I'm just wondering what everyone's opinions are of Charlotte's skyline. Should it be bigger for its size? Smaller? Do you see extreme growth in the present/future? Is it ugly? Beautiful? Whats your opinions?

Its okay, i guess i mean it could be better. i think the growth is pretty good but it needs taller buildings instead of midrise.its probably not going to ever be as the same status of atlanta because simply atlanta has alot more highrise buildings under construction and proposed.

I love Charlotte's skyline, it's small but it's dense. As the city grows so will the skyline so I don't think you can say it will never be like Atlanta. Honestly I would rather it not be like Atlanta with the gaps and all.

I'm very impressed by the individual architecture of downtown Charlotte, so the skyline looks pretty good. However, I would like to see the areas off of Tyron Street developed a little more.

I like it. Quality over quantity.

its good, better then atlanta's imo

to be honest i dont really even like atlanta's skyline... gaps, low density, and it just doesnt look like its put together well

without the Bank of America Corporate tower it would be below average for a city it's size IMO

I think the growth is pretty good but it needs taller buildings instead of midrise.its probably not going to ever be as the same status of atlanta because simply atlanta has alot more highrise buildings under construction and proposed.

You know, everything was Kosher until you brought Atlanta into the equation. Is there some kind of anti-intelligence potion in the water supply down there or something?

Fine, let's play... Using your criteria, Atlanta needs to concentrate on building taller buildings as well. Charlotte's tallest is the height of Atlanta's second tallest (and don't forget that both were built at almost the exact same time in 1992)... If an 871 foot tower is a midrise in your book, then Atlanta's tallest at 1023 feet is just barely a high-rise. Wow, you have some incredible expectations! That would mean that most cities in the country don't even have true high-rises. ?????


Back to reality...

Anyway, I think that Charlotte's skyline is very good for an MSA of just over 1.4 million people. It's even more impressive if you Urbanized Area fans use the 758k figure. It is very dense, there is little or no blank space at street level between buildings. This is in adherence to the Center City development plan from the 1970s--dictating new office space development would always remain concentrated around the square. It also allows easy expansion of the Overstreet Mall--an expansive plaza spanned across several towers, connected via skywalks.

One gripe I do have about Charlotte's skyline is that it looks too busy from certain angles. That dense development policy is a good thing to have, but it makes smaller skylines (like Charlotte's) look a little awkward at times.

I wish it had some more glass towers--I am really fond of that style. I do think that Charlotte needs some shorter towers (around 30-40 stories) to fill in the north side of Tryon and College. Also, if the SouthEnd area is going to experience a tower boom of any kind, I hope it stays close to the Belk Freeway.

without the Bank of America Corporate tower it would be below average for a city it's size IMO


Not sure I agree with that statement as you've written it. Think about this alternative:

If you remove the BoA Tower and replace it with a 30-40 story tower, optical field perception dictates that the skyline would in fact appear to cover a wider area. The height of BoA brings the horizontal stage into perspective and makes the skyline look smaller.

If several "wing buildings", say on the south side of Tryon, were removed... then yes, the skyline would start to look pretty dinky for a place the size of Charlotte--with or without BoA. I'd wager that with fewer buildings upon which to reference size, it would look even worse with BoA in that situation, as it would make the remaining buildings look rather squat.

It is all in the aesthetics.

I don't dislike the Charlotte skyline, but its never really done much for me honestly. Some of the buildings individually are gorgeous, but to me none of it fits very well. That, on top of the fact that there isn't much variation in the appearance of buildings, and almost a total lack of pre 1940's architecture and low-mid rise of any kind brings it down in the rankings for me.

Charlotte has an impressive skyline. I just returned from northern Europe and the U.K.(Oslo, Stockholm, Helsinki, St. Petersburg, Copenhagen, etc). Charlotte's skyline is more impressive than any of the above cities except for London. London doesn't have an impressive skyline but the vastness of the city is phonominal. Nevertheless, all of the cities were wonderful and Charlotte like other American cities is at best, nice. Charlotte has a very nice, clean and walkable uptown area and I consider it outstanding compared to most other cities in the U.S. of similar size. It will be nice to see more structures and one would have to be lame to not see that in the fairly near future. People shouldn't worry too much about skylines. They're just banks and financial institutions. Great cities, like those in Europe, are made up of museums, playhouses, bistros, shops, etc. I believe that Charlotte is filling that gap as well.

This thread is too funny, we go from comparing Charlotte to Atlanta to comparing Charlotte to European cities. I thought the question was what do you think about Charlotte's skyline...

I like it, despite the lack of style variation. At least the architecture that's there is decent to look at. Imagine if it was all 70's boxes :puke:

...almost a total lack of pre 1940's architecture and low-mid rise of any kind brings it down in the rankings for me.
Charlotte used to be very historical until it went on a demolition spree and replaced historical buildings with skyscrapers and parking lots.

Some of the buildings individually are gorgeous, but to me none of it fits very well.

Upon examination, I agree with this... There is something awkward, for lack of a better word, about the mix of styles in Charlotte. Perhaps over time what it needs for "balance" will be built.

It needs one more tall 'signature tower' to make it look well balanced. That would rock too.

I love the skyline and agree that they could use 1 more signature tower. Wachovia could have clinched this with the new tower only being 10 more floors or so but unfortunately they wimped out. The original Arlington would have been a huge plus but instead we got the pink disaster. If 300 S.Tryon can ever get built, plus Wachovia and the condo towers then Charlotte's already strong density will really be something to behold.

I happen to like Charlotte's skyline quite a bit. For a city its size I think they've got a pretty decent one and it will only get better with time. I wish Wachovia would have held out longer before building a new tower. I mean they could have built a 700 footer or taller, once they acquire another big bank. Or maybe Wells Fargo will by them. I wonder how long it'll be before there are only 4 or 5 banks left in this country :)

I of course love Charlotte's skyline because it has always been the skyline that I associate as "home". But, I'll list some of my pros and cons for it.

There are a few truley beautiful towers, BofA, Hearst.
Even Some of the shorter towers were well designed compared to many buildings of comparable size, IJL, Interstate Tower, Wachovia Headquaters.
Since the 90's no developer has really just "thrown up" a cheap tower.

