atlrvr

Akridge has begun marketing the retail space on South Blvd (between Caldwell and Cleveland) for lease....assuming that means they've hit pause on the 30+ story tower there.

https://letmegooglethat.com/?q=Riverside's+Denver+development+1900+Lawrence

I can answer the 2nd part of your question. The land was acquired in 2003 for $700k, and construction began (I believe in 2005) with the 9 units selling in 2007 into 2008, for approx $550k to $725k. The total cost of the 0.38 acres parcel on a per acre cost was $1.85mm per acre. Using $675k as average selling price, the land was ~12% of total unit value, which is appropriate (15% has been a normalized number for sunbelt townhomes for many years). The most recent sales comp I see was last year, with a unit selling for $740k vs $645k original price in 2008, or a 15% increase in value over 15 years. <<< So this is red flag one...not a high demand market, as this is substantially worse return than other intown neighborhoods. Further, 3 other units since 2019 sold for LESS than their 2007/2008 initial purchase prices. But let's assume townhome value is up 15% (or even if it was up 50%)....Uptown LAND is up WAY more.....there aren't many small parcel land sales out there, but best I could find was 209 S Poplar (3rd Ward), which sold for ~$4.65mm (650k for 0.14 acres) in 2022....so, there's your problem on why you won't see more of this....townhouse values up 15% while land values up 250%. A different way of quantifying this would be: Even if a developer didn't care about normal land cost ratio, and tried to pass that land cost difference on with no additional profit margin, and could TODAY find labor and materials at 2005 level pricing (hahaha!), the unit that sold last year, for $740k, would need to sell for $956k today. So, that's why it's no longer possible, and higher density is the only path forward (or a much much bigger CRE crash than we are seeing today would need to transpire to reset land cost levels).

Updated rendering on their site does show the flatter facade (no balconies) but does still have what appears to be brick lower section, so hopeful....so while, less interesting than initial rendering, it would still be a great project if this is the final rendering.

https://www.ajc.com/news/business/breaking-rivian-pauses-plan-to-build-5b-georgia-factory/RH7HC6QEAJGOFJMZWF3Q6IKN3Y/?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=ajcnews_tw Rivian is also not going to Georgia., but this is what they'll have to remember them by: Of course, we let VinFast do this to us, so feels like Georgia still "won", just in the "did less damage" sense.

https://ocnjdaily.com/author/chrisbates/ ^^^ cause it's written by a bot

From yesterday Land Use filing.

Noting something as a criminal offense does not necessarily put a roadblock to someone receiving help or re-integrating into a normative society. This new ordinance will allow police to cite/remove people who are being public nuisance or worse. The courts have discretion at a later date if/how to prosecute and the penalties. The problem with the previous "de-criminalization" is that police had no grounds to engage, regardless of what they suppose the root cause or intent is. It could be someone having a psychotic episode, or simply someone wanting to harass other members of the public (and I understand there can be a high level of overlap along the spectrum of causes) The D.A.'s office as well as magistrates/judges, can make good faith determinations on best course for those cited/arrested, and make well informed decisioning on how to balance individual rights against public's best interests. ^^^ In my opinion, that is vastly superior to purely condoning anti-social behavior, and acknowledges that police aren't equipped/informed to have the level of detail to exercise discretion, but allows them to exercise laws and let those who are better informed make those judgements.

Just mild cosmetic upgrades, and lower price point. I had dinner with the COO of an office REIT a few months ago, and asked him about this building, and he was confident that was the only realistic outcome...though to be clear, no REIT is going to pursue this building as public market investors demand they focus on best in market properties.

