110 East: 23 story Tower by Stiles/Shorenstein

[JRCLT]

The plans calls for 9 floors of parking last time I saw so after this last one. But I will check because I’m so ready 

Yes, 2-10 are parking that’s 9. I looked right after posting. So really after this next floor it should office if I counted correctly.

[QCxpat]

Today 10:00 a.m.

Edited December 21, 2022 by QCxpat

[DJ8hep]

Taken yesterday, couldn’t believe how much taller it was since I got back from MN!

[videtur quam contuor]

Is it better to have parking for 1,000 cars spread out on on ground level or on ten levels?

[JRCLT]

Is it better to have parking for 1,000 cars spread out on on ground level or on ten levels?

Trick question!

[videtur quam contuor]

Not really a trick question. Podium parking (I learned the term here on UP) changes the building design dramatically and for the worse. So much concrete, and attendant economic costs (lost rental space, environmental issues, etc). Encouragement of car culture and rejection of any other transportation option. Impossibility of conversion of podium to other purpose. 

Surface parking gives a uniform building appearance, more rented space, conversion of parking to development at later date. 

Someone must question the current thinking.

 

[Prodev]

The entire block from East Blvd down to Tremont would need to be a surface parking lot and you still wouldn't have enough parking as what they do in the deck. Parking is a function of leasing and driven by tenants. Parking costs money (a lot of it too) so developers would happily build less parking if it were accepted by the market. Changes in parking demand happen at a macro level as cities urbanize. What groups like Spacecraft are doing in Optimist Park where they're planning to build hundreds of multifamily units without parking and getting praised for it from "urbanists" is actually a really bad thing for the neighborhood because the market is still car centric and it'll create huge issues that drive user demand (residents, workers, business owners)  out of the area.  If they had stopped at the Joinery or done similar projects throughout in-town Charlotte, I'm all for it, but concentrating 1,700 apartments within 3 blocks without providing any meaningful parking is not something that's going to result in a good outcome for the neighborhood. 

[TheMightyBK]

What groups like Spacecraft are doing in Optimist Park where they're planning to build hundreds of multifamily units without parking and getting praised for it from "urbanists" is actually a really bad thing for the neighborhood because the market is still car centric and it'll create huge issues that drive user demand (residents, workers, business owners)  out of the area.  If they had stopped at the Joinery or done similar projects throughout in-town Charlotte, I'm all for it, but concentrating 1,700 apartments within 3 blocks without providing any meaningful parking is not something that's going to result in a good outcome for the neighborhood. 

I’m not sure how you can postulate that it’s “bad”? There’s always a first for anything, and if the market appreciates the concept then you’ll likely see more carless development. The market may reject it, but I think that risk is the developer’s…which I would hope did its homework re viability. [emoji1308]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JRCLT]

Not really a trick question. Podium parking (I learned the term here on UP) changes the building design dramatically and for the worse. So much concrete, and attendant economic costs (lost rental space, environmental issues, etc). Encouragement of car culture and rejection of any other transportation option. Impossibility of conversion of podium to other purpose. 
Surface parking gives a uniform building appearance, more rented space, conversion of parking to development at later date. 
Someone must question the current thinking.
 

Lol I said trick question because neither is overall better than the other.

Yes, what you have said is true but supplying 1000 parking spots on the a surface lot… that is an immense amount of space. Space not available in south end clearly. So, the cost of land and willingness to sell versus the cost of building a podium which turns vertical space into usable space. It’s the inherent need to fill the car dependency with limited space. More rented space tends to = more parking anyways in a car dependent place. Yeah the blue line is there, but the line doesn’t traverse a majority let alone all of charlottes population. Therefore you can’t expect everyone to who works there to live along the line. So these developers do what they believe is most attractive. Convenient basically right at the door parking. Lots make walkability a nightmare. We all know walking through building lined streets is comparatively nicer than walking through a desert of parking lots. Parking structures could definitely be retrofitted at some point in the future I believe. What hasn’t been done does not mean it could never be done. That space could possibly be turned to usable space when the time comes that its space is needed. It’s really a cost and benefit analysis and where your categories have more weight. This will vary depending on access to land and funds. Not saying either one is better than the other objectively, but subject to desirable criteria of anyone’s choosing will output either as most favorable.

