Queensbridge Collective - 1 tower, maybe 2

[Professor]

I could post 100 squares or buildings that would be nice to have, but it would be pointless. this is about "Queensbridge" and area, not the Streets of San Francisco or other places not relative to this posting. 

[15895]

2 hours ago, Larry Singer said:

I could post 100 squares or buildings that would be nice to have, but it would be pointless. this is about "Queensbridge" and area, not the Streets of San Francisco or other places not relative to this posting. 

You interject random stuff all the time, everyone interjects random stuff all the time. Do you realize how many things I have found appalling you have said and I rarely responded on as responses would drag on & on when it seemed easier to let the comment just die and move on? 

I would actually love if people stopped randomly bringing up San Francisco, New York, etc. as much as they do. 
 

But let’s get back on topic.

Discussion: Queensbridge

 

 

Edited November 29, 2023 by AirNostrumMAD

[DMann]

This may be finished before Moxi!

[Reverie39]

There's nothing wrong with looking to other cities for inspiration on how to handle developments, so long as the conversation always comes back to applications to Charlotte

[15895]

I love how the pictures & mentioning of Carmel, Indiana 2 pages back didnt evoke the same response as that of Union Square Manhattan or San Francisco (whichever Union Sq. Was being referred to).

It’s really not that big of a deal. It wasn’t a big deal when it was Carmel, Indiana. 

Edited November 30, 2023 by AirNostrumMAD

[CLT2014]

On 11/22/2023 at 3:42 PM, RANYC said:

This area is sorely lacking a large-scale civic gathering spot...not just another park, but something like a Union Square.  All this building and there's really not an accessible "attraction" for tourists and residents.  If I'm missing something, please let me know. 

Union Square is still part of the Parks Department and is publicly owned. Charlotte is increasingly relying on private developers to build gathering spaces, but they are of course driven by profit. We really need to look to the county parks & rec department to start investing more in public spaces to bring people together, but we seem to add a lot of red tape that often gets in the way. South End for example is an area the city really needs to invest in some public gathering spaces rather than rely on Atherton Mill, the Design Center, et... to create all those spaces themselves. 

There are examples of non-profit privately owned public spaces, such as Bryant Park in NYC. That was funded by wealthy donors and a private board of directors manages the park as opposed to the city of New York. There are also public-private partnerships like Klyde Warren Park in Dallas, again requiring donors to help complete building the park which has its own board. The benefit of these parks is the extra funding and resources to put on programming to engage the community. Klyde Warren Park is 5 acres and has 20 leaders on staff with the CEO making $250,000+ (Meck's Parks & Rec Director makes $190k).  https://www.klydewarrenpark.org/about-the-park/leadership.html

Also.... unsurprisingly our Parks Commission that advises the county and makes recommendations is largely senior citizens since they are volunteers. I love our seniors, but they aren't representative of the youthful age of our city overall. Are they thinking about civic squares in the city center or are they focused on the typical suburban park for the grandkids and walking the golden retriever? A lot of this is on younger people (including myself) just being in the busy phase of life (kids, friends, full time jobs, et..) and not volunteering. 

Edited November 30, 2023 by CLT2014

[Hushpuppy321]

On 11/26/2023 at 2:45 PM, QCxpat said:

Today 9:10 a.m.  -  Foundation work underway on the 45-story residential tower, height: 596 ft.

1 minute ago, Hushpuppy321 said:

On 11/26/2023 at 2:45 PM, QCxpat said:

Today 9:10 a.m.  -  Foundation work underway on the 45-story residential tower, height: 596 ft.

I think this is a typo - I think 496 ft. 

[RANYC]

10 hours ago, CLT2014 said:

Union Square is still part of the Parks Department and is publicly owned. Charlotte is increasingly relying on private developers to build gathering spaces, but they are of course driven by profit. We really need to look to the county parks & rec department to start investing more in public spaces to bring people together, but we seem to add a lot of red tape that often gets in the way. South End for example is an area the city really needs to invest in some public gathering spaces rather than rely on Atherton Mill, the Design Center, et... to create all those spaces themselves. 

