ertley

Amazingly, that coincides with my next trip back to the CLT. I'll go ahead and RSVP!

I agree with KJ--I'm going to throw a (metaphorical) bomb here--but I've never understood why the Brooklyn redevelopment needed a master plan executed by one developer. (I realize there may be technical issues I'm unaware of that require a mega-master contractor sort, but...) There's already a street grid, sidewalks (which obvi can be improved), and certain government buildings aren't going anywhere, so why not just offer the parcels with potential for redevelopment individually, in a bidding/competition process with specifications for what needs to be built? If done right, you get a far less homogeneous neighborhood, more 'organic' looking and feeling. (This not-unccoincidentally echoes my post from the other day.) I also, of course, have to echo his sentiments about Hall House. Again, there is at least half of an entire city block surrounding the Edwin Tower that could be wonderfully redeveloped with even more units than planned at the Hall House site, with green roof/roof deck/pool terrace potential for all residents atop the new buildings, for all the residents of the block... There definitely needs to be new leadership somewhere. You first have to have the courage to say "No," and then you force people to start to think creatively...

I know we're all less than enthused by the very upfront parking podium on the now *under construction* Stiles/Shorenstein building--and with certainty the garage screening is going to be at best underwhelming and most likely disappointing--but looking again at the rendering this morning on Axios, I thought I would point out two positive things about the design that I hadn't noticed fully before: It's set back from West Boulevard to create a nice little public square, and the building's angle is actually really pedestrian-friendly, encouraging people to walk to and from the Rail Trail to and from South and East, and the setback of the building also allows the back facade of the church to be plainly visible, which is also very nice, because it's got an interesting three-sided projecting bay and funny little chimney that are a historic element that wouldn't be re-created nowadays.

If I had to reduce my Wish List for Charlotte to one single element, it would be this very thing: Creating more intra- and inter- neighborhood street connections throughout the city. No, Charlotte can't ever achieve a grid per se, due to the terrain and, more importantly, its already built infrastructure, but it absolutely can substantially increase and thereby improve its secondary and tertiary street connectivity. Almost every time I go to Polaris to check out a property mentioned here, I end up finding nearby streets that could be extended and/or connected to others to improve neighborhood traffic flow, in all forms: pedestrian, bicycle and vehicular. The city surprises me on occasion by creating one or two of these every year, but there need to be far, far more on the books. Disappointingly it doesn't seem to be a primary initiative, but always tied to to larger projects (and probably the infusion of private funding). The extension of Sylvania across Graham to Statesville, and Oaklawn down towards it, comes to mind, in association with Camp North End, the Strawn redevelopment will (re?)connect South Caldwell to Cleveland (and side note, I hope someone has the common sense and will to rename the entire newly contiguous stretch Cleveland), the extension of Dunavant across Tryon to Tremont, and of course I am thrilled by the new completion of the 25th St. bridge connection over to Brevard--but there are literally dozens and dozens of such opportunities waiting. I know it takes money like everything else, but if these were more highly prioritized, the city could realize a multiplicity of results with such connections: improved vehicular traffic flow through reduced arterial route inter-neighborhood reliance, while creating those walkable and bike-able connections as well that not only better connect disjointed neighborhoods but strengthen their connections and relationships to nearby commercial areas (which ultimately strengthens and increases tax revenue). I think it would be well worth the expenditure. I'm no Robert Moses looking to plow through neighborhoods and remake them; most times removing only one or two houses could make this happen. (In my dream world, the city has a fund analogous to the one they use to buy houses in the flood plains--I mean, the city has bought dozens of not too cheap housing stock and demolished all of them to create these floodplains, including in the nicest neighborhoods--and could do the same for strategic street extension projects.) If I were head of Charlotte's planning division, I would identify the existing, promising and potential locuses of (commercial) neighborhood activity in the city, and prioritize street connections based on their proximity to these areas. With such a program, the city could ensure nearly everyone in the city is, say, under two miles of safe, sidewalk secure, walk to a neighborhood or even town (like in London) center, and help model a city more like those that came into being prior to motorized vehicles, with strong, vibrant, easily identifiable neighborhood or town centers at regular intervals throughout the city. I would argue that rather than planning incredibly ambitious, integrated plans like they have for South Park, for example, if instead the city would just start with street (and of course sidewalk and bike lane) connections in these areas, most of the rest would fall into place, with private developers following the literal footsteps of people (i.e. customers, clients, buyers).