[Prodev]

43 minutes ago, TheMightyBK said:

I’m not sure how you can postulate that it’s “bad”? There’s always a first for anything, and if the market appreciates the concept then you’ll likely see more carless development. The market may reject it, but I think that risk is the developer’s…which I would hope did its homework re viability.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That's a fair point for the fact that it's one developer and they're building those 1,700 units in what'll probably end up being ~10 phases, some of which will overlap.  The issue is that problems aren't generally identified until they exist at which point it's too late. 

[QCxpat]

Today 10:50 a.m.

Edited January 16, 2023 by QCxpat

[ertley]

2 hours ago, QCxpat said:

Today 10:50 a.m.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Somebody, somewhere needs to donate that poor little church a steeple.

[Mgelbach]

[DMann]

That building is making Lowes look small!

[jthomas]

Almost to the people part of the building! I don't know whether to laugh or cry.

[JacksonH]

On 1/17/2023 at 5:53 AM, DMann said:

That building is making Lowes look small!

And the hideous monstrocity is also making Lowes look even more attractive.  Lowes will be even more of a standout when 110 East is completed.

[j-man]

On 1/17/2023 at 8:53 AM, DMann said:

That building is making Lowes look small!

You mean that Parking Garage Monster is making Lowes look small. Yes indeed it is.  

[RANYC]

20 hours ago, j-man said:

You mean that Parking Garage Monster is making Lowes look small. Yes indeed it is.  

All these months, all that engineering, all that effort, all that money, and to have done nothing up to this point but a concrete carcass for stacking motor vehicles is somewhat insane.  Nothing screams American inefficiency and insecurity than this display of how we accommodate our very fractured, fragmented, disjointed way of getting round.  

I'm still smarting over driving past The Line with its podium prominence.

Can someone answer me this:  Can South End really be a "great" urban neighborhood, not just relative to a NC standard, but relative to a national or international standard, with these podiums?

Edited January 19, 2023 by RANYC

[jthomas]

40 minutes ago, RANYC said:

All these months, all that engineering, all that effort, all that money, and to have done nothing up to this point but a concrete carcass for stacking motor vehicles is somewhat insane.  Nothing screams American inefficiency and insecurity than this display of how we accommodate our very fractured, fragmented, disjointed way of getting round.  

I'm still smarting over driving past The Line with its podium prominence.

Can someone answer me this:  Can South End really be a "great" urban neighborhood, not just relative to a NC standard, but relative to a national or international standard, with these podiums?

I'll go a step further - is a building like this even a net positive for the neighborhood? It will primarily be used by people who will drive in presumably from all over the metro area 5 days a week (maybe? could only be 3 or 4). These people will occupy the building from roughly 8:00 am to 6:00 pm. Maybe they will walk to a nearby lunch spot. Then, they will drive home at the end of the day, and the building will be mostly empty on nights and weekends. Even during the day, the top levels of parking will probably be sparsely used, and the deck will be mostly empty after hours except maybe on Friday and Saturday. 

I'm not trying to be antagonistic, and I'd be interested in hearing a counterargument about how this type of building benefits its neighborhood.

[atlrvr]

^^^ that's more a commentary on American urban planning (as well as most of South America, Australia, Africa, and some of Asia) post WW2, than should be ascribed to this building in particular (IMO at least).

[15895]

2 hours ago, RANYC said:

All these months, all that engineering, all that effort, all that money, and to have done nothing up to this point but a concrete carcass for stacking motor vehicles is somewhat insane.  Nothing screams American inefficiency and insecurity than this display of how we accommodate our very fractured, fragmented, disjointed way of getting round.  

