Wachovia 48 Story Office Tower & 42 Story Condo Tower

[nowensone]

^ This thread moves far too fast, was not referring to you at all. I think I will bow out of here for a while until it dies down.

^ & v : Agreed, wasn't taking it personally, I just find the attitude of not saying anything "bad" a little curious, it's as if secretly we're hoping, fingers crossed behind back, that the scraper building continues here unabated, and any criticisms will make it all stop and go away. Or I could just be oversensitive today... Thanks.

[monsoon]

^ This thread moves far too fast, was not referring to you at all. I think I will bow out of here for a while until it dies down.

[cooperdawg]

If that is the case then its going to be a very very long time before there is any retail in downtown. If by their wildest dreams they manage to get 30,000 people living in the CBD by 2020, then this isn't much of a base for businesses to survive on. And at prices approaching $400 sq/ft for many places, I doubt they will make this number as there simply are not that many people in this city that can afford or will pay those prices to live in a small condo. If downtown is going to be successful at attracting retail, its going to have to appeal to a much wider range than the people who choose to live inside I-277. (which many of that will still go out to SP because they don't want to deal with the urban element).

[ChiefJoJo]

Way to go Charlotte! I am simply amazed by the pace of announcements these days (Furman's Arena project being announced the same day).

I love the new design (well, not new to UP) of the tower and the condos are really attractive.

I see there is some difference of opinion on the retail...

Do Charlotte's land use plans encourage street retail in uptown? It's good that the project has some retail, but I agree that it really should face the street in order to create more activity.

I'd imagine that with the scope and cost of this massive project, city planning staff may have backed off any negotiations (if there were or will be any) on the retail elements of this project. I mean, it's tough to tell WB to rethink the retail when they are spending several hundred million dollars on this project.

[atlrvr]

CheifJoJo....I believe that all projects over a certain size now are required to have some street level retail...not positive though. I do know that the UMUD zoning now requires that a majority of retail in a building has to be accessed from outdoor public space.

[Mobuchu]

I went back through the posts from yesterday and it appears there were a couple different debates going on. Some were talking about the facade and the retail at the same time which is where it got confusing in a thread that is moving very fast.

I have no disagreements against the facade of the building at street level being subpar. But I do think this entire project including the base of the tower was well designed as a siteplan. There are plenty of entrances to many different uses on all sides of the block (thats where I didn't understand why some were using the model as the source of info, when talking about retail). The tryon st side is the only one with no retail, but it will have the plaza, office entrances and university entrance. Agreed, with the forumer who said the business school would have been better at the interior corner, and retail at the Tryon/Stonewall corner.

And looking at the siteplan, is the alley throught the middle going to make a turn around the parking garage entrance on Church?

[Neo]

It seems to me like similar areas in other cities that I've been to, such as Washington DC, and Chicago, aren't choked with a ton of retail everywhere you look.

I can't speak for Washington DC but as a former downtown Chicago resident and worker I can attest that there is retail absolutely everywhere you turn in Chicago, even in the loop district. I worked in the AON Center and in its base are several food joints (such as Starbucks, sandwich shops, etc.) and is more like a mall on the inside. The mall like hallways connect directly to other buildings such as the Blue Cross Blue Shield building which has much of the same, including a barber I used to get my hair cut at.

That being said, these places were usually quite busy a lot of the time so I'm not sure every building has to have only outward facing retail. The AON Center for instance has no outward facing retail, it is all accessed from inside the building yet it remains extremely busy. The only downside is that you must know it is there, much like the overstreet mall in Charlotte so I would much rather have outward facing retail, but you can't discredit that buildings that do not have outward facing retail aren't choked with it.

[Miesian Corners]

I realize I might the the lone ranger on this one, but I don't mind the fact that the tower is powerful at the base. That's it's architecture. Skyscrapers are, for the most part, powerful structures. For certain corporations, softening a building doesn't make sense. The tower is in itself making a statement about what goes on inside. It's all about "power". Right or wrong, one of the ways skysrapers work is that they make us feel small.

[atlrvr]

MC.....I completely buy into that.

