One Glenwood

[Jones_]

39 stories on that spot is way way too much. Stuff that tall needs to be east of the railroad.

[Spatula]

39 is a lot for right there. Having the tallest building be so far away would make the city look kinda weird until more towers filled in the gap. But I would take it anyway. We don't exactly have a lot going on.

Actually... the municipal building would get built before this anyway, so that would help take care of the gap.

[Jones_]

There are so many nuances people don't ever think about (or maybe care about). Snoopy's and Char Grill would not be the same if cast in shadow all day. That whole intersection has an ambiance due in part to vistas from it and its smaller scale maintains that. This all not even considering opposition from Boylan Heights which would be a given. Projects have to consider where their footprint is...Quorum and West surely wish they did, while RBC and 222 Glenwood fared much better in initial and total sales.

The block in question would be best served by about a 10 story something on the south side with about a 5 story apartment building with ground floor retail on the north side. The Glenwood/Hillsborough corner would make a great spot for outdoor seating and a cut-corner entry. The site is actually harder to build on for a 39 story tower than the owners may know....its all fill where Glenwood punches through to Morgan as the original grade of Morgan used to be almost level with the railroad.

I do however think sticking it on the Flex block is a much better fit. But the development game doesn't really work like chess.

[Euphorius]

I don't think I would mind it all that much being on the block across from Snoopy's. If you include Glenwood South in the skyline then that area would actually be the center of the skyline. In another 20 or 30 years I could see that area being where most of the tallest buildings in the city are located. Not just due to the fact that it would be the technical center of the skyline, but also because of its proximity to the State Govnt rail stop.

[Jones_]

Center of the skyline? From the money shot its still far left, and its definitely not the geographic center of downtown proper...thats more like where the police station is. Its on the far western edge. Like a good Adams Morgan, this area of town is destined to and should be only low and mid-rise. It is close to both future rail stops so I do advocate density and mixed-use, just not height, and no, one does not require or even necessarily beget the other.

[serapis]

Center of the skyline? From the money shot its still far left, and its definitely not the geographic center of downtown proper...thats more like where the police station is. Its on the far western edge. Like a good Adams Morgan, this area of town is destined to and should be only low and mid-rise. It is close to both future rail stops so I do advocate density and mixed-use, just not height, and no, one does not require or even necessarily beget the other.

[Euphorius]

I wasn't taking the "money shot" angle into perspective. If you look at the context in which I wrote that statement you would realize that I was saying if you add the Glenwood South buildings in the skyline shot, say from hovering somewhere over maybe the bell tower, then this area would be in the center of the skyline.

I respect your opinion. I just think that with Quorom, West, and Clarion that it would not look completely out of place and see no problem with tall buildings being outside downtown proper.

[RALNATIVE]

We get the point you hate tall buildings and modern architecture.

[Jones_]

There's definitely a mini high-rise area around West, Quorum and Clarion all grouped together. There isn't anything in your post about where your vantage point was from but it is a cool view coming from the bell tower....I drive that direction daily. The references here usually default to the money shot and I assumed that was what you meant. I think the area is definitely a good place for some taller buildings. I just happen to refine that thought a bit by being of the opinion that west of the tracks, while ripe for some new development, is not where a 39 story tower belongs. I appreciate the discussion though Euphorius. RALNATIVE and Separis think its more fun to make fun of arguments they don't understand in their little mono y mono circle jerk. Preferring status quo, and "hating" modern architecture or tall buildings have never been the absolute basis for anything I have said.

For the record the Chrysler Building in NYC and Titanium Lofts in Denver are two of my favorite buildings.

[ChiefJoJo]

[serapis]

There's definitely a mini high-rise area around West, Quorum and Clarion all grouped together. There isn't anything in your post about where your vantage point was from but it is a cool view coming from the bell tower....I drive that direction daily. The references here usually default to the money shot and I assumed that was what you meant. I think the area is definitely a good place for some taller buildings. I just happen to refine that thought a bit by being of the opinion that west of the tracks, while ripe for some new development, is not where a 39 story tower belongs. I appreciate the discussion though Euphorius. RALNATIVE and Separis think its more fun to make fun of arguments they don't understand in their little mono y mono circle jerk. Preferring status quo, and "hating" modern architecture or tall buildings have never been the absolute basis for anything I have said.

For the record the Chrysler Building in NYC and Titanium Lofts in Denver are two of my favorite buildings.

[Jones_]

LOL. You just named one old tall building, and one new short building. Come on Jone let us at least have a combination of both! It's all jokes, you're ok with me.

[dmccall]

Complaints about shadow? Puhleez. There would be a shadow from about 11:30am to about Noon on an average Winter day. In the Summer the sun is high.

This sounds like the people who didn't want the Wachovia building built because it would enshroud the Capitol in shadows. We see how stellar an argument that was.

[Jones_]

Complaints about shadow? Puhleez. There would be a shadow from about 11:30am to about Noon on an average Winter day. In the Summer the sun is high.

This sounds like the people who didn't want the Wachovia building built because it would enshroud the Capitol in shadows. We see how stellar an argument that was.

[dmccall]

I know it isn't the only point you made, but I just don't think it is a good one! There are shadows galore in D.C., too, and it is a low-rise city. The more that complaints about shadows on places like Cooper's and Snoopy's come up, the more developers will throw their hands up and just put towers in suburbia where people really are happy and don't complain about minor stuff. We don't want outside developers coming in. We don't want local developers and their good ol boy networks coming in. We don't want to cast shadows. We don't want this. We don't want that. At some point a developer just says, you know there is some cheap land out by the mall. I'll just focus on that.

[Jones_]

Some times developers, heck, alot of times they strive to follow the basic tenets of overall good development. What's there now, is what's there now good and worth sticking to, where is the area heading, building composition..... In the case of an area where pedestrians are what you want, then a developer should be adhering the basic principles of of pedestrian friendly development. The whole shadow discussion does sound silly, but its really a dissected portion of the argument of scale which is one of those principles. Downtown thrives not because developers are given free reign but because government, local and national developers together have worked to create (obviously still working on) a more or less grand patterned downtown that keeps certain functions in certain areas while keeping it all stitched together as a whole working form. Would the CC be a good fiit in Oakwood....of course not. The north-south expressway was not meant for Oakwood either. To me, putting a 39 story tower on this site is almost as misconceived as Soleil was. To Sandman's credit, he is in his way, trying to make our downtown better. But I don't think he's keen on other's opinions. Paramount cheaped out in several ways and really was nothing more than cramming lots of people who were to willing to pay into a building that was near the strip making all the headlines. Had it come online after RBC, West, and 222 I am not convinced it would have compared well on its merits. People are entitled to their vision, and buyers dollars tell us if thats where we're heading, so if One Glenwood goes 100% presale and prelease then my words will fall on deaf ears. But with projects like 111 Seaboard, context spoke loudly (I think regardless of the economy), and the dollars never came.

Raleigh can accommodate a great high-rise district. Tear down the Sheraton parking garage and put a 60 story tower there. Put another on Site 4. Sites 2 and 3 are appropriate for 30-60 stories.