I'm still smarting over driving past The Line with its podium prominence.

Can someone answer me this:  Can South End really be a "great" urban neighborhood, not just relative to a NC standard, but relative to a national or international standard, with these podiums?

It can give a small taste of good urbanism. It can create pockets of good urbanism. 

This will no doubt lead to more cars on Tryon and & South Blvd. I hate… crossing South Blvd. Walking across South Blvd. Is not pleasant and it also doesn’t feel too safe. Same for Tryon.

You do have the rail trail & Camden. There’s pockets but it’s never going to blend in well to the surrounding urban environment because there has to be ways for people to drive there if the developments are mostly accessed by vehicles. 

Urbanity won’t be able to spread evenly and into other neighborhoods because the roads just couldn’t handle increased density. Other neighborhoods won’t support more increased density because of the vehicle traffic. So Urbanity will just be spotty. Do other people feel safe or comfortable at the South/East Blvd. Intersection for example? There’s hardly any comfortable streets in SouthEnd/Gold District outside of a greenway & Camden. Morehead, South Blvd, Tryon, Church, Carson it all isn’t a nice pedestrian experience and the intersections are all sort of scary to cross.

To have great urbanity in general. Ideally, South Blvd and even Tryon would be massively slowed down, lanes taken away, cross walks that are 3x wider, protected Bike lanes, on street parking or streeteries, etc. But that’s not how it’s shaping up and development will just have to creep down South Blvd. Not just because light rail but mostly for for South Blvd. & Tryon Streets vehicle capacity…. 

Charlotte isn’t doing what it needs to have urbanity that people will say it has great urban neighborhoods. But I think, it can be a place that has good auto-oriented sunbelt “new urbanism” sprawl growth (I hate the word “new urbanism” because that implies anything new has to be auto-oriented etc and all over the world and in several places around the US, they are just steam rolling into a different type of future and going all in all sustainable growth, going green etc). 

Green, sustainable & urban neighborhoods isn’t going to be something that really happens in Charlotte. It’s more developer focused, more about just single developments & I don’t think there’s an appetite for leadership on neighborhoods in terms of pushing for sustainable neighborhoods. I don’t see the civic push (which is almost more important than the private side developer push.) Maybe Charlotte wouldn’t be what it is without that, though? And that’s just the way the city is likely going to be. So actual goals to better Charlotte that Charlotte could realistically have the appetite for. Trying to slow down the roads, take some lanes away, wider cross walks, slower speeds, etc. could be a realistic goal that would help turn Southend into an even greater urban neighborhood. To freely move around Wilmore, SouthEnd, Dilworth etc would be nice. 

It’s always a balance of what is realistic for Charlotte as a city to have the energy to dedicate towards the inner city (and not pockets of developments from the usual developers) and how to make all of inner city a better place to live sustainably, walk, densify, etc. And that balance just isn’t a fun one if you’re more of an urban planning nerd then an urban development nerd who is just happy to see skyscrapers (not a bad thing btw.) 

[RANYC]

5 hours ago, AirNostrumMAD said:

It can give a small taste of good urbanism. It can create pockets of good urbanism. 

This will no doubt lead to more cars on Tryon and & South Blvd. I hate… crossing South Blvd. Walking across South Blvd. Is not pleasant and it also doesn’t feel too safe. Same for Tryon.

You do have the rail trail & Camden. There’s pockets but it’s never going to blend in well to the surrounding urban environment because there has to be ways for people to drive there if the developments are mostly accessed by vehicles. 

Urbanity won’t be able to spread evenly and into other neighborhoods because the roads just couldn’t handle increased density. Other neighborhoods won’t support more increased density because of the vehicle traffic. So Urbanity will just be spotty. Do other people feel safe or comfortable at the South/East Blvd. Intersection for example? There’s hardly any comfortable streets in SouthEnd/Gold District outside of a greenway & Camden. Morehead, South Blvd, Tryon, Church, Carson it all isn’t a nice pedestrian experience and the intersections are all sort of scary to cross.

