110 East: 23 story Tower by Stiles/Shorenstein

[BMore]

Yes it is beautiful

[Hushpuppy321]

Glassy sleek design - i think itll contrast greatly with the Lowes Tower.

I hope they actually do break ground this year.

[KJHburg]

Just wait taller and I think an even better design is coming to Southend.  

[j-man]

On 3/2/2020 at 5:13 PM, stw52 said:

 

SouthEnd has the best hidden garages. 

[Guest]

Just wait taller and I think an even better design is coming to Southend.  

I think I like this one, the other you saw looks not final. Just for costing.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[stw52]

50 minutes ago, Tyree Ricardo said:

I think I like this one, the other you saw looks not final. Just for costing.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

"I wanna see!I wanna see,!" as I throw my ice cream to the ground

[atlrvr]

[Mgelbach]

16 minutes ago, atlrvr said:

This looks absolutely amazing!

[Cadi40]

While the street level looks amazing, I wish it had a little bit more retail. I do like the public art and greenery, however whether that comes to fruition or not is debatable. 

[CharlotteWkndBuzz]

17 minutes ago, Cadi40 said:

While the street level looks amazing, I wish it had a little bit more retail. I do like the public art and greenery, however whether that comes to fruition or not is debatable. 

Maybe due to the size of the lot and that the first 9 floors is a parking deck...they were limited in what they could do retail wise...but agree, wish it had more, but even more so, I hope that deck screening doesn't get VE-ed.

I can't wait to eat at Serrano though!

Edited March 5, 2020 by CharlotteWkndBuzz

[Cadi40]

Either way, I'm pleased with this project. Hopefully this is one of many other large buildings to come to SouthEnd. This is definitely going to be one of the most desirable neighborhoods in the South East if not East Coast when done with it's growth. 

[turbocraig]

 

38 minutes ago, atlrvr said:

The upside down and backwards "EAST BLVD" projection over the entrance is an interesting concept.  Guessing that's meant to create a shadow that spells it out on the pavement or glass?  Wonder why they didn't render that here.  I like the idea though.

[michaelef]

Wow that station is going to tower over the light rail station! It's so close in that rendering

[carolinaboy]

This building and the new Duke Energy tower are my two favorites happening anywhere.

[kermit]

I live two blocks from this site, it has been a very thought provoking thread. Lots of posters who's opinions I value have challenged my thinking on parking.

I certainly can't pretend that parking is not vital for the success of any new build project in Charlotte at the present time. However, what concerns me is what happens to that parking in the future (and what that parking will do to the city in the future).  I doubt any of us here believe that our current auto dependence is sustainable or desirable -- we have to find a way to reduce our need to drive. This building, adjacent to our highest-capacity transit, in a TOD zoned area seems like a good place to start -- if not here then where? If not now then when?

• I walk to East-West station every day. It is likely I'll need to walk past this deck entrance. Does the developer have an obligation to remediate this new obstacle to the station for transit riders?  Over the long-term, parking decks like this one threaten the viability of our transit by making areas less walkable.
• What happens to this building if Southend offices end up with a 50% non-driving commuter share (like in Seattle today where there is a similar amount of rail transit). It seems very unlikely that the deck could be retrofitted for retail / office / residential -- will that render this building less competitive to tenants (and owners) in the future?  Will these parking-filled buildings become the equivalent of the empty suburban big-box store in the future? (dragging Southend and our transit investments down with them)
• Keep in mind that for every person saying that difficult or no-parking at their place of work would make them change jobs, there are likely an equal (and growing) number of people who would prefer to work in a walkable environment which (by definition) has little or no parking -- the market has shown us that this demand is real and sustained.  Transit is never going to serve every part of town well -- but the people who choose to live in non-transit accessible areas need to accept that there will be parts of town that will be a pain to drive to and park in — that is the cost of choosing to live in SFH suburbia. At Charlotte’s current growth rates we need to stop trying to accommodate drivers, it is impossible (and destructive) to try and keep pace.
• Pain in the ass parking is the first step in reducing driving. It costs me more than $500 per year to park where I work -- so I found another way to get there, it was not an impossible task. Easy parking encourages more people to live in places where they must drive, expensive parking encourages people to live in places where sustainable mobility is possible.
• There is no reason that Southend parking should be free. I was in Atlanta yesterday where I paid $6 to park at Ponce City Market and again at Krog Market. The parking charge did not appear to negatively impact business at either place and parking was available to customers who needed it.

