38 replies to this topic

[hauntedheadnc]

Read this AC-T article!

Asheville Citizen-Times said:

A group of local developers has been meeting with the city’s Downtown Commission to discuss a project at the intersection of Ravenscroft Drive and Collier Avenue that would, as currently configured, have buildings of 20, 14, 14 and 12 stories and a total of 450 residential condominiums.

This seems to be a markedly larger project than what was originally propsed for this area.  Please note the stock responses to this project from those polled on their opinions of it.  It'll tower over the neighborhood!  It won't fit in!  It'll look all big city-like and such!  We'd rather you cut down 350 acres of trees in Fairview than five trees downtown!  Development is baaaaaaaad!

This town is so predictable sometimes that you can't help but love it.  Or hate it, should the city council actually listen to the NIMBY nimrods.  Looks like it's time to start trotting out the letters to the editor again.

[Nindec]

Quote

Pricing has not been set, but the idea is for units to be affordable for “key” downtown workers, Todd said: “If you are working downtown and you’re not rich and retired and want to live downtown.”

I hope this is true -- maybe with economies of scale, a project this size could actually offer reasonable units?  

My biggest concern here, though, is of course the fate of that small grove of trees on the west side of the site.  While we're at it, why don't we also call off contruction of RBC's headquarters in DT Raleigh because of the trees lining Fayetteville street on the site?

I'm looking forward to seeing some renderings or site plans.

[hauntedheadnc]

Here's a letter to the editor I just now wrote about this project.  Is it coherent?

To the Editor:

Has the news thrilled you lately?  The Dixon on Biltmore, 60 N. Market Street, 12 S. Lexington, Lexington Station, the Griffin Apartments, and now two incredible, environmentally sound projects proposed for the South Slope!  You certainly should be thrilled.  Growth without sprawl is the best thing that could happen to Asheville.  

This growth is worlds better than a thousand houses in The Villas at Misspelled Pointe, or whatever other idiotic thing they’re calling the latest clearcut mountainside, and the only potential threats to such good growth are predictably dogged NIMBY’s demanding that nothing be built downtown ever again.  You could propose to erect a doghouse, and there would immediately be protesting howls that it would tower over neighboring buildings and wouldn’t fit in.  It’s almost as though there’s a string to pull on these people’s backs.  Give it a tug and they spout stock resistance to sensible development.

How many times must it be said?  Asheville will grow, like it or not.  It can grow up, or out.  There are no other options.  Up is better in every way, and so long as the Ravenscroft projects and their green roofs meet proper guidelines, I hope the city approves them immediately.

My Name
My City

Edited by hauntedheadnc, 27 August 2006 - 04:46 PM.

[orulz]

The current council has been very pro-growth when it comes to downtown. I just can't see this getting turned down easily. Unlike Hendersonville, both city council and the majority of residents in Asheville want it to be a "real city."

These projects are not half-assed proposals that will struggle to get off the ground. Rather than wondering whether downtown is ready for this many condos, instead I would say that the sheer size and number of units will give it a critical mass and legitimacy on its own.

There are very few actual neighbors to this property, so any "Not In My Back Yard" (NIMBY)  concerns will be more like "Not Inside Five Blocks Of My Back Yard" (NIFBOMBY). In my opinion, calling even the Sawyer Motor building a neighbor is a stretch. I hope council will distinguish between kneejerk NIMBYism and genuine concerns that can be negotiated with the developer, such as the location of service entrances and massing of buildings. This area is so out of the way (as the article correctly states, nobody ever goes down there) that I don't forsee an overwhelming groundswell of complaints.

I just hope that the developers propose something urban, rather than towers-in-a-park or an urban cul-de-sac gated community. This oroject needs to stretch from lot line to lot line, and turn the scraggly stands of trees, weedy lots, and disused buildings into a southward extension of Asheville's urban fabric.

This will be a project the likes of which Asheville hasn't seen since the Grove Arcade and the redevelopment of Battery Park Hill in the 1920s. And all this without any specific initiative or incentives on the part of the city, either. Exciting!

