Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Redcliffe - you are like Hitchcock with your mastery of susupense.
Most importantly, has this unmentioned project been cleared with Heidi Aiken and her Art-Dealer boyfriend yet? (You know, the only two people on the planet who objected to project "ONE" orginally?) Without their approval, the next phase could be delayed up to 15-20 whole minutes!
True. But the term "high rise" sure implies it should have height right?
It would imply that it won't be a lowrise or midrise, but it doesn't exactly imply new tallest. Not saying that it will not be, just saying that "signature" designation could come from various aspects of the project.
It would imply that it won't be a lowrise or midrise, but it doesn't exactly imply new tallest. Not saying that it will not be, just saying that "signature" designation could come from various aspects of the project.
Gville, do you know what the official definitions are for low, mid and high rise?
Also, in building design, is there a relationship between clusters of buildings? In other words, do you see a couple of 20 story buildings paired with a 40 story building or does that destroy the scale of the project? Spartanburg is a good example, there is an 18 story building in the middle of 3 - 4 story buildings. It looks a little like someone had a large and built a big building completely out of scale with the town. At one time, there was a planned 100 story building for Charlotte which looked terrible in the skyline.
In the case of One, if they are tearing down a parking deck, I would think that the first couple of floors (up to 5) could be parking. I can see how someone who is just after a height crown could get the height, just not sure how it would look. And, I am not sure why the highest building in SC matters, there are many buildings a few miles into NC that are much taller.
Gville, do you know what the official definitions are for low, mid and high rise?
Also, in building design, is there a relationship between clusters of buildings? In other words, do you see a couple of 20 story buildings paired with a 40 story building or does that destroy the scale of the project? Spartanburg is a good example, there is an 18 story building in the middle of 3 - 4 story buildings. It looks a little like someone had a large and built a big building completely out of scale with the town. At one time, there was a planned 100 story building for Charlotte which looked terrible in the skyline.
In the case of One, if they are tearing down a parking deck, I would think that the first couple of floors (up to 5) could be parking. I can see how someone who is just after a height crown could get the height, just not sure how it would look. And, I am not sure why the highest building in SC matters, there are many buildings a few miles into NC that are much taller.
I don't claim to be an expert, but my understanding is that a low-rise is 1-3 stories, a mid-rise is 4-11, and a high-rise is 12 and above, though I've read before that high-rise stops somewhere and "skyscraper" begins above that. So, that's what I kind of base my own considerations on.
I'm not sure I understand your building relationships question. There certainly should be a relationship, unless the driving concept deems otherwise (you could argue the old World Trade Center's design in this point, or the Burj). But relationships are not always achieved (although to an extent, you COULD consider reasonable future relationships, such as the BoA tower in Greenville has always stood alone until now-- though I don't know that they ever considered this when designing it).
In this particular location at Richardson and Washington Streets, I think someone could go 220-270' and look VERY much in scale with the surroundings-- ONE phase I, ONE phase II, BoA tower, and Greenville Summit. The Mayor has also stated that he would be open to the idea of someone developing the air rights above another neighbor: the bus station. So, future immediately adjacent development could complement and support a taller structure, though it's all speculative at this point. I think I'm off on a tangent now? Thoughts?
I don't claim to be an expert, but my understanding is that a low-rise is 1-3 stories, a mid-rise is 4-11, and a high-rise is 12 and above, though I've ready before that high-rise stops somewhere and "skyscraper" begins above that. So, that's what I kind of base my own considerations on.
I'm not sure I understand your building relationships question. There certainly should be a relationship, unless the driving concept deems otherwise (you could argue the old World Trade Center's design in this point, or the Burj). But relationships are not always achieved (although to an extent, you COULD consider reasonable future relationships, such as the BoA tower in Greenville has always stood alone until now-- though I don't know that they ever considered this when designing it).
In this particular location at Richardson and Washington Streets, I think someone could go 220-270' and look VERY much in scale with the surroundings-- ONE phase I, ONE phase II, BoA tower, and Greenville Summit. The Mayor has also stated that he would be open to the idea of someone developing the air rights above another neighbor: the bus station. So, future immediately adjacent development could complement and support a taller structure, though it's all speculative at this point. I think I'm off on a tangent now? Thoughts?