On the other hand:
I agree with JRQ, I too would like one more signiture tower on the southern half of uptown to balance the skyline a little more. Nothing too tall though. Preferably somthing between 700 and 1000 feet tall. I know everyone got excited over the 4 first Union plan of a 100 floor tower but IMO a tower that tall would dominate the skyline and detract from it. I would rather see two 50 floor towers than one 100 floor tower.

I also agree with I hate birds' points that Uptown could use a taller glass tower or two. And that the northern end needs a couple more thirty to forty floor towers to balance things out (and connect Odell).

I would also like to see SouthEnd's future skyline to stay dense and a closer to the freeway. If you look at the zoning maps, towers can be built out as far as Atherton Mill, which I think would spread the skyline a bit too far. I think we may see SouthEnd's skyline naturally emerge along Morehead and a little down Tryon instead of South Blvd.

Of course like every one else I would like to see some action away from Tryon (still in dense fashion) but I do think that is starting to happen.

Lastly, speaking of Four First Union, I would like to see it reawakened as possibly a scaled down version of its former self. The same design but maybe sixty floors high or so. I liked the design of the building a lot and think it would really add something unique to the skyline.

I know of one that opened up in Winston-Salem. A whole new Branch. And Horizons bank is making Winston a type of headquarters. Something like Financial Headquarters, for example. I would say the next bank in danger is BB&T. I hope not though.

Lastly, speaking of Four First Union, I would like to see it reawakened as possibly a scaled down version of its former self. The same design but maybe sixty floors high or so. I liked the design of the building a lot and think it would really add something unique to the skyline.

Do you have any information/photos? I have no clue about this project. At least I don't Think I do.

For it's size, it's really impressive, and varied. Like Calgary of the South?

Charlottes skyline is nice, how can you not like some of the buildings, but I still think the only thing really missing is that old school architecture. You need to be remembered that it existed in the early 1900's all the buildings look almost to new if you get my drift. Other than lacking the 1930&1940's style architecture, I gotta give props where they are due and charlotte has some awesome looking buildings.

Charlottes skyline needs to expand in opposite directions from Tryon. It needs to beef up I cant wait to see if Wachovia goes through with their new tower....

JRQ, i think you were asking about four first union. It was a proposed tower 5 years ago that would have been about 1100 feet i think.

I think it's pretty nice, plus it's grown so much over the past few years.

Charlottes skyline is nice, how can you not like some of the buildings, but I still think the only thing really missing is that old school architecture. You need to be remembered that it existed in the early 1900's all the buildings look almost to new if you get my drift. Other than lacking the 1930&1940's style architecture, I gotta give props where they are due and charlotte has some awesome looking buildings.

Charlotte existed in 1900, but I believe its population was only on the order of around 30,000, so I wouldn't expect it to have much if anything in the way of old skyscrapers. New Orleans, Louisville, and Memphis at that time were the only cities in the South that had over 100,000.

You know, everything was Kosher until you brought Atlanta into the equation. Is there some kind of anti-intelligence potion in the water supply down there or something?

Fine, let's play... Using your criteria, Atlanta needs to concentrate on building taller buildings as well. Charlotte's tallest is the height of Atlanta's second tallest (and don't forget that both were built at almost the exact same time in 1992)... If an 871 foot tower is a midrise in your book, then Atlanta's tallest at 1023 feet is just barely a high-rise. Wow, you have some incredible expectations! That would mean that most cities in the country don't even have true high-rises. ?????


Back to reality...

Anyway, I think that Charlotte's skyline is very good for an MSA of just over 1.4 million people. It's even more impressive if you Urbanized Area fans use the 758k figure. It is very dense, there is little or no blank space at street level between buildings. This is in adherence to the Center City development plan from the 1970s--dictating new office space development would always remain concentrated around the square. It also allows easy expansion of the Overstreet Mall--an expansive plaza spanned across several towers, connected via skywalks.

One gripe I do have about Charlotte's skyline is that it looks too busy from certain angles. That dense development policy is a good thing to have, but it makes smaller skylines (like Charlotte's) look a little awkward at times.

I wish it had some more glass towers--I am really fond of that style. I do think that Charlotte needs some shorter towers (around 30-40 stories) to fill in the north side of Tryon and College. Also, if the SouthEnd area is going to experience a tower boom of any kind, I hope it stays close to the Belk Freeway.

Oh yea just to fill you in that Charlotte just reached the 2 Million mark in terms of CSA.

JRQ, i think you were asking about four first union. It was a proposed tower 5 years ago that would have been about 1100 feet i think.

omg! That would be so awesome! Maybe a little out of place, but awesome!
:eek2: So is the idea pretty much dead?

It was proposed at 1050 originally but it kept climbing to 1300 then 1500 feet. There were some renderings on these forums but I believe the hacker must have gotten to them. The only thing on the web I can find is this.

http://www.charlotteskyscrapers.com/cs-clt-view-1500.gif

http://www.charlotteskyscrapers.com/cs-clt-view-1300.gif

I like the 1500 foot one better. If you're going that tall, why not add 200 feet?
So if they built a tower now, how tall do you think it will be?

Oh yea just to fill you in that Charlotte just reached the 2 Million mark in terms of CSA.

Yes I know that. Jesus, I've only posted population data including MSA and CSA about 30 or 40 times now.

And I'm sure the extra 600,000 people across almost 3000 more square miles really makes a difference in this context. :|

Its okay, i guess i mean it could be better. i think the growth is pretty good but it needs taller buildings instead of midrise.its probably not going to ever be as the same status of atlanta because simply atlanta has alot more highrise buildings under construction and proposed.

Since when do we have to always compare Atlanta and Charlotte? It is getting to the point where people might actually think that Charlotte has more skyscrapers and is getting closer to having a larger skyline. ;)

I'm very impressed by the individual architecture of downtown Charlotte, so the skyline looks pretty good. However, I would like to see the areas off of Tyron Street developed a little more.