The Empire State Building has no street accessed retail, yet it is designed to be human scaled (yet still powerful). This is true of most skyscrapers that have been built as monuments, though many lost the concept of human scale bases.

There are other ways to activate streetlife besides retail......such as, have 6,000 people a day come in and out of a building, to have museums that will attract hundreds of thousands of people a year, and use interesting architecture and open spaces that will make people want to stop and view/explore.

It is certainly possible to make an office building interesting, and engaging at the street level, without cramming retail into every inch, but it does take some imagination of the part of the developer. As i showed, in my first boston pic....even street level retail doesn't make a poorly designed building fit well in the urban environment.

[Miesian Corners]

^atlrvr, points well taken. you explained what I was trying to say far more eloquently.

[hinsp0]

I can't speak for Washington DC but as a former downtown Chicago resident and worker I can attest that there is retail absolutely everywhere you turn in Chicago, even in the loop district. I worked in the AON Center and in its base are several food joints (such as Starbucks, sandwich shops, etc.) and is more like a mall on the inside. The mall like hallways connect directly to other buildings such as the Blue Cross Blue Shield building which has much of the same, including a barber I used to get my hair cut at.

That being said, these places were usually quite busy a lot of the time so I'm not sure every building has to have only outward facing retail. The AON Center for instance has no outward facing retail, it is all accessed from inside the building yet it remains extremely busy. The only downside is that you must know it is there, much like the overstreet mall in Charlotte so I would much rather have outward facing retail, but you can't discredit that buildings that do not have outward facing retail aren't choked with it.

[mallguy]

The Empire State Building has no street accessed retail

[dubone]

Like you said above, you are confused because you have not read through the posts. Maybe it would help if you would do that before you start commenting on what I posted. Making spopulation comparsons between Tokyo and Charlotte sounds more like an attempt to discredit what I was trying to say without considering the point that I was trying to make. I am amazed at the few people here who take offense at criticism at anything the developers do in downtown Charlotte, yet it is full of bad design. South College and South Tryon are pretty much dead anytime outside of business hours as a result.

Again the point isn't about making Charlotte like Tokyo. The point is in designing buildings that engage the public at street level which is something that Charlotte is desperately lacking. Building after building of inside retail, marble lobbies with just elevators, blank walls, etc, have created vast dead areas in the city and this is especially evident in the area where this place is slated to go. Monumental bank buildings have failed the city and it is ashame that this building, especially since it is relying on tax money to even get built, follows the same old same old.

And IMO, and we all know what opinions are worth, I don't really think it is that impressive of a design. A forumer from another city who saw this thread and looked at the renderings online sent a message to me that said, it looks too much like the NCNB Plaza (trade & tryon) and now that they have said that, I tend to agree.

[architect77]

Though the "handle" probably is not doing this, one of many new concepts of a sustainable building is incorporating capability to generate some of its own power. Expect to see more of these voids in tall buildings as they have to ability to speed up passing wind according to their shape and potentially be a component of a power generating device. More features of the green Wachovia Tower will probably include collection of rainwater from the roof which will serve all the non-potable water needs like flushing toilets, fountains, etc. The glass curtain-wall will probably feature floor to ceiling windows in the office space to minimize need for auxillary lighting, and the recycled steel will most likely be used. BofA is almost finished with a LEED certified tower at Bryant Park in Manhattan.

[Charlotteman]

I don't want to beat a dead horse to death, as I've stated this before, but I agree the new WB is eerily similar in general style to BofA Plaza.

Definitely nothing to write home about at all. Seems like a huge wasted opportunity to build something for the ages--- an icon of beauty and grace. I'll probably get beaten up for this, but I think in 10 years this tower won't be on anyone's favorites list. It will be but a filler, to fill in land, and to be surrounded by (hopefully) more intersting architectural statements.

Of course the fabulous condo tower will help jazz up the boring look of the new WB tower.

[Sabaidee]

I don't want to beat a dead horse to death, as I've stated this before, but I agree the new WB is eerily similar in general style to BofA Plaza.