Indeed! Wanting a building that's as tall or a bit taller than our current tallest building isn't the same as wanting something that's totally out of proportion with current buildings. But this is all subjective anyway. Greenville's skyline would visually benefit from something in the 20-30 floor range IMO. Whether there's a market for that will need to be decided by market factors.
I don't claim to be an expert, but my understanding is that a low-rise is 1-3 stories, a mid-rise is 4-11, and a high-rise is 12 and above, though I've read before that high-rise stops somewhere and "skyscraper" begins above that. So, that's what I kind of base my own considerations on.
I'm not sure I understand your building relationships question. There certainly should be a relationship, unless the driving concept deems otherwise (you could argue the old World Trade Center's design in this point, or the Burj). But relationships are not always achieved (although to an extent, you COULD consider reasonable future relationships, such as the BoA tower in Greenville has always stood alone until now-- though I don't know that they ever considered this when designing it).
In this particular location at Richardson and Washington Streets, I think someone could go 220-270' and look VERY much in scale with the surroundings-- ONE phase I, ONE phase II, BoA tower, and Greenville Summit. The Mayor has also stated that he would be open to the idea of someone developing the air rights above another neighbor: the bus station. So, future immediately adjacent development could complement and support a taller structure, though it's all speculative at this point. I think I'm off on a tangent now? Thoughts?
I think you answered what I was thinking. When I was asking about relationships, I was curious to see if there are guidlines in keeping a common cohesive development. A few years back, Trump had plans for 3 high rises in Charlotte. Buildings in the development seemed to work with one another in height and design. None of the buildings stood out in height related to the others. I was thinking the same design may work for the One project. While have a "tallest building'' is a good ego massage, it could look silly if it is too out of balance with the project. In the end, anyone can achieve height with a spire or some cheating way to have a tall structure. But, having a nicely incorporated project that works well is a much better design.
And, this assumes that the market will support more office square footage. The last thing needed is a nice tall building that sucks tenants from other downtown buildings. It is expensive to build higher and keeps a lid on rental rates when pulling tenants from other buildings. i would like to know how financing is being arranged.
I think you answered what I was thinking. When I was asking about relationships, I was curious to see if there are guidlines in keeping a common cohesive development. A few years back, Trump had plans for 3 high rises in Charlotte. Buildings in the development seemed to work with one another in height and design. None of the buildings stood out in height related to the others. I was thinking the same design may work for the One project. While have a "tallest building'' is a good ego massage, it could look silly if it is too out of balance with the project. In the end, anyone can achieve height with a spire or some cheating way to have a tall structure. But, having a nicely incorporated project that works well is a much better design.
And, this assumes that the market will support more office square footage. The last thing needed is a nice tall building that sucks tenants from other downtown buildings. It is expensive to build higher and keeps a lid on rental rates when pulling tenants from other buildings. i would like to know how financing is being arranged.
I think an interesting relationship study would be Riverplace. It's easy to plan for the immediate, and thus the first 5 buildings were all designed with a very deliberate relationship established. Heights and scales change, but the fabric reads well and feels good from every angle.
What will be interesting to see is how the remainder of the development fills out. The residential dynamic has changed drastically from the urban condominium craze of the early 2000's era, and has now become an apartment rage at present. It might be misconception on my part, but I would think that apartments would command a greater number of units on the same footprint to make numbers work. IDK, though. Therefore would more height be commanded to close out "phase II"? Or, is the River front too exclusive for rentals in the first place? Condo's at a low number (for absorption purposes) could keep things scaled lower, akin to the Riverhouse. And, the impact on office space being incorporated could be impacted by ONE.
I don't doubt that Hughes will do a solid job finishing this multi-phased project, but I think it will be interesting to see how the rising/falling rhythm of the current buildings could be affected. It might be the rest of the buildings all match the height of the Terrace, or we might see something very similar to their initial renderings (in terms of massing). Who knows, but I think it will be fun to watch.
I know a new tallest wouldn't be too logical as of right now, so what about renovating the outside of the Landmark Building? It's hideous in my opinion but if the outside is re-done right, it could be a nice tower. Maybe it could use glass similar to Liberty Square, but the cost would be high and I'm not even completely sure if it could be done.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