I would totally agree. Wachovia really has made some progress by having One, Two, and Three wachovia off of Tryon and having 400 South Tryon on the other side of Tryon but the new tower does not help that. Then again, filling up a surface lot no matter the location is my goal for Tryon at this point. There are not too many left and they are slowly being wiped off the map. I think the West Trade Transit Corridor might help get some towers in there. You must also remember that there is the Govt. District and then on the other side there is Gateway Village. Gov. District has some towers and is getting a new onee + Courtside.

its good, better then atlanta's imo

to be honest i dont really even like atlanta's skyline... gaps, low density, and it just doesnt look like its put together well

Thanks for yet again bringing Atlanta into this. I guess I missed that a Charlotte thread must have Atlanta in it somewhere. Unwritten rule of the forum it seems. :D

without the Bank of America Corporate tower it would be below average for a city it's size IMO

Not hardly. Hearst is an awsome skyscraper [and is thought of very highly here. 2nd rated skyscraper in its forum on the ROT. :)].

You know, everything was Kosher until you brought Atlanta into the equation. Is there some kind of anti-intelligence potion in the water supply down there or something?

Fine, let's play... Using your criteria, Atlanta needs to concentrate on building taller buildings as well. Charlotte's tallest is the height of Atlanta's second tallest (and don't forget that both were built at almost the exact same time in 1992)... If an 871 foot tower is a midrise in your book, then Atlanta's tallest at 1023 feet is just barely a high-rise. Wow, you have some incredible expectations! That would mean that most cities in the country don't even have true high-rises. ?????


Back to reality...

Anyway, I think that Charlotte's skyline is very good for an MSA of just over 1.4 million people. It's even more impressive if you Urbanized Area fans use the 758k figure. It is very dense, there is little or no blank space at street level between buildings. This is in adherence to the Center City development plan from the 1970s--dictating new office space development would always remain concentrated around the square. It also allows easy expansion of the Overstreet Mall--an expansive plaza spanned across several towers, connected via skywalks.

One gripe I do have about Charlotte's skyline is that it looks too busy from certain angles. That dense development policy is a good thing to have, but it makes smaller skylines (like Charlotte's) look a little awkward at times.

I wish it had some more glass towers--I am really fond of that style. I do think that Charlotte needs some shorter towers (around 30-40 stories) to fill in the north side of Tryon and College. Also, if the SouthEnd area is going to experience a tower boom of any kind, I hope it stays close to the Belk Freeway.

I just wanted to say...I agree. I would love to see more glass spread out. We have Charlotte Plaza and Bank of America Plaza but both right next to one another. There is the Westin but I still demand more. I would like to see something near Cornerstone Plaza with Glass on it.

Not sure I agree with that statement as you've written it. Think about this alternative:

If you remove the BoA Tower and replace it with a 30-40 story tower, optical field perception dictates that the skyline would in fact appear to cover a wider area. The height of BoA brings the horizontal stage into perspective and makes the skyline look smaller.

If several "wing buildings", say on the south side of Tryon, were removed... then yes, the skyline would start to look pretty dinky for a place the size of Charlotte--with or without BoA. I'd wager that with fewer buildings upon which to reference size, it would look even worse with BoA in that situation, as it would make the remaining buildings look rather squat.

It is all in the aesthetics.

Right on there.

I don't dislike the Charlotte skyline, but its never really done much for me honestly. Some of the buildings individually are gorgeous, but to me none of it fits very well. That, on top of the fact that there isn't much variation in the appearance of buildings, and almost a total lack of pre 1940's architecture and low-mid rise of any kind brings it down in the rankings for me.

yay. One honest opinion that is obvious and can be backed up actually. :)

Charlotte has an impressive skyline. I just returned from northern Europe and the U.K.(Oslo, Stockholm, Helsinki, St. Petersburg, Copenhagen, etc). Charlotte's skyline is more impressive than any of the above cities except for London. London doesn't have an impressive skyline but the vastness of the city is phonominal. Nevertheless, all of the cities were wonderful and Charlotte like other American cities is at best, nice. Charlotte has a very nice, clean and walkable uptown area and I consider it outstanding compared to most other cities in the U.S. of similar size. It will be nice to see more structures and one would have to be lame to not see that in the fairly near future. People shouldn't worry too much about skylines. They're just banks and financial institutions. Great cities, like those in Europe, are made up of museums, playhouses, bistros, shops, etc. I believe that Charlotte is filling that gap as well.

Europe is not like America. I will just leave it at that for now. This is based on skyline, and bringing in what a city is and what is containted within that city to make it great has not too much to do with a skyline on the terms that you made it.

This thread is too funny, we go from comparing Charlotte to Atlanta to comparing Charlotte to European cities. I thought the question was what do you think about Charlotte's skyline...

I like it, despite the lack of style variation. At least the architecture that's there is decent to look at. Imagine if it was all 70's boxes :puke:

Welcome to that which is the forum, Brad. ;)
Charlotte used to be very historical until it went on a demolition spree and replaced historical buildings with skyscrapers and parking lots.

Almost. Most of 2nd Would be demolished today or no one could live there. Not near the code of what a house should be. Though I will agree that some of the older buildigns that were taller should still remain.

I of course love Charlotte's skyline because it has always been the skyline that I associate as "home". But, I'll list some of my pros and cons for it.

There are a few truley beautiful towers, BofA, Hearst.
Even Some of the shorter towers were well designed compared to many buildings of comparable size, IJL, Interstate Tower, Wachovia Headquaters.
Since the 90's no developer has really just "thrown up" a cheap tower.

On the other hand:
I agree with JRQ, I too would like one more signiture tower on the southern half of uptown to balance the skyline a little more. Nothing too tall though. Preferably somthing between 700 and 1000 feet tall. I know everyone got excited over the 4 first Union plan of a 100 floor tower but IMO a tower that tall would dominate the skyline and detract from it. I would rather see two 50 floor towers than one 100 floor tower.

I also agree with I hate birds' points that Uptown could use a taller glass tower or two. And that the northern end needs a couple more thirty to forty floor towers to balance things out (and connect Odell).

I would also like to see SouthEnd's future skyline to stay dense and a closer to the freeway. If you look at the zoning maps, towers can be built out as far as Atherton Mill, which I think would spread the skyline a bit too far. I think we may see SouthEnd's skyline naturally emerge along Morehead and a little down Tryon instead of South Blvd.

Of course like every one else I would like to see some action away from Tryon (still in dense fashion) but I do think that is starting to happen.

Lastly, speaking of Four First Union, I would like to see it reawakened as possibly a scaled down version of its former self. The same design but maybe sixty floors high or so. I liked the design of the building a lot and think it would really add something unique to the skyline.