[hauntedheadnc]

Camille-Alberice is involved in this, so I don't think there's much danger of towers in a park.  They're the firm that designed 12 S. Lexington and Lexington Station, both of which are very urban, if architecturally boring.  They both run right up the sidewalk, and in the case of 12 S. Lexington, even get a little loom action going there despite the fact that it's not that terribly tall of a building.

I can't wait for a site plan.

[orulz]

Agreed about 12 S. Lexington and the Loom factor. I think the reason that it still feels imposing despite not being so tall is the fact that the Lexington Avenue right-of-way is exceptionally narrow at that point. If I recall correctly, the sidewalks there are pretty narrow as well - pehaps 8 feet wide, compared to a normal 12-20 feet wide for the average downtown street.

The only reason I'm a bit worried about towers-in-a-park here is that the streets around Collier and Ravenscroft are somewhat curved, the terrain is hilly and irregular, and the streets don't intersect at typical 90-degree angles. It would probably be easier and less expensive to not worry about meeting lot lines and just build rectangular buildings with setbacks in the middle of the lot. Barring that, we'll either see some unusual building footprints, or a major reconfiguration of the streets in question.

I agree. I'm looking forward to seeing site plans as well.

[hauntedheadnc]

Okay, as I understand this, Power Development LLC is the company building the project, while Camille-Alberice is the firm designing it.  

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but Power is also the muscle behind the project that would renovate the Chrysler Building and put a new mixed-use tower next door.

(Edit:  I was wrong and am correcting myself.  Some outfit calling itself Alexander Reagan is doing the Chrysler renovation and the new building beside it.)

Camille-Alberice has plenty of examples of their work on their site for everyone to observe and admire, but Power Development is proving more elusive.  How could you go about finding out more information on their intentions?  Educating oneself about the developer might go a ways toward figuring out whether to ready the baskets of rose petals or gird for the next round in the war on crap buildings.  The more I think about it, the more frightening the prospect of a bunch of buildings massed in the middle of a parking lot becomes.

I'd like to think that with Camille-Alberice on board, the project will be very urban in nature, flush to the sidewalk, and a valuable part of downtown.  However, if the land is hilly and hard to work with, that might send things reeling in a new and nasty direction.  Damn... I wish I could get a look at the site plan.

Edited by hauntedheadnc, 28 August 2006 - 01:46 PM.

[hauntedheadnc]

There are two seperate projects on the table here -- the 13-story Zona Lofts building, which would also include some street level retail and parking, and the Ravenscroft project with its four towers and 450 condos.

According to an update in the AC-T a little while ago, the Zona Lofts passed the city Downtown Commission review 8 to 1, although some concerns were raised about its modern design and height, especially by members of the audience that attended the hearing.  Nevertheless, having the commission's blessing will go a long way when this project is up for final approval by city council.  

Interestingly, one of the environmentally-friendly features planned for the Zona Lofts are solar cells on the south exposure that will help the building generate some of its own electricity.

Worryingly, though, the Ravenscroft project was discussed in passing, as it will have to approach the commission later.  Concerns were raised about its size and height -- especially that of the tallest building in the clutch, which is expected to rise to 23 stories.  

The full story will appear in tomorrow's paper -- let's hope for a rendering!

[hauntedheadnc]

http://www.citizen-t...ID=200660907068

So sayeth the Asheville Citizen-Times.  Zona Lofts is a go as far as the Downtown Commission is concerned, next stop city council.  The NIMBY's hate it.  It's too tall.  The commission has misgivings about the Ravenscroft project because it looks suburban, but the architect says that's only because more detailed renderings haven't been released.  In the meantime, the NIMBY's hate it.  It's too tall.

[orulz]

hauntedheadnc, on Sep 8 2006, 02:19 AM, said:

http://www.citizen-t...ID=200660907068

So sayeth the Asheville Citizen-Times.  Zona Lofts is a go as far as the Downtown Commission is concerned, next stop city council.  The NIMBY's hate it.  It's too tall.  The commission has misgivings about the Ravenscroft project because it looks suburban, but the architect says that's only because more detailed renderings haven't been released.  In the meantime, the NIMBY's hate it.  It's too tall.

