Dimensional Place (Common Market South End site)

[cltbwimob]

^^^Because preservation of history and/or neighborhood character are petty and childish concepts, right?  Without going into a detailed analysis, if I understand your argument correctly, what you are advocating is an economic concept known as a negative externality.  It is a type of market failure whereby the market of buyers and sellers-in this case Gaines and DFA-impose a social cost on the public at large that is not taken into account as part of their transaction. As a result, the market has failed to allocate resources in the optimum manner.  Worrying whether the free market will protect your interests (in this case, preservation) even when you are not a party to a transaction is an adult concept I assure you.  There are many adults with PhDs who devote countless hours studying such a phenomenon.

[ah59396]

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

That's one heck of a generalization.  We've noted previously that this area is more than just old buildings, it's a community space that is frequently used by the local populace.  So much so that it was highlighted for it in 2012 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G-XmC0FHWEo

 

I believe there is merit in this, as do many others.  And I'm glad the community cares more about it now than they did previously.  I just don't see a building housing a financial institution providing an open space for the community to get together.

[15895]

They should develop the block like Hearst Tower did.

 

They chose the food truck lot when there are dozens of other places to build. 

[archiham04]

First of all I'm not arguing any larger point... merely trying to open a nuanced conversation.  Further, I'm not promoting buildings be torn down... I was disappointed in 2008 when i learned of their doom and was disappointed that there was no public outcry to save them.. but I was resigned to their fate in 2008, and accept the defeat of 2008.  

The nuanced point is the awesomeness factor.  These properties were DOA in 2008 yet the property owner brought value to the community.  He could've paved it and sold parking.  He could've built mini storage, or leased CM to a check cashing tenant...  but he chose to go awesome.  I honestly worry whether their are owners out there sitting on their land and going the safe route to avoid controversy...  I wonder if there are things that can be done to encourage awesome... and I worry that late to the game outcries hurt future chances of awesomeness.

 

[ah59396]

First of all I'm not arguing any larger point... merely trying to open a nuanced conversation.  Further, I'm not promoting buildings be torn down... I was disappointed in 2008 when i learned of their doom and was disappointed that there was no public outcry to save them.. but I was resigned to their fate in 2008, and accept the defeat of 2008.  

The nuanced point is the awesomeness factor.  These properties were DOA in 2008 yet the property owner brought value to the community.  He could've paved it and sold parking.  He could've built mini storage, or leased CM to a check cashing tenant...  but he chose to go awesome.  I honestly worry whether their are owners out there sitting on their land and going the safe route to avoid controversy...  I wonder if there are things that can be done to encourage awesome... and I worry that late to the game outcries hurt future chances of awesomeness.

 

If this is happening, I have to imagine it is very limited.  I would presume any business person with any salt is going to take the money now instead of sitting on an abandoned property, simply to avoid future civic outcry.  But I don't have any proof to back that up.

[Spartan]

^^^Because preservation of history and/or neighborhood character are petty and childish concepts, right?  Without going into a detailed analysis, if I understand your argument correctly, what you are advocating is an economic concept known as a negative externality.  It is a type of market failure whereby the market of buyers and sellers-in this case Gaines and DFA-impose a social cost on the public at large that is not taken into account as part of their transaction. As a result, the market has failed to allocate resources in the optimum manner.  Worrying whether the free market will protect your interests (in this case, preservation) even when you are not a party to a transaction is an adult concept I assure you.  There are many adults with PhDs who devote countless hours studying such a phenomenon.

What it comes down to is the outrageously sheer irony that the developer's client wants to be in South End "because they like the vibe" and they are killing the two things that have done more to create the vibe in South End than anything else. If the negative externality wasn't known before, then surely it's known now. Hopefully the new site plan will be more considerate of what they are destroying. 

[Deleted.]

Is someone going to the meeting tonight? If so, could you report back on what they said? Thank you!  

And hopefully the plans are better this time around. 

Edited November 10, 2015 by Piedmont767

[CLTProductions]

Is someone going to the meeting tonight? If so, could you report back on what they said? Thank you!  

And hopefully the plans are better this time around. 

yup I'll be there and will update. 

[rjp212]

I'll be there too. I think a few of us UP'ers will be there.

[Deleted.]

I want wanted to go to the meeting tonight and the streetcar meeting, but I have to work. I'm definitely interesting is know what the plans are for this site. 

