288 replies to this topic

[Gard]

Well if you look at how things are progressing, the height is steadily progressing upwards, so its only a matter of time before a 40 is built.  38 puts us right on edge of 40, so there is a good chance that the next "big one" will be 40 or more.  Also keep in mind that it isn't stories that really counts, but height.  I was looking at a list of the top 50 tallest building in the world and the tallest one has less stories than some of the others, so don't get depressed over it not being 40 stories, its all in the height .

[ChiefJoJo]

shiftgreen, on Jul 18 2007, 02:09 PM, said:

...I still want to know why we never get anything over 40 in DTR.

The market isn't there--still too much land, not enough demand to build tall... we don't have BofA and Wachovia in our DT to fill a 1M sf office tower, nor their combined ~30k employees (with hefty paychecks) to fill lots of DT highrise condos.  This area has plenty of wealth, but it's not concentrated like in CLT.  We could provide an incentive for a nice % of the ~40k RTP'ers to live in a highrise condo if we connected DT Ral & Dur to RTP with rapid transit.  Either that, or find a big company that'll move here, a la Morgan Stanley, etc.

[RALNATIVE]

ChiefJoJo, on Jul 18 2007, 08:27 PM, said:

Either that, or find a big company that'll move here, a la Morgan Stanley, etc.

Well trying to find a big company to relocate DT is exactly what many developers and city leaders are attempting to, let's just hope that they are more successful than their predecessors in the past. Keep in mind, If Gregg Sandreuter is able to reel in a big fish that needs lots of DT office space, we may see the Block B towers grow from 38 and 24 stories.

[RALBOI]

I was bent on this tower being 42 stories based on one of Raleigh's TOP insiders saying it was official at this height, but hey just three years ago we couldn't get anything built over 29 stories, so am COOL with this project, because I think the height will go up,but my real concern is the street level because remember this project is also suppose to be a DESTINATION project, a place were people will flock too, I know it to early to be real critical but am not seeing this vision being applied so far does anybody else feel the same way?   

[RALBOI]

DanRNC, on Jul 18 2007, 12:08 PM, said:

I'm taking a wait and see approach to this one. If this hinges on a corporate tenant you might as well write it off as the Raleigh Chamber may be one of the more incompetent organizations in business recruiting.

Ok, "it's officially 42 stories tall",not trying to be a comedian are anything, but who put you on front street like that ?

Edited by RALBOI, 18 July 2007 - 11:33 PM.

[krazeeboi]

I consider a dense skyline to be just as impressive as a tall one (which is why I prefer Richmond's skyline over Tampa's), so I think these two towers will be great additions to Raleigh's skyline. Anything to overcome the "bookends" effect will be good.

[vitaviatic]

orulz, on Jul 18 2007, 10:01 AM, said:

I'm not sick of it at all. I don't care. As a matter of fact, why does it make a difference whether we have any towers over 40 stories or not? Perhaps building 1@45 and 1@17 is more expensive than 1@38 and 1@24. Or perhaps that doesn't yield the right combination of office, hotel, residential and retail that they need to make this work. It's not like having a 40+ building will "put us on the map" or give the city "a higher profile" or make it more attractive to prospective corporations, residents, shops, etc. It won't make one iota of difference to anybody but the skyscraper enthusiast.

Nothing personal! I just think that complaining over buildings being "not tall enough" is wasted breath.

With towers paired at 38 and 24 stories they can share cranes. The disparity between 45 and 17 makes that rather tedious. This is a big deal since tower cranes are in short supply right now (since Dubai has half of them at the moment), and cranes are expensive enough to make 24/7 projects out of those who require them.

This Edison annoucement to me seems like a great play on the tortoise and hare story. While I have certainly been as big a critic as anybody concerning DT Raleigh's land use policy, the abundance of open land downtown may actually pay a dividend over the next decade.

More important by far, in the big picture of things, than the height or number of stories of the thing is the LEED classification. What I see down the road is that if Cherokee does manage to get one or two of these LEED buildings up (and kudos to them for going that route), it seems to me that the Triangle would derive some considerable local LEED qualified design talent, and that combined with the ample inventory of land available (especially westward toward the IMTC) would put DT Raleigh into play regardless of "recruiting talent". Companies are figuring out these days just how much their dinosaur operations are wasting, not just in resources, but in terms of their own universal measuring stick -- money -- that everybody is looking for new digs at this point, if not a new city.

