Queensbridge Collective (Uptown Cabaret site) - 3 towers

[KJHburg]

New renderings of Riverside's project coming soon I hear 

[DonkeyKong]

3 hours ago, KJHburg said:

New renderings of Riverside's project coming soon I hear 

Question is who is the anchor tenant??

[KJHburg]

Just now, DonkeyKong said:

Question is who is the anchor tenant??

I have my thoughts:  locally I would say Bank of America is a strong possibility as they several leases coming up.  

[DonkeyKong]

2 minutes ago, KJHburg said:

I have my thoughts:  locally I would say Bank of America is a strong possibility as they several leases coming up.  

I wouldn’t be mad if they did, but seems uncharacteristic since it’s outside the loop.

[Hushpuppy321]

4 hours ago, RANYC said:

Yea?  Any updates?  It will run 4 years, won’t break ground for like 10 months, so we might see a few more of these digressions.  
 
Midnight Diner’s relocation to the CTC area is just one of the many ripples emanating from these plans.

At some point, we’ll pivot to Cabaret and its demise.

There digressions are mere branches on the massive live oak that is the major riverside development transformation project.

That sounds fantastic - 4 year development for three (3) Towers and starting by years end, that’s fast even for Charlotte.  Gauntlet thrown down in the face of LH & Legacy Union Project.

[DMann]

Anyone smell a rumor here?

 

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-01-18/sofi-granted-u-s-bank-charter-as-firm-acquires-golden-pacific

[queensguy06]

1 hour ago, DMann said:

Anyone smell a rumor here?

 

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-01-18/sofi-granted-u-s-bank-charter-as-firm-acquires-golden-pacific

About what? SoFi is headquartered in San Fran and heavily invested throughout CA. Hell, the new rams/chargers multi-billion dollar stadium is SoFi Stadium, which I’m sure cost a pretty penny for naming rights. Golden Pacific is HQ in Sacramento. If the insinuation is offices in Charlotte I don’t see any connection whatsoever.

EDIT: I was curious and looked up the naming rights agreement with SoFi and the stadium - 20 year naming rights term worth $625 million. 

Edited January 19, 2022 by queensguy06

[atlrvr]

Opening a Charlotte office wouldn't be surprising.  Opening an office big enough to anchor this project would be.

[origin.clt]

Attempted to model the building based on the initial rendering and the description a couple of pages back.  No clue how close this is, but a tower of this scale will definitely make an impact.  Very curious about what the Carson side of the site looks like given that it faces townhomes.

 

[DownEast]

Attempt??? Lol. That looks amazing. Imagining the E/W station skyline down the road... Gonna be something in a few years. 

[Reverie39]

Man, that is going to be transformational. The skyline will no longer be contained by 277. 

[san]

I hope that we get more towers around jt though, I wouldn’t want our skyline to be so fragmented like Atlanta’s. One thing I’ve loved about Charlotte’s skyline is how unified it’s all been, with the gaps being filled in these past few years.

Very excited to see the skyline expand though!

Edited February 6, 2022 by san

[Hushpuppy321]

I like the fact there’s a strong possibility that Charlotte could get its 9th Tower over 500’ Tall from this projects main Tower.  #8 will be DEC2 after it’s completed.

[KJHburg]

50 minutes ago, Hushpuppy321 said:

I like the fact there’s a strong possibility that Charlotte could get its 9th Tower over 500’ Tall from this projects main Tower.  #8 will be DEC2 after it’s completed.

the proposed tower at the Riverside Investment site from what I saw is over 600 feet so it will be far the tallest outside the uptown loop. 

6 hours ago, origin.clt said:

Attempted to model the building based on the initial rendering and the description a couple of pages back.  No clue how close this is, but a tower of this scale will definitely make an impact.  Very curious about what the Carson side of the site looks like given that it faces townhomes.

 

 

this week you might have to modify and add one more tower I hope you don't mind. 

Edited February 6, 2022 by KJHburg

[Reverie39]

1 hour ago, san said:

I hope that we get more towers around jt though, I wouldn’t want our skyline to be so fragmented like Atlanta’s. One thing I’ve loved about Charlotte’s skyline is how unified it’s all been, with the gaps being filled in these past few years.

Very excited to see the skyline expand though!

Is there anything in the works for the parking lots/smaller building lots right off of 277 between Church and College? I think the skyline will feel a little disjointed until those are filled in with high-rises especially since 277 itself eats up so much space. 

If any towers get built there, the view driving on 277 through that area is going to be very impressive.

[JeanClt]

Attempted to model the building based on the initial rendering and the description a couple of pages back.  No clue how close this is, but a tower of this scale will definitely make an impact.  Very curious about what the Carson side of the site looks like given that it faces townhomes.
http://up-bucket-0.s3.amazonaws.com/monthly_2022_02/Caberet_Guess_1.thumb.jpg.c9c12bf0cf35820fff122e7bb66a8909.jpg
 

Is there a way to view 3D files like this? I’ve seen some 3D renderings viewed like a map. Are your files free to view? It’d be cool to get a glimpse into the future skyline!