[RVA2CLT]

I didn't see it mentioned (my eyes might be getting worse though), but does anyone know if the adjacent buildings/land on Camden (Charlotte Post & Phat Burrito) are in play as well? 
 

 

[kermit]

I didn't see it mentioned (my eyes might be getting worse though), but does anyone know if the adjacent buildings/land on Camden (Charlotte Post & Phat Burrito) are in play as well?

That has not been mentioned here -- but that is not the same as saying that they are not in play.

I am not hinting at anything.

[CLTProductions]

• Now called Dimensional Place
• Cousins is doing it all in cash, no lenders
• Retail facing up against the street
• Smartly designed plaza space at the 3 main corners
• Masonry for the first few floors along the pedestrian areas
• 7 floors of office over the ground floor retail and lobby
  • building scales down as it gets closer to Wilmore
• 2 floors of parking undergound

I could go on and on but its much, much better

Edited November 11, 2015 by Jayvee

[SgtCampsalot]

• Masonry

If it's 100%, that'd sure be something. 

[CLTProductions]

Lobby is still big but it will act as an art gallery. These are not final and Duda Pine and Cousins will be continuously working with the community and folks to get it 100% right. and all masonry, no it's not. Design still isn't spectacular. But it's improved and the site plan is 10000x better

Edited November 11, 2015 by Jayvee

[SgtCampsalot]

They are better, yes.

I'm having a renewed sense of anger, however, about the whole thing again. 

[CLTProductions]

They are better, yes.

I'm having a renewed sense of anger, however, about the whole thing again. 

Not sure why at this point? They are continuously improving it. This is night and day better than the original plan. The buildings are gone, FT lot is gone, CM is gone. Bottom line, people need to get over that. They won't be saved and that sucks but this project is for the next 50+ years and it is vastly improved, they will continue to move in the right direction. Retail will focus on what works for the community, not chains.

16' sidewalks with hard scape, patio space and retail all along Camden. Lane added on Park street and what is being done to ease traffic is, not much they can do here though.

People will find ways to complain about this no matter what they do. Yes it is a bit of a loss losing those buildings (which, some dont actually don't have as much historical value and originality as people think), but I think their goal is sound in the sense that they want to be timeless for the neighborhood. And they are continuously looking to improve. I think people really need to get over whats being lost because 2 of the 3 are easily replaced and look at what we are gaining. This is still not perfect, but its a drastic improvement and I don't see how it wont continue to improve as they get more feedback.

The site plan works, the facade and design will change. There were great comments brought up about matching the DNA of the area, and I think they will take it to heart.

Edited November 11, 2015 by Jayvee

[SgtCampsalot]

Retail will focus on what works for the community, not chains.

16' sidewalks with hard scape, patio space and retail all along Camden. Lane added on Park street and what is being done to ease traffic

Those are pretty nice.

[rjp212]

I was fairly impressed with it at the meeting. I still feel there is far too much blank space on Tryon with the parking garage and the office tower still seems blah.  The Street level is a HUGE improvement though.

[appatone]

I have to say I was fairly pleased with the changes as well. The reduction of plaza space is a big plus in my book for addressing pedestrian experience. I still have concerns about a few basic elements of the street level experience. The plaza area on the corner of Park and Tryon will be fronting a fairly busy street. I would imagine this could make this plaza space less than inviting at busy times. I'd like for DP to take this into account and perhaps design the space in a way to provide a visual cue to drivers to slow down as they are entering into a more pedestrian friendly area. In addition, that retail space (Park and Tryon) is cut off from all other retail spaces and pedestrian zones by giant blank wall on either side of it. I'd like to continue to see improvement on the treatment of the blank walls on Tryon and Park and would really like to see some true creativity incorporated into those blank spaces.

[go_vertical]

I thought about that too when I saw the site plan but then it hit me, with the exception of phase 2 of Park and Kingston there hasn't been any projects showing love to S Tryon. Until developers start placing pedestrian scaled spaces alongside it the driving (or walking/sitting) experience won't change. I just hope this sitting area is a catalyst for more projects on Tryon. Camden is filling in nicely but if you stroll one block over its tumbleweeds and crickets (and speeding cars).

