• Announcements

    • Neo

      WARNING!   07/26/16

      By reading or participating in the Coffee House forum, you are acknowledging that some topics may be highly controversial in nature. While we make every attempt to ensure that no one and no groups are offended as a result of discussions contained within, we unfortunately can make no guarantees. Participate in threads contained within this forum at your own risk.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Seabreeze

Should Charlotte require stricter guidelines on high rise design?

Should Charlotte prevent ugly highrises?  

22 members have voted

  1. 1. Should the city require renderings of all sides of highrises before being built?

    • Yes
      14
    • No
      8


Recommended Posts

Did Charlotte really see this coming? I think the view from Independence going to uptown was one of the best... Now I just see the back of Courtside... it really doesn't do this city justice! And to think, someone mentioned the back of Trademark could be just as unappealing, and that building will be seen by the nation as they watch our football games. So, do you think renderings should be required for all 360 degrees of a building? Maybe I am jumping to conclusions and the back of Courtside isn't finished... but if it is, ahh!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


It would have been nice for the city to push for better design on the back of Courtside, but I'm not so sure it makes sense for them to require renderings on all sides for every building.

Architecture is subjective anyway. Many people don't even think very highly of the front of Courtside and Trademark.

I say just keep going with our current system, and hope the architects pay better attention to all sides of the buildings for their own reputation's sake.

One lesson I wish we'd learn from Courtside and others, is that EFIS is just plain ugly, especially when it covers a large surface area. I'd love it if the city would ban the use of it, especially for buildings above 2 or 3 stories.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't even think the backside of Courtside is too bad, but then again I really like 200 S. Tryon and the Wachovia boxes...

Trademark does have rendering available of the back side on its web site.

I also posted that rendering here: http://www.urbanplanet.org/forums/index.ph...ndpost&p=268782

I doubt even if Furman had shown the renderings of the back of Courtside to the city or Courtside buyers that it would have made a difference. Also, in renderings, the flat walls look smooth and nicer. In real life, the EFIS texture makes it look worse than any rendering would show.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I don't see how allowing these structures makes our skyline any more appealing. And I think peopel should care. That is the same idea as having a home with a brick facade and then vinyl siding on all the other sides. It is tacky!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Courtside could have been done a lot better. The very lacking backside looks that way because the developer cut costs and did it on the cheap. Next time they announce a tower in CLT, hopefully we will get renderings of all of the sides of the building. Unfortunately given its location there really isn't a good place to see courtside's front side as part of the skyline.

With that said, its still better than no tower at all. It could have been a parking lot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with banning the use of EFIS on large buildings.....I would do it such that EFIS can't cover more than 10% of the non-translucent surfaces.

I don't feel that the city needs to regulate architecture for a couple of reasons....obviously the city council and leaders have NO sense of artistic or architectual style....they've butchered every building they've been involved with (sans-the new Children's Theatre, though that was the county). In order for the city to evolve organically, it takes risks on the part of architects and developers....the good and bad eventually blend together to make something unique.

All that said, I would love for the city to allow advertisements on buildings.....a giant Absolut ad on the the back of Courtside would please me very much.

620_4061fa60.jpg

Here's a good example of what I would want....this is in NYC I think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That would be cool. Building ads were popular 100 years ago.

I wish the city had saved the 90 year old cooking oil painted ads that were discovered between the two buildings at Trade and Brevard as they were tearing them down for the arena.

Even if it weren't a billboard, surely they could do some artistic paint pattern to improve the appearance. It is a blank slate right now. That is what they did with the side of the building at Kworth and East. It was exposed cinderblock when they added the entrance to Phase II of Kworth Commons. They had an artist paint a set of evenly-spaced colored squares, and the wall is now an interesting and unique addition to the area.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like the Charlotte Coca-Coca sign on the side of the Cotton Mills. Sure, it's not authentic, but it still adds quite a bit of character to that corner of 6th & Graham.

I always got a kick out of very old ads on the sides of brick buildings that are discovered when an abutting structure is torn down. There is a website devoted to that for such disoveries in nyc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like the Charlotte Coca-Coca sign on the side of the Cotton Mills. Sure, it's not authentic, but it still adds quite a bit of character to that corner of 6th & Graham.

I always got a kick out of very old ads on the sides of brick buildings that are discovered when an abutting structure is torn down. There is a website devoted to that for such disoveries in nyc.

That is authentic. My understanding is that it is a restoration of the one that was already on the old building. I think I recall seeing it before it was restored. For restored buildings and art, it is a fine line as to whether it is old or new. But many of the centuries old buildings in Europe were rebuilt after wars, and much of the art and paintings have also been restored at various points in time, I think it is fair to call them authentic.

New York is filled with those old ads on the sides of buildings. I think it adds considerably to the urban charm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is authentic. My understanding is that it is a restoration of the one that was already on the old building. I think I recall seeing it before it was restored. For restored buildings and art, it is a fine line as to whether it is old or new. But many of the centuries old buildings in Europe were rebuilt after wars, and much of the art and paintings have also been restored at various points in time, I think it is fair to call them authentic.

New York is filled with those old ads on the sides of buildings. I think it adds considerably to the urban charm.

i agree... i usually like the old ads and murals. but thank god we don't have any sports stars painted on wachovia. i can't imagine charlotte doing something as corny as that again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.