changingskyline

I agree, Brent. Pickard Chilton is a master of the glass curtain wall. Jon Pickard worked in Cesar Pelli's office in the 1990s and I think that's where the influence of this refinement developed. I believe some of the curves on their towers are an attempt to provide multiple corner offices, or to democratize the workspace. This will really brighten up the skyline. It's still a modernist aesthetic, but it provides relief from the skyline's currant boxiness.

Is there any chance we would end up with a related but slightly different "sister" tower rather than a shorter identical twin? Something akin to One and Two Liberty Place in Philadelphia? It seems like that might be better aesthetically. On the other hand, something like Calgary's Eight Ave. Place (another Pickard Chilton design) would work: http://www.pickardchilton.com/work/eighth-avenue-place Regarding the street retail, thank you for posting those pics. That does look promising.

I know the "tower on a plaza" modernism has been discredited, but aesthetically I can't help but like the current James River Plaza. The materials and proportions are beautiful. The verticality of the lines and small windows make the building feel taller than it actually is, something the replacement building won't do. Pickard Chilton has a great track record for contributing to the street, so I hope Dominion lives up to the imagination and commitment of their past clients in that regard. Here are some pictures of the current plaza. Unused, but not entirely unattractive. And we should remember that this podium is covering a parking garage. https://tclf.org/landscapes/one-james-river-plaza The front view of the new Dominion tower will undoubtedly address the street well, but what about the north side of the block on Cary Street? Will that be a dead zone with a parking structure? If so, we would be better off with a plaza like this.

The current building forms a bridge over the canal. The canal walk runs right under the building along the canal. Click through this picture thread and you'll see what it looks like now: http://www.richmond.com/business/local/story-hyatt-place-hotel-planned-for-canal-walk-in-downtown/article_0115b4dc-06ef-510d-9524-e1b20e2afa0b.html

The last sentences of this video hit the nail on the head. Amtrak does not receive any investment. This is exactly the same scam they've engineered to steal our tax dollars for "for-profit" charter schools: starve public schools of investment and then claim they don't work and need to be privatized. Something like 6 trillion dollars of our money has been wasted on never-ending wars in the Middle East. For that money we could probably have real high speed rail (China has a similar land mass) and a lot of other things. Too bad this country has been hijacked by traitors.

Forget about monopolistic "private companies" that are only interested in stealing our tax dollars and holding us hostage. Why shouldn't the government just build this kind of state of the art public transportation network like they do in China, Japan, Europe, and so many other places? Why do we as Americans have to wait year after year for these kinds of innovations while the rest of the world builds them? Have you ever noticed that when it comes to never-ending wars in the Middle East, the military-industrial complex, the private insurance industry, and big oil there's always more than enough money, but when it comes time to actually do something that benefits society at large (rather than the 1%) funding is always scarce? It's interesting how it always seems to work out that way. When it comes to a public investment like a rail system we have to live by "profit motives" and "the market" but when it comes to bailing out to-big-to-fail (jail) banks the profit system goes by the wayside.

Yesterday the Pickard Chilton-designed Northwestern Mutual tower opened in Milwaukee. Look at the design and you'll see how closely that building is the taller sibling of our tower. I hope Dominion's building turns out this well: http://urbanmilwaukee.com/2017/05/31/in-public-our-first-great-glassy-skyscraper/ http://www.pickardchilton.com/work/northwestern-mutual-tower-and-commons By the way, I just noticed that the Dominion building is now being called "Canal Place" on Pickard Chilton's website. Is that the new official name and if so, why would Dominion not want its name on its own building?

Does the foundation of this building go into bedrock or something more shallow?

Will this ever lead to light rail lines or do you think it will remain buses? Houston has a light rail line that is being expanded throughout the city. The downtown area there, which has traditionally been limited to office buildings and dead after hours, is really coming alive with condos and apartments.

I would love to see a big company and a big tower but I would be worried about a health insurance company. I think a Single Payer "Medicare for all" system is on the horizon and that will surely spell the end of the kind of outrageous, inefficient monopoly these companies now enjoy. 56% of the country (including something like 42% of Republicans) now support Single Payer and in time I think the demands of the public will be overwhelming. If they do land here, I will enjoy watching a major headquarters tower go up as much as the next person on this forum.

Hopefully that doesn't mean they've scaled it back to 10-15 stories. (Just kidding, I'm sure we don't have to worry). I still don't understand why they wouldn't want to consolidate all of their workers in one building rather than continuing to scatter them around in 6 different buildings.

Some interesting additional pictures and details on the architect's website. What do you make of the phrase "if approved" referring to the second tower (phase two)? http://www.pickardchilton.com/work/dominion

But they could have done an above ground parking garage like the one next to Devon Energy Tower in Oklahoma City. I don't understand why they chose not to consolidate in one slightly taller building.

When it comes to scale, the narrow windows and vertical lines of the current Dominion tower give a nice perception of height. In fact, I think the current Dominion building would appear taller than the replacement tower II. The current building sets up a nice dialogue with the Federal Reserve and breaks up what might otherwise turn into a sea of glass curtain walls if they tear it down and replace it. I like the crisp geometry of the current building. It's a good representation of its era of mid-century Modernism. Does anyone know why Dominion didn't just build one taller tower? It seems like consolidating everything in one building would make the most sense. Is there a big jump in cost when you go above 20 stories that makes it economically less viable?

It says it will be "the tallest building in Richmond." Is that because the land is higher than under James Monroe or has the height been increased?