I totally agree with that. Though I would actually shift a few things about that plan. One major thing being the location. Look above in my post and you will see my talk about a glass scraper. Honestly, I want that small buildling next to 2 Wachovia to be renovated [as is planned and is going on] into residential space as it is badly needed in that area [people]. I would move it [as it is glass] over a few blocks and have it be my glass scraper. Though it would not even have to be too tall. Something like 30-50 floors is all I ask for, really.

Also, about the direction of the skyline...I would not like to see South End get a skyline in sense of it sprawling together with the main one. I'd like to see them just have seperate towers that finally merge out of need and lack of space. Though I do see Morehead beinga perfect location for towers [I really think a streetcar there would be perfect] and there is already density on the street down towards Providence. Though Light Rail will drive developers up in South End. No getting around that.


It was proposed at 1050 originally but it kept climbing to 1300 then 1500 feet. There were some renderings on these forums but I believe the hacker must have gotten to them. The only thing on the web I can find is this.

Always check the photopost here. I have tons of photos in there. http://skyscrapercity.com/photopost. Though, I am not sure if I have photos of 4 Wachovia in there. :)

Do you have any information/photos? I have no clue about this project. At least I don't Think I do.

http://skyscraperpage.com/gallery/data/544/28charlotte_future04.jpg

http://skyscraperpage.com/gallery/data/544/28charlotte_future03.jpg

http://skyscraperpage.com/gallery/data/544/281charlotte-4firstunion1.jpg

I like the 1500 foot one better. If you're going that tall, why not add 200 feet?
So if they built a tower now, how tall do you think it will be?

Cost goes up so fast as you add floors. The cost of elevadors and structure goes up really fast.

Hrm, something about 4FU just doesn't fit with the rest of the skyline, I'm kinda glad it didn't get built (at least, at that height).

The fact that it would have made the skyline look really small is one of them. Keep in mind that Three Wachovia, IJL, Hearst, Odell, The Westin [and for what its worth] The Arlington were not built. Though it is intresting that Three Wachovia was not included as it takes 3 to get to 4.

Tower is nice but with the skyline at the time...we would have taken many years to 'balance' things out.

Doesn't look that 'American' to me; but I really like it.

The Bank of America, and especially the Hearst Tower are very attractive, mixing a blend of old and new, that is missing out of many modern buildings

I am actually a big fan of Charlottes skyline. So much so that I thought any additional buildings would ruin it. However, I really like that rendering above.

In fact, I think Charlotte has my favorite Downtown skyline in the Southeast.

Charlotte, Minneapolis, and possibly Tampa are my picks for the most underrated skylines in this country.

It's on my list of favorites.

So far all the points I would touch, minus the comparisons to other places, have been discussed. Having seen Charlotte's skyline several times, with my own two eyes, having stayed in a downtown hotel and having seen several of the existing projects while under construction, I must emphasize how much I like the dynamic nature of Charlotte's skyline, and Uptown's urban fabric. Charlotte has some fabulous towers built in its core, and it is hard not to be impressed with the neat street-level experience of the CBD. As is, the skyline looks impressive, but like many people have expressed in one form, or another, Charlotte's skyline needs several smaller towers to fill in some empty spots and create a few transitional areas. The linear pattern is not my cup of tea, but in Charlotte's case it helps the skyline because there are several skyscrapers near each other, thus creating some density.

In the future, the several skyscrapers proposed and planned for Uptown will help break away from the linear pattern, and hopefully create the need for more infills between 20 and 30 stories. I think that Charlotte already has a great number of skyscrapers, and although I would not mind seeing another 20 popping up, I would most definitely love to see some smaller fillers... just to complement the taller structures. For a city its size, Charlotte has enough towers to impress the visitor, but I would throw more support towards creating a strong urban fabric outside Tryon Street. In my opinion, Charlotte is on the right track, and it is doing exactly what we all suggest. It so happens that it takes time to get there, which is common for all fast-growing cities.

Top-heavy, clunky, movie set looking...actually more like the Paris and NYC hotels in Vegas. Fake, hurried, cheap... but that's just my opinion.

^^>_< OUCH^^

I like the Charlotte skyline overall considering that the city's skyline has grown to it's status just in the past 10 years or so. 15 to 20 years ago and we'd be comparing this skyline with Winston Salem or Jacksonville, Fla. etc.... But BofA and Hearst, yes, very nice...... and others are coming..... :)

HAH Charlotte towers over Winston Salem, but you need to come off it if you think you sit so above Jacksonville.
Without bank of america in Charlotte, I wouldn't much care for the skyline at all. I really like Jacksonville's kyline because I think it has several really fantastic buildings. I don't really think one is much better than the other though, but you'd be a fool to ever put Winston Salem and Jacksonville on the same plain.

^The key phrase in the post before yours is "15 to 20 years ago." ;)

I interperited it as charlotte 15 to 20 yrs ago would be compared to today's Jacksonville and Winston Salem. But in any case, does that mean that Jacksonville and Charlotte were comparible 15-20 yrs ago, and not any more? I think no matter your opinion, they are comparible skylines.

Charlotte used to be very historical until it went on a demolition spree and replaced historical buildings with skyscrapers and parking lots.

"Very historical" is a subjective statement, so I really don't want to disagree with that. However, I would disagree totally with your statement that the city went on a "spree" and demolished "several buildings". I would suggest you check the Emporis site for information regarding the highrises Charlotte demolished and then compare Charlotte's list to other cities; and the actual number of highrise buildings every built in Charlotte in the early 1900's, compared to other cities.

I think Charlotte’s skyline is great. It has evolved tremendously. Yes the city, like others, has torn down “a few” old buildings. However, you have to consider how young the city really is. In other words, how small it was back in the early 1900’s when other SE cities built the older skyscrapers many on the board gloat about.

Numbers below taken from 2005 “The World Almanac and Book of Facts”. They quote the Bureau of the Census and U.S. Dept. of Commerce as their sources.