To have great urbanity in general. Ideally, South Blvd and even Tryon would be massively slowed down, lanes taken away, cross walks that are 3x wider, protected Bike lanes, on street parking or streeteries, etc. But that’s not how it’s shaping up and development will just have to creep down South Blvd. Not just because light rail but mostly for for South Blvd. & Tryon Streets vehicle capacity…. 

Charlotte isn’t doing what it needs to have urbanity that people will say it has great urban neighborhoods. But I think, it can be a place that has good auto-oriented sunbelt “new urbanism” sprawl growth (I hate the word “new urbanism” because that implies anything new has to be auto-oriented etc and all over the world and in several places around the US, they are just steam rolling into a different type of future and going all in all sustainable growth, going green etc). 

Green, sustainable & urban neighborhoods isn’t going to be something that really happens in Charlotte. It’s more developer focused, more about just single developments & I don’t think there’s an appetite for leadership on neighborhoods in terms of pushing for sustainable neighborhoods. I don’t see the civic push (which is almost more important than the private side developer push.) Maybe Charlotte wouldn’t be what it is without that, though? And that’s just the way the city is likely going to be. So actual goals to better Charlotte that Charlotte could realistically have the appetite for. Trying to slow down the roads, take some lanes away, wider cross walks, slower speeds, etc. could be a realistic goal that would help turn Southend into an even greater urban neighborhood. To freely move around Wilmore, SouthEnd, Dilworth etc would be nice. 

It’s always a balance of what is realistic for Charlotte as a city to have the energy to dedicate towards the inner city (and not pockets of developments from the usual developers) and how to make all of inner city a better place to live sustainably, walk, densify, etc. And that balance just isn’t a fun one if you’re more of an urban planning nerd then an urban development nerd who is just happy to see skyscrapers (not a bad thing btw.) 

IMO, South End is at a tipping point.  

Low-Rise Density for Car-Centric Occupants Isn't Too Imposing on Pedestrian-Friendly Conditions

When I arrived in Charlotte and lived in South End, it was an increasingly dense, yet low-rise neighborhood.  Low-rise density still made the neighborhood apt for comfortable walkability.  As for South End's low-rise building occupants who did wish to drive everywhere, they didn't generate car traffic at any scale that could really consistently paralyze the neighborhood nor disrupt the comfortable walkability the neighborhood enjoyed.

High-Rise Density with Car-Centric Accommodations may clog unchanging streets while destroying an Inviting Pedestrian Environment

Now South End is seeing individual high-rise buildings which can accommodate thousands of occupants, but sadly the occupants targeted appear to be car-centric.  This means thousands of daily car trips converging on a single high-rise node which has a relatively tiny geographic footprint, thus clogging streets that aren't widening.  I do get the school of thought that says that once 110 East occupants spend enough time in parking garage back-ups while trying to leave work for the day, a decent share of them will actively seek out alternatives like taking the light-rail or doing a park & ride.  I suppose that's the gamble we're making.

Intense weekday office uses and their associated cars might repel South End's M-F Pedestrian Traffic/South-End only stroll-worthy on the Weekends

Horse is out of the barn at this point, but I'd rather have celebrated continuing low-rise density in places like South End.  Folks on here can marvel at skyscrapers from afar all they want, but high-rise car-centricity is really just a cluster-F in the making.  I just don't see how car-centric high-rises in compact areas are any way to build a sustainable neighborhood.  

South End might have been better off following a growth template to get it to more of a Beacon Hill in Boston look and feel, than the hybrid grey area it appears to be targeting currently.

Edited January 20, 2023 by RANYC

[Durhamite]

1 hour ago, RANYC said:

IMO, South End is at a tipping point.  

