Jump to content

The Ellington


archiham04

Recommended Posts


  • Replies 102
  • Created
  • Last Reply

I think the issue of retail on S Lexington boils down to this: There are two futures for S Lexington. One where there are cafes, shops, clubs, offices and street life. Another, where you have essentially an alley, with Art work on the walls.

I am personally split on this.

On one hand we need to deal with the automobile in an urban setting. So perhaps having a hierarchy of streets, where some are alive and some are service, is the reality of dealing with cars and parking decks... a la Rankin street vs Haywood Street. A hierarchy needs to exist though. I certainly wouldn't want to see a parking deck with murals on Pritchard park.

pyalberice, do you know if there is a hierarchy? Is a mural wall allowed on Pritchard Park under the current UDO?

On the other hand, activating all the streets in downtown is doable... at a cost. Parking can be elevated above the retail level and all street facades can be required to be occupied space.

Do we force developers to spend EVEN MORE for the privilege of developing downtown by making them elevate or setback their parking? If we do, will that encourage some to develop on green fields outside of downtown? If we don't, will we ruin our downtown with dead zones of deserted alleys with mural walls?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the issue of retail on S Lexington boils down to this: There are two futures for S Lexington. One where there are cafes, shops, clubs, offices and street life. Another, where you have essentially an alley, with Art work on the walls.

I am personally split on this.

On one hand we need to deal with the automobile in an urban setting. So perhaps having a hierarchy of streets, where some are alive and some are service, is the reality of dealing with cars and parking decks... a la Rankin street vs Haywood Street. A hierarchy needs to exist though. I certainly wouldn't want to see a parking deck with murals on Pritchard park.

pyalberice, do you know if there is a hierarchy? Is a mural wall allowed on Pritchard Park under the current UDO?

On the other hand, activating all the streets in downtown is doable... at a cost. Parking can be elevated above the retail level and all street facades can be required to be occupied space.

Do we force developers to spend EVEN MORE for the privilege of developing downtown by making them elevate or setback their parking? If we do, will that encourage some to develop on green fields outside of downtown? If we don't, will we ruin our downtown with dead zones of deserted alleys with mural walls?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

That's not a part of the building. That's just a placeholder to show the massing of a real, neighboring building (with actual windows and retail spaces and stuff.) To get rid of that block, they'd just have to redo the rendering.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
  • 1 month later...
I fear that I am beginning to dislike this building the more I look at it. It's just too jumbled and graceless, and it commits the mortal sin of any downtown tower -- it has a definite ass end for everyone see, recognize, and observe and admire. It only looks really good from one angle and the rest is a mash of jutting lines. They could have done so much more to make this a graceful building worth its hype.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

I haven't followed this project, but on first glance, it looks very well designed to my eyes... complex, interesting, good setbacks for a more human-scale pedestrian experience, some greenery mixed in... my only question would be what are the exterior materials? Renderings look like some type of textured, prefab concrete... please, God, not EIFS. If they get the materials right, I think it's a winner.

Was it approved by council? Looks pricey... how much are the units? I would imagine $300k+ to start.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not approved by council, yet. They put off the decision until October 12th. The general consensus from Council was "Are you sure you can't knock a couple floors off so it's not taller than BB&T?" <-- WHY?!

I believe the bottom of the building will be clad in natural stone and masonry, and the top will be clad in precast concrete. Can't find any of the PDFs of this from when it was under review by council, so I can't find the documentation to prove it.

As for price points, I would certainly expect this to start in the $300k range, if not $400k.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not approved by council, yet. They put off the decision until October 12th. The general consensus from Council was "Are you sure you can't knock a couple floors off so it's not taller than BB&T?" <-- WHY?!

I believe the bottom of the building will be clad in natural stone and masonry, and the top will be clad in precast concrete. Can't find any of the PDFs of this from when it was under review by council, so I can't find the documentation to prove it.

As for price points, I would certainly expect this to start in the $300k range, if not $400k.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally, I kind of like the BB&T. The back of the lot with the drive-thru and the surface parking lot along lexington needs to go away & be redeveloped, but the building does a great job of addressing Pack Square with both lobby and retail space, and is in my opinion, an exemplary specimen of international style architecture. If ALL the buildings on Pack Square were like BB&T then maybe I would complain, but I think that this is a welcome splash of variety.

(The Akzona/Biltmore building does a terrible job of addressing the square. Something needs to fix that, or that building needs to go.)

But anyway, I agree that using the BB&T as the benchmark for "nothing taller than this will ever get built here" is absurd.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
Personally, I kind of like the BB&T. The back of the lot with the drive-thru and the surface parking lot along lexington needs to go away & be redeveloped, but the building does a great job of addressing Pack Square with both lobby and retail space, and is in my opinion, an exemplary specimen of international style architecture. If ALL the buildings on Pack Square were like BB&T then maybe I would complain, but I think that this is a welcome splash of variety.

(The Akzona/Biltmore building does a terrible job of addressing the square. Something needs to fix that, or that building needs to go.)

But anyway, I agree that using the BB&T as the benchmark for "nothing taller than this will ever get built here" is absurd.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A shorter Ellington?

http://www.citizen-times.com/apps/pbcs.dll...ID=200771012106

Well, thank goodness for that, then. Lord knows that extra 30 feet was all that stood between us and being flash-frozen in the streets when the Ellington blotted out all the sunlight in a 50-mile radius. I hope none of the NIMBY's strain themselves patting themselves on the back. After all, they've got to be in tip-top condition, because you can't be some old slob when you're simultaneously opposing downtown growth and ignoring suburban sprawl. That takes mad skillz.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The way Ellington interacts with the street is the problem, not the fact that it is tall or even massive. A 23 story building that does not interrupt the rhythm of Biltmore Avenue could certainly be designed. Everything from the second floor on up is just fine. However, everything at ground level shows a near complete lack of respect (or more probably, understanding) of what makes up a city like Asheville. The driveway and courtyard that ruin the continuous streetwall along Biltmore, and the multiple parking deck entrances and monolithic walls along Lexington and Aston are bad.

It's a shame that most of the discussion around this building has been "Too tall, too dense, too expensive, not enough parking, traffic, traffic, traffic!" rather than addressing the real problem.

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.