through. It's actually a little south of downtown and is a 20 or so story tower that looks to have been built in the '50s, residential I think. When you look at that structure, and I wish I had a photo, it could have just as easily been designed today. Think of a building that can stand the test of time, not just a matter of minutes as our increasingly shorter attention spans bounce on to the next new thing.

[ATLBrain]

So, my friend, tell me the difference btwn this and Sig Tower from a functional perspective? It seems to me the Louisville project is MUCH bigger, and also contains much more retail space on the ground. What everyone needs to see is that this street level retail is in ADDITION to a small amount of retail on the 22nd floor plaza, and not vice versa.

Louisville metro is 1.2 million as of 2004 and includes like 12 counties, but they are all tiny. Sq mileage wise it is still smaller than most metros. In fact, KY has more counties than any state I believe since its counties are so small. Several counties were recently added to the MSA in 2004. The Louisville CSA in 2004 is around 1.35 million.

Thanks for the info.

I'm going to reserve my opinion on both buildings, except for that ridiculous water slide. Quite simply, it needs to be scrapped. Regardless of how much fun it will be to zip all the way to the 22nd floor, I think it just takes so much away from a potentially interesting structure. It looks juvenile. Is the building pretty? No, but you and your fellow forumers no doubt espouse the function-over-grace of this building. Some on this thread have even eloquently stated their reasons for appreciating it. Personally, I'm not convinced (yet?).

I've also said this before: Louisville needs a big tower DT. But does it need this one? Here's where I'll wait until it's built to decide for myself. Perhaps its premature to say that I'm tempted to agree this one lacks so much in the four critical areas of a building (aesthetics, sense of place, function, efficiency).

Now regarding the Sig vs. MP, I'll just say one big difference is that Sig will be a lot less obtrusive on Church Street than (I presume) Museum Plaza will be on Main. I think that's a safe assumption b/c we're talking about one tower versus three with a huge overhang. Once again, all we can do is presume for both.

You're fairly new to UP, but if you've seen my posts in Atlanta or Nashville threads, you will see clearly that I don't get aroused by super talls. I have a much greater appreciation for the so-called urban fabric than a great skyline postcard snap. In virtually all cases where a building over 20 stories has no setback (and MP has the exact antithesis of setbacks), the street is adversely affected in at least one way (natural light).

Welcome to the forum. You'll see that we're much more polite than the other two places.

[ATLBrain]

Nice pics Soul. Thanks.

[ppassafi]

Thanks for the info.

I'm going to reserve my opinion on both buildings, except for that ridiculous water slide. Quite simply, it needs to be scrapped. Regardless of how much fun it will be to zip all the way to the 22nd floor, I think it just takes so much away from a potentially interesting structure. It looks juvenile. Is the building pretty? No, but you and your fellow forumers no doubt espouse the function-over-grace of this building. Some on this thread have even eloquently stated their reasons for appreciating it. Personally, I'm not convinced (yet?).

I've also said this before: Louisville needs a big tower DT. But does it need this one? Here's where I'll wait until it's built to decide for myself. Perhaps its premature to say that I'm tempted to agree this one lacks so much in the four critical areas of a building (aesthetics, sense of place, function, efficiency).

Now regarding the Sig vs. MP, I'll just say one big difference is that Sig will be a lot less obtrusive on Church Street than (I presume) Museum Plaza will be on Main. I think that's a safe assumption b/c we're talking about one tower versus three with a huge overhang. Once again, all we can do is presume for both.

You're fairly new to UP, but if you've seen my posts in Atlanta or Nashville threads, you will see clearly that I don't get aroused by super talls. I have a much greater appreciation for the so-called urban fabric than a great skyline postcard snap. In virtually all cases where a building over 20 stories has no setback (and MP has the exact antithesis of setbacks), the street is adversely affected in at least one way (natural light).

Welcome to the forum. You'll see that we're much more polite than the other two places.

Hmm, I am gonna agree with you on this I think. I think both Nashville AND Louisville would probably be better served taking 5 ugly surface lots downtown and filling them each with a 10 story midrise with ground level retail. HOWEVER, would those be able to sell the million dollar condos like Sig Tower and MP will? That said, we have a billion dollar developer who wants to donate a contemprary art museum to Louisville, provide an MFA home for U of L, and make some money selling sweet river and city views all while providing an upscale hotel (we have everything else so it will be at the very least a Westin). Can you blame him?