I see this critical mass building in DT Raleigh like you guys do, and am very happy about it -- but at the same time I am guardedly optimistic. There are other things that need to be put into place for DTR to leap the fence. Transit is number one! Regardless of how many LEED buildings you throw up downtown, how many 40, 50, or 60+ story buildings, it will not matter if secretaries, CSRs, custodians, food service workers, or even junior executives can't afford the $40 a day to park downtown (plus the $10 to $15 to drive there and back home), and a woefully inadequate transit system to get them there. Some redesign of the street structure or planned system of skybridges (a la Minneapolis) would be a good idea too, in that since you still have major highway business routes funneled through downtown, copious amounts of new pedestrians iare going to create a quagmire at most major intersections.

So you can offer them a big, beautiful, efficient building, and even show them the dollars they would save by moving there. But if it's a major PITA (pain in the ass) to do business there (parking) and all they have to work with is an 18th century streetgrid, and a clueless, lackadaisical, and very complacent city government with no plans to do anything above show up at the ribboncutting -- oh, dear -- you're not going to get anywhere.

That would be a shame too. DT Durham could share in the bounty with LEED buildings too. Even though they have less vacant land, there is enough teardown territory there that LEED construction could easily pay for.

Keep this in mind as well. Other built-out major cities lack any kind of a "clean slate" to work from. Here in Denver, they are actually worried about some of the 5-, 6-, and 700 footers that we already have. Many of them are of "oil boom vintage" and design. They are inefficient in the extreme, and already facing vacancy problems. Nor are they easy to tear down and replace. Think of the numbers at Soleil just to replace that runty 8-story Sheraton hotel. Imagine trying to design a project with enough of a return to justify the demolition costs of a 700+ foot scraper! Everything would have to be goldplated.

The Triangle has just enough going for it now to catapult it into the rarified air of prosperity. But it's far from a done deal. Do not let your city fathers and mothers sit on their collective asses, and do nothing but shift doilies. This opportunity does have a very short shelf life, I guarantee you! If Raleigh doesn't do it right, then other cities will. I can tell you that Philadelphia is pushing hard for green, and the other Northeastern cities are catching up. This could be Detroit's ticket out of the dumps (and at DT land prices competitive with Raleigh and Durham). Florida would have a hard time competing in LEEDs because air conditioning is harder to mitigate than heating requirements. But then you look at an Albuquerque, Austin, Salt Lake, or Madison (cities of similar market size, climate, and technical bent) that have gotten, or are getting, their collective s#!t together -- and you see that the thunder can be stolen.

Great news guys, but we've gotta keep pushing!


One other thing in this way too long-winded sermon over a simple (and exciting) project announcement. Personally, I would forget the Morgan Stanleys of the world. The old money corporations. Just like Sears, years ago, they will string you along in order to extract sweeteners from the places they really want to be -- right where they are. ABQ landed a production facility from Tesla Motors, the very well-funded electric car company. These cars carry a $100k pricetag, so even if hundreds of thousands of them aren't sold right away, just the revenue per unit guarantees a pretty good economic shot to the area, and an iconic industry to stake its territory within. I think your corporate recruiting w(h)iners and diners would be much better off beating the bushes at tech-oriented trade shows for companies such as that (companies that will start off in, and identify themselves with, the Triangle from the start and as they and the community grow), rather than trying to steal other cities' relics. This is a transitional economy, folks. And there are opportunities out there like this one. Bioenergy is another, and these new companies don't have to locate alongside all the other petrolista sociopaths in Houston. You already have a monster pharmaceutical presence there. That shouldn't be hard.

Just a thought.

Edited by vitaviatic, 20 July 2007 - 04:33 AM.

[DanRNC]

^I disagree about Morgan Stanley. You want to recruit financial institutions as they have the money and weather the market better than manufacturing or tech. High tech is fine but as many folks around here know that sector is very volatile (up one day and crashing the next). The Triangle needs to diversify its base economy and it has been doing that pretty well although, like I said before, Raleigh's recruiting has been abysmal. The RTRP has been the leader in business recruitment in the region.

