Legacy Union (former Charlotte Observer redevelopment)

[15895]

Surprised no one mentioned the Duke Energy Center? Isn't it brutalist?

 

 

[DEnd]

6 hours ago, AirNostrumMAD said:

Surprised no one mentioned the Duke Energy Center? Isn't it brutalist?

The Power Tower?  No, that's poorly done Neo-Futurism. 

[15895]

4 minutes ago, DEnd said:

The Power Tower?  No, that's poorly done Neo-Futurism. 

Lol, no. The shorter little brown Duke Energy Center with a Church Streer address behind Ally Tower

[DEnd]

9 minutes ago, AirNostrumMAD said:

Lol, no. The shorter little brown Duke Energy Center with a Church Streer address behind Ally Tower

Yes, or at least close enough.  There is also the Jail, the Library at CPCC, a suburban office building or two here and there... 

[Synopsis101]

8 hours ago, DEnd said:

The Power Tower?  No, that's poorly done Neo-Futurism. 

Poorly done?

[DEnd]

16 minutes ago, Synopsis101 said:

Poorly done?

Yes, it's a bland copy of Shanghai World Financial Center. The only things of architectural interest are its lighting and wondering if the architect meant for the interest line (on the sides) to turn out like it did or if the contractor screwed up. 

Don't get me wrong it's an innovative building, and on its merits alone place it squarely in well done Neo-Futurist (which is arguably the more important aspect of the movement anyway).  Unfortunately it also uses a glass curtain wall which arguably negates some of those merits or at least causes some problems.

[Deleted.]

4 hours ago, DEnd said:

Yes, it's a bland copy of Shanghai World Financial Center. The only things of architectural interest are its lighting and wondering if the architect meant for the interest line (on the sides) to turn out like it did or if the contractor screwed up. 

Don't get me wrong it's an innovative building, and on its merits alone place it squarely in well done Neo-Futurist (which is arguably the more important aspect of the movement anyway).  Unfortunately it also uses a glass curtain wall which arguably negates some of those merits or at least causes some problems.

Is it really a copy? The Shanghai World Financial Center was meant to have a circular aperture at the top, but this was changed in late 2005. The Duke Energy Center renderings were released in late 2006, so the building was probably being designed in late 2005. So it may be a coincidence that they look similar. 

Anyway its not poorly done, its one of the best looking buildings because it isn't just a box! 

[DEnd]

9 hours ago, Piedmont767 said:

Is it really a copy? The Shanghai World Financial Center was meant to have a circular aperture at the top, but this was changed in late 2005. The Duke Energy Center renderings were released in late 2006, so the building was probably being designed in late 2005. So it may be a coincidence that they look similar. 

Anyway its not poorly done, its one of the best looking buildings because it isn't just a box! 

It's no coincidence, the sky Window was specifically chosen because of the success of the concept in Shanghai.  A mostly glass curtain wall building does not lend itself well to emulating another glass curtain wall building.  In this case it makes it look like a cheap knock off. 

Visually to me it is just a box, it has basically nothing to create light and shadows on its façade.  I'm throwing it a good bit of hate, but I don't really dislike it, it's fun at night and it does bring some architectural diversity to the city.  Also it's not nearly as bad as the Westin.  That building makes me want to bash my brains in with a baseball bat and go back to school and study architecture, because if someone got paid to design that monstrosity then by god I'd make bank if I had severe brain damage.

Edited January 10, 2016 by DEnd

[Deleted.]

5 hours ago, DEnd said:

It's no coincidence, the sky Window was specifically chosen because of the success of the concept in Shanghai.  A mostly glass curtain wall building does not lend itself well to emulating another glass curtain wall building.  In this case it makes it look like a cheap knock off. 

Visually to me it is just a box, it has basically nothing to create light and shadows on its façade.  I'm throwing it a good bit of hate, but I don't really dislike it, it's fun at night and it does bring some architectural diversity to the city.  Also it's not nearly as bad as the Westin.  That building makes me want to bash my brains in with a baseball bat and go back to school and study architecture, because if someone got paid to design that monstrosity then by god I'd make bank if I had severe brain damage.

I haven't heard that it isn't a coincidence before, so I'd like to see something which says the same thing as what you are saying. 

Duke Energy is one of the interesting buildings in the USA, have a look at most other city's skylines- their buildings are just square boxes. It doesn't look like a cheap knock off, but I think we should agree to disagree. 

As for the Westin, architecture isn't just about the shape of a building but also the materials used etc. I'd like to see you design an interesting and unique building, if you are challenging one of the most renowned architects in the USA. 