So if parking is a "necessity" for this project to get built then how about this as a compromise: Every parking space in a transit accessible area has a $5 per day (per space) tax imposed. The tax would be paid to CATS and (ideally) earmarked to operations, service quality and improving frequency and capacity.  The rate is low enough that businesses can easily recoup the cost by charging for parking (like in Atlanta), the rate might be high enough to encourage drivers to look harder for other mobility options and also high enough for tenants to avoid buildings where the is parking in excess of their needs.  It looks to me (and the thousands of customers of Camden food places ) that the market for walkable commercial space  would shrug off this cost.

All I know is that we can't keep doing what we are doing -- we gotta make a change.  This seems like the right place (and the right time) for that change.

 

Edited March 7, 2020 by kermit

[atlrvr]

22 minutes ago, kermit said:

 

• What happens to this building if Southend offices end up with a 50% non-driving commuter share (like in Seattle today where there is a similar amount of rail transit). It seems very unlikely that the deck could be retrofitted for retail / office / residential -- will that render this building less competitive to tenants (and owners) in the future?  Will these parking-filled buildings become the equivalent of the empty suburban big-box store in the future? (dragging Southend and our transit investments down with them)

Autonomous car storage.  The personal transport concept isn't going away.  The shared+autonomous concept could arrive within the building lifespan, but they will still need storage.

These decks already solve that problem, and future redevelopment of other nearby occur without parking needs.

Proximity of those shared vehicles will always be vital.

[Windsurfer]

"Every parking space in a transit accessible area has a $5 per day (per space) tax imposed. The tax would be paid to CATS and (ideally) earmarked to operations, service quality and improving frequency and capacity.  The rate is low enough that businesses can easily recoup the cost by charging for parking (like in Atlanta), the rate might be high enough to encourage drivers to look harder for other options and high enough for tenants to avoid buildings where there are more than a minimal number of ..."

 

Define "transit accessible".  One block, two, three?

I think, for starters, and this would appeal to  the libertarian spirit, eliminated the requirement for parking spaces for businesses building new construction.  I know exactly how many spaces my firm needed when we built our warehouse. Never the less, we were required to pave over some undeveloped areas I wanted to preserve in order to meet the city's requirement.  ( they're always empty FWIW) How many spaces are these high rises required to have in the first place?  Perhaps, they'd cut back some anyway.

[Richhamleigh, DC]

3 hours ago, atlrvr said:

Did the renderings disappear from anyone else's screen?  I get the broken jpg icon...    Was it pretty?

[videtur quam contuor]

1 hour ago, kermit said:

I live two blocks from this site, it has been a very thought provoking thread. Lots of posters who's opinions I value have challenged my thinking on parking.

I certainly can't pretend that parking is not vital for the success of any new build project in Charlotte at the present time. However, what concerns me is what happens to that parking in the future (and what that parking will do to the city in the future).  I doubt any of us here believe that our current auto dependence is sustainable or desirable -- we have to find a way to reduce our need to drive. This building, adjacent to our highest-capacity transit, in a TOD zoned area seems like a good place to start -- if we don't start to discourage driving here then where (and when) do we start?  

• I walk to East-West station every day. It is likely I'll need to walk past this deck entrance. Does the developer have an obligation to remediate this new obstacle to the station for transit riders?  Over the long-term, parking decks like this one threaten the viability of our transit by making areas less walkable.
• What happens to this building if Southend offices end up with a 50% non-driving commuter share (like in Seattle today where there is a similar amount of rail transit). It seems very unlikely that the deck could be retrofitted for retail / office / residential -- will that render this building less competitive to tenants (and owners) in the future?  Will these parking-filled buildings become the equivalent of the empty suburban big-box store in the future? (dragging Southend and our transit investments down with them)
• Keep in mind that for every person saying that difficult or no-parking at their place of work would make them change jobs, there are likely an equal (and growing) number of people who would prefer to work in a walkable environment which (by definition) has little or no parking -- the market (and this building) has showed us that.  Transit is never going to serve every part of town well -- but the people who choose to live in non-transit accessible areas need to accept that their driving imposes substantial costs on other Charlotte residents.
• Pain in the ass parking is the first step in reducing driving. It costs me more than $500 per year to park where I work -- so I found another way to get there, its not an impossible task. Easy parking simply encourages more people to live in places where they must drive.
• There is no reason that Southend parking should be free. I was in Atlanta yesterday where I paid $6 to park at both Ponce City Market and Krog Market -- it did not appear to negatively impact business at either place.

So if parking is a "necessity" for this project to get built then how about this as a compromise. Every parking space in a transit accessible area has a $5 per day (per space) tax imposed. The tax would be paid to CATS and (ideally) earmarked to operations, service quality and improving frequency and capacity.  The rate is low enough that businesses can easily recoup the cost by charging for parking (like in Atlanta), the rate might be high enough to encourage drivers to look harder for other options and high enough for tenants to avoid buildings where there are more than a minimal number of spaces.  It looks to me like the market for walkable commercial space and the labor market would shrug off this cost -- walking down Camden on a weekend would quickly verify that.

