Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

96 Excellent

About SMSRedux

  • Rank
    Unincorporated Area

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

929 profile views
  1. Looks true to the newer rendering to me. See left hand side which is vertical, not angled. Columns in place for right side are also perpendicular to the ground plane.
  2. Are you certain? The second tower shown appears residential (note balconies etc..). Unless the design shown is not final perhaps.
  3. Looks like full Charlotte drone video in a couple weeks. Primer with the dust:
  4. ^ IMO, Yes. At least regionally (which I would agree with for Jax as well). Nationally it may be more of a stretch, as to common non-skyscraper fans there are few they recognize outside of the twin towers, empire state, chrysler, Sears Tower, John Hancock, US Bank (LA), Transamerica's of the nation, Regionally for recognition I think of buildings such as Key Tower, AT&T, US Steel Tower, BOFA Corp etc... Although in reading your comment a second time, most of the examples provided are actually non-buildings at least in the traditional highrise sense (Golden Gate, Hollywood sign, Eiffel Tower (Tokyo tower, CN tower to add along those lines...),The Arch, Space needle). If the question in that regard were to be rephrased as "landmark" instead of building, I would agree that we do not have that signature recognized landmark that resonates "Charlotte".
  5. Anyone notice the new area massing shown during this meeting showing the Stadium and surrounding potential re-development concept of this area?
  6. If all the lines were buried Duke would loose out on all the free PR that comes as a result of the visible lines., especially as regularly brought up here. Priceless branding. On a more serious note, are there no provisions for this included in the new TOD and zoning being put forth for denser/smarter development in the CBD and surrounding transit zones? That seams like the ideal time to set precedent requiring utilities be buried during new development.
  7. Per the pew research center 10 states have wholly prevented church attendance (Whether inside a place of worship, or outside (IE physically outside) of one) If the RNC was able to be held outside would all the health concerns no longer be a factor? No, of course not. To ensure my position is transparent, I believe all of these referenced gatherings should be permitted without curbing attendance. To allow one, and dis-allow others is a contradiction even if it may be in the best interest of public health to limit all such gatherings. Someone risking their and others health by attending a protest is no different in my view than someone risking their and others health attending a political convention. I suppose my main concession in the thought process would have to be given it is held at an "official venue" perhaps....? To put a tone to this and hopefully ensure it doesn't come off the computer screen wrong, I'm purely interested in learning the and having a dialogue and have hopefully presented a perspective in that way to precipitate thought, no ill keyboard strokes ;).
  8. Point of clarification, this was not suggested by my question or train of thought. Specifically I mentioned "unlimited" in regards to attendance (Not "allowed on an unlimited and unregulated basis" as inferred above). To my knowledge the attendance of protest has not been limited (which is a good thing imo).
  9. Shouldn't attending a national political gathering also be considered a first amendment right just the same as attending a national civil rights protest? For that matter, so should attending church. They seem equally important to our first amendment rights and allowing unlimited attendance of one but not the other/s certainly appears biased. The request the RNC made was not for a free pass on health concerns as mentioned above but rather that convention attendance would not be artificially limited (Please correct me with a source if I may be miss-informed). I'm torn regardless as I certainly agree that this will be a difficult event to host without significant blow-back either way.
  10. This one is 168' to the roof (just under the "500" address marker at the top per the plans), probably 178' or so to the very top.
  11. Plans submitted show 378'. While they don't show complete elevations they often include these details in the zoning and overall project text on the plans. This aligns much more accurately with the appearance of the building vs its peers.
  12. Solid piece of infill development imo. At the end of the day a 300' tower in a major city is not typically intended to wow and impress with cutting edge architecture. These are typically more "safe" developments and I'm looking forward to the aesthetic diversity this will bring to that area of the urban core. Very pleased that it is not a bland box without accents (which would be the most efficient and economical so be thankful for that). Seems many folks have some very high bars set for such infill, but then again we are urban development nuts
  13. Looks like one of you is discussing population density figures and the other is referring to building density and vibrancy. You are both right and have valid points from what I can see.
  14. Looks like the 213 room Homewood Suites is moving through permitting now.
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.