[NcSc74]

I've dreamed of significant height outside of uptown for 20 years.   Fingers crossed this happens. Then all that needs to happen is cap 277 and elvate 77 to get some visibility and BAM in your face; 3rd best skyline in the southeast and 5th best in the south.  Just aesthetically speaking;

From my perspective

1. Miami-95south hands down no comp; compact, fills the horizon compact and dense.

2. Dallas-35 south is impressive but like Houston its multi-nodal 

3. ATL-very linear and spread out but impressive if taken in from the right angle; actually could be number 2; i havent been in 5 years though.

4. Houston-very similar to Charlotte cdb massing but very spread out; medical district and galleria would put up there with Miami

5. Charlotte-needs nore height outside uptown like Dallas medical district , southend can be that extension; needs the wards to fill out and add some density 

[go_vertical]

13 hours ago, san said:

I hope that we get more towers around jt though, I wouldn’t want our skyline to be so fragmented like Atlanta’s. One thing I’ve loved about Charlotte’s skyline is how unified it’s all been, with the gaps being filled in these past few years.

Very excited to see the skyline expand though!

It's only a matter of time.  Had it not been for the pandemic I think we would have seen something at the Enterprise lot by now. That will be at least two towers.  Eventually Spectrum News will want to cash in on their choice location and I wouldn't count out some mid-rise residential between the Y and Strawn.  The reuse of the old buildings along Morehead between Church and Mint appears to be dead in the water so those lots might go back on the market one day and the price they will command will push some decent density.  And I think the owners of the Cigar Club lot will eventually be approached with an offer they can't refuse.  Also, at some point it's no longer going to make sense to keep parking school busses along Carson.  Oh, and East Morehead will continue to densify at a brisk pace.

 TLDR:  There are a ton of empty or underutilized parcels surrounding this and once things start to return to normal post covid this area will be white hot. 

[CLT Development]

17 hours ago, origin.clt said:

Attempted to model the building based on the initial rendering and the description a couple of pages back.  No clue how close this is, but a tower of this scale will definitely make an impact.  Very curious about what the Carson side of the site looks like given that it faces townhomes.

 

You are nearly spot on. I might send you a couple other things to model into it that haven't been released yet.

12 hours ago, KJHburg said:

the proposed tower at the Riverside Investment site from what I saw is over 600 feet so it will be far the tallest outside the uptown loop. 

this week you might have to modify and add one more tower I hope you don't mind. 

Two more towers**

[Reverie39]

8 hours ago, NcSc74 said:

I've dreamed of significant height outside of uptown for 20 years.   Fingers crossed this happens. Then all that needs to happen is cap 277 and elvate 77 to get some visibility and BAM in your face; 3rd best skyline in the southeast and 5th best in the south.  Just aesthetically speaking;

From my perspective

1. Miami-95south hands down no comp; compact, fills the horizon compact and dense.

2. Dallas-35 south is impressive but like Houston its multi-nodal 

3. ATL-very linear and spread out but impressive if taken in from the right angle; actually could be number 2; i havent been in 5 years though.

4. Houston-very similar to Charlotte cdb massing but very spread out; medical district and galleria would put up there with Miami

5. Charlotte-needs nore height outside uptown like Dallas medical district , southend can be that extension; needs the wards to fill out and add some density 

Agreed on 3rd best in the southeast. Unfortunately there's no moving up that southeast list as Miami and Atlanta have some of the most impressive skylines of any city in the country. Miami especially is unrivaled by maybe every city except NYC and Chicago. 

Half of downtown Houston is parking lots. It's a huge city so naturally has lots of very tall buildings but I've never been super impressed with the downtown itself. All the buildings are weirdly flat-topped too? Looks odd. Charlotte can beat it one day considering Uptown-South End is much more continuous than downtown Houston to any of the other high-rise areas in the city. 

Edited February 6, 2022 by Reverie39

[MothBeast]

I think aesthetically we far outpace any city in Texas, but by massing we have a ways to go. I think our 5 best skyscrapers could challenge any city’s outside of NY/CHI/MIA/SF.

[RANYC]

https://www.smartcitiesdive.com/ex/sustainablecitiescollective/7-reasons-why-high-rises-kill-livability/561536/

not anti-high-rise, but as the prospects for more high-rises in south end are rattled off on this thread, and given the out-of-context scaling of garages at 110 East and at the Lowe's Building, I think it's important to revisit the potential deleterious impact of high-rises on a neighborhood's livability, especially when car-centricity is accommodated.  

Trade-Off?

• South-End's livability and charm
• Dense Majesty of a Skyline largely taken in via drone or from the high-way or from afar

From what I've seen of the Riverside plans, it appears South-End will gain a nice pedestrian plaza out of it.  Line it with creative, place-making, experiential and differentiated retail fronting the streetscape and we're making real progress, IMO.

