Jump to content

Creedmoor Towers


dmccall

Recommended Posts

Please re-read dmccall's inital post and then the TBJ article.

Although dmccall's initial post mentions the Soleil office tower, its main point is that there is another project - Creedmoor Towers - on tap for the block (sp 034-06). The three projects in the works for this block mentioned in the article are Soleil I, Soleil II, and Creedmoor Tower. Creedmoor Tower is the subject of the article you have linked to, hence I moved your post. I don't think I got this wrong - though I recognize I can make mistakes.

I do not mean any malice or ill will by moving posts - I'm just trying to keep things organized to make the forum easier to use. In the future if you think I've made a mistake I'd appreciate it if you'd let me know by private message.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Replies 47
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Please re-read dmccall's inital post and then the TBJ article.

Although dmccall's initial post mentions the Soleil office tower, its main point is that there is another project - Creedmoor Towers - on tap for the block (sp 034-06). The three projects in the works for this block mentioned in the article are Soleil I, Soleil II, and Creedmoor Tower. Creedmoor Tower is the subject of the article you have linked to, hence I moved your post. I don't think I got this wrong - though I recognize I can make mistakes.

I do not mean any malice or ill will by moving posts - I'm just trying to keep things organized to make the forum easier to use. In the future if you think I've made a mistake I'd appreciate it if you'd let me know by private message.

My goodness. With all the development going on there I must of gotten confused. So let me get this right.

At the Glenwood and Edwards Mill tract we have Soleil Center, Soleil Center II (Proposed 16-story), and Creedmoor Towers (two ten story condo buildings?). I thought that this thread and what dmcall mentioned was about those two towers. And I believed that my article was about an additional 8 story tower done by Crabtree Partners. My idea was that the towers dmcall (the two ten story ones) are being done by Soleil's developers. Anyone care to clarify? I am starting to believe that there is no two towers for Creedmoor towers but just one. Plus the tower I am mentioning and this thread's tower are one in the same.

Sorry for getting anyones hopes up... (smile)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Here's the distinction. Los Angeles had 211 miles of streetcar track in the 1940s. That 211 miles of track did not include interurban electric railways to Pasadena and the Inland Empire. To put the extent of LA's rail system in the first half of the 20th century in greater perspective, the Washington Metro, one of the most heavily utilized heavy rail systems in the US today, at its current buildout, has 103 miles of track. To say that every American city of any size gave up something like the system that existed in LA is just not reality-based. Atlanta never had anything so extensive. LA did have a powerful and extensive transit infrastructure, and let it go to pot. Other cities that took a different path, most notably San Francisco right up the coast, have a very different environment for having not abandoned that infrastructure.

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.

Sorry, but few people will like the place that is created, because there is no effort to create positive urban space with this building. There is no design in relationship to other pieces of the urban landscape, only design to accentuate how appealing the building looks from a distance.

For people who like to experience the city from a distance by looking at a skyline, I'm sure this building is a fantastic addition to Raleigh. For people who think the city is a place to interact with other people, I fail to see any of the benefits here.

I know there are several here who disagree with me, but I don't see the point of getting excited any time anythingshows up under the development Christmas tree in the Triangle when most of what we see is coal in our collective urban stockings. The Crabtree Tower, to its credit, has a green roof and a distinctive profile. But from an urban design perspective, it's just the "Missed Opportunity of the Month" in Raleigh.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know there are several here who disagree with me, but I don't see the point of getting excited any time anythingshows up under the development Christmas tree in the Triangle when most of what we see is coal in our collective urban stockings. The Crabtree Tower, to its credit, has a green roof and a distinctive profile. But from an urban design perspective, it's just the "Missed Opportunity of the Month" in Raleigh.

While it makes complete sense that the Creedmoor Towers and the Soleil Center are not perfect or even good urban designs, it also makes complete sense that it is entirely okay.

Would you honestly rather halt our growth and momentum (that may later lead to a more urban landscape in Crabtree Valley) by nixing these projects?

How long should a city wait to land the perfect development? There are many risks that come with turning devlopers away, especially ones who are willing to think outside the box with unique designs.

While these projects might not be "perfect", they are very good none-the-less. I think they will all be highly successful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even though I started this thread, I completely defer to Avery's link. They submitted a site plan called "Creedmoor Towers" but the architect's rendering clearly just shows 1 building. My assumption was that there would be more than one, given the rules of the English language. :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would you honestly rather halt our growth and momentum (that may later lead to a more urban landscape in Crabtree Valley) by nixing these projects?

