MarcoPolo

Wonderfully explained @CLT Development So much wrong with the interface between buildings and public realm over the entirety of this campus. @Synopsis101, it is more than a missed opportunity...it is tragic As I've stated before, Legacy Union is, and will remain for the foreseeable future, a giant turd on the urban landscape of uptown. It can only be labeled a "success" if one thinks importing "suburban office campus" aesthetics and marketing to a downtown is somehow an achievement worth praising. It's a Ballantyne level project masquerading as urban by cloaking itself in "density". Before people begin arguing that it, "addressed the need for Class A office space and the desire of tenants for healthy buildings, etc."., I'd like to point out that achieving high grade office is not some great accomplishment. It is standard industry practice. The admirable feat is integrating these contemporary needs with time tested principles and techniques for building lasting urbanism. The executed plan ignored the intricate and sophisticated choreography between buildings, civic spaces, and public access, necessary for delivering and nurturing urbanity. Ally across the street illustrates how even a modestly competent approach to achieving these needs can be positively impactful to urban life. This was not a priority at Legacy Union, and as a result it functions parasitically. It draws in tenants from lesser quality buildings, and deadens a vast amount of acreage with its anti human engagement which @CLT Developmentaccuratly described. Everything surrounding it has to do double duty to compensate for the void in the public realm this massive footprint has created. Let's not even begin to point out that the largest concentration of space (density) in the project is assigned to parked cars

The "concentration" of Interstate designated highway segments through the Triad has less to do with history, than it does geography and optimal access to populations, both rural and urban. The Blue Ridge Mountains orchestrate much of the outcome, and the Triad's location just happens to be at a "crossroads" so to speak allowing convenient east/west and north/south navigation of this substantial obstruction. Here, the various routes intermingle on their way to fulfill their missions to connect existing centers of population and provide access to poorly served rural areas. One of the largest poorly served areas on the east coast happens to also be adjacent to one of the most dispersed urban areas in the US (the Raleigh, Triad, Charlotte, Greenville, Atlanta corridor); the vast Empty Quarter of North and South Carolina bordered by I-85, I-95, and I-20. Poking an Interstate (I-73/74) through this very rural and poor area of the Country has been a priority for awhile now, and the existing Interstate network makes the Triad the obvious location for routing access to achieve the goals required. All the various and new three digit "connector" and bypass segments are merely outcomes of trying to minimize circuitous paths between the main corridors in a multi-nodal urban region.

@Blakcatfan your question was excellent, not only in topic, but in how it was asked. Well done, and please, feel free to divert more often! I've been loitering on this particular thread a while....reading everyone's observations, debating whether to add any thoughts. @kermit weighed in with accurate feedback related to wealth and density, and provided helpful insights to the questions you raised. I'll refrain from adding more with my typical treatise style of post........ (I know, I see everyone's eyes rolling, !) So, I'll focus instead back on the River District. One point to make about this project pertains to both its site and situation. Each would guide astute developers/designers/municipalities toward a different direction than the one taken. As a location for development much of the land is very challenged. A quick glance at the topography and water courses underneath the plan, will provide you the reasoning behind its layout. Development of any significance is most practical along the ridge lines between the many creek and stream ravines draining into the Catawba. Therefore, the parti (planner speak for the hierarchical configuration of block and thoroughfare systems) for the River District is highly compromised in its ability to deliver a rational development, at any density level. At high densities the disconnected ridge lines would choke on themselves mobility wise. If one sought a solution using lower densities, it would achieve little added value to Charlotte and cost more to the developer than could be gained by its development. The approved master plan sits between the high and low density options. The plan has design intent, and place making elements, but as a comprehensive unit it more resembles spaghetti being thrown against a wall to see what sticks. Certainly it is "developable" and the money behind it has settled on the program and density that will provide return, but is what is proposed the best use of the land, given its site and situation? I would say no. The further the plan heads west from I-485, the further it strays from opportunities to provide best practices in sustainable design, and place making. The negative impacts of doing so will not be suffered immediately. In fact, the project will be praised and may win a few awards in the short term.....however the negative impacts, or externalities, will be quite significant in the long term to this side of Charlotte. One outcome certain is that either density scenario, including the one chosen, will succeed in worsening traffic along the west side. Few entry points...limited access. With the river to the west and I-485 to the east, the entire thoroughfare system functions as a series of long cul-de-sacs feeding into a limited access highway and just a couple of city thoroughfares. The ideal recipe for maximizing traffic congestion. Another certainty involves the vulnerable Lake Wylie watershed it sits within. Any development high or low in density will worsen water quality, even with the "buffers" and "tree saves" proposed. Too close to the river. Given these conditions most would assess the potential in a different light. By most, I refer back to my earlier description of "astute developers/designers/municipalities. I'm not one to default to the mantra "make everything a park". However, in this instance, given the importance of the river and its two lakes for the City's water resource, a strong case can be made that in this area of metropolitan Charlotte development should have been limited and open space (both passive and active), prioritized. History will not look kindly on the River District.

