Jump to content

Queensbridge Collective - 1 tower, maybe 2


CarolinaDaydreamin

Recommended Posts


1 hour ago, TheRealClayton said:

nah, the cap wouldn't make it to the pedestrian bridge. It would likely be between Church and College, there are significant grade issues once you get to "The Francis" and Camden Grandview's Townhouses.

 

1 hour ago, TheRealClayton said:

nah, the cap wouldn't make it to the pedestrian bridge. It would likely be between Church and College, there are significant grade issues once you get to "The Francis" and Camden Grandview's Townhouses.

bummer

Edited by RANYC
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, kermit said:

“Aka BMO”?

Did someone forget to take that out of the url?

BMO Harris is the Chicago based US arm of Bank of Montreal. That would track given the developer's primary market. 

Edit: Also this Chicago project https://riversideid.com/portfolio/union-station-tower is named BMO Tower

Edited by InTheYear2000
Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, CLT2014 said:

This person should just quit their job in journalism now for writing that headline.

Person that actually lives in townhome with view blocked: "“There was no way that view wouldn’t be blocked,” he said. “We knew at some point it was going to be blocked. We enjoyed it to this point, but it’s changing and we’ll see what it looks like when it’s done. It’s not the end all be all for being right here, though.”

Random person they interviewed walking down the street that does NOT live in the adjacent townhomes: “If I lived here, I’d be upset,” said Michael Cruso. “I wouldn’t want the skyline to be blocked. It’s one of the advantages— I wouldn’t be for that at all.”

So the article headline is based on one random person that doesn't even live in the adjacent homes?

How does that result in this article headline other than click bait? 

That key word “if”, and for everyone else who understand how the real world works, this is part of living in a city. Unless you own the adjacent property and the air rights, there is always a very good chance any skyline views that you may have enjoyed could be blocked at any time. 

But hey no doubt Riverside will just throw everything out the window cause random dude in front of Midnight Diner thinks the residents may object lol

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, KJHburg said:

I would say if Wells moves it HQ here they will designate the current DEC which they own as their HQ.  They already have a signature tower that they own.  Especially since they are pushing Duke Energy out of the top of it.  

DEC will still be referred to as a Duke Energy building to majority of locals regardless of what they are building across the street. And the new building sharing a similar design doesn’t help. If Wells is moving their HQ here I think they would want a new signature tower to slap their name on. 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, TheOneRJ said:

DEC will still be referred to as a Duke Energy building to majority of locals regardless of what they are building across the street. And the new building sharing a similar design doesn’t help. If Wells is moving their HQ here I think they would want a new signature tower to slap their name on. 

Wells Fargo owes the Feds millions in fines. I don't think they would want to build a new tower.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/5/2021 at 8:41 AM, SydneyCarton said:

With the development of skyscrapers in SouthEnd, Charlotte's skyline is going to start looking quite large -- kind of like Midtown and Downtown Atl. 

Truth be told, we're already over 60% of size of Metro Atlanta,  so matching them in skyline appearance makes sense. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, MarcoPolo said:

Alas, one fly in the ointment of the metropolitan minded is the portion of the Grandview townhome development along South Blvd that spills down grade at its rear, to hug the JBF a mere 50 ft or so from the exit lanes....and only 10 ft or so above the traffic they carry beyond the chain link fence and grass verge.   These would never have been permitted if attentive minds to the constant improvement of the City held more sway here.  The opportunity to reach across and heal the open wound stretching from just north of S. Church St, to just south of South Blvd (including an exit there more appropriate to its context), would be less "hairy" were it not for the 13 homeowners who now have a voice in the discussion, and we all know how that may potentially unfold.   Unless they can be "bought-out-right" some manner of compromised design will result.  And, long after the passion to save the little guy from the onslaught of progress flames out and the townhomes that fanned the flames succumb to the inevitable property value decline suffered from their awkward placement are demolished, the site they held will remain; an intruder reminding everyone of what could have been.

Aren't those townhouses rentals managed by Camden? I thought they were part of the larger Grandview rental complex.

Link to comment
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.

×
×
  • 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.