And you guys are taking something for granted. NO ONE has mentioned the glorious river views and sunsets that people on the 61st floor of MP will enjoy. That is the difference btwn Louisville and somewhere like Nashville or Atl.

Please disregard anything you read in the Louisville CJ. It is the most pathetic paper in America quite possibly. It didnt mention a LOT about this building. Its funny, a huge alternative paper has exposed the shadiness of Louisville's Courier-Journal this week:

http://www.leovia.com/?q=node/393

I found everything out at the exhibit. At the exhibit, it shows a picture of what amounts to 4 main street buildings and it says "retail" inside of them. It also shows the street grade with the "oil rig" elevator attaching to the back of it. It also shows the bases of the other buildings and the retail planned for them. I am sure Soul can verify this, although I wish he would have photographed those diagrams.

[soulbrotha]

this is a poll from Velocity

What do you think about the new skyscraper planned for downtown Louisville?

It's cool. 62.1%

It's okay. 12.1%

It's hideous. 25.9%

http://velocityweekly.com/

[Vertigo]

^^^^

That sounds about right. Velocity is geared toward a younger crowd so that probably helped to increase the 'cool' vote.

Like I said in a post somewhere (I've lost track), I would expect a larger cross section vote to produce relatively equal responses between the three choices.

[ppassafi]

^^^^

That sounds about right. Velocity is geared toward a younger crowd so that probably helped to increase the 'cool' vote.

Like I said in a post somewhere (I've lost track), I would expect a larger cross section vote to produce relatively equal responses between the three choices.

To me, this is the beginning of us getting our skyline back. In 1890, we had an inaugral MLB team and the tallest building in the western hemispehere south of the ohio river. Alas, urban "renewal" tore it and dozens of other beauties down, but its time America realizes that Louisville was and still is a major city and that it has awoken from its 100 year slumber. To me thats what this building signifies metaphorically anyways:

http://72.14.207.104/search?q=cache:knXEFl...s&ct=clnk&cd=23

[NewTowner]

To me, this is the beginning of us getting our skyline back. In 1890, we had an inaugral MLB team and the tallest building in the western hemispehere south of the ohio river. Alas, urban "renewal" tore it and dozens of other beauties down, but its time America realizes that Louisville was and still is a major city and that it has awoken from its 100 year slumber. To me thats what this building signifies metaphorically anyways:

http://72.14.207.104/search?q=cache:knXEFl...s&ct=clnk&cd=23

Except that those lost buildings were designed and built to be beautiful. The "Museum 'Plaza'" represents a victory for the same cultural forces which gutted the classical beauty of American cities in the time of "Urban Renewal." You have confused ally for enemy.

[Vertigo]

The "Museum 'Plaza'" represents a victory for the same cultural forces which gutted the classical beauty of American cities in the time of "Urban Renewal."

Once again we disagree

Much of the destruction that occured in the '60's and '70's was a result of the social and economic conditions that were plaguing cities at that time. Not because the evil International Style was hellbent on ruining our cities. That was already done. It was a time of 'out with the old and in with the new'. People felt this way because their cities were being abandoned and we were in the midst of the technology age. Basically, the only way a city could survive was to rebuild it and make it new again. There is some truth to this but problem was that the concept was taken too far.

That's where the 'cultural forces' of today are different. Not a single building is being destroyed for this project. In fact, the few remaining uninhabited buildings on Main Street are being renovated as a part of the project. Once this is completed, Louisville will still have the same number of historical buildings (and pedestrian friendlly streetscapes) as it had before Museum Plaza was built. In this case the neighborhood is reinventing itself while also maintaining place in history. In essence, expandind that history.

[ppassafi]

Once again we disagree

Much of the destruction that occured in the '60's and '70's was a result of the social and economic conditions that were plaguing cities at that time. Not because the evil International Style was hellbent on ruining our cities. That was already done. It was a time of 'out with the old and in with the new'. People felt this way because their cities were being abandoned and we were in the midst of the technology age. Basically, the only way a city could survive was to rebuild it and make it new again. There is some truth to this but problem was that the concept was taken too far.