Yes, @Windsurfer light rail has certainly "scaled up" the density of the corridor, but I wouldn't rush to christen it a Main Street just yet. To truly be classified as such it would need to pedestrianize itself and embrace the development it has given birth to. At the moment it is still a rail line, buffered along almost every foot of its length, except at actual stations. Walking along the non-station segments has the look and feel one would expect along the edges of many suburban office parks, and apartment complexes, festooned with bushes, berms and fencing. It is still a barrier to pedestrians. The photo @CarolinaCrown posted is beautiful and engaging until you look down and study the rail line itself. Pretty bleak and uninviting. The "Main Street" action the Blue Line has generated is almost entirely "off line" so to speak For wonderful examples of Main Streets and other streetscapes that combine both light rail / tram with pedestrian oriented streets, plazas, and spaces, which engage properly with adjoining development one needs to look mostly abroad. I'll post some pictures of wonderful examples later of a few projects I've worked on in Athens Greece (not Georgia), and Paris (you know where Paris is). To quickly see what I'm talking about just Google "light rail pedestrian corridors" in Athens, Paris, Europe etc. You'll see images such as those attached here. In most countries that incorporate light rail/trams into a system of transportation, the vehicles and tracks are physically part of the civic realm through which the pass. People engage with them as they do cars, and for us in the US, monster cars and trucks. I can already see the DOT minded twitching and convulsing possibly even apoplectic at the thought of such craziness! Yet the world still turns and the sun rises in the east in all these places with nowhere near the daily carnage experienced here in the States by the walking and biking public. Fingers crossed for the day we are allowed to redesign the blue line corridor to actually become a Main Street.

@JRCLT, back 26 pages, and almost 14 months ago, I posted the heights for both buildings. My how time flies! The resi has increased slightly to, at, or, just under the 500' mark I believe. @CLT Development and I were discussing just last week that once the second tower is completed, barring no taller entries appear anywhere else, (I'm looking at you Raleigh ), Charlotte will have the 10 tallest buildings in the Carolinas. Hell, Charlotte will have the ten tallest buildings in Virginia, North and South Carolina, and if Baltimore didn't have that one 529 footer in there downtown, you'd be able to included Maryland on the list too! Charlotte also has a good number of the next 10 tallest buildings, at least in the Carolinas. Not sure the exact number, but 4, maybe 5 I think? Someone would have to check me here. That would be 14 or 15 of the top 20. Pretty impressive stat

It will be awhile @DonkeyKong. Just going through the rezoning now to be ready down the road, when the resi product, and office offerings are better understood for the submarket, and the lending environment loosens. The Pearl has no doubt sped up the "paperwork admin" side of this particular project. I believe we will be hearing of other such "filings" later in the year for nearby properties too. Exciting times! As I posted way back the Pearl is, and will continue to be, transformational for Charlotte.

@KJHburg you should hope that such a traffic engineering folly does not happen in Charlotte. The one outcome guaranteed from such bullcrap is a permanent state of low density, anti-pedestrian, sprawl. Alas, knowing the transportation engineering contingent well here in NC, I hold out little hope that Charlotte will be spared this cancer. As for @FLOSC843 post linking to the incredibly backward statement and mentality of house speaker Tim Moore, all one can be is horrified! I think he should also start pitching for a return to burning witches at the stake, so that we can be free from bad people who make us do bad things, or better yet, promote smoking, because as all those 1950's ad's said certain brands of cigarettes actually hurt you less..... "over 20,000 Physicians say, Luckies are less irritating", or "reach for a Lucky and protect your throat". Both sound pieces of advice, no?