The "NIMBYs" from Weaverville, mind you.

I'd just really like to see a site plan. And I hope they realign the streets down there... the way Ravenscroft dead-ends after its intersection with Collier doesn't help it integrate with the rest of downtown.

[hauntedheadnc]

You know, I always used to wonder how a doofy name like Ravenscroft got spilled into the mix of more sensible downtown street names, until I found out that Ravenscroft was the name of a big estate once located in the vicinity of the down-at-the-heels, and rather dumpy neighborhood the road runs through now.

[orulz]

Just found this, the minutes of the Downtown Commission meeting where this project was discussed:

Quote

Ravenscroft-Power Development-
Chairman Peter Alberice asked the DTC to recuse him from the next section of the meeting due to his
employment as part of the design professional team for this project.
Pat Whalen made a motion to recuse Peter Alberice as so asked, the motion was seconded by Pam Myers
and the motion passed unanimously.
Matt Sprouse from sitework studios started the presentation with a review of the basic project ideas
presented to date. The project will now consist of four buildings instead of five in efforts to minimize the
impact of the development; by using four separated buildings the project will be less likely to be
perceived by the viewer as one sprawling mass. 450 units plus commercial spaces are still planned on this
site. The westernmost building would be 7 stories, the next building in would house 18, the northeastern
building would have 14 or 15, and the southern building would house 12-14 stories.
The lowest building is sited closest to existing buildings and is an effort to provide context to the massing
of the project. The building would have 49 units of residential and would include a 50% workforce
housing ( participants range from 60% – 120% of median income) component. Materials used would be
similar to the brick and sandstone that are used on Coxe Avenue buildings.
A controlled access public space is still being designed for one of the taller buildings. Likely this would
include a restaurant, possible with a viewing deck. The tallest building would have a viewing deck that
would be for residents only, also a vegetated deck area.
The developers would like to honor the attention to detail and craft that is present in many of the historical
buildings downtown but feel that due to the lack of local craftspeople like stonecutters etc this may be
difficult. For basic materials and colors they have decided on the following:
-Light colored terra cotta for some of the lower floors
-Two different shades of bricks
-Retail spaces would be very open, use glass, slate, blue stone
- rounded canopies at entryways
-possibly some sort of elliptical element for the roof/cap
-some sort of glass/curtain wall being considered to avoid a monolithic look on the upper levels of
buildings
Regarding connectivity, pedestrian and vehicular access:
Developers will look to see if the alleyway to church street can be more than pedestrian access, if there
can be a stronger connection between parts of the south slope, e.g. this project and Lexington Station.
Access into underground parking is shown on the southeast portion of the site. Design is limited regarding
where to put that access due to lack of ownership of neighboring parcel. The height of the parking will be
relative to the topography of the site (sloping); but basically it will be 3 stories above ground on Banks
(and 1 underground there).
The connections between all the buildings have not been fully developed, but due to choice in parking
access, there will be a triangle shaped, landscaped element as a type of roof element for that access area
. Members of the Downtown Commission stopped the presentation to provide the following comments and
questions (member initials in parentheses) :
(PW) I have received inquiries and comments on this project (from the public) including the following:
- There is a grove of mature trees on what is being called site a. please don’t cut these trees down,
they are valuable .
- concern about the scale of the project as seen from the street level.
Pat’s own comment: consider the Vancouver model of high rise building. Townhouses along street to
soften the height of highrises. Townhouses could even house commercial spaces.
(LT) I am concerned about the emphasis on finance and numbers for this project. why does it have to be
so big? Why does the developers proforma say that it needs to be this big?
(?) What about the absorption rate of unloading 450 residential units onto the market?
(PA) It will be staged to take in consideration the absorption rate.
(PW) If this project is staged, the design of these later buildings will change from what is being approved.
What is the threshold for the developer to have to bring it back for Downtown Design Review again?
(Alan Glines) This project will need to get a conditional use permit, go through City Council, because of
its size. That part of the process will address many of the “public benefit” types of issues you all are
mentioning. In addition to reviewing the project based on the Downtown Design Guidelines, members
can participate in a recommendation to Council later on.
(JP) items like public accessibility, street connectivity, materials, siting, how it fits into the urban fabric,
are all important to this design; this project still has the flavor of a suburban office complex. Not having
any connections from building to building and opening up that alley to Church St. would improve this
project.
(PA) I don’t like the Vancouver model, the townhouse idea for residential.
(PM) There are lots of places that use brownstones or townhouses as retail shop spaces, it could be done.
Some comments from members of the public who attended:
(?) would like to see those trees kept, a buffer zone, maybe a park. Don’t understand why that number of
condos. Would like to see a 3d model to scale with existing buildings, that area of downtown, to
understand impact.
(Julie Brandt) The size and scale of this project is alarming. I don’t see any base middle or cap on this
design. May be premature at this point in the design stage but it looks like BB&T building. Seems like
this review is being done just to promote the project, as there is no design yet. The idea that the proforma
is being based on such a high rate of return on investment versus just making a profit is driving this to be
a poor project. The public bones being thrown around aren’t good enough.
(?) The Building proposed near site A is reasonable, in size and scale. The rest of the design is too much
of a jump from context. It’s even too much of a jump up from the last project (Zona Lofts) which are tall
compared to existing context.
At this point in time Pat Whalen, the Vice-Chair, explained to the members of the public that this is just
one part of the development process for this project, and for their part of it a vote would be taken on
whether or not the project meets the Downtown Design Guidelines.