I have read, of course, about the many downsides of Proposition 13, but some part of me still thinks that locking in a tax rate based upon purchase price and not assessed value is the most equitable thing to do. Why should only folks over 65 be given an exemption or remediation? Of course I understand why retired people deserve it, but what about working class people who are gentrified (and I HATE the over use and -reliance upon that word) or price escalated out of their own neighborhoods? Making everyone pay a rate based upon assessed value exacerbates income inequality in a very, very direct way: People who have lived in neighborhoods the longest--and by any measure, but especially that one, deserve to be able to remain there--find themselves with less and less disposable income every year, if they're not part of the banking elite or whatever group constitutes the gentrifiers (again, ugh) in their neighborhoods. There's no perfect solution to this, I realize, and I'm not actually seriously arguing for action here, just expressing my thoughts, but at least theoretically, though, I think a having everyone pay the same rate, but calculated upon the purchase price, for primary residences (only) helps with a lot of problems discussed on here: displacement due to gentrification, income inequality, etc. In a stagnant or declining city this wouldn't work, obviously, but in a city that's growing like Charlotte, there are enough new people moving in to town and buying houses, and folks trading up, to provide a still solid tax base upon current property values. A lot of people still are also going to take the option of cashing out when they get a good offer for redevelopment; it's going to be a very specific type of person who refuses to sell just to avoid higher property taxes and missing out on a huge cash windfall or profit (and I realize there are more of those people than you'd think). I would recommend a thorough examination of California's (and other similar) laws and finding ways of avoiding as many of their pratfalls through very specific legislation, if any area were seriously considering such a schema, though. This belongs in the political thread, so I'll keep this as brief as possible: I think a chronic problem that 'progressives' (cough cough) make is continually relying upon exemptions and carve outs to try and balance the system, but never fundamentally address or attack the system itself, which creates problems politically twofold: Only those benefitting from the exemptions appreciate it (and limit the political as well as advocacy benefits), and such an ad hoc, add on system increasingly complicates the tax system and creates even more animosity towards it in general. I am a big, big fan of trying to always create as many (as practicable) simplified, universal changes in tax codes as possible, and not an endless series of special conditions and exemptions that 1) individuals must become aware of and 2) have to make special efforts to benefit from, which can make even their beneficiaries exasperated. Just my 22 cents!

I wasn't talking about the roof of the theatre auditorium--THAT should be one of Charlotte's newest murals once the hotel (?!!) is completed. I was talking only about the small bay projection of the building with the triple arched windows--as well as possibly the longer area a level lower.

I personally feel this is a HUGE missed opportunity, in its planning and execution. I literally walked past this house/site last week while home for Thanksgiving (on a five mile pre-emptive weight control walk with my sister), and hand to God commented then how the house was simply sitting waiting to be redeveloped, and made the same observations I'm making now. This site is adjacent to an existing *signaled* intersection with JCC, and with a little creative thinking and persuasion with the church that owns the empty lot to the north, this could provide one fully signaled ingress and egress to the Old Salem neighborhood (and by extension Woodbridge on Carmel) that's lacking anywhere--on Providence or over on Carmel. I know there would be a lot of NIMBYs in the 'hood who wouldn't want it, but I think there would also be a large number who would appreciate a signaled intersection, especially those who commute in the mornings. There are far, far too many dead end streets coming in and out of Providence that aren't aligned with others on the opposite side, and this is (was) one golden opportunity to create an intersection that would improve traffic congestion that also didn't introduce a massive new development (and thus influx of residents or commuters) to the area. The new road could simply have hugged the property lines of the lot(s) and connected to/completed a current dead end street, without any additional property destruction or loss other than the right of way. This is the kind of planning mistake the City of Charlotte repeatedly makes, IMHO. They're pretty good about large- and mid scale road planning and realignment, but I see far too little awareness or attempts to have smaller developments like this provide greater connectivity within existing neighborhoods. They're all over Charlotte, and just being either ignored or squandered, largely...

It's plainly obvious in this aerial photo where the newer structure was added to the old (1950s?) structure. In a perfect world, since it looks like the new library is pretty much conforming to the footprint of the old structure anyway, it would've been cool (but yes, too costly) if they could've somehow salvaged only the reading room--if, of course, it would've been structurally possible to keep only the reading room standing. The reading room and its cupola, the only really worthwhile part of the extant structure, could've actually been a very cool bridging element from the new library building to the (anticipated) Truist tower--serving as a restaurant or bar space, like someone suggested.

"Tis a pity--it looks like, at least right now--that it didn't occur to anyone, or perhaps was logistically or practically impossible, that the roof of this portion of the old theatre could have been adapted into a nice little mini terrace, with access created either from the extant old building or designed specifically from the new structure...could've been a nice little perk for theatre subscribers or simply paying bar patrons...