[Jones133]

orulz, on Jul 18 2007, 10:01 AM, said:

I'm not sick of it at all. I don't care. As a matter of fact, why does it make a difference whether we have any towers over 40 stories or not? Perhaps building 1@45 and 1@17 is more expensive than 1@38 and 1@24. Or perhaps that doesn't yield the right combination of office, hotel, residential and retail that they need to make this work. It's not like having a 40+ building will "put us on the map" or give the city "a higher profile" or make it more attractive to prospective corporations, residents, shops, etc. It won't make one iota of difference to anybody but the skyscraper enthusiast.

Nothing personal! I just think that complaining over buildings being "not tall enough" is wasted breath.

Count me in on this sentiment.........street level configuration, number of workers and residents etc.......this is what counts....

[vitaviatic]

I stand by my assertion that persuing the Morgan Stanleys of the world would be time better spent wooing nascent tech industries. The reasons are several.

First, don't compare Raleigh to Charlotte. Charlotte is an anomaly. Why? The story is this...

Back in the days of regulated (non-interstate) banking, there were only two states -- California and North Carolina -- that allowed "branch banking"; that is banks forming networks with colluded funds from across a statewide region. In all of the other 48 states each bank (each building) was an island unto itself regarding cash reserves, loan processing, etc. In effect, if I went to a Colorado National Bank in Littleton, but my account was based at CNB in downtown Denver, I could not withdraw money. I had to go to that particular bank to extract my funds. It was a major PITA for sure, but overall I thought it was a good idea that stemmed from the Depression era that kept funds from being sumped out of areas in which they were deposited. (The way overheated real estate markets in major cities are a good example of this -- Joe Sixpack's money now finds its way from the Lizard Lick Wachovia branch, to a fund a loan for a supremely expensive condo in Miami Beach, as often as not, on a speculative loan. That didn't always happen.) I could go on and on about the evils of bank deregulation, but...

Fast forward. Due to "branch banking", the banks in California and NC already had pooled reserves so that when deregulation hit, they were in a far better position than the independent banks to survive in the new dog-eat-dog banking climate. They were primed to gobble up all of the small town banks first in their neighboring states, then once they had built a sufficient base from that (like WalMart did in retail) they began the all-out assault on the bigger statewide banks. Only the New York banks were capitalized enough to become hunters instead of prey, and to a lesser extent those in Chicago, but then again the tombstones of once big names like Continental Illinois prove that even they were too weak to stave off these monoliths. All of the North Carolina banks did well after deregulation, and with the exceptions of a few like First Citizens, BB&T, CCB, and other smaller, regionalized ones, the major NC banks went on a tear. It wasn't even a contest. Your new Charlotte skyline bears the profiles of the runaway winners of the "Southeastern banking melee".

If in doubt, just look at the DNA of America's largest bank, headquartered (for now) in Charlotte. Bank of America (San Francisco), and NCNB (Charlotte).

Now, I may offend some people saying this (especially the Charlotteans that contribute here), and I really don't mean to. What I am about to say is not a judgment on whether Charlotte is a nice city to live in or not, or any of that. It is based entirely on logic.

The only reason BofA is still headquartered in Charlotte is because of Hugh McColl. He is a good ol' boy, and he doesn't care too much for San Francisco or California. But I would bet at least half the farm that when he goes, the bank goes back to San Francisco. At least the CEO and the boardroom. Sure, they'll keep plenty of backoffice operations in Charlotte. There's no reason not to. But the executive corps will return to California post haste. And it has nothing to do with Charlotte.

The Chinese are on the ascent. Their monetary resources are second to none, and they are already major investors in our treasuries and corporate stock, as well as real estate. San Francisco has been the historical cultural and data port for the Chinese to America. In order for BofA to stay viable, they are going to have to be very well connected with Hong Kong and Shanghai (particularly if the American government keeps driving the dollar into the ground with debt). New York will funnel in the Euromoney, while San Francisco will resume its position as premier banking city of the West Coast. I can buy newspapers in San Francisco in five or six different Chinese dialects (as well as Japanese, Korean, Thai, or Hindi). There are still parts of North and (especially) South Carolina where someone will still get shot speaking Chinese. Again, not meant to be a put-down. Just a reality check, and a headsup.

