Jump to content

Charter Square (Site One)


avery

Recommended Posts

This project is going to happen. They have the muscle and money to get it done. Craig Davis will get it done. By the way I love it 100%. It brings a type of nature stone and glass buildings that the city needs. No more pretty brick. :scared: I went to State but I am tired of the brick. <_< We are in the 21st century let build like it also!!!! :shades:

Link to comment
Share on other sites


I can understand all of the negative comments to a degree, but I've said before, the delay is due to the city using "site 1" as a staging area for the RCC/hotel construction. Maybe this was agreed upon before, or maybe TMC wanted the delay to let the market mature... I don't know, but the fact remains that nothing can be built on that site until it's cleared for use.

City Site One is being developed by TMC Associates; a joint venture between East-West Partners, Craig Davis Properties and White Oak Properties.

The City Site One proposed plan consists of two towers, constructed of natural stone and glass. Building One will consist of approximately 405,000 square feet of office, retail and residential space on nineteen floors. Building Two will consist of 30,000 square feet of retail space with 120 residential units above the retail. The buildings will sit atop a 690 space underground, city operated parking deck and approximately 600 spaces will be reserved for the building

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can understand all of the negative comments to a degree, but I've said before, the delay is due to the city using "site 1" as a staging area for the RCC/hotel construction. Maybe this was agreed upon before, or maybe TMC wanted the delay to let the market mature... I don't know, but the fact remains that nothing can be built on that site until it's cleared for use.

City Site One is being developed by TMC Associates; a joint venture between East-West Partners, Craig Davis Properties and White Oak Properties.

The City Site One proposed plan consists of two towers, constructed of natural stone and glass. Building One will consist of approximately 405,000 square feet of office, retail and residential space on nineteen floors. Building Two will consist of 30,000 square feet of retail space with 120 residential units above the retail. The buildings will sit atop a 690 space underground, city operated parking deck and approximately 600 spaces will be reserved for the building

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree that this new design is different-- and we need different-- but I liked the old rendering better. Specifically, I like the taller tower's old design. I thought it was unique and attractive.

Any idea the height of the taller building? The tower's look shorter than I think they could be. 19 stories isn't great.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree that this new design is different-- and we need different-- but I liked the old rendering better. Specifically, I like the taller tower's old design. I thought it was unique and attractive.

Any idea the height of the taller building? The tower's look shorter than I think they could be. 19 stories isn't great.

Although the height is down 1 story I believe the height is the same if not taller. It is over the twice the elevation of the 12 story compliment. But those stories are taller since it is an office building. This will make a tremendous impact on the sky line. The presence of tower 1 should be great as it will visually be the 3rd tallest within the south cluster of DT(after RBC and excluding Wachovia tower). I'd say it should reach up to the 20-24th floor of BB&T including the two antenna. All of this is speculative.

What is not surprising to me though, is that our rendering, the only guideline we have had in the past 2 years, could use some adjustments. Namely the Marriott. From the angle taken, the Marriott virtually blocks a portion of the bB&T building. But in actuality it does not block the BB&T nearly as much as is rendered.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It looks kinda "RBC Plaza"-ish, but it will look good/different compared to One and Two Hannover, which is gray in the renderings.

The office tower will be taller than the Bank of America box and visible from the "money shot" on South Saunders.

I hope the "glass lobby" between the two buildings will create a good Wilmington to F Street connection.

Why is there a "drop" in the West elevation view? I thought the parking deck under all of this was going to be flat. Or will it gradually slope down to meet Lenoir? The steps could be cool, but there would need to be a handicap-accessible option, maybe one following the slope of the street.

With the speed RBC Plaza is going up, Site 1 could be done by the end of 08 *if* the parking deck work finishes up in the next few months. How big of an "if" that is, I'm not sure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With maybe one more site to build on Fay St. left (Porgress Executive parking area), I am not sure how I feel about putting a 19, let alone a 12 story building in prime location. Now I know the market controls the size but these buildings don't exactly turn my soul upside down. Remember, Progress Energy One building was a sight for sore eyes in Raleigh when it was built and 15-20 years later, it was nothing special. Same can be said about the archdale building. Look at any DT and see buildings that look their decade. I belive these will by what I see. JMHO With condos part of the building, means it will be next century before it is knocked down.

I will wait and see but I would hope for more. Maybe the city shoould hold on to the other sites until real demand is pented up and released.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is the last piece of "offcial"info from the city (Mar):

Last Sept. 19, the City Council voted unanimously to approve an agreement with TMC Development Group LLC to develop a 661,000-square-foot mixed-use project on a 1.8-acre parcel just east of the old convention center site. TMC Development is purchasing the land from the City for approximately $5.2 million.