@kermit, excellent idea! Lobbing a "fairness" grenade into a debate founded and supported by a tidal wave of unfair practices, is always appreciated. If people understood the enormous subsidies lavished on the American Suburban Lifestyle from its institutionalized conception to today, they would be gobsmacked! Before the counter-critics and apologists chime in with their defense of the "American Dream" and choice, it is important to state that the idea of "leveling the playing field" by tossing a grenade, as @kermit suggests, is not a slam on anyone's lifestyle preferences. No one is accusing anyone of being a bad person for finding aspects of suburban living attractive. The suburban experience is a valid one and should be part of any healthy urban mix, the key words here being "healthy" and "mix". The average city/town in the US has close to two thirds of its housing stock in the form of single family residential, and just under half of its land area under some form of medium to large lot single family zoning. Not a healthy mix under most any assessment given the catalogue of "home" types that exist and the many preferences expressed in a population, and even the individual as they go through life. The knock on affects of such a skewed urban fabric are significant, and often provide momentum for many fine debates on this very forum. Outside UrbanPlanet the impacts are well understood and documented. Kinda like Climate Change....people still continue to debate it, even though science, and observable data confirm it happening all around us. And, like Climate Change, those fiercest in their opposition to a more balanced approach to housing are those who believe the debates are personal attacks on their character and choices. The message needs to be better articulated and shared, for sure. @kermit, HOA's are particularly cunning in how they have hidden racist dogma and exclusionary tendencies behind "design" language. Loosening their grip on the fate of cities would be very beneficial. Your idea is interesting.....much to unpack before a coherent and fair set of policies could be enacted. Would be great to discuss more!