Mass Mutual bought 230 S Tryon for $20,631,000 back in 1991 (including the then vacant Ruth's Chris parcel as well as the parking deck behind them). They operated (through their Cornerstone Real Estate subsidiary) it as a Class B office building until 2004, and in partnership with Spectrum began conversion in 2005. The site is just under 1.75 acres (and building I believe was about 190k sq ft) The condos started in the mid-200's, and the majority were 1 bedrooms selling in the high-200's. I find it incredible that MRP can't figure out what to do with a 3.8 acre site that they bought 31 years later for $35,000,000 (less $ on a "per unit basis" for land or existing structure sq ft, either metric) when Bell Uptown (formerly Spectrum Uptown) right across the street recently sold for $462k per unit. At the very least, I hope we (the city) ask MRP the question, can you show us/tell us what you plan to do with the site in the absence of any incentives? The city has a fiscal responsibility to not get caught up in pretty renderings, and actually consider what they are entrusted to do.

I can't stress how much I despise this idea: 1) There is no lack of premium housing in Uptown. This isn't solving a supply problem that would require incentives. 2) This isn't empty office space anymore. It is not longer trying to attract tenants, and therefore no longer competing against other office buildings. It's like it doesn't exist from an office market perspective. 3) MRP just bought this building 14 months ago for $35mm. It's not government's job to bailout an investor that paid too much. Unlike some of the Financial Crises bailout (banks, AIG, automakers), this has no broader risk of economic damage beyond MRP/Asana's investors. 4) This sets horrible precedence. Overpay for a property to "win" it, then ask for subsidies. This is reverse. If a developer has compelling plan in the public's best interest, and the only way to compete against a plan that is financially more beneficial to the seller, but quantifiably less in the public's interest, that is when the incentive conversation should happen. That said, I see nothing about this plan that provides something that market forces have failed to bring on their own (I don't see saving a concrete bunker as high civic value) and again, the order of operations here is inverse, and should be rejected for that reason alone (precedence). 5) The idea that this development will generate higher tax revenue, is a logical fallacy, as another options would be for MRP to sell this site (or if they have a loan, to go into foreclosure and the bank sell it), at a value that allows for the proposed development to occur without subsidy, or a similar development to occur. The deferral of 2 more years to achieve similar tax revenue (while owners are still paying taxes on current property) almost certainly is minimal impact versus the long term reduction in collections from incentives (PIP or otherwise). I could go on, but I think that highlights my key objections.

Humana is consolidating to two adjacent buildings they also occupy about 4 blocks away from their "tower"....still downtown. So, it would be unfair to characterize them as abandoning downtown, but it would be fair to say they need less overall space.

105'

Do we even know what time period had the supposed decline? Can't even begin to speculate without that piece of info. Doesn't sound like census related at all, as county data was published over 2 years ago. Edit: I believe a lot of private party estimates rely on USPS change of address info which is released annually.

Disagree with this take. Those buildings are now defunct based on changing client (tenant) preferences. They built something that tenants clearly valued more. Don't disagree that the execution could have been better in regards to still building a desirable office product AND a more engaging ground floor.

I'm always hesitant to post this because I know I'm just going to hear objections on why they are so dissimilar, but every time I go to Miami Beach I just feel like it's a great ambition for Charlotte. It's a city that has no meaningful mass transit, parking garages above ground everywhere, curb cuts for cars everywhere, people driving for the sake to drive (show off)....but, one of the most urban, walkable places anywhere. The infrastructure is very cost efficient but effective. The sidewalks are all very we wide (no useless planting strips). Pedestrian medians. Blocked off bike lanes. Lots of connections to the boardwalk/Greenway. Mix of dirt cheap old apartments next to $$$ condos. Single family homes on small lots, and golf courses. Retail all over, but only on main streets (not forcing it in places that it doesn't make sense). TGIFridays within a block or so of a Michelin star restaurant, and cash only dive bars. It also feels incredibly safe to walk anywhere on the island in the middle of night despite all the vices present, and homeless barely is noticeable. Anyway, I just got back again, and felt like sharing that it actually is somewhat achievable for Charlotte, and not an old European city that is effectively impossible to emulate.

So, Hugo Boss is going to where Palmetto Moon was as well. Guess that means Palmetto Moon space is being split in 1/2 to accommodate both Hugo Boss and Lacoste.