In a word, yes. If the Raleigh Planning Board represented the city rather than the developers, they would send the developers back to the drawing board to make some tweaks that would allow for a whole urban fabric to be created as well as 42-story towers. There is not a binary choice between the first proposal a developer puts out or nothing ever getting built. Soleil Center could have been structured as a more urban development and still made oodles of money for the builder/developer team while also making the city less dependent on the car.

How long should a city wait to land the perfect development? There are many risks that come with turning devlopers away, especially ones who are willing to think outside the box with unique designs.

While these projects might not be "perfect", they are very good none-the-less. I think they will all be highly successful.

This stuff isn't outside the box- it IS the box. It's just the box, taller, with shiny paint. The developers aren't going to go running from Raleigh and start putting things in Rocky Mount. They want to be here because 50 people move to Raleigh every DAY. All the city has to do is provide a modicum of guidance to get better results. But Big Real Estate runs the city, so we get suburban skyscrapers with horrific urban design, and because the level of expectations for anything other than McHousing subdivisions is so low, we should call it progress?

I want to see the Triangle become more urban, not merely more dense. Urbanism comes from the construction of a meaningful public realm through good design that honors the street and the pedestrian. Soleil and the Creedmoor Tower are not steps towards a meaningful public realm, so as far as I'm concerned, they aren't different from what we already have.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have yet to see any plausible suggestions on how 500,000SF of office and residential development could intimately relate to a pair of 8-lane, high-speed traffic corridors in a pedestrian-friendly "urban" way.

Lots of sidestepping and complaining, but no suggestions. Anyone?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How many of you honestly think that the 5 or so acres in a floodplain bounded by a 4 lane rd, a 6 lane rd, and a creek could really be developed into a pedestrian friendly urban atmosphere? I would think that most developers would be quite hesitant to build in an area like that. Maybe I'm wrong. It is an isolated piece of land that imo we should be glad is getting developed at all. I think that the developments going on on that area of land will just be the skyline anchor of that area, and that there is more hope of creating a more pedestrian friendly area on the land around Crabtree that isnt as problematic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How many of you honestly think that the 5 or so acres in a floodplain bounded by a 4 lane rd, a 6 lane rd, and a creek could really be developed into a pedestrian friendly urban atmosphere? I would think that most developers would be quite hesitant to build in an area like that. Maybe I'm wrong. It is an isolated piece of land that imo we should be glad is getting developed at all. I think that the developments going on on that area of land will just be the skyline anchor of that area, and that there is more hope of creating a more pedestrian friendly area on the land around Crabtree that isnt as problematic.

Ripping up the current pavement and establishing a small grid pattern to make the development ped-friendly on an internal basis would be a start. The whole of historic Salzburg or Innsbruck (I forget which one) actually fits within a standard US cloverleaf freeway interchange. Parking could be decked and placed at the periphery immediately off the roads, and the center of the development could contain a mixed-use office and service retail ped-only zone with a narrow "street" width that accomodates peds only. Southpoint did this. Venice, Italy, does it even better. Make it a park-once environment and use the rest of the area to be moved through on foot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How many of you honestly think that the 5 or so acres in a floodplain bounded by a 4 lane rd, a 6 lane rd, and a creek could really be developed into a pedestrian friendly urban atmosphere? I would think that most developers would be quite hesitant to build in an area like that. Maybe I'm wrong. It is an isolated piece of land that imo we should be glad is getting developed at all. I think that the developments going on on that area of land will just be the skyline anchor of that area, and that there is more hope of creating a more pedestrian friendly area on the land around Crabtree that isnt as problematic.
Thank you for having common sense and seeing the big picture these developers should be thanked for investing this much money in such a risky area, bottom line this is not the most pedestrian friendly area to begin with.Behind crabtree is were i would have a problem if they didn't build pedestrian friendly projects. :thumbsup:
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ripping up the current pavement and establishing a small grid pattern to make the development ped-friendly on an internal basis would be a start. The whole of historic Salzburg or Innsbruck (I forget which one) actually fits within a standard US cloverleaf freeway interchange. Parking could be decked and placed at the periphery immediately off the roads, and the center of the development could contain a mixed-use office and service retail ped-only zone with a narrow "street" width that accomodates peds only. Southpoint did this. Venice, Italy, does it even better. Make it a park-once environment and use the rest of the area to be moved through on foot.
Transitman their will be "ice water in hell",before a developer even though about doing something like that in a flood plain, am not knocking your vision because i like the plan, but i don't think you could find a developer or pay one who would do this in that area, they would see it, to much as a risk, but i do like your strong sense of urbanism, Raleigh needs more people like you. :D
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have yet to see any plausible suggestions on how 500,000SF of office and residential development could intimately relate to a pair of 8-lane, high-speed traffic corridors in a pedestrian-friendly "urban" way.