The second thing is, I don't know where this fantasy of stability in banking gets perpetrated, but it is just plain false. There is absolutely nothing stable about it. The fact that Morgan Stanley would even think of leaving the Big Apple should be evidence of that. In the process they would lay off thosands of employees who simply will not leave New York for any reason. Sure, you could herald the fact that North Carolinians would ostensibly be the benefactors of these new jobs, but that argument is hardly a point for stability. Banking (and finance in general) is just as cyclical a business as any other. A corporation declares bankruptcy and a major corporate loan goes south, and out go thousands of pink slips to make up the shortfall. (IMHO, the banks are even worse than the airlines, and sometimes managed even worse.) And brokerage houses? Don't even get me started!

The third factor (and probably the most underrated) is this. Banks, as much as any other industry, thrive by the "BS around the watercooler" and the "powerlunch" aspects of big city living. That's the only reason they are still there. The image of two nerds standing by the watercooler, concocting a new accounting scam to suck their way up the corporate ladder, fairly eminates from the banking world. Stock brokering is just flat lying. That's not hard to do. Insurance portfolio management is like shooting fish in a barrel. Same thing. However, skirting banking regulations and devising the latest credit scam actually takes some mental agility and conspiratorial means to accomplish. Even the good stuff they come up with (not often, unfortunately) usually has its origin in a lunch on Park Avenue, a chance meeting in the lobby of an office tower, or a shared ferry ride back to Staten Island. As much as Morgan Stanley or other financial institutions may cry and loathe the overhead of being in New York, they know that it would be cultural and logistical suicide to isolate themselves in a far-flung province just to save some coin.

Why do you suppose that Chicago got the Chicago Climate Exchange, when most energy-based market apparati plant themselves in the Texas Bayou? It's because they could avail themselves in Chicago to all of the cross-fertilization of brainwaves between the Merc, the Board of Trade, and others.

I still say lay off the Morgan Stanleys. Just because they bring a big money presence with them wherever they go, doesn't mean they will spend a lot locally. Again, Charlotte sports tall buildings because of Hugh McColl. The man likes building stuff there. No problem with that. At the same time he forced Wachovia (vis a vis First Union) to spend bundles of cash there to not get overshadowed and "out-imaged", whatever that means. Between those two banks alone they went through more "headquarters" office towers than some people change underwear in a week. To use Charlotte's history as a yardstick against Raleigh is not only silly, but also could be quite disappointing in the end.

Any industry, whether it's finance, manufacturing, services, tourism, transport, whatever, is subject to cycles, and there is no getting around that. Even if you could privatize the world's air supply (and I'm sure some of ol' Newt's committees looked into doing that), the price would eventually reach a level at which it teetered with supply and demand, and was thus subject to cyclical waves as well. Court the Young Turks -- the ones with the real ideas -- the ones that will get us to the moon, the ones that will cure cancer (although since there isn't any profit in that, may take awhile), the ones that will help us get around, heat, and cool ourselves for next to nothing...Court the ones who will actually create progress in our world, rather than court the ones who will whine about how much it costs.

Edited by vitaviatic, 20 July 2007 - 06:07 AM.

[orulz]

I thought Hugh McColl retired 5 or 6 years ago? And BoA is still in Charlotte with little or no signs of going anywhere (and plenty of signs of staying.)

[Spatula]

I think more importantly than that Berlin Wall of text vita posted, whenever something really bad happens to some sector in the economy, banks get hit too. It's good to have a few other industries as a bit of a buffer, chasing headquarters only for banks is like flying a single-prop plane.

That said, we're not really in a good position to pick and choose right now. Luring tech firms seems like a great idea, but we don't have particularly much to offer them compared to competing markets like San Francisco and Boston. Though I suppose we could hold our own against Austin.

Edited by Spatula, 20 July 2007 - 08:41 AM.

