Legacy Union (former Charlotte Observer redevelopment)

[SydneyCarton]

35 minutes ago, #1Son said:

@SydneyCarton If Deloitte and Honeywell are the LH standard the parking base should be integrated very nicely. 

I agree about Honeywell, but Deloitte doesn't sit on a podium.  Isn't the parking behind it?

[CLT-704]

2 hours ago, SydneyCarton said:

I agree about Honeywell, but Deloitte doesn't sit on a podium.  Isn't the parking behind it?

The third level is actually parking that is accessed through the 620 podium parking deck. 

[turbocraig]

7 minutes ago, CLT-704 said:

The third level is actually parking that is accessed through the 620 podium parking deck. 

IIRC when Deloitte was being built there were pics of that parking level and it was said that it was for C-level folks and execs so they didn't have to walk too far to get to the office or cars.  

[Hushpuppy321]

16 Floors Office & 8 Floors Parking Podium mean that this will probably be around 50' to 70' taller than Deloitte\LU2 if the Office Floor Heights are similar so maybe around 335' to 355' I am guessing.

Back of the Napkin Estimate

Parking = 77' (14' 1st Floor + 7 - 9' Floors)

Office = 240' to 250' (15' or 16' Floors)

Top Treatment\Mechanical = 20'

 

Edited November 10, 2021 by Hushpuppy321
New Estimate

[Urban Cowboy]

To follow-up on a point from the previous page...I don't understand the appeal or need to cap 277. It would be incredibly expensive....And in the short stretch between Mint and South blvd, there are 6 crossings if you count the light rail. The rail trail bridge will make 7. 

If the goal is to create more green space - there are better places to focus in my opinion. South End and the southern part of Uptown are all doing fine on their own. Why not invest public money elsewhere?

PLUS... If you capped 277, we'd have a park that fronts the Honeywell Parking Deck, LU Parking Deck, Ally Parking Deck, and back of Novel Stonewall... the only intriguing bit would be Ally and the plans for Uptown Cabaret.

Removing 277 should be the objective. Not capping it. 

[TheRealClayton]

15 minutes ago, Urban Cowboy said:

To follow-up on a point from the previous page...I don't understand the appeal or need to cap 277. It would be incredibly expensive....And in the short stretch between Mint and South blvd, there are 6 crossings if you count the light rail. The rail trail bridge will make 7. 

If the goal is to create more green space - there are better places to focus in my opinion. South End and the southern part of Uptown are all doing fine on their own. Why not invest public money elsewhere?

PLUS... If you capped 277, we'd have a park that fronts the Honeywell Parking Deck, LU Parking Deck, Ally Parking Deck, and back of Novel Stonewall... the only intriguing bit would be Ally and the plans for Uptown Cabaret.

Removing 277 should be the objective. Not capping it. 

It absolutely makes sense to cap it. If you build retaining walls, and land fill the parcels surrounding the highway to be flat, you can open up 12 acres of developable land leaving the portion directly above the highway overpass just for park land, which would be 4.5 acres. The newly created taxable land could yield $5B in new development, which would generate what, around $50M a year in new property taxes...?

. 

[NCMike1990]

Getting rid of those grassy embankments alone is enough of a reason for me to support a cap.

[TGIBridays]

40 minutes ago, Urban Cowboy said:

Removing 277 should be the objective. Not capping it. 

My worry with the whole capping thing is that if it's capped, it'll never get removed. But a cap is better than nothing, and it'll probably never be removed. 

[TheRealClayton]

4 minutes ago, TGIBridays said:

My worry with the whole capping thing is that if it's capped, it'll never get removed. But a cap is better than nothing, and it'll probably never be removed. 

I'd say its removal is about as likely as it's flooding.

[Urban Cowboy]

I still think removing 277 makes more sense than capping that one section. Especially if the goal is creating more land for development/tax base (vs green space which I assumed was the primary driver)

[DMann]

Totally agree and it brings Chantilly, Cherry, into a direct connection to the city.  

[TheMightyBK]

Remove 277? It’s not going to happen. Ever.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[TheMightyBK]

http://content.invisioncic.com/x329420/monthly_2021_11/36A1C118-70A9-464E-A86E-3CDB2F26244E.thumb.jpeg.95e653ef4fc8610e345d7bfaa868f37a.jpegI think it could happen one day,  Düsseldorf is a good example. I also agree cap is more likely, or 1/2 of 277 removed

While that is super cool, it is not NC, and removing 277 would not result in a gorgeous waterside park.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Madison Parkitect]

Removing all of 277 is extremely unlikely. Seattle removed their viaduct and it created some great developable land as well as reconnected the city with the waterfront, but oh boy was the tunnel construction an absolute disaster. We DO NOT want to go through that kind of years-long, extremely expensive process. Charlotte wouldn't need to build a new tunnel or anything to replace 277, but removing a piece of infrastructure like 277 is something that cities on the scale of Seattle/Boston/New York can take on. Charlotte isn't that.