1900 CITY POPULATION
Atlanta – 89,872
Austin – 22,258
Birmingham – 38,415
Charlotte – 18,091
Jacksonville – 28,429
Louisville – 204,731
Memphis – 102,320
Miami – 1,681
Nashville – 80,865
New Orleans – 287,104
Norfolk – 46,624
Orlando – 2,481
Richmond – 85,050
San Antonio – 53,321
Tampa – 15,839


1950 CITY POPULATION
Atlanta – 331,314
Austin – 132,459
Birmingham – 326,037
Charlotte – 134,042
Jacksonville – 204,517
Louisville – 369,129
Memphis – 396,000
Miami – 249,276
Nashville – 174,307
New Orleans – 570,445
Norfolk – 213,513
Orlando – 52,367
Richmond – 230,310
San Antonio – 408,442
Tampa – 124,681


1970 CITY POPULATION
Atlanta – 495,039
Austin – 253,539
Birmingham – 300,910
Charlotte – 241,420
Jacksonville – 504,265
Louisville – 361,706
Memphis – 623,988
Miami – 334,859
Nashville – 426,029
New Orleans – 593,471
Norfolk – 307,951
Orlando – 99,006
Richmond – 249,332
San Antonio – 654,153
Tampa – 277,714


CHARLOTTE SKYLINE 1920
http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y183/Kwinone/Charlotte1920.jpg

CHARLOTTE SKYLINE 1966
http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y183/Kwinone/Charlotte1966.jpg

CHARLOTTE SKYLINE 1975
http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y183/Kwinone/Charlotte1975.jpg

CHARLOTTE SKYLINE TODAY
http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y183/Kwinone/Charlotte14.jpg

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y183/Kwinone/Charlotte11.jpg

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y183/Kwinone/Charlotte6.jpg

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y183/Kwinone/Charlotte12.jpg

^^Nice post; information to support
Hah, I actually like the 1975 picture. Instead of surface lots, there are green fields around downtown.

I have always been impressed with all the cities in North Carolina. I once took a trip to Winston-Salem and was very surprised by the living history section of old Salem. I was expecting to go sightseeing for old buildings and historical sights but was really pleasantly surprised. I have only driven throuh Charlotte and never really got a good look at it first hand but from these pics i would say it is very progressive for a city its size.

I, like several other people here, think Charlotte's next big "leap" is going to be in thickening the skyline a little. From the north or south, the skyline is extremely impressive as it lays out along the horizon. From the east or west, the density looks really great. But because almost all the towers are along the Tryon/College/Church Streets corridor, it's hard to find an angle with both length and depth.

Naturally the new projects will solve that problem somewhat. I'm not crazy about the design of the taller condo towers, but they'll fill gaps in a big way. The shorter towers have better design (imo) and will provide the midrise infill that's conspicuously absent. And most of all, the condos will create the kind of street-level vibrance and development that compliments the skyline to the curious visitor.

As for what is currently there: I don't think there's an unworthy tower in the city's 10 tallest. Individually and as a group the Uptown towers are great. The shapes and colors of the city are really appealing from a distance and from street level, especially the glass towers around the Square. I disagree that the south end of Tryon needs a sig tower; there are several over there that look very nice on their own. The end that really needs development is N. Tryon, once you get past Hearst. There's a really unnatural dropoff from Hearst down to 3-story row shops.

I, for one, hope there isn't too much high-rise development in SouthEnd. Part of the appeal of that area is its gritty old-industrial character, and I'd hate to lose that because of Arlington-type projects popping up. If they want to build stuff over there, I hope they have the good taste to blend it to the environment... maybe even a little faux-20s highrise architecture?

Here are some more old pics of Charlotte. Not sure if these dates are right, but they're the ones listed on the source pages.

1963
http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y183/Kwinone/Charlotte1963.jpg

1968
http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y183/Kwinone/Charlotte1968.jpg

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y183/Kwinone/Charlotte19682.jpg

1972??????
http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y183/Kwinone/Charlotte1972.jpg

1973
http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y183/Kwinone/Charlotte1973.jpg

Supposed to be 1983???
http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y183/Kwinone/Charlotte1983.jpg

a decent downtown....there are a few bangers that make charlotte of the coolest tier 3/C cities around. ;-)

http://www.redsplash.com/ims/pic.php?u=2445H1XRh&i=24871


I really like this shot of Uptown.

I think that the skyline is at best an ancillary measure of a city's urban quality, but I'll play by your rules for the sake of argument.

I really like the way that the BOA tower clearly defines the center of the city at the intersection of Trade and Tryon. However, things fall off completely far too fast (from the 60some story BOA tower, to 0 story parking lots) and it makes everything seem too compact and busy.

Like it alot. Very clean skyline. Not to mention on of my top 10 favorite buildings in the world is located there.. Hmm which one could it be haha

Thank god wachovia didn't do that tower; someone was drunk

I think that looking at the evolution of Charlotte's skyline, one should be impressed with the progress and give this city two thumbs up. Sure, some mistakes might have been made, but in 20 years none of them will be evident.

I first noticed it in the early 90's.
Since then I have felt that Charlotte had a great cluster of buildings that all work in harmony. I have never been real crazy about the Hearst Tower, the scale and height are fine but the lines bug me. And the art deco details are trying to hard to be art deco. I did notice an element of the building I had not seen before that I thought was intersting. There seems to be a ballroom on the northside about ten stories up, a large glass wall must give some great veiws.

BoA is truely a beautifull tower, by far one of the best "tallest in city" anywhere.

The Stadium is a great new element in the skyline. Most cities are not so lucky to have a stadium fit in so well.

The Westin is also a great addition.

I hate unfinished buildings or projects with no activitiy and I have to say Charlotte lets this happen a little too often.

Can someone tell me why the city feels os dark at night?

I think the ballroom is actually BofA's trading floor. THere was a piece on it in the observer a while back, it has some wonderful views from up there.
And i've noticed that ALL cities in NC are really dark at night. I'm not sure why but the streets just tend to be poorly lit, even the major freeways.

Yes, that is not a ballroom in the Hearst Tower but rather one of the largest trading floors in North America. It takes up the whole 10th floor and is 3 stories tall with glass exterior walls on the North and South ends. It also has a glass ceiling....it is quite stunning.

Charlotte has some great buildings...many I wish Indy had...BUT, there is a lack of density. Not too much (as mentioned) that is pre-1950. Indy and Charlotte have similarly balanced skylines (Charlotte has much better detail) but Indy blows Charlotte in terms of 10-25 story buildings.