Low-Rise Density for Car-Centric Occupants Isn't Too Imposing on Pedestrian-Friendly Conditions

When I arrived in Charlotte and lived in South End, it was an increasingly dense, yet low-rise neighborhood.  Low-rise density still made the neighborhood apt for comfortable walkability.  As for South End's low-rise building occupants who did wish to drive everywhere, they didn't generate car traffic at any scale that could really consistently paralyze the neighborhood nor disrupt the comfortable walkability the neighborhood enjoyed.

High-Rise Density with Car-Centric Accommodations may clog unchanging streets while destroying an Inviting Pedestrian Environment

Now South End is seeing individual high-rise buildings which can accommodate thousands of occupants, but sadly the occupants targeted appear to be car-centric.  This means thousands of daily car trips converging on a single high-rise node which has a relatively tiny geographic footprint, thus clogging streets that aren't widening.  I do get the school of thought that says that once 110 East occupants spend enough time in parking garage back-ups while trying to leave work for the day, a decent share of them will actively seek out alternatives like taking the light-rail or doing a park & ride.  I suppose that's the gamble we're making.

Intense weekday office uses and their associated cars might repel South End's M-F Pedestrian Traffic/South-End only stroll-worthy on the Weekends

Horse is out of the barn at this point, but I'd rather have celebrated continuing low-rise density in places like South End.  Folks on here can marvel at skyscrapers from afar all they want, but high-rise car-centricity is really just a cluster-F in the making.  I just don't see how car-centric high-rises in compact areas are any way to build a sustainable neighborhood.  

South End might have been better off following a growth template to get it to more of a Beacon Hill in Boston look and feel, then the hybrid grey area it appears to be targeting currently.

I get a kick out your post.  This is the South and think more Midtown Atlanta and Victory Park Dallas, that is the high growth sunbelt city way.  I think it’s fine, good mix of both urban and height. At least Southend had a decade or so to amass a lot of low density development in what was once coined the “corridor of crap”. 
 

You are obsessed with a different culture, time and place….that ain’t happening in the South, at least I hope not.  It wouldn’t be original…what is happening here is exactly the way it should, it is who we are at the core and will reflect our cultural sense of urbanity.  
 

I will add one little nugget, large American cities have tall buildings, blame Andrew Carnegie. So, anytime the South has a chance to go tall, we will, we will marvel and stare it down like a UFO.  In a way it all makes sense because who in their right minds would imagine a lot of this development 50 years ago.  Perspective, perspective 

Edited January 20, 2023 by Durhamite

[15895]

Anytime the South has a chance to go tall, it does & marvels? I feel like NYC deserves the title. I wouldn’t be surprised if they’re building more towers than all the south combined. 

I don’t think the south is building skyscrapers anymore than other regions or cities since 2010. Brooklyn, Manhattan, San Francisco, Seattle, Philadelphia, Honolulu, Chicago, Los Angeles, Boston, etc. say high. Just mentioning that because you can have high rise booms AND like. Want lower parking minimums, etc. 

Edited January 20, 2023 by AirNostrumMAD

[RANYC]

13 hours ago, Durhamite said:

I get a kick out your post.  This is the South and think more Midtown Atlanta and Victory Park Dallas, that is the high growth sunbelt city way.  I think it’s fine, good mix of both urban and height. At least Southend had a decade or so to amass a lot of low density development in what was once coined the “corridor of crap”. 
 

You are obsessed with a different culture, time and place….that ain’t happening in the South, at least I hope not.  It wouldn’t be original…what is happening here is exactly the way it should, it is who we are at the core and will reflect our cultural sense of urbanity.  
 

I will add one little nugget, large American cities have tall buildings, blame Andrew Carnegie. So, anytime the South has a chance to go tall, we will, we will marvel and stare it down like a UFO.  In a way it all makes sense because who in their right minds would imagine a lot of this development 50 years ago.  Perspective, perspective 

I assure you I’m not “obsessed” with anything, but have serious doubts that you’re an authoritative voice for southerners.