[jjwilli]

42 minutes ago, TheMightyBK said:

While that is super cool, it is not NC, and removing 277 would not result in a gorgeous waterside park.

Might not be on a large river but you could get two "waterside" parks out of the removal, one on the Irwin Creek and the other on the Little Sugar Creek. 

I honestly don't get the "you could never remove it" comments. The John Belk is duplicative waste of prime real estate and NCDOT is woefully underfunded to ever improve in a meaningful way. We need to begin to shift our infrastructure away from being solely dedicated to cars and trucks and to more pedestrian / bike focused.  It obviously can't just be yanked out tomorrow but we should, as a city, at least study and begin to understand what the implications are and the solutions to mitigate the removal. Maybe it's another 4 lane boulevard between Stonewall and Morehead? 

At the end of the day, it comes down to political will and the desire to not have our entire center city choked off by cars. Sure a cap would make one very very small part better, but we need to dream bigger.

[buildleft]

Removing 277 can absolutely happen and I'm really confused by the cynicism around this. Do yall really believe it'll never happen or do you simply not want it to? I'm genuinely curious. I would say that removing just the John Belk Freeway and not the Brookshire is more likely, but even that would be fantastic. And while this should happen ASAP, it likely won't until the profit motive becomes abundantly clear. Also, unlike Seattle we don't need a $3,300,000,000 tunnel to replace it, just close it down and sell (most of) the land  Just my personal take...

[stw52]

5 minutes ago, buildleft said:

Removing 277 can absolutely happen and I'm really confused by the cynicism around this. Do yall really believe it'll never happen or do you simply not want it to? I'm genuinely curious. I would say that removing just the John Belk Freeway and not the Brookshire is more likely, but even that would be fantastic. And while this should happen ASAP, it likely won't until the profit motive becomes abundantly clear. Also, unlike Seattle we don't need a $3,300,000,000 tunnel to replace it, just close it down and sell (most of) the land  Just my personal take...

I don't know who would be the decision maker on I277 and if an elected official or not. But I can't see an elected official voting to remove something that many would have the perception (rightly or wrongly) helps traffic flow, and sell the land to developers who would profit greatly off it. That elected official would never be voted in again. For that reason, I277 will remain.

[TheRealClayton]

8 minutes ago, buildleft said:

Removing 277 can absolutely happen and I'm really confused by the cynicism around this. Do yall really believe it'll never happen or do you simply not want it to? I'm genuinely curious. I would say that removing just the John Belk Freeway and not the Brookshire is more likely, but even that would be fantastic. And while this should happen ASAP, it likely won't until the profit motive becomes abundantly clear. Also, unlike Seattle we don't need a $3,300,000,000 tunnel to replace it, just close it down and sell (most of) the land  Just my personal take...

How do you solve the connectivity, and drainage issues of having a literal ravine of development between two districts, would you bring it up to grade? 

[JorgiPorgi]

There should be a thread dedicated to I277, so we can get back to topic of Legacy Union….

[Madison Parkitect]

6 minutes ago, TheRealClayton said:

How do you solve the connectivity, and drainage issues of having a literal ravine of development between two districts, would you bring it up to grade? 

I guess I could maybe see it being turned into a boulevard where it doesn't really go away but all the below-grade parts are capped and made into tunnels and the caps turn into developed land or parks, but that's a costly undertaking.

[jthomas]

1 hour ago, TheRealClayton said:

How do you solve the connectivity, and drainage issues of having a literal ravine of development between two districts, would you bring it up to grade? 

It doesn't need to be filled. Each building could have 2-3 levels of parking that is below street level, but above grade construction. Essentially a podium building with the lobby on level 3 or 4 - the Atlantic Station development in Atlanta would be a good example.

In this scenario, I think a through route should be preserved below grade for transit. You essentially get a tunnel without needing to dig. With all of the development nearby, it makes sense to have some sort of transit spine.

[CharlotteWkndBuzz]

18 minutes ago, jthomas said:

 

In this scenario, I think a through route should be preserved below grade for transit. You essentially get a tunnel without needing to dig. With all of the development nearby, it makes sense to have some sort of transit spine.

I was literally thinking about how cool it would be to have an automated people mover tram that started at Teppers new dome/entertainment district (pipe land) and ended around the metropolitan area. Below grade

[SydneyCarton]

[Mgelbach]

[SydneyCarton]

This is one of the best examples of incorporating a parking deck that I've ever seen.  It literally looks like part of the building.

Edited November 24, 2021 by SydneyCarton