Hey, I resemble that remark 
I rather we get progressively taller buildings so we can discuss the next tallest building for many years instead of pull an OKC and basically have one really tall building that basically wonât be beat for a long time.
3 Likes
Weâre 5 days into 2024 and you already won best post for the year.
2 Likes
I honestly have to say that we wonât see anything over 40 in the near future, we donât have the market to support that type of development.
I always wonder what most people mean by this term. 5, 10, 15 years? I guess it really depends on the specifics but then again we have what was originally the RBC building which you could argue stuck out (still does) like a sore thumb. And gosh, I wouldnât mind a few more âsore fingersâ. 
Near future to me is within 10 years, and Iâd have to agree w/ @CoreyB that I doubt weâll get even a 40-story building, let alone anything taller. So far the tallest buildings proposed lately have been in the 32-35 story range, and then after theyâve been proposed, any inkling of actually happening disappears.
1 Like
Cannot imagine programming a building in the 40-story range without a significant office component which will not be happening anytime soon. Residential (with ground-floor retail) would require something in the low 20âs to get to their optimal 300 unit or so count. Hotels probably less.
Maybe a hotel and residential combination sharing amenities could approach that height. But square foot building costs might be prohibitive. Without an office market there is nothing viable to drive even anything in the 30âs right now.
5 Likes
Other cities in our class of city can build 50+ story residential towers just fineâNashville have a pipeline of those in the double digitsâbut those cities offer more amenities than just a generic convention center.
Are we saying Nashville is in our class?
Raleigh-Durham and the Nashville-Murfreesboro CSA are nearly exactly the same population.
Ah. The CSA. You may find a better comparison amongst cities with similar MSAs.
I agree that Raleigh should have the capacity for a pipeline of buildings like that and I donât understand why it doesnât, but I think a big part of it is Durham being in the CSA. Raleigh is the anchor of the CSA but not the center so development just doesnât centralize into taller downtown buildings I guess.
4 Likes
The Bank of America tower was built in the 60s. That other NC city had about the same population if not a little smaller when that building was built.
If youâre referring to BoA Corporate Center in Charlotte⌠it was built in the 90s, and Charlotte was still much larger than Raleigh at the time. BoA âtowerâ was just recently built. Otherwise, there are probably 30 other BoA towers in the US that you could be referring to. Iâm curious if you check on the claims you make in comments before commenting?
7 Likes
But our population right now was there population back then
And that is the Corporate Center for Bank of America for the entire USA. Your point is moot.
big companies and corporations are the ones who will lease properties. If the city/county doesnât attract companies to move here then it doesnât matter about the number of people living here. Obviously it helps but it wonât move the needle
2 Likes
And first citizens bank could do the same with the city of Raleigh lease properties or work on securing them for a long time so they wonât move. FC couldve left us a long time ago but the choose to stay the city should work on attracting them to stay here and should convince the to build a signature tower. In fact they should rezone every office property and use the chamber of commerce to land companies by offering tax benefits to our companies to build on rezoned properties.
Bank of America is more than 10x larger than First Citizens and has as many employees in Charlotte as FCB does across the entire company.
1 Like