I say I love the buildings, wish there was more 10-25 story buildings, but with all of teh interest in Charlotte (and Money) you all are on your way to a fantastic skyline!

Charlotte's skyline is nice and balanced, not as large and dense as some, but i think it fits the city nicely. BoA tower is obviously the crown jewel, and if they get another signature tower in the 800 foot range, it will be truly great

Yes, that is not a ballroom in the Hearst Tower but rather one of the largest trading floors in North America. It takes up the whole 10th floor and is 3 stories tall with glass exterior walls on the North and South ends. It also has a glass ceiling....it is quite stunning.
http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b330/bruinsbuddy42/Tradingfloor.jpg

Charlotte is OK.

It's better than I expected it to be, when I saw it in person this summer. However, I would expect it to be better anyways. Seems odd that a city such as Charlotte wouldn't have more skyscrapers. I think they need a few more jewels on their crown to match their nickname.

Can someone tell me why the city feels os dark at night?

There still aren't enough uptown dwellings and it's kinda all or nothing when it comes to evening pedestrian traffic. There has to be a crowd or people are scared (me too). Plus, where are you gonna go? The bank?

You know, everything was Kosher until you brought Atlanta into the equation. Is there some kind of anti-intelligence potion in the water supply down there or something?


Here's a test...go to a thread about Atlanta. Compare something in Atlanta to something in New York. Watch what happens. I can guarantee that one of the following things will happen.

1,) You'd be accused of being "jealous", if they noted you were not from Atlanta;
2.) You'd be accused of being a troll; or,
3.) Several prominent ATL forumers would whine about how it's not fair to compare Atlanta to New York.

Am I missing something?

Charlotte has a very nice skyline, BUT (and this is a large but) most of Charlotte's history has been destroyed - torn down in the name of "progress". For that reason my nickname for Charlotte is "the Plastic City".

^ That's simply not true. Most of older Charlotte is still standing. There are significant parts of the inner city that were cleared -- the slums of Brooklyn, part of First Ward, and some of the old row shops and houses on Tryon -- and maybe half a dozen significant public buildings and skyscrapers. But on the whole Charlotte is as well preserved as most larger cities. You are probably just not going to the parts of the city that haven't changed much in 60 years.

I wouldn't call Brooklyn a slum. It was a black middle class neighborhood with their own character and identity. 2nd Ward was just like any other neighborhood in Uptown then. Sure anything then before the 70s in South that blacks had or done would still be considered 2nd rated. Brooklyn is called Brooklyn because many of the residents have ties to Brooklyn, NY and the residents of the Charlotte's Brooklyn wanted it to resemble the Brooklyn of NY.

^ Have you ever seen pictures of the old homes there? It's amazing that they stood up to strong winds. In terms of concentrated poverty and low standard of living, it was definitely a slum.

Most of the old pictures of brooklyn I've seen show mostly unmistakable slums--old and crumbling buildings that, even if they weren't torn down by the city, probably wouldnt have lasted until now anyways.

There still aren't enough uptown dwellings and it's kinda all or nothing when it comes to evening pedestrian traffic. There has to be a crowd or people are scared (me too). Plus, where are you gonna go? The bank?

theres things to do after dark uptown.
Go to Fox and Hound, Brixx, Bar Charlotte, Mythos (if its still there) and
Rock Bottom Brewery a few other places here and there.....

^ That's simply not true. Most of older Charlotte is still standing. There are significant parts of the inner city that were cleared -- the slums of Brooklyn, part of First Ward, and some of the old row shops and houses on Tryon -- and maybe half a dozen significant public buildings and skyscrapers. But on the whole Charlotte is as well preserved as most larger cities. You are probably just not going to the parts of the city that haven't changed much in 60 years.

:eek2:

so, CLT really is perfect. i don't want to rehash this argument, so i'll just say i strongly disagree with you, and get back on track.

the skyline? it's gorgeous. too gorgeous.

it looks like it came out of a sci-fi movie where a large entity (usually an evil corporation) built their own city. see Delta City plans in "Robocop," for example.

but as Dusktrooper says, quantity over quality rules here, and that's what makes Charlotte's skyline beautiful.

i prefer Atlanta, gaps and all, b/c then you can more easily admire all the towers.

as Justadude loves to say, that's my opinion.

-

I dont like it.
It is an Atlanta want-to-be.
That is all.

I don't think any city is trying to be Atlanta , if that is the case , they aren't aiming very high. Do you think Atlanta is trying to be New York? The answer is yes but not in a million years will that ever come to past.

I don't think any city is trying to be Atlanta , if that is the case , they aren't aiming very high. Do you think Atlanta is trying to be New York? The answer is yes but not in a million years will that ever come to past.

if you'd been on these forums longer, the answer would be clear to you:

Charlotte's trying to be like Atlanta which is trying to be like Houston. ;)

-

if you'd been on these forums longer, the answer would be clear to you:

Charlotte's trying to be like Atlanta which is trying to be like Houston. ;)

-

and Dallas is doing its own thing

I dont like it.
It is an Atlanta want-to-be.
That is all.

joke or not, you're an ignorant fool.

:eek2:

so, CLT really is perfect. i don't want to rehash this argument, so i'll just say i strongly disagree with you, and get back on track.

You don't get off the hook that easy, buster. There was nothing in what I said that I can't back up with facts, so your "strong" disagreement really ought to offer a bit more than an emoticon as proof of credibility.

Not merely my opinion this time :)

theres things to do after dark uptown.
Go to Fox and Hound, Brixx, Bar Charlotte, Mythos (if its still there) and
Rock Bottom Brewery a few other places here and there.....

brixx hardly constitutes something to do uptown. I guess my real point is that you can't just walk around as an activity. Plus, these are all quite preppy, fratgirl mentality places. There's nothing underground feeling about downtown, there's no mystery, there's not even a record store. It's beautiful though and I still love it

if you'd been on these forums longer, the answer would be clear to you:

Charlotte's trying to be like Atlanta which is trying to be like Houston. ;)

-

Houston!?! If Atlanta is trying to be "like" any city it would be Chicago. At least that is the city most often where local officials see examples of things they believe would work here. Atlanta's already like Houston for the most part.