Definitely nothing to write home about at all. Seems like a huge wasted opportunity to build something for the ages--- an icon of beauty and grace. I'll probably get beaten up for this, but I think in 10 years this tower won't be on anyone's favorites list. It will be but a filler, to fill in land, and to be surrounded by (hopefully) more intersting architectural statements.

Of course the fabulous condo tower will help jazz up the boring look of the new WB tower.

[dubone]

The styling doesn't impress me too much either, but I could see that most LEED buildings are being more geometric with angles rather than curves. I guess right now most highrise LEEDs are limited to being geometric.

[Skyline49er]

I just wish Charlotte could get a tower that would allow for an observation deck, then I would be happy.

[graydog]

Your point? If the signs weren't there you would have basically the base of this tower, minus the arts, plus a bunch of open air markets. I really don't see a bunch of people walking by the Wachovia people and buying a bunch of bananas next to about 300 other bunches of bananas (which appears to be depicted). We go to Harris Teeter. Could it be that this street in Charlotte is more important as a business atmosphere rather than a shopping district? Just give the people in the building somewhere to eat, clean their clothes, pick up a magazine, and some stores that have to do with art. If you want a retail stroll district like Charleston (or a tackier version as shown in these images), then you need to do it on another street (aka Brevard) Unless you want a sprawly uptown of shopping where none of the businesses can sustain because the specialty shopping such as Neiman Marcus and Saks are all 6 blocks apart and have no flow to it.... duh

[graydog]

(And maybe figure out where to hide all the rude and criminal people in the city).

[graydog]

^ This thread moves far too fast, was not referring to you at all. I think I will bow out of here for a while until it dies down.

^ & v : Agreed, wasn't taking it personally, I just find the attitude of not saying anything "bad" a little curious, it's as if secretly we're hoping, fingers crossed behind back, that the scraper building continues here unabated, and any criticisms will make it all stop and go away. Or I could just be oversensitive today... Thanks.

[krazeeboi]

Here's my (non-expert) opinion on this matter.

Since this isn't just a tower under construction, but an entire complex, I don't hold the tower to a standard that I would if this were only a tower under construction. I think the other venues under construction in the same general area more than make up for what lacks at the tower's base. I kind of see this as the IJL tower on a much larger scale. IJL doesn't have any retail within its actual base, but it is flanked on both sides by restaurants, thus still achieving the same end as retail/restaurants within a tower's base. Also, from what I can tell, at least the new Wachovia tower won't have the effect of actually discouraging pedestrian activity, like BOA Plaza with the lack of openings along Tryon and the dark glass. I see the open, large pane windows at the base as inviting, even if I don't actually venture into the building itself. So while more retail or restaurants in the base of the tower may have maximized pedestrian activity, I also don't think it does anything to hamper it. Truth be told, even if the tower had retail/restaurants at the ground level, it still wouldn't be the star of the show: that status belongs to the cultural amenities and the condo tower that will bring additional residents Uptown. The tower itself is really only important from a skyline point of view (and an economic view if including the new workers the tower will house).

[TowerRooster]

I can't speak for Washington DC but as a former downtown Chicago resident and worker I can attest that there is retail absolutely everywhere you turn in Chicago, even in the loop district. I worked in the AON Center and in its base are several food joints (such as Starbucks, sandwich shops, etc.) and is more like a mall on the inside.

[TowerRooster]

It's not really much different than Times Square or Leicester Square in London. In terms of commercialism we have Bank of America stadium, Nascar Museum, "some corporate name" Bobcats Arena, and so forth and these are all places that were built in part or in full with public tax dollars.

[monsoon]

Agreed. I think people were hoping there would be more of a times square atmosphere with the epicenter given the original renderings for the place. However the presented plans for the place have changed a lot and it remains to be seen how that is going to work out. What I would not want to see happen is they continue to use the philosophy that downtown should be a huge collection of mini-malls connected together by the Overstreet mall. If they do that, then they won't offer much over the suburban malls excepts to sports goers and night clubbers and downtown will continue to languish as a true destination.

I think downtown could use some kind of major tourist attraction. An observation deck would be along those lines, but again we have another building that does not make any attempt to be more than an office building.