[hauntedheadnc]

Ah, the sweet, sweet song of the NIMBY's.

[hauntedheadnc]

A thought -- who do you suppose you've have to talk to, as a concerned citizen, to get your support for this project across?

[orulz]

I sincerely hope that the NIMBYs here don't get this one stopped outright. There may be some concessions, not sure how much. While Zona has a very definite and very complete plan, it sounds like Ravenscroft is still very much written in pencil and there's a lot of room left to reconfigure the whole thing.

From reading these minutes, it seems that the site plan for this project has a long way to go. When developers do mega-projects like this, they almost universally become "internally focused" - that is, less attention is given to the experience presented along public sidewalks and streets, and more is focused on what the project looks like from the inside.

If these developers are intent on building a new-urban 'city-in-a-city' facing a central courtyard on top of a parking podium, they can roll up their plans and go home right now for all I care. This project must participate in the city, not try to create its own isolated environment.

A perfect example of a large project that maintains a flawless balance of internal AND external focus throughout is the Grove Arcade. I don't expect to see an urban masterpiece like Grove at Ravenscroft, or for that matter, anywhere downtown ever again. But this project absolutely needs to address the public realm properly. ALL buildings should have ground-foor activities (retail or whatever) that are pedestrian accessible, and ALL such activities should be built to face an open right-of-way. More open rights-of-way should be constructed  to break apart this large parcel into smaller, human-scaled lots that blend with the urban fabric of downtown.

[hauntedheadnc]

That's the kind of email you need to fire off to Camille-Alberice.

[hauntedheadnc]

Captain NIMBY to the rescue!!

---

http://www.mountainx...ravenscroft.php

[pyalberice]

Peter Alberice here.  I have been following Urban Planet for about 4 months, especially the topic about development in Asheville.  Our firm is the architect for the proposed Ravenscroft project discussed earlier.  At the moment, the project is on hold and if it moves forward, it will probably be much smaller in scale.  With regards to the earlier comment about the relationship of the project to the street, our design has always had office or retail at the street level to tie in with the existing urban fabric as it begins to develop on Coxe Avenue.

[hauntedheadnc]

That's a terrible shame to hear, but thank you for the update anyway.

[orulz]

pyalberice,

Digging up this thread again...

As you indicate, this project is stalled, but could you indulge us here on UrbanPlanet with some preliminary images (site plans, renderings, etc) from this project, so we might have some idea of what might be used as a "starting point" for developments here in the future?

Thanks.