Archived

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

dmccall

Creedmoor Towers

48 posts in this topic

Anyone know more about or know how to learn more about this proposed project? It appears that the Soleil II (SP-36-06 the 18-story office building announced earlier this week) will go where the cotton inc. was and is now Triangle Bank. This even newer proposal lies between the old Sheraton and the Creedmoor/Glenwoo intersection. I'm asking because they don't call 3-story buildings "towers".

It's SP-034-06

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Opening fall 2007 ?!?!?!?! Wow thats fast, not sure I believe it will go up that quickly. Funny "midtown" could have quite a distinctive look. Will be weird having no real ground floors though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love that suddenly raleigh will have a midtown... this is cool.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

no one has commented on the architecture of this building? <_<

Thats probably b/c THIS IS THE KIND OF UNIQUE DESIGN THAT'S LACKING IN THIS CITY!!

(It kind of looks like the Staples Center in LA, only taller)

I think the designs scheduled to appear in Crabtree are awesome and I can only hope these

firms will venture downtown.

Also: Although Circuit City is a long standing tenant and very successful at its current location on the adjacent corner-- I can only hope that site can be redeveloped in the near future--- Honestly its simply a big box store with a massive parking lot that's never full!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really like the lines of the building. This area around Soleil is going to look very impressive. One can only hope Crabtree follows this lead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really like the lines of the building. This area around Soleil is going to look very impressive. One can only hope Crabtree follows this lead.

You beat me to it Dan...I would hope that Crabtree wouldn't just copy but use connecting elements. That area would look a whole lot more interesting than Downtown and even the North Hills area. The Crabtree area still wouldn't be a pedestrian friendly or even close like North Hills West.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does anyone with photoshop skills want to attempt a future rendering of the soleil block? Have we found any renderings of the Soleil II building?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


I love that suddenly raleigh will have a midtown... this is cool.

This is another anti-urban design that does not respect the street. Raleigh will not have a midtown. It will be a midsuburb.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I think it is a good design, I tend to agree with transitman. The shiny new buildings are nice, but they're really not that much different from what was there before. It's still an isolated cluster of buildings. The only distinguishing feature of this new development is the height. Otherwise it's no different from any other corner in the Triangle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree. Until the area has significant high-density residential buildings and high-use connecting mass transit we shouldn't call Crabtree 'midtown' for anything other than vanity's sake.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It appears that the Soleil II (SP-36-06 the 18-story office building announced earlier this week) will go where the cotton inc. was and is now Triangle Bank.

Actually it's the Capital Bank, not Triangle Bank. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is another anti-urban design that does not respect the street. Raleigh will not have a midtown. It will be a midsuburb.

if you are expecting midtown new york then sure... raleigh, however, is not new york and never will be. so once we get over that, embracing what IS raleigh should not be so difficult. raleigh is a city developed with the automobile in mind, since most development has and is occuring in the age of the automobile. new york was developed when feet, horses and trains got people around. so... it only makes sense that raleigh's midtown will be on a larger scale land wise. i think it would be great if raleigh were developed with mass transit in mind, but until cars become completely impractical, this won't happen... and sitting around fretting won't change that. atleast we are getting some cool architecture. i still think it's cool, and calling it midtown is simply a geographical term for where it is located in our city. not downtown, but not way out in the falls lake watershed/suburbs/far north raleigh. midtown. you can call it midsuburb if that is what you want to call it. people may look at you funny though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

nah, "midtown" has nothing to do with the geography (even if it is closer to the geographical center of the city) Midtown is purely an advertising term to get people to move to an "exclusve district" and to instantly make people think of other established midtowns and how this aea will one day achieve that status. Personally I hope that the term is just a fad, it just sounds so generic; I prefer Crabtree and North Hills.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Thanks Avery!!! Wow what a neat building. THIS is what I was getting at with the RBC building downtown. RBCs building is extremely basic in form. CT actually invites one to study it's form. This block will finally make Raleigh surpass Chapel Hill's BSBS (uh, BC/BS) building.

While it is not built in the urban vein, the buildings will sit on a triangle of land bordered essentially by two highways and a considerable stream of water. Pieces of land like this are usually undeveloped in urban areas. Like someone said earlier, it would be nice to have pedestrian bridges, but there will be a traffic signal at which one could cross....to a large parking lot.

The Circuit City will probably never be converted into something tall because it has neighbors backing up to it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is another anti-urban design that does not respect the street. Raleigh will not have a midtown. It will be a midsuburb.

Couldn't have said it better myself. Architecturally, this building looks fantastic. However, we shouldn't deceive ourselves into thinking Raleigh has a "midtown." First of all, you have to have a downtown to have a midtown, and our downtown is not there yet. Second, geographically, designating something 'midtown' makes no sense in this area. I thought that North Hills was trying to call itself midtown, and it isn't exactly a hop, skip, and a jump away from Crabtree, even though it's relatively close. Are we saying that 'midtown' Raleigh basically comprises the arc around the beltline from North Hills to Crabtree?