Lots of sidestepping and complaining, but no suggestions. Anyone?

I agree ,and aleast the folks at soleil have addressed the flood plain concerns as well as incorporate a stunning looking designed tower for the city of Raleigh. :yahoo:
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have yet to see any plausible suggestions on how 500,000SF of office and residential development could intimately relate to a pair of 8-lane, high-speed traffic corridors in a pedestrian-friendly "urban" way.

Lots of sidestepping and complaining, but no suggestions. Anyone?

I suggested the skyway earlier linked to an office tower across Creedmoor. The Soleil site pedestrian connections would be made 2/3 floors above. Maybe a garage top plaza/garden area. This would serve the office/hotel/condo tenants and visitors but not create external visits (which is fine in this case). A pedestrian connection (equally architecturally-pleasing skyway) to the 'imagined' tower and the mall would only make the Soleil complex that much more appealing.

It would also be nice to link the sky way to the proposed Kidds Hill development. This would create a raised urban pedestrian landscape (think better than Minneapolis). I am not a fan of skyways in an urban setting but I think it would be perfect in this area which most outside visitors will access via auto.

What do you guys think?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Crabtree area posseses so much potential especially considering the topology (think San Francisco). I think it would be okay to not have street-level pedestrian experience. An elevated pedestrian experience could actually put the pedestrians on the same level from the mall to Kidds Hill and to other developments around Kidds Hill including the Hotels on Blue Ridge.

Link to comment
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.

I agree with you that building a mall in a floodplain was a bad idea, but it is too late now. All of the development on this side of town is here to stay. I don't see us reversing the development by bulldozing buildings and returning it to its natural state.

With regards to the Soliel development(s), I don't see how a large project versus a small project makes much of a difference. Development is development with regards to the floodplain argument. I think it is agreed that something needed to be with the the old hotel that was falling apart. I want to know what people here think should have been done. Should someone pay for the razing of the building and return it to a natural area? Should someone have simply renovated the existing structure even though it would still be prone to flooding? Are these new developments a better solution to the floodplain since they are raised? I just don't see why people can't move on with the fact that something better is going to replace a much needed eyesore. Street level activity would be nice, but it won't work here in addition to reasons beyond flooding. I still think that development like this is trashed because it is not in downtown or it competes with downtown.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ripping up the current pavement and establishing a small grid pattern to make the development ped-friendly on an internal basis would be a start ... Parking could be decked and placed at the periphery immediately off the roads, and the center of the development could contain a mixed-use office and service retail ped-only zone with a narrow "street" width that accomodates peds only.

Floodplain. City ordinances prevent them from building habitable space below the flood line. Tree-lined sidewalks would front stilts and parking decks.

Southpoint did this. Venice, Italy, does it even better. Make it a park-once environment and use the rest of the area to be moved through on foot.

Southpoint is a pair of strip malls turned to face one another, surrounded by 20 acres of asphalt.

Venice isn't an appropriate comparison here, unless you're suggesting they build canals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suggested the skyway earlier linked to an office tower across Creedmoor. The Soleil site pedestrian connections would be made 2/3 floors above. Maybe a garage top plaza/garden area. This would serve the office/hotel/condo tenants and visitors but not create external visits (which is fine in this case). A pedestrian connection (equally architecturally-pleasing skyway) to the 'imagined' tower and the mall would only make the Soleil complex that much more appealing.

This looks to be the direction that things have gone, minus the skyway. I think the skyway is a reasonable solution here, but someone has to pay for it, and I doubt that will be the Soleil developer. If one company was responsible for all of the projects (Soleil, Crabtree Mall, Kidd's Hill), there might be an opportunity for something like that to get built (think Kane and North Hills). The bridge would require land on both sides of the street, probably a support in the median of the road, power to run lights, elevators (if necessary), etc. In order for the idea to even get off the ground, both property owners would have to believe that it was critical to their respective developments and be willing to provide the funding and cede the property to get it built.

It would be nice, but I don't think it would happen. The City might encourage it during the site plan approval process, but I don't think they have the legal standing to require it, given the different property owners, high construction and maintenance costs, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Floodplain. City ordinances prevent them from building habitable space below the flood line. Tree-lined sidewalks would front stilts and parking decks.

Southpoint is a pair of strip malls turned to face one another, surrounded by 20 acres of asphalt.

Venice isn't an appropriate comparison here, unless you're suggesting they build canals.

It's a common misconception that most transportation is by boat in Venice. This is false. Most of the transportation in the city is NOT by boat, but by foot in the calles (alleys, or ministreets) between the buildings and across numerous bridges. Putting all parking in this 5 acre area in a large deck, and then creating a park-once, walk-everywhere else environment among the structures on the site WOULD be like importing a very small section of Venice, without the canals, to this intersection. There are no technical challenges here that need to be overcome to do this, regardless of the floodplain. This site is already overcovered with impervious surfaces. For anyone who would like to see how Venice really works, visit the Carfree.com section on Venice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How many of you honestly think that the 5 or so acres in a floodplain bounded by a 4 lane rd, a 6 lane rd, and a creek could really be developed into a pedestrian friendly urban atmosphere? I would think that most developers would be quite hesitant to build in an area like that. Maybe I'm wrong. It is an isolated piece of land that imo we should be glad is getting developed at all. I think that the developments going on on that area of land will just be the skyline anchor of that area, and that there is more hope of creating a more pedestrian friendly area on the land around Crabtree that isnt as problematic.

I agree...I am glad its not the typical bank on one corner with a conveniant store next to it

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's a common misconception that most transportation is by boat in Venice. This is false. Most of the transportation in the city is NOT by boat, but by foot in the calles (alleys, or ministreets) between the buildings and across numerous bridges.

Like your oversimplified "LA abandoned their railways" statement before it, you ignore a number of significant problems with your argument (any one of which would invalidate your thesis on its own), in order to misrepresent the dissents and restate your case more forcefully than before.

I would like to have a discussion about all of the possibilities that exist, but your monomania makes any discussion strained at best.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I said:

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

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.

I suggest that LA had a choice about development patterns because it had significant population boom/growth during the streetcar heyday that led to a vast rail network. You then misrepresent my point by suggesting that I am implying that it was the PRESENCE of the rail network in LA during the streetcar heyday that made the difference, and dismiss my argument by saying "all cities had rail transit, and they're all gone."

My point was about the EXTENT of the rail system in LA, not its presence. However, you've ignored that important nuance to dismiss my argument. Unless you believe that the Raleigh and LA streetcar networks in the 1940s provide an apples to apples comparison, in which case, I can't help you. (more like apples and prizewinning watermelons)

You're the one dismissing my ideas about Venice, suggesting that the only appropriate urban insight Venice has for this property is somehow canals. I don't understand what you mean here. To me, it's like saying "New York isn't appropriate here, unless you're suggesting they build 4-track subways."

Finally, take a look at the google map of this area. The floodplain has already been built upon. All over the place, in the worst possible way, which maximizes impervious surface through parking provision. Unless all the approved development in this area is going to be up on stilts with no ground floor at all, me suggesting ped-oriented internal buildings on the ground floor is not a departure from the plans for Soleil, Crabtree Tower, or anything else already on the lot. Furthermore, this is probably grandfathered in from a development perspective.

I'm sorry you don't like my opinions, and I'm sorry you don't like that I'm assertive about them, but I think the term "monomania" is most definitely uncalled for. Somebody (maybe you) called for those griping to suggest alternatives, and I did, and as is often the case, I provided links to examples and information I think is helpful.

If you'd like to talk specify the "significant problems" in my arguments, I'll be glad to deal with each of them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the skyway is a reasonable solution here, but someone has to pay for it, and I doubt that will be the Soleil developer. If one company was responsible for all of the projects (Soleil, Crabtree Mall, Kidd's Hill), there might be an opportunity for something like that to get built (think Kane and North Hills). The bridge would require land on both sides of the street, probably a support in the median of the road, power to run lights, elevators (if necessary), etc. In order for the idea to even get off the ground, both property owners would have to believe that it was critical to their respective developments and be willing to provide the funding and cede the property to get it built.

I had a nice picture to show you but can't figure out how to cut and paste it. I keep getting an error message.

I think it would be in the interest of all of the parties (Soleil, Crabtree, Kidd's Hill). It would take some creativity and negotiation for it to happen.

The picture was from Houston. I have also seen a decent (not great) one over Cobb Parkway(6/8+ Lanes) in ATL between Cumberland Mall and The Galleria.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

  • 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.