[RALNATIVE]

vitaviatic, on Jul 20 2007, 04:54 AM, said:

Now, I may offend some people saying this (especially the Charlotteans that contribute here), and I really don't mean to. What I am about to say is not a judgment on whether Charlotte is a nice city to live in or not, or any of that. It is based entirely on logic.

The only reason BofA is still headquartered in Charlotte is because of Hugh McColl. He is a good ol' boy, and he doesn't care too much for San Francisco or California. But I would bet at least half the farm that when he goes, the bank goes back to San Francisco. At least the CEO and the boardroom. Sure, they'll keep plenty of backoffice operations in Charlotte. There's no reason not to. But the executive corps will return to California post haste. And it has nothing to do with Charlotte.

My bet is on NYC. Afterall, BOA is currently building their tallest tower in Manhattan, and furthermore, their biggest competitor is there. BOA has reached the size where their execs really do need to be in the mix of Wall Street and where the action is. I can only think that they are missing out by being headquatered down in Charlotte. San Fran is also a possibility, but either way, I think that they must make a move at some point.

[plus2]

RALNATIVE, on Jul 20 2007, 01:40 PM, said:

My bet is on NYC. Afterall, BOA is currently building their tallest tower in Manhattan, and furthermore, their biggest competitor is there. BOA has reached the size where their execs really do need to be in the mix of Wall Street and where the action is. I can only think that they are missing out by being headquatered down in Charlotte. San Fran is also a possibility, but either way, I think that they must make a move at some point.

I'm not going to pretend to be knowledgeable about the banking industry, but it seems like the more computerized our banking and stocks become, the less important it is to be centered in one spot like Wall Street.  Technology should make things easier to operate in different locations.

[RALNATIVE]

plus2, on Jul 20 2007, 11:37 AM, said:

I'm not going to pretend to be knowledgeable about the banking industry, but it seems like the more computerized our banking and stocks become, the less important it is to be centered in one spot like Wall Street. Technology should make things easier to operate in different locations.

It's not about technology. It's about the day to day interactions that executives of large corporations have in the financial industry. It's about being able to get in a limo and take 10 mins to get to an important business meeting rather than have it take 2 or more hours by jet. It's about the global exposure, image, and name recognition which NYC (or SF for that matter) provides that Charlotte does not.

These are some of the more key reasons why the "headquaters" needs to be in NYC, not necessarily the operations centers. Charlotte could very well remain a regional or north american headquaters.

Edited by RALNATIVE, 20 July 2007 - 01:02 PM.

[plus2]

Yeah, but I still think technology is reducing the importance of the limo ride and face-to-face meeting.  50 years ago that was essential.  Now its substantially less so.  And the trend is towards less face-to-face interaction.

[RALNATIVE]

plus2, on Jul 20 2007, 12:29 PM, said:

Yeah, but I still think technology is reducing the importance of the limo ride and face-to-face meeting. 50 years ago that was essential. Now its substantially less so. And the trend is towards less face-to-face interaction.

We are talking about execs running mega billion dollar corporations, not mid level managers. They handle things very differently.

[49er]

this thing is way off topic, but it seems that with BoA building and financing a Ritz Carlton hotel tower and 32 story bank occupied office tower across from their headquarters in Charlotte, why would they be planning to leave?  

The Edison sounds like a great project, need to see renderings!

[CHGuy]

Here is the site plan submittal:

http://www.raleighnc...n/SP-057-07.pdf

470' Residential/Hotel tower with 270 condos and 270 hotel rooms.  410' office tower with 500,000 sq. ft. of office space.  Also, included in the project is 75,000 sq. ft. of retail.  Total sq. ft. is 1,275,000.  Pretty impressive.  Would sure like to see what this looks like!

[DwnTwnRaleighGuy]

CHGuy, on Jul 20 2007, 02:55 PM, said:

Here is the site plan submittal:

http://www.raleighnc...n/SP-057-07.pdf

470' Residential/Hotel tower with 270 condos and 270 hotel rooms.  410' office tower with 500,000 sq. ft. of office space.  Also, included in the project is 75,000 sq. ft. of retail.  Total sq. ft. is 1,275,000.  Pretty impressive.  Would sure like to see what this looks like!

How do you get only 60ft between 24flrs and 38flrs?

RBC would still be the offical winner!