I think this project looks GREAT! There are some minor tweaks needed, but the only major change I would make is the vary the heights of all 4 buildings so that each is unique, but they all belong to a set. I’m a huge fan of Pelli’s World Financial Center in NYC because there are three distict towers, each with its own personality contributing to a set that has a unique appearance from every angle. Here’s a photo of the trio:

http://tinyurl.com/64rm9q

Dana, during the meeting there was a mention of the possibility to change the architecture for each tower. While this concept is in its early stages – I do hope that all towers vary in size – we do see the impact that will make, not only in the skyline, but also at the street-level, where lots of attention has been paid.

Sadly, and I was expecting that, there are people who seem to use the old and tired excuse to “attack” a project. The whole cast shadows argument was successfully addressed by one of the members of the group that did the study, yet a certain council member continue bringing up the same argument, over and over again… Personally, I love my shade, particularly for those long months of nearly unbearable heat and humidity. I love to be able to walk along a street that offers a great amount of shade. Between tree-lined streets and tall buildings, I hope to be able to enjoy my walks in downtown in the future.

Great renderings!!! Can’t wait to see this project materialize

Good input guys: I saw part of the meeting. Let’s just say it, Crowder wasted about 10 minutes talking about shadows (my opinion – he sounded, simply, stupid – he is a second rate architect – adds very little value – lately he just seems to be a stumbling block). Also, I love the security question from the female council member, “with a building this tall, have we looked at all avenues for security?” are you kidding, the building is only 5 floors taller than RBC Bank – same approach to security applies, we are not talking about a 90 story building.

Good for the (6) council members who voted “yes”. Now let’s see how many delays and project cutbacks will take place.

In stating his desire to evaluate all aspects of the project’s impacts, Crowder cited the careful planning that went into the convention center. Well, let’s see:
1) The Convention center has a marquis shimmer wall that will probably be covered up by phase II of the convention center.
2) The convention center offers the “urban experience” 3 blank walls. The southern face is across the street from the parking deck that is another blank wall, creating a wind tunnel down Lenoir Street
3) The front of the convention center has a plaza that is opposed by a blank wall with no doors on the west side of the Marriott.

I haven’t been inside the convention center yet, so I cannot comment on any interior design issues. Don’t get me wrong. It is a nice addition, but it and the Marriott have to be considered a single project, and there are flaws galore – flaws that the Edison, at this stage in the game, doesn’t have. No

Crowder likes to hear himself talk. Always has. Did he go into his usual bellyache of how he grew up in Raleigh? Usually does. He just votes no to get attention. I agree with Isley on this one.

BTW, the shadow theory has been talk about when the First Union Building (Wachovia today) was built and people talked about the shadow effect on the capital. No one mentions today.

I do think it is time for west Raleigh to find someone else. Remember, this is the guy who pushed for one person per bedroom coming from a district with the largest university in the state.

“Pelli’s World Financial Center in NYC because there are three distinct towers, each with its own personality contributing to a set that has a unique appearance from every angle.”

Really Dana? Take another look at that image. These buildings are almost IDENTICAL except for the number of stories and the silly hats on top. In terms of form, scale, proportion, order materiality, rhythm, massing — everything single element of the architectural language is completely consistent, void of personality and unique character. They work — and are rendered — as one, exactly how Cesar Pelli intended them.

Same for the Edison. Four towers, one language that ties the entire project into a cohesive whole. Too bad the aesthetic expressions of the project are already outdated by 10-15 years. Don’t be so inveigled by such seductive renderings.

On Crowder: The man is simply trying to push for the best possible outcome for the city as he sees it. You all disagree with him because you fellationize every new project that comes by, lacking the critical knowledge to judge them discerningly.

Furthermore, to say that he is a second rate architect is a statement clearly demonstrating the commenter’s total lack of knowledge in Crowder’s work (or a sharply indigent sense of style.) Crowder worked with arguably the best architect ever to practice in North Carolina and has won several local and regional design awards — feats achieved by very few “first rate” practitioners.

So let me get this straight: Caesar Pelli’s work is “silly” and Crowder has won local awards. OK.

BTW, nobody was more constructively critical of the Marriott than I. That includes Crowder.

I would question Crowder’s motivation for remaining negative on this project, any day. I am not familiar with his work, but this does not interest me at this moment. The Edison is very well designed, by a firm with more experience than Crowder, but we also need to remember that this is an early stage. As emphasized during the presentation, this project is dynamic and things can change. We can’t speak of outdated design, because this holds true for every proposal. What we can speak of, on the other hand, is the developer risking a substantial amount of money… Too much to think that his goal is to ignore the details and just deliver a subpar project. It simply doesn’t work like this on a project of this scale.