[DEnd]

You'll have to excuse the lens distortion, the fact it needs a pressure wash, the uncut grass, and the broken fans.  But this is the house I designed and built with my dad.

While I didn't fully design the house it is based on a sketch I made early in the process. My Father was highly involved in the process, and we hired an Architect to draw it as I was working 60-90 hours a week at that point.  Her expertise was invaluable, especially with the layout.  I have some major criticisms of the house.  #1 the up stairs doors were moved and the center window was eliminated.  The up -stairs doors are not correct, for the design to work the transom windows should have been like they were down stairs.  The support columns are visually too small, structurally they are fine.  They fit with the vernacular, but that is one part of the vernacular I have an issue with.  Each of these have reasons why they got screwed up, the doors for example happened because we didn't want to spend the money on getting custom doors made.  The upstairs center window was eliminated when the master closet moved to that location and it was removed in favor of more wall space.  The fans broke because they were too cheap, they aren't used so when I get to the energy efficiency retrofit they will be removed.  I'm not happy with the Trex, it has stained too easily though otherwise it has held up extremely well.  The railing and columns are sheathed in a cheap PVC, cellular pvc should have been used instead. 

On the other side I have some major problems as well.  Originally the pictured side was supposed to be the front with the driveway approaching from the right side of the picture.  The reality of the situation is the driveway we put there never got used, it has in-fact grown over from disuse.  The "back door" Is actually the front door, but since it was designed as the back door there is no sense of arrival.  The back door is on the left side of the picture on the back of the house and that's fine except there is no place there for a kitchen garden.  The vineyard and Orchard are to the right of the house and since they are out of the main visual range of the traffic flow they tend to get ignored.  We should have hired a Landscape architect early on in the process, their insights would have been invaluable and likely would have changed how we designed the house.

The house however lives extremely well, though most people would have issue with the fact that the kitchen and living room are completely separate for how we live and entertain it works well.  The only true choke point is where the refrigerator is located

[ah59396]

I saw this project for Toronto and REALLY liked the set-up and thought something like this would be incredible for either The Observer site or Brooklyn Village in 2nd Ward.

Thoughts?

 

[rockhilljames]

Yes. Mixed use that's actually mixed and integrated.

[rjp212]

According to the CO, closing has been pushed back until May 2nd.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, rjp212 said:

According to the CO, closing has been pushed back until May 2nd.

I think Lincoln Harris is trying to negotiate for a lower price based on soil conditions. Not everyone knows this, but for decades The Observer housed enough diesel and gasoline to fill a small semi and to keep their entire fleet of vehicles fueled. That and the chemicals, and commercial processes that went into printing newspapers especially in the early part of this buildings history, I'm sure the soil under the building is absolutely in need of a couple million dollars worth of remediation.

Edited January 11, 2016 by Guest

[Silicon Dogwoods]

That would make sense. No remediation required when the building went up in the late 1960s, I guess.

Wasn't the earlier building from the 1920s on the same site?

Edited January 11, 2016 by Silicon Dogwoods

[Spartan]

On 1/8/2016 at 3:39 PM, kermit said:

I am no architectureoligist so bear with my uneducated perspective on preserving the observer building.

I had to ask the question "is there any good brutalism" earlier because every example I had seen of it is fortresslike. They are all massive concrete buildings which were inward facing, refused to connect to the street with ground-level windows (and generally had small 'arrow-slit'  windows above street level) and typically had front doors that were tucked away and easy to 'defend'. The specific buildings that made me feel like all brutalism was designed from a 'siege mentality' perspective were all built during the urban dark ages in the 1970s where concerns about crime and continued decline were nearly universal  (see Georgia State University campus, the downtown Greensboro Marriott and the street level of the Renaissance Center in Detroit)

In short, I have always associated brutalist architecture as devices designed for the urban apocalypse that was looming in the 1970s. Most of these structures were intended to isolate themselves from the surrounding community -- a characteristic which always make the surrounding city less human. The Observer building is no exception, its presence will (IMO) always make it difficult to build a healthy pedestrian environment around it. Regardless its historic value there is no reason to mourn its loss.

I also acknowledge that I am (in the words of Harold and Kumar) a "hypocritisizer," I have argued here before that just about every historic building should be preserved, just because it was historic. Shrug. 

Something to consider all of the examples of 'good' brutalism have more windows and feel somewhat less 'bulky' than the bad ones. But essentially you're right - brutalism can be viewed as type of fortress to fend of the harsh urban environment of that era.

[Conformity]

On 12/18/2015 at 1:46 PM, mfowler12 said:

Couldn't the Brooklyn Village plan be pushed with this type of idea in mind..outdoor retail component built from scratch.. I would think there's more than enough land for it and it might be the last frontier of what's needed inside the 277 loop.