THIS. I opined a year or more ago (in the Creating Culture thread, I think) that Charlotte should (first and foremost) concentrate on its unique characteristics and existing assets before trying to ape 'peer' cities, and this, to me, is exactly the sort of thing I was talking about--but couldn't see right before me! What would be amazing is if the city could revise its tree master plan(ting)--they've got to have one, right??--to maximize fall foliage, as les Bordelais suggested. There could be entire parks planted (or even re-planted) with a range of colors, and then streetscapes planted with specific colors... We've already talked here about how the root systems of willow oaks are shallow and make mature specimens prone to uprooting and falling, so why not strategically start replacing as many as those as possible with more maples as well as a range of oaks--even some more live oaks? (My former step brother is an arborist with the city, so I'll try and mention this to him if/when I ever see him again.) An excellent place to implement such a schema? Along all of the greenway trails...

You learn something every day--if you're lucky! I had no idea that Randolph Road was actually (or rather originally) Old Sardis Road!

Ref: my comments on rooftops being utilized for green roofs, parks or even swimming pools--This final ramp up to the top deck could absolutely, at least in terms of space--again, not an engineer--be utilized for a pool. It slopes like a pool already...

I have long wished that the gap left between the townhouses facing Morehead, at the top of College and bottom of Morehead Square, was planned or mandated to actually be transformed into a connector... It would allow College to flow uninterrupted down to Bland. (I'm obsessed with increasing street connections throughout the city.)

I actually think this is a smart way to think about this. Storage units for those who live in compact urban apartments are worth their weights in gold, trust me. My apartment--thank God--has its own washer and dryer and furnace unit as well, but they had to convert original closet space--I live in an old building that was renovated, so there wasn't a ton of storage space to start--into two discrete closets to house them. I wouldn't go so far as saying I would kill someone to get a non-off site storage space, but I might not be adverse to non-lethal chicanery... I actually think, if we're trying to conceive of a non-car-centric future, one thing that these parking garages could be converted to--at least the lower levels--is parking for BICYCLES. In our best case scenario, when people own no cars, and take mass transit or bike for routine travel, the bike population per capita would be very high, right? Where are all these bikes going to be parked? Charlotte's sidewalks aren't wide and expansive enough, and as I said, urban apartments don't have a surfeit of space, and if we're thinking about couples with a bike each, having what once was a space allocated for a car instead converted to two bike parking spaces would be amazing. Then, think about guest parking as well as customer parking in buildings with commercial space. Charlotte isn't built for thousands of bikes being parked Uptown or its surrounding neighborhoods--unless you consider taking them inside...to parking structures already there built primarily for another modality. (Obviously, once you get higher than the second, maybe third, level you're probably going to have to be more creative with your adaptive reuse, but I think basic storage units will also be well received, and you'll still need a level or two for cars, even if in this ideal world they're only ride share or rental vehicles.) This isn't even taking into account what the future might hold in terms of new inventions or innovations in individual transportation that we can't fathom yet. I definitely understand the rationale behind advocating for smaller or less prominent parking structures, but I think it's premised primarily on current conditions and anticipated nearer term ones, but none of us know what the future holds. Regardless, I have no doubt that the desire for monetization of every space of our society will find a way in the future to adapt and rehabilitate today's parking structures. I pretty much agree with @atlrvr's post. I would make the point that I've made on hear before, which I again think needs repeating: You are penalizing and hindering the advancement of the less affluent by limiting parking and vehicular access in certain parts of town, which--uncomfortably--are the parts traditionally seen as exclusionary and I (would hope) we are all at pains to be be reversing. Poor people can't chose their mobility options as easily as those of us (I presume) on this board; they're often farther away from *reliable* and *efficient* mass transit--and for decades more, at least, if the Silver Line is 18 years away. If you start restricting parking too much now, you limit who can reasonably participate in certain elements of the city's life--for employment, most critically. I truly, truly believe you don't start with reverse social engineering to get us to a less car-centric society. You first have to provide the good, reliable, and widely accessible mass transit people will require before you start restricting their abilities to travel places in cars. Personally, I think traffic and congestion alone will do the trick, not reducing parking space preemptively. I doesn't matter how much ample and even free parking is waiting at the end of a journey, if a journey itself is going to be too difficult, a majority of people (in general) will find other transportation options (for routine, non-once in a year trips). Time is money--ref: my prior paragraph about the economically disadvantaged.