Don’t get me wrong, I am glad to know that city council members do not simply accept a project without questioning the developer. Yes, it is good to get another perspective, but hearing Crowder’s non-stop opposition due to cast shadows – we all should know this is not an issue, unless you are surrounded by 60-story towers – and wind tunnel effects simply ruined the process and demonstrated that he only wanted to hear himself talking. I am sorry, but it is time for him to be replaced by someone more diplomatic and flexible. Someone who knows how to argue a case without being forceful. Mayor Meeker is far more appropriate in such cases.

Mark @: Simple question: Can ANYONE name one Crowder project? Let alone one commercial project that has vision? NO Freaking WAY, the man is second rate (shadowing, come on). Tour comparing hiom to Pelli, what are you smokin. Crowder is toilet paper in the bathroom of Pelli!

Agre with Subway, he likes to her himself talk, but nothing constructive ever comes out. Time to get rid of this guy, he is another Coble!

Note: I would like to see a different look to each building.

I don’t know a lot about Crowder’s credentials and don’t think one has to have an impressive portfolio to be able to see flaws in a design (can Greg Cox cook?). However it seems as if his criticism and disapproval of high profile projects is very much the norm, which begins to pale in its effectiveness.

I think that wind and shadows are not compelling factors for disapproval in this case. It seems like more pertinent points regard the pedestrian experience as perceived from the first 3 floors, the avoidance of long service-only areas, and the project’s aesthetics from afar.

Yes, the World Financial Center building’s themselves are not architectural wonders. However the subtle differences in building heights and caps create an incredibly handsome set, especially when viewed from the Hudson at night.

“Tour comparing hiom to Pelli, what are you smokin.”

Tom,

The discussion about Pelli was from Dana’s reference to the World Financial Center in New York, a very fair comparison to the Edison — both large projects with multiple towers, dressed similarly (within each set).

As far as Crowder’s work, see his FAANC office building — 2007 Sir Walter Raleigh Community Appearance, 2006 AIA Triangle, or 2005 AIA NC for images.

His Auburn HD Transmitter — check the AIA’s 2006 South Atlantic Regional awards or AIA NC 2003 for images.

Other noteworthy works of recent would include his projects for the Coastal Federal Credit Union and Durham Radio Company.

“So let me get this straight: Caesar Pelli’s work is “silly” and Crowder has won local awards. OK.”

Dana,
If you are going to praise an esteemed figure, please, at least spell the name correctly.
I didn’t make any generalizations about Pelli’s body of work. Yes, I called the hats on that 1980′s postmodernist project “silly.” Simple geometric expressions on buildings such as these were a trend of that time, and it shows today. Let me know if you want to go into that subject in depth.

I was at the meeting. Crowder likes to talk, yes, and I often do not agree with him, but he has a genuine passion for the city and especially what is built here. His “no” vote was simply cast in opposition of not being able to discuss the project further in committee. I don’t think that’s unreasonable for a 1.6M square foot tallest-building-ever-in-Raleigh type of project. A building that prominent doesn’t deserve a second look? Even Mitch Silver (staff) asked for it to be referred to committee before the presentation.

Isley, on the other hand could care less about any old thing that is built whenever, whatever or where ever, so long as it’s not on the city’s dime. I understand his wanting return on investment, but RBC, Hue, West, Charter Square, Campbell, L-bldg, and 100+ conventions don’t count? Sorry, I can’t get with that reasoning. The investment has already paid off and the John Locke talking points won’t work anymore.

I really like the Edison concept & design FWIW, except for losing the old storefronts.

Well, arguing aside…..

The Edison is simply amazing! I can’t wait for construction.

ChiefJoJo, I am glad you clarified things about the reasons behind the ‘No’ vote by Crowder. It would be unfair to ignore his explanation. However, and judging from an one-to-one [brief] conversation with him, his problem lies on the height, particularly on the Blount Str side. He was going to oppose this project, one way or another. Also, his concerns were well addressed and he seemed to ignore the explanations presented by those who actually worked on this project.

As for Isley – regardless how you feel about him – he was right on the money. His answer was directed more towards Crowder, and I think that Russ was sort of in agreement with him, if I recall his facial expression right. Isley knows that it will be years before we see projects of this magnitude materialize. Of the projects you mentioned, RBC Plaza, Charter Square, and Lafayette may be considered as returns on investment. Since only RBC Plaza is in place, then we still need to wait a little longer. Income from the conventions will be used entirely for paying off convention center-related debts/expenses and other future investments, for the next 30 years. Technically, Isley is right… It is projects like The Edison that will bring the ROI to the City of Raleigh, more than anything else and we should be demanding such visions. Enough with the little things – not that we don’t need the latter, don’t misunderstand me.