 

Edited February 6, 2022 by RANYC

[CLT Development]

54 minutes ago, RANYC said:

https://www.smartcitiesdive.com/ex/sustainablecitiescollective/7-reasons-why-high-rises-kill-livability/561536/

not anti-high-rise, but as the prospects for more high-rises in south end are rattled off on this thread, and given the scaling of garages at 110 East and at the Lowe's Building, I think it's important to revisit the potential deleterious impact of high-rises on a neighborhood's livability, especially when car-centricity is accommodated.  At some point, there may be a trade-off between the livability and allure of SE for those of us who walk everywhere and like dipping in and out of a charming, small-footprint and eclectic pedestrian offerings, and the majesty of structures mainly engaged with from afar or from a highway.

Charming, small-footprint just cannot be financed in these neighborhoods dude, land is trading at more than $10M an acre. And while yes you could drastically cut the amount of parking in a residential tower, you could not in a project like Lowes or 110 East. You cannot ask all of your employees to "figure it out" because then you won't attract talent. People can control where they live closeely, so you can cut parking decks tremendously on multifamily projects and there are three very reduced (and in one case eliminated) apartment buildings in development in Optimist Park. You cannot however for office, where most likely, your team only drives. And don't tell me "use park and rides" because theres only about 5,000 total park and ride spaces along the rail. Parking is our reality until we have even a little bit of realistic direction in our transit plans.

The good news is, the pedestrian frontage of these projects are getting softened greatly, and there are 5 projects in development who will position their retail along the rail trail. 

Edited February 6, 2022 by The Real Clayton

[RANYC]

9 hours ago, The Real Clayton said:

Charming, small-footprint just cannot be financed in these neighborhoods dude, land is trading at more than $10M an acre. And while yes you could drastically cut the amount of parking in a residential tower, you could not in a project like Lowes or 110 East. You cannot ask all of your employees to "figure it out" because then you won't attract talent. People can control where they live closeely, so you can cut parking decks tremendously on multifamily projects and there are three very reduced (and in one case eliminated) apartment buildings in development in Optimist Park. You cannot however for office, where most likely, your team only drives. And don't tell me "use park and rides" because theres only about 5,000 total park and ride spaces along the rail. Parking is our reality until we have even a little bit of realistic direction in our transit plans.

Might land be trading where it is because of what's being allowed?  Long-standing real estate game to land bank a low-rise area, strategically lobby for widespread, mid and high-rise allowances, then with new allowed uses, your inventory is vastly under-utilized and you sell for multiples of what you bought in at. 

As I said, I'm not opposed to high-rises, as long as lots with structurally large buildings are strategically deemed to have adequate capacity for such uses.  

I'd argue that the capacity requirement is met in parts of South End and other areas along the light-rail line.  

However, the scale of these buildings should invite rigorous "design" objectives, and building-to-street interactions should be scrutinized.  (Side Note: There is such a thing as requiring a small-footprint "look" at ground level, and then the rest of the building scales vertically with plenty of setback for a human-scaled interaction with the street.)

I think it's totally fair for someone to argue that the lack of a clear transit strategy in Charlotte is Charlotte's binding constraint on density.  Plenty in our southern peer group show us that density without the change management of car-reliance to transit-dependency creates an interminable (and expensive) battle with cluster-F living.  And NYC taught me that at some point, density becomes an interminable war with dysfunction.

 

 

Edited February 7, 2022 by RANYC

[CLT Development]

3 hours ago, RANYC said:

Might land be trading where it is because of what's being allowed?  Long-standing real estate game to land bank a low-rise area, strategically lobby for widespread, mid and high-rise allowances, then with new allowed uses, your inventory is vastly under-utilized and you sell for multiples of what you bought in at. 

As I said, I'm not opposed to high-rises, as long as lots with structurally large buildings are strategically deemed to have adequate capacity for such uses.  

I'd argue that the capacity requirement is met in parts of South End and other areas along the light-rail line.  

However, the scale of these buildings should invite rigorous "design" objectives, and building-to-street interactions should be scrutinized.  (Side Note: There is such a thing as requiring a small-footprint "look" at ground level, and then the rest of the building scales vertically with plenty of setback for a human-scaled interaction with the street.)

I think it's totally fair for someone to argue that the lack of a clear transit strategy in Charlotte is Charlotte's binding constraint on density.  Plenty in our southern peer group show us that density without the change management of car-reliance to transit-dependency create an interminable (and expensive) battle with cluster-F living.  And NYC taught me that at some point, density becomes an interminable war with dysfunction.

 

 

"There is such a thing as requiring a small-footprint "look" at ground level, and then the rest of the building scales vertically with plenty of setback for a human-scaled interaction with the street."

Now this I agree 100% with. Setbacks.