That's where the 'cultural forces' of today are different. Not a single building is being destroyed for this project. In fact, the few remaining uninhabited buildings on Main Street are being renovated as a part of the project. Once this is completed, Louisville will still have the same number of historical buildings (and pedestrian friendlly streetscapes) as it had before Museum Plaza was built. In this case the neighborhood is reinventing itself while also maintaining place in history. In essence, expandind that history.

yeah I agree, compare the design to anti-urban 60s stuff ALL you want. I dont care what people think about the design. It is the function that counts. Not a single historic building is being sacrificed for this; RATHER the remaining vacant historic buildings in the area are being rehabbed as part of this project so thats just an added bonus. For a skyscraper, there isnt a much better way to create a function than this. It is mixed use, will draw 10,000 people a day, and will have several aspects of ground level retail.

Therefore, if you know the facts, you really should only be able to have 2 objections to this project:

1) The design and whether the building fits on the western edge of the skyline

2) Whether or not skyscrapers are good for downtown in teh first place, because if you dont like the function of this, an exclusively office or residential tower should be worse in your mind.

If you disagree with number 2, then I should see every one of you guys out bashing every skyscraper going up. Everyone seems to like RSA tower in Mobile but thats a metro half the size of Louisville with half as much downtown density and livliness. Why do I not see you guys bash that project?

[bzorch]

I would not be so quick to dismiss economics. If you have an unlimited market then you should see more skyscapers. How many skyscrapers a year does Louisville build? Is it the City holding the developers back from building the tallest skyscraper in the world or is it economics?

Do you believe the MP will encourage people to leave the building or seek to capture the dollars within their own development?

Why is mid-rise (4-12 stories) not a viable choice for creating great urban mixed-use communities?

What are your favorite urban environments?

Do the mix of uses proposed by MP support the Arts District and the downtown? If all of these uses were in low and mid-rise buildings would this take away from how the uses contribute to the City? If you have the space, why is a skyscraper typology so important? Do you dislike the current Arts District because of its form? Would you change the Arts District if you could?

Would MP be ok as proposed 5-miles outside of the downtown?

These are questions that come to mind when evaluating if this is the right solution. I really am trying to understand the facination with the tower/skyscraper typology and why so many find it a superior solution to mid-rise. I do not get it. Any insight is appreciated.

[NewTowner]

Once again we disagree

Much of the destruction that occured in the '60's and '70's was a result of the social and economic conditions that were plaguing cities at that time. Not because the evil International Style was hellbent on ruining our cities. That was already done. It was a time of 'out with the old and in with the new'. People felt this way because their cities were being abandoned and we were in the midst of the technology age. Basically, the only way a city could survive was to rebuild it and make it new again. There is some truth to this but problem was that the concept was taken too far.

If this is true, then why did Le Corbusier recommend the absolute destruction of huge healthy swathes of Paris, to be replaced by towers and automobile freeways? And why was the Corbusian Modernist "International Style" urban design "manifesto"--called The Athens Charter--adopted by regional planning authorities all over the United States...who then proceeded to pursue Corbusier's scheme for the City of Tomorrow after Parisians laughed him out of town, to the lamentation of all sensible people? American cities were GUTTED, intentionally, and while some of the fabric had indeed gotten nasty after the Depression and industrial war effort, a lot of it was perfectly fine, and a lot more of it was easily salvagable. There was a VISION, and it was a BAD vision, and it was Future Worship at its worst. And we got the "City of Tomorrow"--towers, parking lots, freeways, and subdivisions. It was no accident.

You don't know your history, I am afraid. And while I do not accuse the "Museum 'Plaza'" of being Modernist--because it is not "International Style" OR Modernist or whatever you want to call it--I do accuse it of being the beotch brainchild of the Modernists. It is just as guilty of a deliberate disregard for all tradition, designed to advance some cultural take on a public which doesn't share it or even understand it, and completely dependent upon an almost religious deference to Chaos and the ever-advancing Aesthetic of the Relatively New. It is a building which addresses a City of Tomorrow rather than the Streets of Today. But the tragedy is, this sort of energy-guzzling and human-hostile nonsense is truly Yesterday's Tomorrow.

