Jump to content

Jt282506

East West Station: 23 story Tower by Stiles/Shorenstein

Recommended Posts


36 minutes ago, DamicoKaren said:

This is Sexy AF

ewrendering1_750xx1047-1396-77-0.jpg

While I wish this was on the  N. Tryon end, I cant disagree that this is one sexy building. 

Edited by DM1LLS
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, DM1LLS said:

While I wish this was on the  N. Tryon end, I cant disagree that this is one sexy building. 

South end is getting all the cool buildings 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/2/2020 at 5:13 PM, stw52 said:

 

SouthEnd has the best hidden garages. 

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

  • Like 1
  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by CharlotteWkndBuzz
  • Like 1
  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

38 minutes ago, atlrvr said:

image001.jpg

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"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.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, atlrvr said:

image002.jpg

image001.jpg

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • 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.