39 replies to this topic

[hauntedheadnc]

According to today's paper, the Downtown Commission endorses the design and thinks a shorter building would not look as good as the taller building.  

Local NIMBY's of course, were out in force to protest.

[otis-t]

hauntedheadnc, on Feb 9 2008, 05:41 PM, said:

According to today's paper, the Downtown Commission endorses the design and thinks a shorter building would not look as good as the taller building.  

Local NIMBY's of course, were out in force to protest.

What's the status of the Pack descendants' lawsuit? Has the appropriateness/legality of the land acquisition been resolved? Did the Asheville planning office aknowledge any problem with the land transfer? If the Downtown Commission is hearing and endorsing the project, then the City must feel that the land issue is resolved. Is it really? And I hope to God that they didn't endorse a design in which the front elevation of the condos juts out as far as the corner -- or past the corner-- of City Hall. If it does, then the Downtown Commission needs to collectively and individually have its head examined. (Where are the Wiccans when you need them?)

[orulz]

The site plan and an elevation drawing are available on the development mapper.

I don't see any substantial changes in the elevation. The site plan clearly shows the new street planned in front of the building.

I like how this provides a defined edge to the southern side of the park, but it seems there's absolutely nothing going on on Marjorie or Spruce streets other than parking deck entrances. Marjorie not being a major street, generaly I wouldn't mind that too much, except that the lot on the south side of Marjorie is one of the places that is being considered for a performing arts center to replace the aging Thomas Wolfe Auditorium.

[hauntedheadnc]

There's nothing wrong with the architecture, and I too prefer for parks to have edges clearly defined by streets.  I don't like the way, for instance, that Aston Park just sort of gloms onto a dozen backyards.  

My only problem with this building is that it's yet another yuppie hive.  As if we needed any more of those.

[orulz]

Coleman has scaled back his plans to 9 floors.

Unfortunately, the part that many people (including me, honestly) take issue with is not the height of the building, but the way it juts out into the park. This does nothing to resolve that.

[artworks1437]

New rendering:  http://www.mountainx...council_hearing

[otis-t]

Are there any plans or renderings of Parkside that clearly/definitively show where the front (north) elevation of the building is in relation to the south and west elevations of the City building?

[orulz]

Here is my best estimation of how Parkside sits relative to City Hall.

[archiham04]

Photoshop.  A CONSERVATIVE height estimate, assuming the same footprint as existing building.

[otis-t]

Thanks for the good visuals, Orulz & Archiham. So, without City Council review and the public scrutiny that goes with it, think there's any hope of pulling that building back (south) so that it doesn't but out in front of the City building as seen from the Vance Monument? We know from 21 Battery Park that Coleman has no aesthetic sense whatsoever, and apparently really does not fathom/does not care about the affect of his work on this key component of the Asheville streetscape. What force could possibly be brought to bear to pull that building back?

[rooster8]

With the city voting unanimously on a non-binding resolution opposing the sale and location of the building, is it out of the question for Coleman and the city to come to an agreement on some sort of land swap.  I would be in favor of this building if it were moved back, even if it meant closing Marjorie Street.  The five year old design guidelines for Pack Square have an even larger building essentially on this site.  The site lines are maintained, however.

Pack Square Conservancy Guidelines

[orulz]

rooster8, on Jun 12 2008, 12:24 AM, said:

With the city voting unanimously on a non-binding resolution opposing the sale and location of the building, is it out of the question for Coleman and the city to come to an agreement on some sort of land swap.  I would be in favor of this building if it were moved back, even if it meant closing Marjorie Street.  The five year old design guidelines for Pack Square have an even larger building essentially on this site.  The site lines are maintained, however.

Pack Square Conservancy Guidelines

The developer together with the county already proposed a "land swap" with the city, and were turned down flat.
The reason is that the city is already considering a RFP process for the Marjorie Street lot they own. Possibilities include a public-private partnership that will result in a new performing arts center along with some private development on the site. At any rate, the RFP process affords the city a great deal of control over what gets built there. In addition, the city would probably get a great deal of money when they sell the property or air rights above the performing arts center or whatever. If they just swap it with Coleman, then the city loses a street, gets zero control, and loses its most valuable piece of property--with no compensation whatsoever--when it was the county's fault that the property got sold in the first place, not the city's. That sounds like a terrible deal to me.

IMO we can do so much BETTER than Parkside here.

[rooster8]

I see your point about the RFP process.  I hope they can work out a resolution that works out for all parties.

[orulz]

So you guys probably have been following this, but the latest news on the Parkside front is that:

-The city declined to do a land swap with Coleman, since they plan on using the parcel they would have had to swap, as a performing arts center.
-Coleman erected a construction fence around the property, just days before:
-A judge struck down the sale of the Parkside land to Coleman, rendering it invalid. This decision will almost certainly be appealed. Assuming the decision is upheld, the parkside land will revert to the County. Not sure how much they will pay Coleman. Coleman will probably also sue the county to recover his losses.
-No longer owning the Parkside property, Coleman will have to either proceed using only the Hayes-Hopson parcel, or simply divest himself of the HH (perhaps to the city or county, who might use it to make City-County Plaza bigger.)

[orulz]

An update, more than a year hence.

Coleman has given up on building Parkside for now, and instead has decided to refurbish the Hayes-Hopson building.
The building will house a pub. According to the C-T the fact that he has applied for the approvals necessary to build this pub means that the approvals for Parkside are now null and void; if he hopes to build something there in the future, it will have to start from scratch in the development review process.

I went by there this weekend in the pouring rain and noticed a few things.
(1) Am I crazy, or does it look like they have punched some additional holes for doors and/or windows facing Pack Square?
(2) There's an unusual little stone building right next door to this one that looks like (at one point) it was the foundation for another building. Is this the foundation for the "old jail"? Now that Parkside is canned, I wonder if Coleman is planning anything for that one.

[rooster8]

I read in either the C-T or the Xpress that he was indeed installing more windows on the side for a better view of the park.

[archiham04]

orulz, on Sep 23 2009, 08:45 AM, said:

(2) There's an unusual little stone building right next door to this one that looks like (at one point) it was the foundation for another building. Is this the foundation for the "old jail"? Now that Parkside is canned, I wonder if Coleman is planning anything for that one.

Actually not a "foundation for"... It actually WAS the old jail.  Not a fun place to go.

... and word is no immediate plans.  I'm pushing for a Rathskeller.

Edited by archiham04, 24 September 2009 - 06:53 AM.

[orulz]

rooster8, on Sep 23 2009, 02:13 PM, said:

I read in either the C-T or the Xpress that he was indeed installing more windows on the side for a better view of the park.

Sure enough. Image from the C-T:


I had no idea a load-bearing masonry structure such as this one could have so much of the brick removed from a presumably load bearing wall without structural issues. Very cool.

There's no escaping the fact that the building looks awkward, with the sloping roofline and the complete lack of detailing: it was not built to be next to a park in the first place. But this is a big improvement from how it was before.

I'm looking forward to seeing the finished product. I also can't imagine that Coleman would spend this much money - hundreds of thousands of dollars, at least) on this building if he just intends on knocking it down in a year or two.

[rooster8]

I wondered how it would turn out, but I think it looks pretty good.

[thecowgoesmoo]

That does look good. I hope it succeeds.

Hey...is that the sun I see? Wow.