Archived

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

hauntedheadnc

Parkside Condos

40 posts in this topic


You beat me by about two minutes. Coleman owns the purple parcel and the one to the right as well.

new.JPG

I'm really surprised by this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suppose this means we can kiss yet another two historic buildings goodbye. So far, the only one slated for demolition that's actually worth anything is the building on Church Street... Even so, I'm getting tired of this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd like to see a rendering of how a ten story building would impact the view of city hall and the courthouse. How tall is the current building?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The buildings onsite are only about two stories tall, and the ten-story building will be set back by 30 feet according to the article, leaving enough room to run a street to the entrance court in front of City Hall. I doubt the building will have much of an effect on the view of the civic buildings. It will actually just block the southward view of Beaucatcher Mountain from the square.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Something about this building was in one of the agendas (I think it was a pre-application conference for the TRC) a month or two back.

The building on that lot is one that I've always thought should be marked for demolition & redevelopment. It's sort of an old industrial building, and doesn't have any storefronts. It addresses Pack Square with a brick wall. The bricks are nice so I hope they recycle 'em (I'm sure they will; vintage bricks can be worth a fair amount.)

I think the blue highlighted lot with the building on the map by rooster8 has always been privately owned; the vacant pentagonal lot with the corner chopped off is what was sold to the developer by the county.

This will be a prominent spot on the new Pack Square so hopefully they'll do a good job addressing the square architecturally. I'm actually sort of glad that we're getting some private development down in that corner of the park. As it is, it's all institutional and it's really close to the jail, so without some private investment and some storefronts, it has the potential to become a dark & neglected corner of the park.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The news article is oblique when it comes to the 1920s commercial building on the west parcel (the blue parcel in Rooster8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A rendering and verbal square-dancing about how the developer basically plans a project that breaks every rule that could possibly apply to the site. I'm a little disconcerted about developers acting as though Asheville is Hendersonville or something, where every project is approved no matter who it displaces, what it destroys, how high it jacks up the taxes for its neighbors, or how inappropriate it is for the site.

http://www.citizen-times.com/apps/pbcs.dll...ID=200770722027

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


A rendering and verbal square-dancing about how the developer basically plans a project that breaks every rule that could possibly apply to the site. I'm a little disconcerted about developers acting as though Asheville is Hendersonville or something, where every project is approved no matter who it displaces, what it destroys, how high it jacks up the taxes for its neighbors, or how inappropriate it is for the site.

http://www.citizen-times.com/apps/pbcs.dll...ID=200770722027

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do understand the concerns about destroying buildings that were part of the original pre-war (WW2) grid. However, a building of 10 stories in my opinion would greatly offset the BB&T building, which seems to stick out and draw too much attention from the other older structures. Does this seem reasonable?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why destroy park space whilst there are painful amounts of surface parking all over downtown in need of infill? <_<

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Has anyone seen a site plan for this project? I'd like to see how the facade lines up with other buildings along the south side of Pack, and how the access road will work. I agree with Hauntedhead that height is irrelevant -- massing and how the building fits in is very relevant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Here's my take. The developer purchased or acquired rights to the Hayes-Hopson Building at the corner of Spruce & Marjorie through legal and entirely kosher means. They then convinced Buncombe County who owned a vacant parcel next door, the Old Jail site, to sell as well.

The problem is,

1. The old jail site was NOT a parking lot. It was part of the pack square park, and Pack Conservancy programmed the park space with the assumption that it would remain as part of the park.

2. The developer apparently paid the county less than fair market value for the parcel.

3. There are deed restrictions, which appear to be in question, that the parcel be used eternally for public purposes.

The Hayes-Hopson building is in blue below, and the Old Jail site is in green.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The questionable legality of the whole mess is why I would oppose this project, but I have no problem at all with height, and I'm sick of NIMBY's standing in the way of sensible downtown growth. They're really starting to get on my nerves these days with their faulty assumption that Asheville was ever Mayberry to begin with and that it should stay that way forever more because they're too damned blind to open their eyes and see the traffic, crime, grit, and tall buildings that mark this as the metropolitan hub of this part of the state.

As for this specific project, yes it should be scrutinized much more carefully because Coleman is definitely not playing by the rules here. However, that's why this project needs a closer look, not the height which is giving the NIMBY's fits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Downtown Commission is reviewing this project as well as the Ravenscroft projects today. The CT article makes it sound like Coleman is still planning on incorporating the parcel with the magnolia tree. Did the proposed swap with the city not happen?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

According to today's paper, the Downtown Commission endorses the design and thinks a shorter building would not look as good as the taller building.

Local NIMBY's of course, were out in force to protest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
According to today's paper, the Downtown Commission endorses the design and thinks a shorter building would not look as good as the taller building.

Local NIMBY's of course, were out in force to protest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The site plan and an elevation drawing are available on the development mapper.

I don't see any substantial changes in the elevation. The site plan clearly shows the new street planned in front of the building.

I like how this provides a defined edge to the southern side of the park, but it seems there's absolutely nothing going on on Marjorie or Spruce streets other than parking deck entrances. Marjorie not being a major street, generaly I wouldn't mind that too much, except that the lot on the south side of Marjorie is one of the places that is being considered for a performing arts center to replace the aging Thomas Wolfe Auditorium.

parkside_siteplan.jpg

parkside_elevation.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's nothing wrong with the architecture, and I too prefer for parks to have edges clearly defined by streets. I don't like the way, for instance, that Aston Park just sort of gloms onto a dozen backyards.

My only problem with this building is that it's yet another yuppie hive. As if we needed any more of those.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Coleman has scaled back his plans to 9 floors.

Unfortunately, the part that many people (including me, honestly) take issue with is not the height of the building, but the way it juts out into the park. This does nothing to resolve that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.