TMC Development is planning an approximately $130 million mixed-use office, retail and residential complex that will consist of a 20-story tower and a 14-story tower. The towers will have 154 condominiums, 284,000 square feet of office space, 50,000 square feet of restaurant space, ground-floor retail fronting Fayetteville and Wilmington streets and possibly a movie theater. There also will be an underground parking deck with 636 public spaces. TMC

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ooooh, I lke the design of the buildings. I liked the old design also. The old design was certainly interesting at the top. But i too am getting a tad tired of all the brick buildings around downtown so I like the neutral colors with blue glass. Its kinda "Futuristic" looking. And overall I think the heights will remain about the same as before. Still out of all the proposed projects the past few years this is still my favorite one. I can't hate on it. Its the perfect balance or retail and living space. And looking down at the construction from Bank of America Plaza I think work may get started on this around October or so of this year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's a shame they didn't just stack their 12 on top of their 19 for a 31 story tower. I wonder if there were any height restrictions which prevented them from going taller. If I remember correctly the city wanted to step down in height east and west, midpoint being Fayetteville Street. The same maybe true for North and South. Albeit, my theory has holes given Glenwood south and the Hilsborough corriders future towers.

I believe the developers are missing out on a real oppurtunity. Put up Raleigh's tallest and cater to the need of hotel space. Add a 200 room 3 1/2 - 4 star hotel in their pushing the height to 40-42. But, then again I don't know their vision. S

Shame, lovely design(s) though, but a shame still.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's a shame they didn't just stack their 12 on top of their 19 for a 31 story tower. I wonder if there were any height restrictions which prevented them from going taller. If I remember correctly the city wanted to step down in height east and west, midpoint being Fayetteville Street. The same maybe true for North and South. Albeit, my theory has holes given Glenwood south and the Hilsborough corriders future towers.

I believe the developers are missing out on a real oppurtunity. Put up Raleigh's tallest and cater to the need of hotel space. Add a 200 room 3 1/2 - 4 star hotel in their pushing the height to 40-42. But, then again I don't know their vision. S

Shame, lovely design(s) though, but a shame still.

As I understand it, the economics of really tall buildings only work when real estate is scarce and prohibitively expensive (Hong Kong, Manhattan). Why go to the HUGE extra expense of building a very tall building, when real estate in downtown Raleigh is relatively cheap and plentiful?

Any developer who has been around here for a while certainly remembers the fiasco of Two Hannover Square, the last 20+ story building built downtown before the current flurry, and which stood over half vacant for much of the 1990s and singlehandedly kept the Class A space vacancy rates downtown sky high for nearly a decade...

Edited by JeffC
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exactly. In Raleigh, the economics seem to point to 15-30 story buildings being the sweet spot (Progress 2, Quorum, RBC, West @ North, Mariott, Lafayette, Reynolds, Winston hotel.) Rather than being upset that we aren't breaking the 30-story barrier, or worrying about "missed opportunities", I'd rather say "By all means, Mr. Developer, please build your 15 story building. And when that's done, by all means, go ahead and build another one. And another one." That may not make for a hugely impressive skyline, but it does make for a real, working, living, breathing downtown. Always insisting on taller, taller, taller (especially past the point where the economics of it make sense) would slow development down a lot as developers wait and reshuffle their projects and wait some more until the numbers finally make sense.

For example. While I'm glad that the Reynolds building is going to be nice and big, if they could have made it work 6 years ago as a 14 story building I'd have far preferred that - because by now, Reynolds would probably be looking at building Reynolds II, rather than still struggling to make it work as a bigger building.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exactly. In Raleigh, the economics seem to point to 15-30 story buildings being the sweet spot (Progress 2, Quorum, RBC, West @ North, Mariott, Lafayette, Reynolds, Winston hotel.) Rather than being upset that we aren't breaking the 30-story barrier, or worrying about "missed opportunities", I'd rather say "By all means, Mr. Developer, please build your 15 story building. And when that's done, by all means, go ahead and build another one. And another one." That may not make for a hugely impressive skyline, but it does make for a real, working, living, breathing downtown. Always insisting on taller, taller, taller (especially past the point where the economics of it make sense) would slow development down a lot as developers wait and reshuffle their projects and wait some more until the numbers finally make sense.

For example. While I'm glad that the Reynolds building is going to be nice and big, if they could have made it work 6 years ago as a 14 story building I'd have far preferred that - because by now, Reynolds would probably be looking at building Reynolds II, rather than still struggling to make it work as a bigger building.

Also keep in mind that space downtown (any downtown for that matter) is not unlimited, and if we use up all of the available sites with midrises and 20-30 story highrises, we limit ourselves in terms of what we can build in the future. As one smart downtowner said, it makes no sense having small buildings on expensive land.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also keep in mind that space downtown (any downtown for that matter) is not unlimited, and if we use up all of the available sites with midrises and 20-30 story highrises, we limit ourselves in terms of what we can build in the future. As one smart downtowner said, it makes no sense having small buildings on expensive land.

There are over 100 buildable lots downtown(citing dmcall). By the time those run out we will be long dead and stuff like Hillsborough Place or the old Wachovia will have aged out and can be demolished for the 60 pluser everyone wants so badly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are over 100 buildable lots downtown(citing dmcall). By the time those run out we will be long dead and stuff like Hillsborough Place or the old Wachovia will have aged out and can be demolished for the 60 pluser everyone wants so badly.