 

Conformity??

One would think so.

[kermit]

 

On January 6, 2016 at 1:34 PM, tozmervo said:

Habitat '67 & Rudolph Hall are two notable examples.

I just got a good view of Habitat 67 when arriving in Montreal by train. Thanks to your post I knew exactly what I was looking at and had some understanding of its context. It looks very different from ground level than the areal photos that popped up when I googled it initially. Ironically I was easdropping on the chatter of the onboard crew (about half of whom seemed to live in Montreal), when another passenger pointed out Habitat. Two of the crew insisted that it was never finished and it was just a lack of money that prevented it from looking more 'proper'.  They also referred to it as 'the ant hill' meaning they thought it is what the belowground portion of an anthill would look like if you stripped the dirt away.

Thanks to Toz I knew they were wrong, but I was amused that the project is not universally revered by residents. The thing I like best about this site is how much I learn from it.

as an aside I really like Montreal, but the volume of brutalist buildings kinda depresses me (same with Central Toronto). I assume all the buildings sprouted up during the 70s era urban boom in Canada.

Edit: sorry about being wayyy off topic.

Edited February 23, 2016 by kermit

[videtur quam contuor]

Brutalist architecture may be more acceptable in cities in which the climate is brutal. Montreal, Moscow and select other cities have a commercial building window that is months shorter than Charlotte and nearly all (all?) cities in the US. To complete a building in these much more variable climate conditions within a reasonable time within cost strictures and deliver height (concrete cure, crane operation, etc) means 20th century buildings tend to the style of "brutalism" whether originally intended. Charlotte may have brutalism but by design without resorting to justification of the climate.

[kermit]

2 hours ago, tarhoosier said:

Brutalist architecture may be more acceptable in cities in which the climate is brutal. Montreal, Moscow and select other cities have a commercial building window that is months shorter than Charlotte and nearly all (all?) cities in the US. To complete a building in these much more variable climate conditions within a reasonable time within cost strictures and deliver height (concrete cure, crane operation, etc) means 20th century buildings tend to the style of "brutalism" whether originally intended. Charlotte may have brutalism but by design without resorting to justification of the climate.

Thanks for this, it solves a riddle that has been bugging me for a while. 

And maybe it explains why this native Southerner is no fan of the style.

[Silicon Dogwoods]

On 1/10/2016 at 10:56 PM, DEnd said:

It's no coincidence, the sky Window was specifically chosen because of the success of the concept in Shanghai.  A mostly glass curtain wall building does not lend itself well to emulating another glass curtain wall building.  In this case it makes it look like a cheap knock off. 

Visually to me it is just a box, it has basically nothing to create light and shadows on its façade.  I'm throwing it a good bit of hate, but I don't really dislike it, it's fun at night and it does bring some architectural diversity to the city.  Also it's not nearly as bad as the Westin.  That building makes me want to bash my brains in with a baseball bat and go back to school and study architecture, because if someone got paid to design that monstrosity then by god I'd make bank if I had severe brain damage.

I love The Westin. It's so not-Charlotte and yet, here it is. That's what I love about it. That, and the near-Brutalism of its facade.

The nee-Wachovia building has a nice light show and the skyline is better with it than without but I don't love it.

Of course, I think the architecture in Blade Runner is magnificent. Dazzling yet dark, bleak, overpowering, and of course dehumanizing.

Edited February 24, 2016 by Silicon Dogwoods

[SgtCampsalot]

9 minutes ago, Silicon Dogwoods said:

Of course, I think the architecture in Blade Runner is magnificent. Dazzling yet dark, bleak, overpowering, and of course dehumanizing.

Hah! Yep

[Nick2]

Can anyone explain why Columbia has so much brutalist architecture?

[Silicon Dogwoods]

7 hours ago, Nick2 said:

Can anyone explain why Columbia has so much brutalist architecture?

Because its summers are brutally hot?

Because it's brutally flat?

[ahem]

I didn't know this about Columbia. Brutalism had its day in the 60s and 70s; maybe a lot of it got built then. Is it government stuff? Given brutalism's concrete forms, raw finishes and sometimes few, small windows I would think it's relatively inexpensive as well. So easy to build on a cheap state budget.

Edited February 24, 2016 by Silicon Dogwoods

[go_vertical]

The majority of brutalist structures I have seen have been for either government, educational, or civic purposes. I imagine the potentially low cost of this type of construction plays into why so many museums or higher education structures were built like this.

Edited February 24, 2016 by go_vertical
Poor prooff reeding