*** moderator note *** My simple assumption is Larry Singer/Professor is stating the much higher percentage of union labor and socialist leaning politicians in Helsinki and Oslo relative to Baltimore and Philadelphia, has resulted in significantly lower income dispersion in those European cities, which leads to overall higher levels of populace happiness and lower levels of hopeless, that typically manifest in criminal activity. All of these issues are actually way more complicated than any hot take. My preference, given this site's general goal is to foster conversations about urban issues, is to allow conversations to happen, and acknowledge there are a variety of views, some reductionist, others offensive, but those variety of views actually provides insights how a population overall interacts with the built environment. And as noted, if anyone wants to ignore the views of others, the block feature usage has been described above. Edit: Adding @Neo as site owner who may have different philosophy than me which I respect.

When I lived in Boston, and said "I'm from Charlotte", the response was almost always "Oh, down in the Carolinas?" Always "Carolinas"...no one was ever confident enough to take a stab at North or South.

Right...I lived in Back Bay of Boston. If you re-read my post, I said downtown, which is the CBD. Washington St is mostly restaurants and services at this point. Macy's at downtown crossing is tragic. Filenes Basement shuttered years ago. They did open a Primark, but most destination retail is Back Bay. Back Bay office is more like South End. It's wedged between 2 residential areas, with most of the street retail in brownstone townhomes, as well as 2 enclosed malls that have no street presence. Chicago retail is almost exclusively north of "The Loop" which is the office district, in more of a mix of mid-rise/high rise residential area.

I'm not saying it's not aspirational to have better retail options in Uptown, but very few cities have "destination" retail in their CBD, and most are in adjacent, still urban neighborhoods. NYC's Midtown and Seattle are the two large city exceptions...I guess Portland as well, but more mall based and struggling. Salt Lake City has a really nice urban mall as well, but it's a mix of enclosed mall that interacts with the urban streetscape pretty well. Chicago (inside the loop), Los Angeles (downtown and Century City), Boston (downtown), Miami (downtown), Philadelphia (downtown), San Diego (downtown), San Francisco (financial district).....these are all dense, highrise filled, lots of residents, walkable areas, that have very little in terms of the retail people want to see in Uptown Charlotte. It is mostly restaurants, bars, and service oriented retail. Now, most have mid-rise adjacent neighborhoods that are more "stroll" retail focused. My suggestion for Charlotte is to not be an anomaly, and focus on South End as being that "companion" to Uptown.

From now-ish.

I have access to the original debt underwriting of the CIM purchase in 2014, and I think it was a simple as: Each year, revenues were up materially since the financial crises. 2011 there had been a large capital expenditure during the 1st BK. The tenants (except Golds Gym) were all very profitable (and there was a case to made that most of their rents could be increased) Charlotte was a fast growing city and this location is right in the heart of the city (adjacent to BofA Global HQ and across the street from the Ritz!) Future hotel to be built (remember, the AC/Residence Inn didn't exist then) would further drive sales/rental demand. Key assumptions that were overlooked: The properties pedestrian flow made it more of an isolated destination, where the proximity to office workforce not a huge advantage. Changing trends (craft beerhalls > branded bars) <<< This probably biggest mistake, as the bars/clubs on the top 2 floors were actually paying obscenely high rent, but were also wildly profitable. Facts where CIM could not have reasonably known. A couple of murders. COVID

Is the pedestrian experience really that bad here? Feels pretty "above average" to me for how it will be experienced by someone walking by it, or waiting at the LRT station. The real issue is that 6-10 stories up, the parking deck is quite ugly in the skyline when viewed by a bird or a drone or a rich person renting in the future Tyber Creek highrise..

I believe it...film credits are pretty terrible because of their lack of long term value creation. It's usually just 1 time activity to tax, with many (most?) of the labor being non local. Film studio property taxes are pretty small. They are cheap buildings on cheap land, and most of the equipment can be rapidly depreciated for tax purposes. Films are pure vanity as far as economic activity, but so are sports and other projects, so not saying we shouldn't pursue them, just we shouldn't expect any sort of direct economic return.