Spartan

Dimensional Place (Common Market South End site)

Recommended Posts


Not DC Plaza, but:
Common Market will relocate in South End — and here are the two spots they’re considering

I'm hoping for the Tremont site. CM is a pioneering business model. Being down Tremont could help better development go toward S Tryon St, rather than being in the thick of South Blvd's mess of a stroad (although it'd have better Blue Line access).

EDIT: Plus, THIS is right around the corner!

Edited by SgtCampsalot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope for the Tremont site....it would be more more the nucleus of the expanding "southern" South End.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ Those are both good options, but yeah, I think (if they HAVE to move...still in denial) that the Tremont site is my favorite. I like the idea of them extending Southend a little bit and being a catalyst for South Tryon, while the other site on South will get surrounded by new development soon no matter what. I think there would also be more space for them to create an interesting, dog-friendly outdoor space that lives up to the current patio. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting that so many of us here prefer the Tremont site, myself included, but if you look at the voting on the Charlotte Agenda site, 2x as many people like the South Blvd location. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting that so many of us here prefer the Tremont site, myself included, but if you look at the voting on the Charlotte Agenda site, 2x as many people like the South Blvd location. 

Most people probably aren't thinking about development potential and pioneering a new area, they're thinking about what they walk or drive by the most and looks ready to move in to right now.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Going back to DC Charlotte Plaza... I've heard a pretty reliable rumor that a lot more retail is going to be added to the site, and that other changes are likely being made to the building itself in terms of layout. While the building may still end up looking like a giant turd, at least there is hope for the ground floor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Going back to DC Charlotte Plaza... I've heard a pretty reliable rumor that a lot more retail is going to be added to the site, and that other changes are likely being made to the building itself in terms of layout. While the building may still end up looking like a giant turd, at least there is hope for the ground floor.

I'm almost positive this isn't a rumor. Last time I talked to Gaines they already were redesigning and taking complaints to consideration. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Going back to DC Charlotte Plaza... I've heard a pretty reliable rumor that a lot more retail is going to be added to the site, and that other changes are likely being made to the building itself in terms of layout. While the building may still end up looking like a giant turd, at least there is hope for the ground floor.

Honestly, I don't think the building looks like a giant turd. The wood details and shape are actually kind of interesting, if a little odd for the context. My reason for railing against it, after getting over the crushing loss of the existing businesses as a separate issue, is 100% to do with the site plan. 

BTW its good that CM seems to have found good potential spots to move not too far away, but what about Black Sheep and the handful of cool little studios in there? I doubt they have as much flexibility/clout, and the loss of Black Sheep in a central location in particular will be a big hit to a legitimately vibrant aspect of street life in this area. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly, I don't think the building looks like a giant turd. The wood details and shape are actually kind of interesting, if a little odd for the context. My reason for railing against it, after getting over the crushing loss of the existing businesses as a separate issue, is 100% to do with the site plan. 

BTW its good that CM seems to have found good potential spots to move not too far away, but what about Black Sheep and the handful of cool little studios in there? I doubt they have as much flexibility/clout, and the loss of Black Sheep in a central location in particular will be a big hit to a legitimately vibrant aspect of street life in this area. 

Although I do think the design is turd-esque, so are many of the other stick built apartment buildings in Southend, so it's not the design the really makes my stomach turn.  In fact, if a building exactly like it was built on an empty lot somewhere in Southend, then I would have virtually no problems.  It would be just another crappy design amongst a sea of crappy looking buildings. 

What really brings my blood to a rolling boil is the fact that the designers chose to eliminate the historic buildings (and the small businesses they house) from the site plan but then unnecessarily preserve a lot of the open space along Camden as plaza space.  What they could have done instead is to design the building to abut Camden and build part of the building over the parking garage (a la RDF's hypothetical site plan) rather than having it as a "semi-detached" structural feature. 

Under a plan like RDF's the historical structures are saved, the businesses are preserved, and Southend gets an office building to house 300+ very well-paid employees with the possibility of more to come.  History preserved, small businesses saved, and high-paying jobs galore- there are no losers under such a scenario.  If the plan goes through as currently envisioned, DFA and Gaines Brown will win; however there will be a very real social cost to be shouldered by the neighborhood-a social cost that needn't be imposed.  DFA has the power to make this right, and I am hoping they do the right thing, change the site plan, and integrate the old buildings into the design.  If they don't want to keep the buildings themselves, they could sell that to a private developer or nonprofit that has interest in preserving heritage such as Preserve NC.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have it from a reliable source the site plan has changed drastically: street fronting retail, plaza space in the right places and the garage will be less street facing. Win win win 