I like Charlotte's skyline, it looks different depending on which direction your looking from.

Looking towards the WEST:
http://www.homestead.com/charlotte/files/central2.jpg

towards the EAST:
http://www.homestead.com/charlotte/files/cltpark.jpg

from the NORTH, sort of (don't have a good southbound view)
http://www.homestead.com/charlotte/files/east.jpg

from the SOUTH:
http://www.homestead.com/charlotte/files/median.jpg


I can't remember who said it, but it does need at least one more staple building to maybe balance it out.

Although there is plans of a 50 story building coming to uptown and it's not near the bulk of the buildings we have now. Anyone hear of the "Vue" (and no not the women's show) www.vuecharlotte.com (http://www.vuecharlotte.com) looks interesting. the site has a nice video montage of CLT.


Although I don't think they're suppose to be huge, let's not forget about the Epicentre, and Ritz Carlton also coming.

Overall a great skyline that will hopeully spread it's arms a bit.


please stop by.......Charlotte Scenes (http://www.homestead.com/charlotte)

^ Vue and Epicentre are about the same size, right?

yup, one story difference, so pretty close

To suggest that Charlotte is trying to be like Atlanta is absurd. Charlotte is just a growing city with its own population doing their own thing. Charlotte is a banking town with a population that has above average educational levels. The city excells in some areas and lags in others just like any other city. I don't understand why people suggest that Charlotte is trying to be anything other that Charlotte. Charlotte is a nice city. There are an abundant number of ethnic restaurants, nightclubs to fit any desire, average schools with plenty of good private schools to choose from, great neighbourhoods, good shopping and parks for children. Charlotte is no Chicago, San Francisco or Atlanta. It is just Charlotte. Charlotte is growing and becoming more diverse just like any other city of size did in its time. Charlotte is not a great city and may not ever be on the same level as Amsterdam or Brussels because it will never be a great tourist center. Just accept Charlotte as a city that is growing and is a great place to live. If you like liberals, there are plenty there. If you like conservatives, there are plenty there as well. It is only a city that is growing. Don't expect too much and to have a personal perception that Charlotte is trying to be anything other than it is is wrong.

Good points. why would anyone want to be like atlanta anyway? Charlotte has specifically tried not to be like atlanta. I know I prefer a compact skyline...

I think it's fair to say that Charlotte, in the long run, would like to challenge Atlanta's image within the region. Since the cities are comparable in a lot of ways (major size difference notwithstanding), it's a measure of Charlotte's growth when it competes with Atlanta for things like the Wachovia merger or the NASCAR HoF. This is just a natural regional rivalry, like Tampa challenging Miami for image in the state of Florida.

But, as has already been pointed out, there are some important ways in which Charlotte has learned lessons from Atlanta. Congestion, poverty and sprawl are all major issues that Charlotte has tried to avoid. Cleanliness has long been a top priority in the city, perhaps directly related to Atlanta's struggle to keep its CBD clean and presentable. Of course, Charlotte will have problems with these issues as it continues to grow; but there has been a concerted effort to be able to say "Hey, it's not like Atlanta here".

So no, Charlotte doesn't "want-to-be" Atlanta. It wants to be in the same league as Atlanta, and better in at least a few critical points. Whether that's a realistic goal or a pipe-dream, time will tell. Personally I think it'll always be a smaller sister, a Philly to Atlanta's NYC. And given the personality and health of the city, I'm OK with that.

Charlotte should try not to be like Atlanta in how it grows, but I fear that it, like other cities are growing in the unfortunate manner of the mall-like-could-be-anywhere city of Atlanta-Houston-Dallas.

Houston!?! If Atlanta is trying to be "like" any city it would be Chicago. At least that is the city most often where local officials see examples of things they believe would work here. Atlanta's already like Houston for the most part.
Atlanta, I believe has a ways before it compares to Houston. Anyway these cities have their own flavor.

Atlanta is Houston is Dallas. Cities with appealing skylines, but grew up during the peak of suburban growth and these sprawling cities were among the brightest stars because of the plentiful cheap land to expand their metros. Meanwhile these cities are finally getting the idea that they want their downtowns to be something beyond the evening rush hour.

It's sad, but true, it's hard to reverse decades of suburban planned growth.

None of these cities will ever be compared to Chicago.

Atlanta, I believe has a ways before it compares to Houston. Anyway these cities have their own flavor.

Hmmm. That's not quite how the IOC saw it.

haha, atl is always able to fall back on 1996.

For a place whose city population is larger than Atlanta, it's kind of a disgrace that Charlotte has about 1/3 the number of buildings. The good thing about Charlotte's skyline is that most of the buildings look very nice.

mdude...you are a trip....

City population is meaningless. Time and time again, city population figures are thrown around. Why? Nothing could less accurate to the reality of the size of a metro, then using a city proper's population. Does anyone really believe that Jacksonville is the largest city in Florida? That Columbus is the largest city in Ohio.... That's why we have metro areas, that's the reality we live in. Some cities were able to annex and annex and on and on. Some can't and the burbs do the expanding.

To suggest that Charlotte is trying to be like Atlanta is absurd. Charlotte is just a growing city with its own population doing their own thing. Charlotte is a banking town with a population that has above average educational levels. The city excells in some areas and lags in others just like any other city. I don't understand why people suggest that Charlotte is trying to be anything other that Charlotte. Charlotte is a nice city. There are an abundant number of ethnic restaurants, nightclubs to fit any desire, average schools with plenty of good private schools to choose from, great neighbourhoods, good shopping and parks for children. Charlotte is no Chicago, San Francisco or Atlanta. It is just Charlotte. Charlotte is growing and becoming more diverse just like any other city of size did in its time. Charlotte is not a great city and may not ever be on the same level as Amsterdam or Brussels because it will never be a great tourist center. Just accept Charlotte as a city that is growing and is a great place to live. If you like liberals, there are plenty there. If you like conservatives, there are plenty there as well. It is only a city that is growing. Don't expect too much and to have a personal perception that Charlotte is trying to be anything other than it is is wrong.

I don't anyone suggests that Charlotte is trying to be anything but Charlotte except some forumers from Atlanta, GA. No one I know in Charlotte wants to be "like" Atlanta!