There's a lot to like, or love, about this announcement, but the thing that piqued my interest the most is the statement that the top of the parking garage is going to be a park. In all of the discussions on this site of developments and critiques of many, many parking garages, I've understood the criticisms of the less than stellar screening of most, or nearly all, of them, but my primary point of mystification has always been why--besides cost, of course--developers committed to non-structural podium parking garage structures don't design them to have either green roofs--or parks--or swimming pools for their facilities. I'm not a structural engineer, but as a layman, it would seem that parking structures have to bear intense loads anyway, so I wouldn't think it would require *too* much more support to incorporate a green roof or pool deck, and for me it seems a lot safer and easier to deal with a pool atop a parking garage rather than one embedded in an actual habitable structure. For me, this was especially egregious with the Ally Center deck: Rather than having J. W. Marriott guests looking down over a parking deck, they could've had a more expansive, luxurious pool deck surrounding by green roofing... So, hopefully, Riverside is going to 'raise the bar' in Charlotte by increasing people's expectations for what can be done with the top levels of parking garages--and perhaps even extant as well as future ones.

I agree 100%. No one wants a city center that's all canyons, every street, because they block the sun for most of the day and create wind tunnels that are especially awful in the winter. Tall buildings and bigger developments ideally are evenly distributed throughout a downtown, alternating with smaller and mid-sized buildings. This is a great (re)development for Uptown because it improves one quarter of a block and doesn't waste new development dollars on tearing something down that's already doing a serviceable job occupying the space--but now soon to be improved. My personal, dumb metric for the health and appeal of a downtown is assessing intersections, specifically their four street corners--really sidewalk corners-- for good buildings, (potential) street activity, etc. This redevelopment will take this intersection of Brevard and Third from having only one good corner to pretty much two--it would be ideal if this building had a retail component, but it's not its purpose and at least it will have activity going in and out--and the older, renovated building across the street *almost* has a decent corner presence (that with some modifications could be realized) that's at least better than nothing. Those three historic buildings on the opposite corner do so much to make this intersection have character, and hopefully they'll host increasingly good, interesting (and profitable) businesses that engage directly with the neighborhood. If the Transportation Center is ever actually redeveloped, Brevard & Third is teed up for being a nice (if minor) locus of activity in Uptown.

I think I've already expressed this here before, at some point, but Charlotte University's (is that how we'll refer to it now?) team name and logo are completely and utterly wrong and misguided, the lasting result of a major historical error in (mis)judgment. The gold rush of 1849 sapped Charlotte of its early national prominence as the gold-producing center of the U.S.: 1849 (and '48) were *bad* years for Charlotte! I realize alumni would be adamantly against ever changing it, but in my mind Charlotte naming a team and mascot in reference to the '49 gold rush is almost akin to Emory naming its team "Sherman's March" or College of Charleston the "Hugos" or San Francisco the "Fiery Earthquakes". It just ain't right!

This is the only thing here that sticks in my craw: the general perception that Atlanta has a deeper history than Charlotte. (I'm not leveling a criticism of you, @jessediebolt, because I realize this is indeed general perception.) I accede that Atlanta's may be richer, because more people means more history, naturally, and Atlanta has nearly always been larger than Charlotte, but it's not deeper: Charlotte was officially incorporated in 1768, and for over 80 years of Charlotte's history, there was no Atlanta. Atlanta wasn't even settled until 1837, merely a quarter century before the Civil War, and wasn't incorporated officially until 1847. (I looked these numbers up on Wikipedia, natch!) In 1865 Atlanta wasn't 30 years old, but had grown to around 10,000 people--because it was a railroad depot and exchange developed only after the Cherokee had been forcibly removed from northern Georgia in the '30s. I contend that it's one thing, and one thing only, that gives Atlanta the veneer of having some storied Southern history: Gone with the Wind. If Peggy Mitchell from Atlanta hadn't written that book, Atlanta would be thought of no differently than Houston or Birmingham or even Charlotte, in terms of its history--20th century economic prowess and influence another thing entirely. But Gone with the Wind was such a phenomenon from the minute it was published in the '30s, and made such an indelible impression on American culture, that it forever influenced people's perception of Atlanta as a storied Southern city. Americans like to get their history from movies and t.v. mainly, and much less from actual historical works. Gone with the Wind wrote the history of the Civil War for several generations of Southerners who never actually read a book of 'dry' history, and so Atlanta became enmeshed in the popular history of the South, for both non-Southerners and Southerners alike. My biggest gripe, I guess, is with city of Charlotte leadership, and its failure to brand itself as a city with far deeper (although perhaps not richer) history than Atlanta or many other Sunbelt cities. Charlotte is actually part of pre-Revolutionary War American historical progression, a century or so younger than literal literal East Coast cities, but older than those farther inland. In the Charlotte Culture and History threads, there have been many discussions about potential ways the city could develop and implement cultural and historical opportunities, but of course the city's focus always has been and continues to be pure economic and specifically business development. So, tourists or visitors to Atlanta can excuse the absolute absence of anything preceding the last quarter of the 19th century (if I'm being generous) because "Sherman burned Atlanta," but in reality Sherman burned a small city of under 10,000 with no buildings older than 25 years, but when they come to Charlotte, a city closer to a century older, the absence of old structures--no one's fault but Charlotte's, to be sure--creates the impression that Charlotte is only as old as what they see. Atlanta should put up a golden statue 40 feet high in honor of Margaret Mitchell, because they owe a lot to her, at least in terms of people's perceptions.