The PA's new bus terminal and accompanying mixed use development is truly spectacular @RANYC. As for your question about it too being negatively affected by the COVID slump in NYC's office market, the short answer is no. While the "trends" impacting office use in NYC and CLT are the same, there are sufficient differences in the size and breadth of the two markets to nullify attempts to correlate outcomes, if that is the direction your question was aimed? These differences manifest themselves specifically in demand, net supply removal, rental rate increase, and facility need. As an aside, the original proposal did anticipate several towers, while the one selected anticipates two, an acknowledgment that the velocity of office take-up has changed in the short to mid-term. For those bored enough to discuss more...continue reading some observations below First let's discuss "facility need". The PA's bus terminal is woefully inadequate and extraordinarily burdensome for both the users and service providers it houses. A replacement has been warranted for a couple of decades, having reaching a breaking point economically, and environmentally from an operational perspective over the last several years. Charlotte's "need" for a new rail station is aspirational for the most part. Our current station (if we dare consider it such) has no "capacity" issue. It's location may not be optimum, and its design and appearance embarrassing, but there is no crises needing resolution by its relocation and upgrade as regards immediate service needs and negative externalities to the community at large. And, the critical variable in the redevelopment of the PA Bus Terminal equation is the City's current office profile, and how it is evolving post COVID. This variable in particular is what lets NYC's project pencil out, where as in Charlotte, it has caused delay/reconsideration. Currently Manhattan has approximately 130 to 150 million ft2 of Trophy and Class A office stock (Vanderbilt Tower, Hudson Yards etc and the dozens of newer and refurbished 15 to 30 story boutique towers for the multitude of denizens of the financial and investment ecosystems, scattered about Manhattan). This figure represents only multi-tenant and single tenant private sector space, not institutional/gov't public space totals. As of the last half of 2023 (and continuing into the first month of 2024) the demand for office space of all classes (including B and C properties) reached 75% of pre-COVID levels in Manhattan, (new leases signed, leases submitted, leases renewed, tires kicked, etc). That's astounding when one considers 2019 was a robust year historically for offices in NYC. The 2023 number represents a 40% increase from 2022 levels, and is the highest figure across the top 20 US metros, which together only averaged a 20% increase in office demand. NYC is on track to lease approximately 30 million square feet of office in 2024, on par with what is considered a healthy year historically for the City's office market. At this run rate, 2025 will usher a return to pre-COVID conditions. What supports this rosy forecast? The underlying fundamentals and continued evolution of the Big Apples office sector. Let me explain. The most significant factors contributing to the rebound are; the immense stock of class B and C office space, (much of which is housed in now obsolete pre war, and early post war buildings, totaling some 250 million ft2); and the impressive rental rate growth in Trophy and Class A buildings. Many B and C properties have been and continue to be repurposed for other uses. COVID accelerated this process, (which has been steadily reducing overall inventory for years), at just the time when a significant set of office users are clamoring for new, state-of-the-art, "healthy" space. The leasing percentages quoted in the paragraph above are almost entirely centered on the City's Trophy and Class A space. Within the giant, deep ocean of existing office space in Manhattan, Trophy and class A office buildings poke out like islands, accounting for 73% of Manhattan's leasing activity last year while representing only 25% of its total inventory. Unsurprisingly such buildings also experienced an average increase in rental rates of over 16%, reaching the highest per square foot values ever for Trophy properties. With interest rates beginning their downward trajectory this year the ocean of B and C properties will continue to recede, and the islands of Trophy and Class A properties will continue to grow. And that's just from the thousands of small players currently in the Manhattan market. The demand side must also take into account the constant international entries to the City, as well as the handful of whales (already in the Manhattan market) looking for islands to expand upon. The later numbered at least three confirmed, requiring an average of 1.2 million sf2 each. That's 3 to 4 skyscrapers "on deck" so to speak, some supetralls, in addition to a few single tenant towers, also in the works. It generally takes a minimum lead time of 3+ years from construction start to occupancy, in the best circumstances, for office tower delivery in Manhattan, so the office inventory proposed for the Bus Terminal redevelopment is a no brainer. Even with higher interest rates, office construction of Trophy space continues in NYC, along Billionaires Row for example, in smaller 20+ story buildings. Later this year into mid next year as interest rates recede to the upper 3%, low 4% range office construction will commence in earnest in the Big Apple and class A/Trophy locations, such as the new Bus Terminal, will be highly sought after. Charlotte's total office market (all of Mecklenburg County) by comparison is significantly smaller. Of the total only 25% to 30% is Class B and C, and almost all of that is located in the suburbs (outside Uptown/Midtown/Southend). The Queen City is a new City with most of our office stock built since the early 1980's, and we've been fairly systematic in demolishing the tiny inventory of older building stock once present. Suburban space users are not inclined to pack up and move to the center city in search of new space...quality, or not. They will continue to surf the suburbs and find homes there...mostly in Ballantyne, Southpark, The River District, Waverly, and University City. That leaves a handful of "upgrade" prospects in uptown, and many of these have already made their moves into new space at Legacy Union as commented on in one of @CLT Development posts, and over to Southend. Our ocean is much shallower in that regard. The number of Class B and C properties uptown that haven't already engaged in redevelopment (ie: old Duke Power building) can be counted on one hand and represent small numbers of potential users as these building already have significant vacancies. We also do not have a pipeline of potential center city inclined, "new to market" prospects to rely on. These factors, in addition to a less robust leasing growth rate across the higher-end Trophy and Class A building, make what's left of Charlotte's "potential" office market small, and thus enslaved to externalities such as interest rates. The new bus terminal project is already a risky office proposition based on location vis-a-vi other more desirable places like Southend. The uncertainty of transit was the final straw. The proforma for the Project does not yet pencil out with only some retail and residential serving as anchors. It really depended on the office. And, given the City's dismal track record with PPP's and incentives in general, the Project will continue to depend on office. But, like I posted earlier, the day will come. Just slower than we all would like

Having pretty good knowledge of the behind the scenes "goings-on" I can validate the points @CLT Development made and some of the observations @kermit made. At the end of the day, foot traffic offered by the transit opportunities, in and through the property and adjoining blocks, is what made the site of great interest for the office portion of this mixed use development, and in turn, was the catalyst for ground breaking. The illustrations @CLT Development showed are indeed just a glimpse of the working imagery for the Project. It is, at least "on the boards", truly a world class ensemble of buildings, both from street and platform facing levels. As @CLT Development more than hinted at, the City of Charlotte often relies on others to do the heavy lifting in partnerships like this and as a result, does not adequately carry enough weight or knowledge of the particulars to ensure adequate information and support. Developers do not like uncertainty. The "sliver line" fiasco and a short sided lobbying team in Raleigh, allow political inclinations and ideologies to fester..... "roads first for example", without a counter balance to permit progress, or reliable assumptions for marketing purposes. Charlotte does need to improve its game in this regard. The Project is not dead, but will be right sized at some point, to respond to conditions that are certain. At the end of the day, construction will occur on the balance of the site's potential and Charlotte will end up having a grand rail station hub, just not as soon as many of us would have preferred.

@KJHburg Charleston's congestion has less to do with the number of freeways present, or lack thereof, but rather the number of rivers and marshes present that surround and separate the City's urban area. Charleston spreads across a series of small islands/peninsulas. Everyone has to funnel into and out of a handful of pinch points and confined corridors to accomplish just about all day-to-day activities. These are woefully inadequate for "connecting" the regions thoroughfare network sufficiently enough to help disperse the region's origin and destination trip demand across the metro area. That's why I-526, Savannah HWY 17, and I-26 are a cluster....rain or shine If Charlotte had a second Catawba river snaking through it, the existing freeway/highway network would be a crap-show, and our ranking not TomTom would be much worse. But, the City would be more beautiful

The Summit The view perched atop Mt Charlotte. Seems somehow......appropriate

They do @CLT Development. Not sure if they are shareable just yet, but ask. @RANYC the Nest option design is the most successful of the three because of how it addresses the function of a "plaza", some of which you correctly expressed by your comments. It will do a better job of drawing in the passerby, and drawing out those inside the two framing buildings (when these ground floor facades are renovated). A great compliment to the City's hierarchy of downtown civic spaces . The clear area at grade is not overly cluttered with needless "suburban" landscape distractions and obstacles, something the other two options tend to stray toward more. Keep in mind, contextually the site is surrounded by very tall buildings, so the introduction of "tall elements" within the limited space available becomes a needles redundancy. If this were Waverly, or Ballantyne....the second and third options would hold more meaning. The design elements selected to define and frame the space are instead largely perimeter and aerial......ie: along the edge and above the space. Sheltered, yet open. Framed, but visible. Really well done. With appropriate ground floor activation, trees, lighting, hardscape materials and furniture, this will become a great space. If it could expand beyond footprint of the current fenced in cleared area to include the remnant landscape that was left....it would be even better.

A wonderfully elegant, contextually appreciative, urbane design! Massive improvement over what was there before. I would suggest Mr Hood also agrees with everyone's selection, as do I

Great points Kermit....and I'd like to add another, often overlooked one. In general, many "tech" reliant solutions make assumptions about possible participants. In the case of transit a very large assumption often made is that ridership is optional for all, or most possible transit users, and the choice and access to the means of participation are generally assumed to be evenly afforded. But, you know the saying....don't assume, because doing so often makes an "ass" out of "u" and "me"? The small assumption with on-demand/mirco-transit is that everyone who needs to use it has full access to the mobile phones (hell, phones in general), internet, and other devices required to make it possible to participate. For the poor, the elderly, etc.....such access is very low, if present at all. The burden this will place on them is substantial. While on its face it seems to be a prudent and fiscally responsible approach to help with City finances through the deployment of more technology, it really is a clever, some would argue "covert", way to create the conditions to justify the gradual reduction and eventual elimination of transit all together due to the prevailing and incorrect perception that it's a waste of tax payer money, (Kermit your car ownership subsidy percentage does not even take into account the largest single transfer of wealth by one people to another, since ancient Roman times; the nearly 70 year buying spree the American taxpayer has supported to buy Mid-east oil, literally trillions of dollars worth). The unfortunate reality that the poorer among us are the most dependent on such infrastructure does tend to accentuate political divides making it an easier sell in communities that have disempowered and marginalized their poorer populations. On demand/micro transit systems are not "transit" solutions. An analogy is "last mile delivery". Amazon has not dismantled its massive delivery system, which is analogous to a heavy rail, LR, bus metropolitan transit system, in favor of delivering all its services point to point using a "call on demand" system supported by their massive tech machine. Imagine the literal "billions" of Amazon trucks this would require! Such a system would choke their own ability to access their users and conduct an efficient and profitable business. Same with micro/on demand transit. It is a last-mile kinda system, not a replacement system. It is appropriate in communities with a robust set of fixed transit options. Because this doe not exist in Gastonia, and I've not heard any further details of other "supportive measures" contemplated beyond the mere service itself, it is obvious the effort is not one that is serious about transit, or the users of it.