Any word on the buildings that are currently there, or are those still goners?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^^Well I guess count me as one who still thinks this is a major loss.  They could easily keep the historic buildings and incorporate them into the site plan but instead, they choose to tear down.  Sometimes I think developers in Charlotte deliberately look for ways to tear down older buildings of character. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suspect many literally think that older structures on their site will actually detract from the value of their new project. But they genuinely want the location of the older structures because it's fresh in peoples' minds BECAUSE OF THE ORIGINAL BUILDINGS. (ie: Fat City, Common Market, etc)

 

Edited by SgtCampsalot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Around the corner from DC is Park Avenue where the Park Avenue condos were built. The storefront facade was retained leaving a pleasant ground level experience. I recall when Nevin Drugs and a shoe repair shop were here, among other businesses.

(How to insert a google street view url image?)

 

Edited by tarhoosier

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^You might be correct, but this particular project and the property assemblage happened well before Common Market opened.  I can remember thinking when CM opened.... why is are they putting so much money into upfitting a place that they know will be torn down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have not seen the new site plan and I am not necessarily an advocate to tear down old buildings... but I'd offer this as a counterpoint to this five alarm fire:

In 2008 this block was slated for demolition,but had no CM or food truck friday.  Today the block is slated for demolition and there are two community icons on the block.  In 2008 there was muted outcry for this block.  Today reading certain articles/posts you would think it were St Peter's basilica.  If the preservationists succeed here, what will be the message to developers:  I worry that it might be this:

If you have old buildings that you intend to demolish.  demolish them early.... and if you don't demolish them early, whatever you do, don't lease them to anyone that will create a cultural institution.  If you do the public will condemn your property.

I kind of go back to the Walter's article here and think... man we are lucky that Gaines Brown was willing to cultivate awesomeness on his block even when he knew that he would need to tear it down later.  Will we be stifling awesomeness by condemning this man's property?

Not trollling here... just wanting to enter this into the conversation.  It applies to parks as well.  Foundation for the Carolinas took a very bold step, in my opinion, in creating their pocket park at the Carolina Theater site.  Talk about opening yourself up to future public outcry...  I bet there are lots of developers out there sitting on land avoiding awesomeness, just because they don't want to deal with the Johnny-come-latelys that want this new thing to never change, and threaten their future use.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have not seen the new site plan and I am not necessarily an advocate to tear down old buildings... but I'd offer this as a counterpoint to this five alarm fire:

In 2008 this block was slated for demolition,but had no CM or food truck friday.  Today the block is slated for demolition and there are two community icons on the block.  In 2008 there was muted outcry for this block.  Today reading certain articles/posts you would think it were St Peter's basilica.  If the preservationists succeed here, what will be the message to developers:  I worry that it might be this:

If you have old buildings that you intend to demolish.  demolish them early.... and if you don't demolish them early, whatever you do, don't lease them to anyone that will create a cultural institution.  If you do the public will condemn your property.

I kind of go back to the Walter's article here and think... man we are lucky that Gaines Brown was willing to cultivate awesomeness on his block even when he knew that he would need to tear it down later.  Will we be stifling awesomeness by condemning this man's property?

Not trollling here... just wanting to enter this into the conversation.  It applies to parks as well.  Foundation for the Carolinas took a very bold step, in my opinion, in creating their pocket park at the Carolina Theater site.  Talk about opening yourself up to future public outcry...  I bet there are lots of developers out there sitting on land avoiding awesomeness, just because they don't want to deal with the Johnny-come-latelys that want this new thing to never change, and threaten their future use.

 

So are you arguing that; because the citizens of Charlotte have become more active and aware about losing our diminishing stock of older and architecturally interesting buildings, that it's a bad thing?  I would think it's an extraordinarily positive thing that people that live in a city stand up for what they believe in and attempt to influence the way the city they live in is developed.  I'm not sure I completely understand your point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just trying to bring some adult concepts into the conversation that usually trends toward "because it's old... and I like to drink there"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, you are correct that we need to raise the level of discourse as it pertains to development and razing old structures.

How's this: Old buildings of a bygone era are the physical strands of DNA that create a society's cultural identity. It is about more than being quaint, or interesting, thought that also has some value; They act as a compass for understanding who we are as a collective group of people. 

So it is not a great leap to say: Charlotte doesn't feel like it has "culture" or "identity"? Then stop tearing down old structures without a good reason that goes beyond "because capitalism." There are intangible things that have just as much value to the health of a city and its people as economic growth. Then, the argument has been made that maintaining a healthy ratio of old and new buildings helps the long-term vitality of a city's economic health.

Edited by SgtCampsalot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.