[SgtCampsalot]

Not sure why at this point? They are continuously improving it. This is night and day better than the original plan. The buildings are gone, FT lot is gone, CM is gone. Bottom line, people need to get over that. They won't be saved and that sucks but this project is for the next 50+ years and it is vastly improved, they will continue to move in the right direction.

You're right. I guess I'm just wondering if incorporating at least one of the old buildings into the site plan came up at all, and if so what the response was? I'm just morbidly curious at this point even if it's bad for my health.

[cltbwimob]

Not sure why at this point? They are continuously improving it. This is night and day better than the original plan. The buildings are gone, FT lot is gone, CM is gone. Bottom line, people need to get over that....

People will find ways to complain about this no matter what they do. Yes it is a bit of a loss losing those buildings (which, some dont actually don't have as much historical value and originality as people think)... I think people really need to get over whats being lost because 2 of the 3 are easily replaced and look at what we are gaining. This is still not perfect, but its a drastic improvement and I don't see how it wont continue to improve as they get more feedback.

I am going  to very respectfully (but very strongly) disagree with these points.  The site plan has sort of shape-shifted in the sense that now the parking deck and some of the retail spaces have shifted to be more street-facing, but the site plan and design of the office portion of the building still look to be largely intact.  In fact the new site plan looks somewhat like a bad hybrid of RDF's site plan and the original site plan proposed early last month. The new design still has a parking structure and retail spaces that are somewhat detached from the actual office building itself.  If they really wanted to create a good site plan they would vertically integrate the office building and the parking structure such that the buildings at the corner of Tryon and Camden can be left in place.  Instead they seem hell-bent on a horizontal integration of the two structures which will require the destruction of the old buildings.  Furthermore the materials and the design of the building itself still look like some sort of bad suburban interpretation of urban design.  It looks very much like it still belongs in Ballantyne.

At a minimum, they should consider either incorporating the current buildings into the new building (buildings within a building if you will) or at least keep the facades of those old buildings kind of like some other cities have done with their building stock in order to break up the monotony of what amounts to another superblock.  The facades on the two buildings on Camden and the flatiron at the corner could serve as ornamental entrances to the lobby that pay homage to the history of the corner.

Still I think RDF's approach to the site plan is leaps and bounds better than what Duda Paine has given us thus far.  It is not too late to change, all that is required is to vertically integrate the parking deck and the office tower more and leave the corner of Camden and Tryon alone.  There is not even that much land there.  Just shifting the office building portion back towards Park by about 50 ft would likely allow all buildings with the exception of the CM space to survive, then everyone gets what they want.  If we roll over now, then the old buildings are done, but if we keep fighting, we just might get something that makes everyone happy.  Telling everyone they should get over the old buildings is not the approach that should be taken here.  I am convinced the article in the Agenda and the ensuing public outcry was what got them to change their site plan in the first place; perhaps another article laser-focusing on the plight of the older buildings will somehow nudge the designers in the direction of at least keeping the facades of the old buildings and integrating them into their design.  Or perhaps it will nudge the designers into considering a site plan like RDFs and leaving the buildings entirely intact.  Either way, it would certainly be a better deal than what we have even after this most recent change.

[CLTProductions]

You can't please everyone. If they maintained the existing building and went up instead, it would be the residents of Wilmore complaining the building is too high instead of others complaining the old buildings are destroyed. Another thing about saving the facades alone, if you look at them, truly look at them, none of them are particularly that interesting. Standard really and the only reason people lament is that they fit the area. If the buildings design fit the area I don't think there would be nearly the complaints.

i like the new site plan a lot. It's probably about as good as we are going to get, but yes the design definitely still needs to improve. I have the ear of folks involved and I will suggest that each retail slot along Camden should have its own look and feel. Right now it feels like a continuous strip and it shouldn't. Each store front should have a different design or color matching DNA of the area. I think this will help a lot too.

as far as the blank wall along Tryon and the glass heavy design of the building, not really sure what can be done there. 

As much as people don't want to hear it, those old buildings are goners. Not sure much can be done. Will try, but it'll probably be for nothing. If they can nail a proper design I don't think they'll be missed either. If they fill the ground floor with solid tenants, have a great design and truly utilize the corners the way they say, I'm willing to bet years down the road no one will miss the old buildings.

Edited November 11, 2015 by Jayvee

[archiham04]

I'd like to see an elevation of park. Parking decks can be designed in such a way that their ground floor is convertible to retail. That would be a nice thing to see

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk