Jump to content

St. Paul's Quadrant


Recommended Posts

17 hours ago, vdogg said:

A building of that height on Snyder lot would be a travesty. That is a gateway to downtown. They need to go tall there. Disappointed with this part.

The building looks like it would make a decent base of a tower, but that open courtyard along Plume is where the tower portion should be.  I would have expected something at least 35 stories being built on this site. This building itself is much more in line with what I could see being built in the SPQ.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 851
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

City has a basic survey for interested residents on their .gov page.  I like the design and the incorporation of art, colors, outdoor community elements, rooftop, etc.  Height would be nice, but since

The city has since responded.  https://www.stpaulsdistrict.org/post/response-to-bloomberg-article-about-st-paul-s-area-published-september-22-2020-by-caleb-melby?fbclid=IwAR1WYvPQKWeo9oghKESzG_7_

The city needs to do a better job of proposing an actual plan for the TG residents. That doesn't mean empty promises of employment training, jobs during construction, or moving them to other public ho

Posted Images

  • vdogg unpinned this topic
  • 4 weeks later...

I noticed this in last week's agenda. Apparently, it's now the "Downtown-St. Paul District". I kinda like the idea of Norfolk having Districts...gives it more of an urban feel.

https://www.norfolk.gov/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Item/4756?fileID=9474

Looks like they want more height to the portion west of Church Street, and more residential east of that. Hopefully they still allow for more tallish buildings like apartments. But I'm glad they're embracing the idea of higher density in that area.

dspd2.png

dspd.png

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally, I don't think they should limit the height to any building in that district. Having an urban district with varying building heights makes it look "less planned out". There's nothing wrong with having a 4 story unit next to a 15+ story building. If there is demand and you have developer with interest, let them build. Streamline/shorten the approval process of structures and get out of the way of progress. 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/12/2019 at 7:22 AM, Willy18 said:

Personally, I don't think they should limit the height to any building in that district. Having an urban district with varying building heights makes it look "less planned out". There's nothing wrong with having a 4 story unit next to a 15+ story building. If there is demand and you have developer with interest, let them build. Streamline/shorten the approval process of structures and get out of the way of progress. 

Yes! The variation of buildings is actually what makes a skyline. The city has a lot of momentum with these projects. I love this!

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/12/2019 at 7:22 AM, Willy18 said:

Personally, I don't think they should limit the height to any building in that district. Having an urban district with varying building heights makes it look "less planned out". There's nothing wrong with having a 4 story unit next to a 15+ story building. If there is demand and you have developer with interest, let them build. Streamline/shorten the approval process of structures and get out of the way of progress. 

I heard from an architect friend that the desire lower height buildings because studies show it leads to increased street activity but that sounded kinda like BS to me...

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/16/2019 at 5:41 PM, mikeas said:

I heard from an architect friend that the desire lower height buildings because studies show it leads to increased street activity but that sounded kinda like BS to me...

He must’ve never been to Manhattan :lol:. Street activity is a direct result of what’s actually on the street. If you have a bunch of pure office towers then of course downtown will die after dark because there’s nothing to keep people around after 5. If you have a mixed use tower with retail and restaurants at street level then things will stay pretty lively. It has nothing to do with the height.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

On 2/12/2019 at 7:22 AM, Willy18 said:

Personally, I don't think they should limit the height to any building in that district. Having an urban district with varying building heights makes it look "less planned out". There's nothing wrong with having a 4 story unit next to a 15+ story building. If there is demand and you have developer with interest, let them build. Streamline/shorten the approval process of structures and get out of the way of progress. 

I’m at Town Center in VB right now and I agree 100%. I have my gripes with VB on a lot of things, but the mix of buildings they have at TC is a model Norfolk needs to follow. It would be a great addition and compliment to downtown. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎2‎/‎16‎/‎2019 at 5:41 PM, mikeas said:

I heard from an architect friend that the desire lower height buildings because studies show it leads to increased street activity but that sounded kinda like BS to me...

I have never heard such rubbish. I would love to see the "study" that shows this. Taller buildings = more people per block = more people in general at the street level. Residents in NYC don't just jump from rooftop to rooftop to get around and shop, eat and socialize. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/16/2019 at 5:02 PM, vdogg said:

He must’ve never been to Manhattan :lol:. Street activity is a direct result of what’s actually on the street. If you have a bunch of pure office towers then of course downtown will die after dark because there’s nothing to keep people around after 5. If you have a mixed used tower with retail and restaurants at street level then things will stay pretty lively. It has nothing to do with the height.

This is true when it comes to urban planning. Taller buildings don't mean more people on the streets, Barcelona is a great example of this. Buildings that are 3-7 stories tall, all with retail space along the street sides are going to be much more active because someone living only a couple stories up is going to be more willing to come down to the street to enjoy their neighborhood than someone living 30 floors up. I am not saying there shouldn't be any taller buildings, just the bulk of them could easily be 3-10 stories and create a thriving neighborhood if the street level also includes commercial space.

Bringing up NYC is a good example of this, sure there are towers all over Manhattan, but Manhattan also has a bunch of neighborhoods made up of shorter buildings, and outside of Manhattan the city is full of 3-5 story buildings that make up all of their thriving neighborhoods.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, urbanlife said:

This is true when it comes to urban planning. Taller buildings don't mean more people on the streets, Barcelona is a great example of this. Buildings that are 3-7 stories tall, all with retail space along the street sides are going to be much more active because someone living only a couple stories up is going to be more willing to come down to the street to enjoy their neighborhood than someone living 30 floors up. I am not saying there shouldn't be any taller buildings, just the bulk of them could easily be 3-10 stories and create a thriving neighborhood if the street level also includes commercial space.

Bringing up NYC is a good example of this, sure there are towers all over Manhattan, but Manhattan also has a bunch of neighborhoods made up of shorter buildings, and outside of Manhattan the city is full of 3-5 story buildings that make up all of their thriving neighborhoods.

I can see your point but people that live on the 11th-30th floor still have to work, eat, get groceries and socialize. Barcelona also has a population density that's higher than Mexico City and NYC combined so it's streets are going to be crazy busy. I think with that kind of density it wouldn't matter the height of the buildings.

Keep in mind, I live in the great suburban crystal city of VB. My street level activity and retail consists of congested 4-6 lane secondary roads and strip malls.  :tw_grin:

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Willy18 said:

I can see your point but people that live on the 11th-30th floor still have to work, eat, get groceries and socialize. Barcelona also has a population density that's higher than Mexico City and NYC combined so it's streets are going to be crazy busy. I think with that kind of density it wouldn't matter the height of the buildings.

Keep in mind, I live in the great suburban crystal city of VB. My street level activity and retail consists of congested 4-6 lane secondary roads and strip malls.  :tw_grin:

That's the thing with Barcelona, it has really high population density because the fairly compact city is all 4-7 story buildings. Could you imagine how dense and active Norfolk would be if much of the city, especially near downtown was all 4-7 story buildings. With high rises often times comes garages so people will often times take the elevator to the garage and drive to where they want to go, obviously there are exceptions to the rule, but in general a neighborhood only needs 4-7 story buildings filling it to be a really active neighborhood.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is from a few weeks ago, but Norfolk was one of four finalists for a $30M grant from HUD, to redevelop SPQ. Someone on Facebook mentioned that Norfolk actually won, but I haven't found any articles yet. If it's true, it's excellent news for the city.

https://wtkr.com/2019/02/03/norfolk-selected-as-finalist-for-choice-neighborhoods-initiative-grant/

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
13 hours ago, Norfolk757Kid said:

I'd like to see them keep one row of the public housing so that it's not completely erased. 

I am NOT in agreement with that one. These buildings aren't the Alamo or anything that could even be considered historic. I say, erase everything...and use a very large eraser. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with everyone else, and this is probably the only time I'd say this, but there's more nostalgia than history in those buildings, but Norfolk doesn't gain anything by keeping even one building around. If they have an open park, maybe have a sign or plaque with a picture commemorating Tidewater Gardens, but I wouldn't go much further.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/5/2019 at 4:29 PM, urbanlife said:

A museum on living conditions of public housing and a stark reminder of mistakes that were made.

When Young Terrace is being bulldozed we can talk about monuments to public housing. Until then Norfolk will have plenty left once Tidewater Gardens is gone.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the monument should be about the people who lived in public housing not about the buildings themselves.  From what I remember some residents of Tidewater Park and Young Park consider themselves family more then a neighborhood. 

  • Like 4
Link to post
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.

  • 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.