All I know is that we can't keep doing what we are doing -- we gotta make a change.  This seems like the right place for that change to occur.

 

Agree in spirit. South End is the new. This building, despite its attractive rendering, is the same, the old. Better thinking can thrive in this location. Kermit suggests a partial remedy but this building will lead to another with the same situation, just as the Lowes building. The surfaces from this rendering are unusual but look deeper and there is what we ask about New Duke building, Legacy Union, and others. Why the first 100' of building height is automobile only and all that implies.

[jthomas]

54 minutes ago, kermit said:

 

• What happens to this building if Southend offices end up with a 50% non-driving commuter share (like in Seattle today where there is a similar amount of rail transit). It seems very unlikely that the deck could be retrofitted for retail / office / residential -- will that render this building less competitive to tenants (and owners) in the future?  Will these parking-filled buildings become the equivalent of the empty suburban big-box store in the future? (dragging Southend and our transit investments down with them)

So if parking is a "necessity" for this project to get built then how about this as a compromise. Every parking space in a transit accessible area has a $5 per day (per space) tax imposed. The tax would be paid to CATS and (ideally) earmarked to operations, service quality and improving frequency and capacity.  The rate is low enough that businesses can easily recoup the cost by charging for parking (like in Atlanta), the rate might be high enough to encourage drivers to look harder for other options and high enough for tenants to avoid buildings where there are more than a minimal number of spaces.  It looks to me like the market for walkable commercial space and the labor market would shrug off this cost -- walking down Camden on a weekend would quickly verify that.

 

 

Here's another idea for a solution. What if the TOD zoning district mandated a minimum floor-to-floor height for all structured parking? This minimum would be set at a height (say, +/- 14 feet) that would facilitate adaptive reuse of the parking structure. This would incentivize building owners to reduce the number of people who drive to their buildings, because as parking demand fell, they could convert parking levels to leaseable space.

There are a few buildings in other places that have incorporated this concept - Google the 84.51 Center in Cincinnati for an example.

[t_money]

23 minutes ago, Phillydog said:

Did the renderings disappear from anyone else's screen?  I get the broken jpg icon...    Was it pretty?

Still showing for me.

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, jthomas said:

Here's another idea for a solution. What if the TOD zoning district mandated a minimum floor-to-floor height for all structured parking? This minimum would be set at a height (say, +/- 14 feet) that would facilitate adaptive reuse of the parking structure. This would incentivize building owners to reduce the number of people who drive to their buildings, because as parking demand fell, they could convert parking levels to leaseable space.

There are a few buildings in other places that have incorporated this concept - Google the 84.51 Center in Cincinnati for an example.

It would also need to mandate how the ramps work, because internal ramps also make it mostly unusable for redevelopment. 

[kermit]

7 hours ago, atlrvr said:

Autonomous car storage.  The personal transport concept isn't going away.  The shared+autonomous concept could arrive within the building lifespan, but they will still need storage.

These decks already solve that problem, and future redevelopment of other nearby occur without parking needs.

Proximity of those shared vehicles will always be vital.

That assumes that the current car ownership model carries over to the autonomous era. I suspect that most autonomous vehicles would be shared (thus constantly circulating), rather than owned (which would require them to go 98% unused when they could be generating revenue for owners instead of occupying a space).

7 hours ago, Windsurfer said:

Define "transit accessible".  One block, two, three?

Dunno, that should be a community discussion.  Personally I would suggest 1/2 mile from stations (coincidentally this is the distance from the station to my office). Using the TOD zones that the city already designated (which I believe are 1/4 mile) would also make sense.  Fundamentally we need to recognize that its impossible to build walkability without making it harder to drive through or to those areas.

I will say that (based on the renderings) the ground floor structure, with the roof overhang, will be a significant benefit to folks waiting for Northbound trains.

Edited March 6, 2020 by kermit

[jthomas]

3 minutes ago, Tyree Ricardo said:

It would also need to mandate how the ramps work, because internal ramps also make it mostly unusable for redevelopment. 

Yep - I'm thinking the ramps would be steep, drive-only (no parking on sloped sections), and ideally removeable. Say, for example, a garage with a 150'x200' footprint, where the center 30'x100' is a speed ramp at 15% slope. Parking space gets converted to other uses from the top level down. As you convert each level, the ramp is removed, leaving behind an atrium space.

[DMann]

See parking by Trader Joe's at the Metropolitan