And it is clearly no better than the Unite d'Habitacion, repeating most or all of its mistakes. They are both very silly designs which have caused and will cause a lot of grief and indignity to a lot of people.

[ppassafi]

I would not be so quick to dismiss economics. If you have an unlimited market then you should see more skyscapers. How many skyscrapers a year does Louisville build? Is it the City holding the developers back from building the tallest skyscraper in the world or is it economics?

Do you believe the MP will encourage people to leave the building or seek to capture the dollars within their own development?

Why is mid-rise (4-12 stories) not a viable choice for creating great urban mixed-use communities?

What are your favorite urban environments?

Do the mix of uses proposed by MP support the Arts District and the downtown? If all of these uses were in low and mid-rise buildings would this take away from how the uses contribute to the City? If you have the space, why is a skyscraper typology so important? Do you dislike the current Arts District because of its form? Would you change the Arts District if you could?

Would MP be ok as proposed 5-miles outside of the downtown?

These are questions that come to mind when evaluating if this is the right solution. I really am trying to understand the facination with the tower/skyscraper typology and why so many find it a superior solution to mid-rise. I do not get it. Any insight is appreciated.

One word. The views. I dont know if you have ever lived in a city with a serious water feature, but thats why. Remember, this thing isnt a gift. It is an INVESTMENT by private developers to lease a hotel and sell pricey condos. It may look like tehstate is involved, but they are only speeding up planned floodwall and roadwork that was planned well before MP.

In the same time, the developers hope to make art a part of people's daily lives and curb sprawl by emphasizing the city and its urbanity. A 10 floor building would hardly provide any views, and certainly none of the river with several 30 and 40 story skyscrapers already blocking its view. The river views are huge sellers and are what motivated the recently completed 23 story WFP luxury tower. The river has also spurred a proposal for river park place which will be four 15-20 story condo towers just upstream from downtown.

I think there are many on this site that feel that MP is ALL that Louisville is doing residentially downtown. That is just so far from the case. If you havent been here in two years, please come. You wont recognize it. Its not like this thing is filling all the demand for downtown development, and it sounds like thats what many of you think. I think many of you are appalled at how advanced downtown Louisville is at this point, bc I feel many of you had no idea so you assume, well if they are building 61 floors, thats all they can support right? Wrong.

I am not sure I buy your argument that a person on the 10th floor of a midrise is any more likely to come down and interact with the street than a person on the 50th floor of a skyscraper. Really the only validity to your statements is that if Louisville has several surface parking lots downtown, why dont they just build midrises on all of them? Well, then how could you do a mixed use project like this? And we already have several midrise residentials under development in addition to several existing 8-29 story residential buildings downtown. One 7 floor warehouse loft building just opened and another 8 floor one will open soon. These things are opening every few months honestly.

And West Main is one of many arts districts in Louisville. Actually, it is more of a museum/hotel/restaurant district at this point. There are a few art gallerys and glassworks but most of the art galleries downtown are on East Main and Market. There are several other art gallery districts including huge concentrations on Bardstown Rd and Frankfort Ave.

[Vertigo]

If this is true, then why did Le Corbusier recommend the absolute destruction of huge healthy swathes of Paris, to be replaced by towers and automobile freeways? And why was the Corbusian Modernist "International Style" urban design "manifesto"--called The Athens Charter--adopted by regional planning authorities all over the United States...who then proceeded to pursue Corbusier's scheme for the City of Tomorrow after Parisians laughed him out of town, to the lamentation of all sensible people? American cities were GUTTED, intentionally, and while some of the fabric had indeed gotten nasty after the Depression and industrial war effort, a lot of it was perfectly fine, and a lot more of it was easily salvagable. There was a VISION, and it was a BAD vision, and it was Future Worship at its worst. And we got the "City of Tomorrow"--towers, parking lots, freeways, and subdivisions. It was no accident.

