The RailYard SouthEnd

[Cadi40]

Eh, I'll take what I can get! At least we have some progress in regards that the Skyline is moving Southward! RDF has me excited for South End 

[KulBC]

A few shots from last week.

[Norm2]

1 hour ago, KulBC said:

A few shots from last week.

Woah! This thing is moving FAST!

[lit]

That location is awesome

[JacksonH]

So am I correct that in constructing this Railyard project, they destroyed this interesting old building?  Is there just no creativity in Charlotte?  Does every new building have to be about tearing down an old one -- a piece of Charlotte's history -- in the process?  They could no find a way to incorporate this into their project?  Build around it, build higher, incorporate it into what they are doing.  The most interesting cities are ones where the old is woven into the fabric of the new.  There seems to be such a lack of effort to find innovative ways to move ahead and preserve history at the same time.  Tearing down is too simple a solution.  While this is an impressive project, they could have still accomplished something wonderful without destroying something unique.

[Spartan]

Why save something cool when you can tear it down an build something new? It's the Charlotte way!!

[Hunted]

I really don’t understand this sentiment on this page. There’s literally nothing cool about that building.

[JorgiPorgi]

4 hours ago, JacksonH said:

So am I correct that in constructing this Railyard project, they destroyed this interesting old building?  Is there just no creativity in Charlotte?  Does every new building have to be about tearing down an old one -- a piece of Charlotte's history -- in the process?  They could no find a way to incorporate this into their project?  Build around it, build higher, incorporate it into what they are doing.  The most interesting cities are ones where the old is woven into the fabric of the new.  There seems to be such a lack of effort to find innovative ways to move ahead and preserve history at the same time.  Tearing down is too simple a solution.  While this is an impressive project, they could have still accomplished something wonderful without destroying something unique.

While I understand your frustration, this building is really not that cool or interesting.  Would much rather prefer Railyard - which will do much more for the Southend Neighborhood Aesthetic.

[JacksonH]

2 hours ago, Hunted said:

I really don’t understand this sentiment on this page. There’s literally nothing cool about that building.

It doesn't look cool because it wasn't being taken care of.  But it could have easily been made cool -- I can think of a number of simple fixes to make it really cool -- and with the right architects they could have created something just as spectacular as what they are doing without letting go of what little history is left in the city.  But it seems in Charlotte it's always do what is quickest and easiest, which usually means tears something down.  I've lived outside of Charlotte for many years and I've seen many examples of remarkable transformations of structures like this into handsome, hip places that people want to hang out in.  And I've seen how major developments can be created around old structures, even incorporating them into the design, so that nothing is lost.

44 minutes ago, Jordan84 said:

While I understand your frustration, this building is really not that cool or interesting.  Would much rather prefer Railyard - which will do much more for the Southend Neighborhood Aesthetic.

The reason Southend is what it is today is because of these old buildings.  If developers keep chipping away at that and replacing these structures, gentrifying the area, the cool vibe that attracted people in the first place will be lost and it will wind up being just another typical neighborhood with nothing special about it.

Edited March 9, 2018 by JacksonH

[Durhamite]

8 hours ago, Hunted said:

I really don’t understand this sentiment on this page. There’s literally nothing cool about that building.

I have to agree, the Railyard project looks 1000x better and it'll be "cool" in 20 or so years, hell it looks cool now.  This whole "cool" thing is really overrated because rehabbing or salvaging some of those places costs a lot of money. It's easy to lament about old buildings when you're not a developer and trying to make money.  At least this project unequivocally surpasses what was there in every sense imaginable.

Edited March 9, 2018 by Durhamite

[Hunted]

2 hours ago, Durhamite said:

I have to agree, the Railyard project looks 1000x better and it'll be "cool" in 20 or so years, hell it looks cool now.  This whole "cool" thing is really overrated because rehabbing or salvaging some of those places costs a lot of money. It's easy to lament about old buildings when you're not a developer and trying to make money.  At least this project unequivocally surpasses what was there in every sense imaginable.

A lot of people on this page think every structure that is old is worthy of preservation SIMPLY because it’s old. I’m just not understanding that.

Don’t get me wrong, if a building is architecturally impressive, we should definitely preserve it. But that building above looks like a freakin’ pawn shop, or something. I wouldn’t even hesitate to demolish it.

[SgtCampsalot]

5 minutes ago, Hunted said:

A lot of people on this page think every structure that is old is worthy of preservation SIMPLY because it’s old. I’m just not understanding that.

Don’t get me wrong, if a building is architecturally impressive, we should definitely preserve it. But that building above looks like a freakin’ pawn shop, or something. I wouldn’t even hesitate to demolish it.

To be fair, many of us grew up in the suburbs where everything was uniform, covered in stucco, and designed with planned-obselescance in mind. They were either brand new and sterile, or aging (a mere couple decades) and even worse looking than truly "old" buildings since they weren't designed to last.

So almost any structure that is not part of a "master planned" development is, in my mind, worthe re-investing in, because we're not getting those any more. Even our best new structures are part of a large-scale project with multiple parts that you can tell were built simultaneously. 

An interesting perspective tidbit: I once toured a native Brooklyn-ite around garden style apartments in Charlotte (your typical bland '80s structures), and she was overwhelmed with love of the architecture, just because they had pitched roofs. When I said how anything brick or stone makes me ecstatic, she was so confused, she couldn't understand why ugly brick and stone (what she sees as old and ubiquitous in New York) could be considered the epitome of beautiful to someone else.