But most of those 100+ lots are not in the core CDB where tall skyscrapers are usually found.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I understand it, the economics of really tall buildings only work when real estate is scarce and prohibitively expensive (Hong Kong, Manhattan). Why go to the HUGE extra expense of building a very tall building, when real estate in downtown Raleigh is relatively cheap and plentiful?

Any developer who has been around here for a while certainly remembers the fiasco of Two Hannover Square, the last 20+ story building built downtown before the current flurry, and which stood over half vacant for much of the 1990s and singlehandedly kept the Class A space vacancy rates downtown sky high for nearly a decade...

But with the city owning this and selling, that is the issue. Do you sell your soul out now (prime spots) to get growth now or do you do other things and such and hold on to let people build a little taller on the Fay St corridor in the future. I am not all that big on just building big and I undersand Hong Kong and Manhatten, but if we are putting 19 and 12 stories in our most prime locations when other medium size cities are building much taller buildings in prime locations, what happens to our future ?

Now I will admit, other cities don't have a RTP and 4 towns/cities where the work force is, but I just wonder if we are not selling our prime locations just to get something built when in 10 to 15 years, we may have someone who would like to build a 50 story building if they could only get a spot on Fay St ?

Thinking back, I wish the city had just knocked down the Hudson Belk building.

JMHO

Edited by Subway Scoundrel
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also keep in mind that space downtown (any downtown for that matter) is not unlimited, and if we use up all of the available sites with midrises and 20-30 story highrises, we limit ourselves in terms of what we can build in the future. As one smart downtowner said, it makes no sense having small buildings on expensive land.

Worrying only about the potential for a 60 story building is what has us stuck with so many parking lots downtown in the first place. Land owners in the core of the city are so caught up over the idea that they might strike it rich being the "next big thing" that they bulldoze everything on their lot to get it "ready" and to avoid paying property taxes in the interim. So, until absolutely everything is built out with these 60 story towers that we're worried about missing out on, which takes decades and decades, we're left with

Even in a city like New York, Hong Kong, Chicago, Boston, etc, a 20-story building is almost never considered a "waste of space" - and only in a very, very few locations in any of these cities would a 15-story building be considered a "missed opportunity" worthy of a tear-down. And Raleigh has about 200 years to go before it's anywhere near any of those cities.

I say that if we are so concerned about getting a 45 story building 10 years from now, that we miss out on the opportunity to have 3 15 story buildings in the interim, then we're making a mistake.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I completely agree with orulz and Jones... we aren't getting a 40-story building anytime soon, so we'd basically have to prevent what the market "wants to build" now for the promise of what might, hopefully, perhaps come about in 5-7 years. It makes no sense to me. The last best chance was RBC (32 is pretty tall anyway) and the next best chance would be if a large corporation moved here, which could happen theoretically, but it's not on the horizon that we know of. (FWIW, here is the site where I think the next best logical place for a tall tower would be.)

We also should consider that Fayetteville Street is opening south to the PE Center in about one year, so I think the more important thing than waiting for a tall tower is increasing street activity... "retail follows rooftops." That's why we need this project ASAP right where it is. I don't want this to come across badly, but sometimes I think people who want a tall skyline (that's cool to look at) often don't actually spend much time walking around in downtowns. The city is trying to become more walkable, with more things to see, places to shop, people on the streets, more businesses open, etc... if that growth process happens to produce some cool, tall buildings (it has), that's fine, but if not, downtown will still be a better place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yep, I counted 144 spots back in October. At the rate at which we are going, we'll run out of downtown (by current definitions) land around 40-50 years from now. By then maybe downtown proper will have expanded southward, too. This seems like the closest thing to "unlimited" as a city could ever get.

Atlanta has one of the nation's best skylines. The tall towers range over about a 20 block long area, so we don't have to have our downtown 40 (when that day comes) right on F st. It can be pretty much anywhere. Heck, it will make downtown look less linear to have towers to the west of the current cluster.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(FWIW, here is the site where I think the next best logical place for a tall tower would be.)

Great spot too.....money shot, about as ugly of a parking lot as can be, sorely needed to connect over to the warehouse district.....Site one should not overwhelm the plaza and PE Center nearby either. It is great that there is enough market for anything to built on Site 1 imo...Hudson is great as is too....you can't smash highrises right up next to each other...you lose the icon effect.....gotta have a block of midrise separating your highrises......windtunnel cities suck to walk around in....you need some sunlight to hit the ground in some spots so people can actually enjoy themselves....my couple of visits to Manhatten were more like that....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

Yep, I counted 144 spots back in October. At the rate at which we are going, we'll run out of downtown (by current definitions) land around 40-50 years from now. By then maybe downtown proper will have expanded southward, too. This seems like the closest thing to "unlimited" as a city could ever get.

Atlanta has one of the nation's best skylines. The tall towers range over about a 20 block long area, so we don't have to have our downtown 40 (when that day comes) right on F st. It can be pretty much anywhere. Heck, it will make downtown look less linear to have towers to the west of the current cluster.

Is that an exponential curve or a linear one? I highly doubt we'll get a 30 floor, some 20s, and a lot of 10s, every few years when Raleigh's population is close to Charlotte's current population. By then we'll be catching bigger fish in larger numbers.

Edited by Spatula
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

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.