You don't know your history, I am afraid. And while I do not accuse the "Museum 'Plaza'" of being Modernist--because it is not "International Style" OR Modernist or whatever you want to call it--I do accuse it of being the beotch brainchild of the Modernists. It is just as guilty of a deliberate disregard for all tradition, designed to advance some cultural take on a public which doesn't share it or even understand it, and completely dependent upon an almost religious deference to Chaos and the ever-advancing Aesthetic of the Relatively New. It is a building which addresses a City of Tomorrow rather than the Streets of Today. But the tragedy is, this sort of energy-guzzling and human-hostile nonsense is truly Yesterday's Tomorrow.

And it is clearly no better than the Unite d'Habitacion, repeating most or all of its mistakes. They are both very silly designs which have caused and will cause a lot of grief and indignity to a lot of people.

Newtowner, you are a riot. I would love the opportunity to pick your brain in person. That is, if you could pull your head out of a book long enough to actually carry on a coherent conversation.

I'm aware of Le Corbusier and his philosophies. After four years of architectural history in college you're bound to run across his name sooner or later. You want to know the truth? I knew nothing about urban concepts until I actually got out of school and started observing things on my own.

In my earlier post, I should have said that 'aesthetically', International Style was not hellbent on ruining our cities. The implementation process was. That was my mistake. I'll say again, the implementation is different today. There is even a group that wants to REMOVE the freeway that has cut off the city from the river for four decades. Concepts have obviously changed drastically. The 'aesthetics' that have so many people riled up just happen to caught in the middle.

Believe it or not, I'm not a huge fan of modern designs. I don't really have a favorite style or time period. I just think that so much negative energy swirled around urban development in the '60's and '70's (mostly from social and econmic issues) that the International Style (aesthetically) deserves a second look. Yes, it is a bold, overwhelming, and even sometimes arrogant but so are we. Doesn't art imitate life?

I think this style is especially difficult for people in the South to understand because many Southern cities (Nashville or Charlotte) gained prominence more recently so they are more 'progressive'. They don't want to look like Pittsburgh. Other cities such as New Orleans and Memphis hit a plateau (skyline wise) during the '70's so they look 'dated'. Louisville is different because it falls somewhere in the middle. It can swing either way.

BTW, I LOVE this....

'It is just as guilty of a deliberate disregard for all tradition, designed to advance some cultural take on a public which doesn't share it or even understand it, and completely dependent upon an almost religious deference to Chaos and the ever-advancing Aesthetic of the Relatively New.'

When I see stuff like this I just wanna say, 'Dude, go get an ice cream cone and chill out.'

Actually, I will be in Nashville next week. I'd like to meet up with some of y'all so I can bash Nashville. This has been extremely one sided so far. I'll even buy the ice cream.

[ppassafi]

Newtowner, you are a riot. I would love the opportunity to pick your brain in person. That is, if you could pull your head out of a book long enough to actually carry on a coherent conversation.

I'm aware of Le Corbusier and his philosophies. After four years of architectural history in college you're bound to run across his name sooner or later. You want to know the truth? I knew nothing about urban concepts until I actually got out of school and started observing things on my own.

In my earlier post, I should have said that 'aesthetically', International Style was not hellbent on ruining our cities. The implementation process was. That was my mistake. I'll say again, the implementation is different today. There is even a group that wants to REMOVE the freeway that has cut off the city from the river for four decades. Concepts have obviously changed drastically. The 'aesthetics' that have so many people riled up just happen to caught in the middle.

Believe it or not, I'm not a huge fan of modern designs. I don't really have a favorite style or time period. I just think that so much negative energy swirled around urban development in the '60's and '70's (mostly from social and econmic issues) that the International Style (aesthetically) deserves a second look. Yes, it is a bold, overwhelming, and even sometimes arrogant but so are we. Doesn't art imitate life?

I think this style is especially difficult for people in the South to understand because many Southern cities (Nashville or Charlotte) gained prominence more recently so they are more 'progressive'. They don't want to look like Pittsburgh. Other cities such as New Orleans and Memphis hit a plateau (skyline wise) during the '70's so they look 'dated'. Louisville is different because it falls somewhere in the middle. It can swing either way.

BTW, I LOVE this....

'It is just as guilty of a deliberate disregard for all tradition, designed to advance some cultural take on a public which doesn't share it or even understand it, and completely dependent upon an almost religious deference to Chaos and the ever-advancing Aesthetic of the Relatively New.'