[Guest]

15 hours ago, JacksonH said:

So am I correct that in constructing this Railyard project, they destroyed this interesting old building?  Is there just no creativity in Charlotte?  Does every new building have to be about tearing down an old one -- a piece of Charlotte's history -- in the process?  They could no find a way to incorporate this into their project?  Build around it, build higher, incorporate it into what they are doing.  The most interesting cities are ones where the old is woven into the fabric of the new.  There seems to be such a lack of effort to find innovative ways to move ahead and preserve history at the same time.  Tearing down is too simple a solution.  While this is an impressive project, they could have still accomplished something wonderful without destroying something unique.

That building was built in the late 40s, was clad in hardcoat stucco, was cinderblock construction, not masonry. Not really a relic in any way. I don't miss it. If it were 20 years older, brick and not built 30 feet off the street behind surface parking, I'd lament its removal, but saving suburban oriented structures is absolutely silly. This coming from me, who wants to save every low slung brick building in the city.

Edited March 9, 2018 by Guest

[jjwilli]

So there is a business grant in Charlotte to help offset the costs to repair facades of old buildings and they seem to be done (for the moment at least) granting any for the South End area. Sad.

Sorry for being slightly off topic.

[deleted]

38 minutes ago, ricky_davis_fan_21 said:

That building was built in the late 40s, was clad in hardcoat stucco, was cinderblock construction, not masonry. Not really a relic in any way. I don't miss it. If it were 20 years older, brick and not built 30 feet off the street behind surface parking, I'd lament its removal, but saving suburban oriented structures is absolutely silly. This coming from me, who wants to save every low slung brick building in the city.

I'm definitely with you and the majority on this one (the project is good enough to justify the destruction for sure).  However, I do think that is a pretty cool looking building and can think of several reuses that would have been great in different circumstances.  I guess one man's pawnshop is another man's microbrewery...

[Hunted]

Image from the webcam at 2:13pm March 9th. I thought this was supposed to be 8 floors, no? Looks like they're working on a 9th floor. Also, they're piecing together the center portion that separates the 2 towers.

[Guest]

16 minutes ago, Hunted said:

Image from the webcam at 2:13pm March 9th. I thought this was supposed to be 8 floors, no? Looks like they're working on a 9th floor. Also, they're piecing together the center portion that separates the 2 towers.

They are working on this piece at the top

[AP3]

29 minutes ago, Hunted said:

Image from the webcam at 2:13pm March 9th. I thought this was supposed to be 8 floors, no? Looks like they're working on a 9th floor. Also, they're piecing together the center portion that separates the 2 towers.

Re: connector building: They are just continuing the first tower.  The connector building is in the vicinity of the red crane (the crane is in the courtyard in the pic but the connector building is pushed further back from Tryon).  The second tower is going across from  Gin Mill - you can see the footers on the other corner.

[Hunted]

25 minutes ago, AP3 said:

Re: connector building: They are just continuing the first tower.  The connector building is in the vicinity of the red crane (the crane is in the courtyard in the pic but the connector building is pushed further back from Tryon).  The second tower is going across from  Gin Mill - you can see the footers on the other corner.

Ah, good call. Thanks, man.

[Nick2]

On 2/28/2018 at 12:54 PM, KJHburg said:

This picture has a really cool, grungy look to it. Kind of post-apocalyptic. (I like the look of power lines sometimes. Don't hate me)

[QClifer]

On 3/9/2018 at 2:58 PM, AP3 said:

Re: connector building: They are just continuing the first tower.  The connector building is in the vicinity of the red crane (the crane is in the courtyard in the pic but the connector building is pushed further back from Tryon).  The second tower is going across from  Gin Mill - you can see the footers on the other corner.

what will be built on the bottom of the photo where the driveway entrance is through the chainlink fence? what goes along that street?   maybe there are no plans currently,  the tower portion takes up the front half of the property it looks like    thanks

[atlrvr]

On 2/26/2018 at 1:15 PM, jtmonk said:

Just quoting to answer the above question..... apartments.

[Guest]

Just quoting to answer the above question..... apartments.

I posted these previously, there’s been a design update, I’ll see if i can get revised images tomorrow.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Scribe]

On 3/12/2018 at 1:29 AM, ricky_davis_fan_21 said:

I’ll see if i can get revised images tomorrow.

[Spartan]

On 3/9/2018 at 10:02 AM, Hunted said:

A lot of people on this page think every structure that is old is worthy of preservation SIMPLY because it’s old. I’m just not understanding that.

Don’t get me wrong, if a building is architecturally impressive, we should definitely preserve it. But that building above looks like a freakin’ pawn shop, or something. I wouldn’t even hesitate to demolish it.

In defense of us preservationists - the point is not the loss of an individual building in and of itself. The problem is that these buildings, collectively, contribute to the sense of place in South End (or whatever neighborhood they are in). There are some buildings that need to go (e.g. most of them on Tremont Ave), but there are others that add value and can be retrofitted and saved. The building being discussed here could have easily been given a power wash or pain and a façade lift to make it look nicer. All it really needed was someone with a vision for it.

In Charlotte, however, architectural history is not sacred or valued unless part of a wealthy single family residential neighborhood (and even then its somewhat tenuous).  The culture here wants what is trendy, and those of you who are indifferent (or hate) old things because they are old are going to win out in the long run, so don't get too upset about it. I gave up on South End retaining any sense of its former self when only of the only rows of historic buildings was razed to build a generic office building. And the ultimate irony is that the company wanted to be in South End because they liked the so-called "vibe." 

Anyway, is RailYard going to be an improvement? From an architectural standpoint I'd call it a wash, but it will have ground floor retail and the developer seems to be well intentioned, so I am optimistic.