There are examples of non-profit privately owned public spaces, such as Bryant Park in NYC. That was funded by wealthy donors and a private board of directors manages the park as opposed to the city of New York. There are also public-private partnerships like Klyde Warren Park in Dallas, again requiring donors to help complete building the park which has its own board. The benefit of these parks is the extra funding and resources to put on programming to engage the community. Klyde Warren Park is 5 acres and has 20 leaders on staff with the CEO making $250,000+ (Meck's Parks & Rec Director makes $190k).  https://www.klydewarrenpark.org/about-the-park/leadership.html

Also.... unsurprisingly our Parks Commission that advises the county and makes recommendations is largely senior citizens since they are volunteers. I love our seniors, but they aren't representative of the youthful age of our city overall. Are they thinking about civic squares in the city center or are they focused on the typical suburban park for the grandkids and walking the golden retriever? A lot of this is on younger people (including myself) just being in the busy phase of life (kids, friends, full time jobs, et..) and not volunteering. 

Very helpful analysis.  Yes, perhaps public squares should fall under the province of the parks department; however, given the Parks Dept is funded by the County and public squares might be regarded as more of an urban physical asset, perhaps the planning, placement, design, development and management of public squares should be its own focused initiative and away from the more recreational remit of the Parks Dept?

[DMann]

Walking down College Street I just noticed the Impact that Queensbridge will have.!  took me by surprise.

[CLT Development]

7 hours ago, DMann said:

Walking down College Street I just noticed the Impact that Queensbridge will have.!  took me by surprise.

enormous.

[KJHburg]

This morning check out the foundation of the apartment tower and now another foundation of the mid section where the garage and rooftop restaurant will be.

 

[turbocraig]

Shouldn’t the title of this thread be updated to say “- 2 towers”?

[NCMike1990]

26 minutes ago, turbocraig said:

Shouldn’t the title of this thread be updated to say “- 2 towers”?

I’ve asked that a couple times before, but it never gets updated.

[DJ8hep]

13 hours ago, KJHburg said:

This morning check out the foundation of the apartment tower and now another foundation of the mid section where the garage and rooftop restaurant will be.

 

I saw some of the rebar sticking out from above the ground this afternoon!

[tjhorner1]

 

It's crazy how transformational these towers are going to be in essentially merging South End with Uptown.

 

 

 

 

[Windsurfer]

3 hours ago, tjhorner1 said:

 

It's crazy how transformational these towers are going to be in essentially merging South End with Uptown.

 

 

 

 

Great shots!  Looking forward to many more from this angle

[videtur quam contuor]

Not merging, bridging. The owners use the Queensbridge term because it is a bridge from center city to South End.  (and there is a bridge over 77)

[Genesis704]

14 hours ago, tjhorner1 said:

 

It's crazy how transformational these towers are going to be in essentially merging South End with Uptown.

 

 

 

 

Oh man that urban fabric is beautiful…

[Guest]

I know I’m being pedantic but two towers are confirmed 

Edited December 9, 2023 by MothBeast

[QCxpat]

Today 8:50 a.m. 

Edited December 13, 2023 by QCxpat

[BJKM]

We can count this as officially vertical right?? 

[CLT Development]

2 hours ago, BJKM said:

We can count this as officially vertical right?? 

I walked by today and can confirm there is a wall, so we are officially above ground.

[Crucial_Infra]

On 12/13/2023 at 3:34 PM, CLT Development said:

I walked by today and can confirm there is a wall, so we are officially above ground.

So where does this put us floorwise in say July? 

[Genesis704]

11 hours ago, Crucial_Infra said:

So where does this put us floorwise in say July? 

I’ll say, a good 10-15 floors by July.

possibly even more.

 

and POSSIBLY topped out by the end of 2024.

Edited December 15, 2023 by Genesis704

[CLT Development]

17 hours ago, Crucial_Infra said:

So where does this put us floorwise in say July? 

I bet theres still 1-2 months of foundation work on the residential tower. It appears to be attached to the parking deck vs on top of it, so it could rise faster, but that'll be the deciding point.

• If it rises at the same time as the parking deck, I'd say by July it'll be 6 floors. A parking deck the size of this one will take a month per floor to rise.

• If it rises independently of the parking deck, it could be 12-16 floors. The apartment tower has a small footprint and can rise one floor a week easily, but only if it is poured independently.

If I had to guess which way it'll go... I would think the former instead of the latter, so I'm guessing 6 floors by July.

Edited December 15, 2023 by CLT Development