When I see stuff like this I just wanna say, 'Dude, go get an ice cream cone and chill out.'

Actually, I will be in Nashville next week. I'd like to meet up with some of y'all so I can bash Nashville. This has been extremely one sided so far. I'll even buy the ice cream.

I want to meet up too. Plus I am dying to know how Nashville skyscrapers are urban and Louisville proposals are anti-urban, lol.

[bzorch]

McMansions in the sky. If views are more important than urbanism, then there is not much to discuss. I think there is more to the urban experience than the great view from my 32nd floor. I believe scale, public space, the street and active edges are more important.

[cdub]

Actually, I will be in Nashville next week. I'd like to meet up with some of y'all so I can bash Nashville. This has been extremely one sided so far. I'll even buy the ice cream.

Come on down. I'm sure many of us would love to discuss Nashville as well. If you want to come here and bash skyscrapers, we need all the help we can get. Trust me, we don't all love skyscrapers. We are questioning the supposed benefit to the community that high rise structures provide. Actually, they provide many things within them that don't require any of the residents to leave. Think of them as the gated community to the urban rich. Do you have the million bucks to have the views from the 60th floor? Do you think that is a public benefit?

Do you really think, in this day and age of terrorism and security, that people will be able to freely walk into this structure. Walking through metal detectors and being frisked isn't my idea of providing a public amenity.

Also, we're not bashing Louisville, just this project. Many of us love Louisville and the renaissance it is currently seeing. I grew up 20 miles as the crow flies west of Louisville and my parents are still there. The past 5-7 years where most of the growth has happened, I was in college or in Nashville and have only caught bits and pieces. Most of us probably don't know the day to day goings on in Louisville, but we know a lot more than you give us credit for.

[ppassafi]

McMansions in the sky. If views are more important than urbanism, then there is not much to discuss. I think there is more to the urban experience than the great view from my 32nd floor. I believe scale, public space, the street and active edges are more important.

LOL tell that to Chicago and NYC high rise residents! No really, I agree. I am ALL for an urban street level experience. Thats why Charleston, SC even though it is small, has the best downtown in the south, blowing Atlanta and Miami out of the water.

Now, I do think that major to mid major cities like Louisville and Nashville need skyscrapers. More and more single urban professionals are choosing these cities over long commute times in larger cities. We need to provide them with the urban amenties they want. We need to also provide empty nesters and wealthy retirees with more option than a house in sprawlville or worse, having them move to FL--where they can get the same sprawlville with yeard round warmth. Those same people may be enticed to live in MP bc of its proximity to 4 star restaurants and arts.

The initial price points for MP offer lofts all UNDER 275k and the luxury condos start at 400k. Even for Louisville, thats pretty cheap. I saw a blogger from Chicago calling the prices "cute." He said it was a Chicago like project with quaint prices. Thats great. Its the reason Nashville has been growing for years and the reason Louisville has recently caught fire (after it solved many political and image problems).

So, as someone at SSC said. Lets wait and see when this thing is built how it interacts with the street. But from the design layout, this thing interacts as well or better with the street than any skyscraper anywhere. PLUS, this IS a partially public skyscraper. I have lived here 3 years now and never even walked in Aegon Center. But I will be in MP the day it opens to view the "sky" art museum.

[Vertigo]

I hope most people (especially Newtowner) caught on to the sarcastic humor in my last post. I won't really try to bash Nashville ( Notice I said I'll TRY).

I see skyscrapers as being a viable solution to a lot of urban problems in the US. Along with other concepts as well. Most American cities, including Louisville and especially Nashville need to increase their population base not just downtown but in the surrounding core areas as well. Skyscrapers can play a part in this although I don't think they should be the only method of increasing density. Louisville is fortunate in that it also has the river which serves as a perfect backdrop for developments such as these.

As far as McMansions go, I'd much rather see them 700 feet over Louisville rather than sprawling across pristine farmland in Shelby County. People with money are going to spend it. I'd much rather see their money (think of the property taxes from this thing!) stay within the city. Museum Plaza gives residents (and even more importantly newcomers) another housing option that is a cut above the typical highrise condo development found in most cities.