Charlotte should try not to be like Atlanta in how it grows, but I fear that it, like other cities are growing in the unfortunate manner of the mall-like-could-be-anywhere city of Atlanta-Houston-Dallas.

I beg to disagree. Charlotte is where Houston, Dallas, and Atlanta, GA were 20 years ago. For the most part, to Charlotte's credit, it's learned from the mistakes of those cities. Of course, Charlotte also benefits from "coming-of-age" during a period when cities across the country are focusing on urbanization.

I don't anyone suggests that Charlotte is trying to be anything but Charlotte except some forumers from Atlanta, GA. No one I know in Charlotte wants to be "like" Atlanta!

We don't want Charlotte, North Carolina to be like Atlanta anyways. Charlotte will never be like Atlanta in any aspect. Charlotte will always be Atlanta's little brother, thats how it should be. Just like Philly is NYC's little brother.

For a place whose city population is larger than Atlanta, it's kind of a disgrace that Charlotte has about 1/3 the number of buildings. The good thing about Charlotte's skyline is that most of the buildings look very nice.

Based on your theories, Charlotte should have larger and more buildings than Boston as well since the 'city' population is larger? Are you familiar with the differences in city and metro populations?

I don't anyone suggests that Charlotte is trying to be anything but Charlotte except some forumers from Atlanta, GA. No one I know in Charlotte wants to be "like" Atlanta!

Actually the person that made that statement is from Birmingham.

For a place whose city population is larger than Atlanta, it's kind of a disgrace that Charlotte has about 1/3 the number of buildings. The good thing about Charlotte's skyline is that most of the buildings look very nice.


:lol:

The Tallest is very nice one of my favorites, but the skyline as a whole is missing alot, but there is definitely room to grow

as a lover of antiques, charlotte's skyline reminds me somewhat of a decent antique that was mistreated, after it was stripped of its patina, pieces were added and taken away, and ultimately has been unable to locate an expert that will be able to put things back w/ balance, finesse, and care. it will take about 50 to 75 years to establish a patina, some might use the word grit. as for building placement, serious consideration should be given to trying to disperse depth both n/s and e/w. it just does not look as if it were an american city that "just evolved." though, in my opinion, it isn't anything that should cause one to hang his head.

i think it is a better looking town than say boise, omaha, nashville, and perhaps huntsville.

^ I don't know, do you really think Charlotte has a better looking skyline than Huntsville, powerhouse of northern Alabama?

LOL

I love how this dude posted in a 7 year old thread that had not been posted in in 6 years!!! WHERED HE EVEN FIND IT!?!?!? Lets just hope he didn't look at ANY of the pictures. I have to say, I love the Charlotte Skyline. i am more underwhelmed by it that I used to be, only because I've been living in NYC for 3.5 years now, everything is underwhelming after that. That said, there is a lot of great going on, and it CERTAINLY beats a lot more than he posted. In the southeast this includes, Richmond, Jacksonville, Tampa, Orlando, etc. Honestly nothing beats it other than the obvious Miami, Atlanta, Orlando, Houston, Dallas. The only city on the exact same level I think is Austin (perhaps only for the Austonian, nothing else has the height to compete)

It needs to fill out horizontally. Right now it looks like someone took an 8x3 block of neighborhoods from Manhattan and plopped them in a suburb. The cutoff is too abrupt. It's a good skyline for what it is though, and the grouping is geometrically near-perfect. Sadly it is far better than anything else in NC.

The other major cities in this state have dismal skylines for their size, with the exception of Asheville.

We like to pretend Raleigh is about to get somewhere, but even in 10 years after the Edison, Charter Square, the Lightner Center, and the handful of other things get built, it'll still be a much smaller skyline than it should be.

It needs to fill out horizontally. Right now it looks like someone took an 8x3 block of neighborhoods from Manhattan and plopped them in a suburb. The cutoff is too abrupt. It's a good skyline for what it is though, and the grouping is geometrically near-perfect. Sadly it is far better than anything else in NC.

The other major cities in this state have dismal skylines for their size, with the exception of Asheville.

We like to pretend Raleigh is about to get somewhere, but even in 10 years after the Edison, Charter Square, the Lightner Center, and the handful of other things get built, it'll still be a much smaller skyline than it should be.

Ugh.

In my personal opinion, Winston Salem has a great skyline for a city it's size. You are right about Asheville. Raleigh is probably the most underwhelming city in the state. The infrastructure is horrible. The interstates aren't lit, and it barely feels like you're in a city when you're driving on the west and southwest side of downtown on 440. At least the skyline is coming along.

I am more and more impressed with Charlotte. It's efforts to be progressive in growth are astounding. The city has accomplished so much in the past 25 years. Downtown is evolving constantly. The amount of people living downtown, museums, entertainment has tripled in thebpast two years. The skyline is very sleek, tall, modern, and clean. I would love to have more mid rises on the north and south sides of the skyline. Having an almost 800 foot tower on the end of the south side, and an almost 700 foot tower at the north side, provides two very tall bookends. This does make the skyline end abruptly when viewing from the west. Lots of infill needed, but besides the big four cities in the south, I will agree and say Austin is the only other city comparable.

no way Orlando beats Charlotte. What buildinig would you even call tall in the pathetic skyline? They have nothing that compares to BoA or Duke Energy.

Ugh.

In my personal opinion, Winston Salem has a great skyline for a city it's size. You are right about Asheville. Raleigh is probably the most underwhelming city in the state. The infrastructure is horrible. The interstates aren't lit, and it barely feels like you're in a city when you're driving on the west and southwest side of downtown on 440. At least the skyline is coming along.

Winston Salem's skyline is still small for its size. Durham's is the most underwhelming for its size, though there is some nice density emerging in its core.

Winston Salem's skyline is still small for its size. Durham's is the most underwhelming for its size, though there is some nice density emerging in its core.

Yea, Durham has rehabbed a fair amount of old buildings downtown. I think people who visit would be presently surprised at the activity. For sure, no one will ever acuse of Durham of being tall or cute....Durham has always been ruff-and-tuff and all that stuff; gritty, grimey and sneakily very educated and professional (that somehow has managed to insert Duke Univ.)

Our biggest attribute, we scare the hell out-of people from Raleigh and Cary.

who would win in a fistfight...