I wish I could "Like" this, like, a hundred times!

I've always thought the Google Fiber building looks so out of place, marooned, there by itself. My fantasy is that the city would actually develop (or more accurately allow a private developer to) First Ward Park's 7th Street frontage--only a narrow/shallow parcel--basically the terraced, paved part on that side. I envision a pavilion-like building, mostly glass facades, housing a couple of restaurants or cafes--it could actually be a few stories and even have a roof terrace--that would help activate the park *and* provide a companion to the historic Google Fiber building, contextualizing it. The actual green space of the park wouldn't be reduced at all, and it would help make it a more natural gathering place, especially if, say, there was a family-friendly cafe that would draw folks taking their kids to ImaginOn. Put the drinkers up top, with a view of the city...

I have long hoped the Johnston Y *property* would be re-developed--but of course I don't want to see the facility leave the neighborhood, or even those two parcels. I know it's not actually historic and is just a 1950s repro, but I wish they would demolish all the supporting buildings except the main structure, and then build a series of new buildings enveloping it, including to the left and right of the portico--and hopefully saving that gigantic oak--basically creating a cool (maybe literally, in the summer) courtyard from Davidson, like the one they're creating at Vantage South End. There's MORE than enough surface area to build a few large or several mid-sized buildings. A smaller, separate building to the left of the courtyard could be a nice opportunity to do something on a smaller scale, and then the building(s) to the right and behind could be Y-based on the ground level with a multitude of uses above. Again, I know it's a reproduction and faux "classy," but I think the main Y building is nice enough to try and save, and adds a bit of variety along that stretch of Davidson.

Wait. Are you sure this isn't Ally???

My personal metric for a great or world class city is the ability to walk continuously from destination to destination without ever encountering brown land or dead zones, in terms of streetfront opportunities. I know--and don't expect--Charlotte will ever achieve this for every street radiating from downtown, and it doesn't have to be every street anyway. There just has to be enough well developed streets to provide multiple, but not exhaustive, robust routes for pedestrians to take from neighborhood to neighborhood. Tryon is *nearly* there, from Uptown to South End--obviously that chasm over 277 is an issue--but getting those few blocks immediately south of 277 redeveloped will basically help create a walkable stretch of over a mile--totally respectable--from upper Tryon all the way to Tremont, and of course once you're in South End, you've got multiple options within the 'hood. South Boulevard is coming increasing closer to being a consistently walkable city street on both sides, but the west side is obviously much nearer there. I won't go through the (actual encouraging) number of streets like Tryon and South that are close to achieving this, but there are so many that when they're each fully developed, I truly believe Charlotte will be able to boast a world class experience of perambulation, to and from Uptown in multiple directions, and then even outward from those downtown-adjacent neighborhoods. I'm thinking in 10 years or so we'll be there.

I have a geek appreciation for the fact the developer provided micro maps with the positioning of each building on every billboard. Terrific. My immediate (minor) deflation is that it looks like that curve in Raleigh Street remains; I've always hoped the city and/or whoever developed the area would straighten it--as the bridge rises (obvi) as it approaches the tracks, there's actually more clearance for the street if it's shifted slightly south underneath the bridge, to the other side of the initial pilings. At least according to the micro maps, the curve is staying. I know modern street design favors curves every so often for traffic calming and driver alertness, but I still favor straight streets within block-long segments, especially nearer a city's center. IMO it just provides a more legitimate 'city' feel.

If I'm allowed to bring a Plus One not particularly interested in Charlotte or its urban fabric--but who will be happy to drink a few beers in the sunshine--who is accompanying me from the beach tomorrow afternoon, I'm planning on being there!