For all intents and purposes, in Raleigh, "midtown" is a marketing epithet as someone suggested. There is nothing midtown about the island of tall buildings proposed for Crabtree. If anything, it just adds to the correct perception that Raleigh is rapidly Atlantifying itself into a sprawl nightmare, as oil prices continue to climb.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

if you are expecting midtown new york then sure... raleigh, however, is not new york and never will be. so once we get over that, embracing what IS raleigh should not be so difficult. raleigh is a city developed with the automobile in mind, since most development has and is occuring in the age of the automobile. new york was developed when feet, horses and trains got people around. so... it only makes sense that raleigh's midtown will be on a larger scale land wise. i think it would be great if raleigh were developed with mass transit in mind, but until cars become completely impractical, this won't happen... and sitting around fretting won't change that. atleast we are getting some cool architecture. i still think it's cool, and calling it midtown is simply a geographical term for where it is located in our city. not downtown, but not way out in the falls lake watershed/suburbs/far north raleigh. midtown. you can call it midsuburb if that is what you want to call it. people may look at you funny though.

LA and Atlanta (on a smaller scale) are cities built around the car. Anyone from Atlanta will tell you that you cannot build enough lanes to keep up with traffic. The density and architecture of these projects are nice but they need to relate to the street better (w/ lower level small office/retail). The streets are the other thing that precludes any kind of semi-urban atmosphere. A skywalk would probably be more cost effective in this instance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know many of you hate the fact that these buildings are being built with know ground foot traffic in mind. but you have to remember that this is a flood plan and know buildings near that creek except mcdonalds nad the mall is on ground. I believe these building are sensible growth for this area. We are all only complaining because we all belive they should be downtown or they should have ground floor retail or access. I beleive this is wrong thinking. How many of you will either enter these buildings. They are for residents and tenets only. So there is no need for ground floor access. Now if these buildings are built for public access like stores and restuarant, I would also have a problem. So let us layoff this idea that these buildings will create some type of urban sprawl when they are well in the city limits in a very dense area. they are not in rtp or brier creek. Lets complain about that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LA and Atlanta (on a smaller scale) are cities built around the car. Anyone from Atlanta will tell you that you cannot build enough lanes to keep up with traffic. The density and architecture of these projects are nice but they need to relate to the street better (w/ lower level small office/retail). The streets are the other thing that precludes any kind of semi-urban atmosphere. A skywalk would probably be more cost effective in this instance.

This is only half true. Atlanta is an auto era nightmare like none other. But while LA's contemporary history emphasizes the auto, it was a city with a vast streetcar network in the early part of the 20th century. Which gives LA an interesting distinction of being a city that had a significant urban fabric/transit infrastructure, and gave it up.

I also don't think ncsugrad04 really understands the critique of this development. The problem is that despite being shiny and modern, these buildings don't do anything to create a PLACE external to their walls.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Which gives LA an interesting distinction of being a city that had a significant urban fabric/transit infrastructure, and gave it up.

That's not a distinction at all. Try naming a city that didn't have a rail transit infrastructure at the turn of the century. They're all gone. They went out of business, or failed commercially and were overtaken and subsidized by local governments.

The problem is that despite being shiny and modern, these buildings don't do anything to create a PLACE external to their walls.

That's a subjective judgement that no one can make until the buildings are actually standing there. Your complaint would be better stated as saying that you don't LIKE the place the buildings will create. That's something else entirely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know how I sound pro sprawl to many of you but I have to think that every think built in this area has to adhere to a strict code that involves elavating these buildings so in case crabtree valley flood. I know everyone wants to build a pedestrian friendly area with less traffice by automobiles. However the ordinance requires them to put these new buildings off the ground literally. Now i agree that there should be some type of connection to the mall or other side of the road. however again it is up to the CITY COUNCIL , thoses the city voted for to allow this because it is not allowed at this point and time. I love the designs of all the buildings being built not because of there location but because they are appeasing to the eye :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the difference in opinions stems from this. Some people here say "This is a floodplain and nothing can be built in a pedestrian friendly manner, so nothing significant should be built here at all" - while others say "This is a floodplain and nothing can be built in a pedestrian friendly manner, but something needs to be built here, so let's forget about pedestrian friendliness and approve buildings as long as they're big, pretty, and shiny."

In my opinion, it was a mistake to let the mall be built in the floodplain in the first place, and if the city could roll back the clock 35 years and take back that decision, they probably would. But because the city made a mistake 35 years ago does not mean that the mistake must be perpetuated by continuing to build larger and larger projects in the same floodplain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like Crabtree's density will increase. For those who have lived here a while, it will be something to see all these cranes building these projects. This project will be an 8 story mixed use within the flood plain. To be exact, on the site of the existing HomeBanc building.

Link

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like Crabtree's density will increase. For those who have lived here a while, it will be something to see all these cranes building these projects. This project will be an 8 story mixed use within the flood plain. To be exact, on the site of the existing HomeBanc building.

Link

I don't understand why my thread was moved. As far as I know this is not a project being done by Walia and Mundra (Soleil developers).

Soleil One got it's own thread, so did Soleil II and so did the two creedormoor condo buildings. Why can't this one?

Admin? Care to explain?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.