MarcoPolo

I'm going to rant a bit....because I had some free time this morning I've always enjoyed DOT bashing......NC's, or any other State's for that matter. They all share in the same pseudo science based ethos steeped in mysticism and dogma. Hard to find a profession capable of unleashing more damage and death to community fabric and populations in the course of executing their responsibilities than, let's say..... the military? All kidding aside, the transportation planning profession, and the agencies/institutions that prop it up, have long been out of touch with the actual needs of a society whose vitality and opportunity is fed by mobility and accessibility. Jane Jacobs clearly understood this over 60 years ago. She wrote in The Death and Life of Great American Cities, "the traffic planning profession seems almost neurotic in its determination to imitate empiric failure and ignore empiric success". She did not suffer fools. Neither should we NCDOT is particularly easy to poke at given its foundational bias toward "rural think" and eastern State politics. Since no transportation planning project has ever solved a congestion issue when it mattered, I will only tangently state the obvious as it relates to the problem solving skills of the NCDOT, and harp more on the physical designs they produce. One could make an argument that in addition to its founding as the agricultural support center for farming in the Tarheel State, NC State has taken on the mantel as its default transportation engineering/planning skills factory too. Group think is hard to overcome, and the group think flowing out of NC State emphasizes rural highway designs for all roads and streets, and access to such infrastructure no matter where you live. Especially for the out-of-the-way parts of the State, particularly those with great representation in the General Assembly that don't have highways/interstates, (a result of not needing any, but don't let reality cloud pork barrel politics!). An outerbelt for Fayettville.....sure! Interstate and/or highway spurs to reach empty counties, certainly! Let's build an interstate through the heart of nothing to ensure Ohio residents can get to Myrtle Beach and Wilmington faster! A boondoggle development such as the Global Transpark near Kinston needs a nicer entry experience.....of course, no problem! We'll build a bypass around Kinston to make sure the Global Transpark has no issues with congestion on its way to becoming the air freight hub of the eastern United States! The latter is one of the more outlandish follies inflicted upon a thinking public. Since its opening over 30 years ago it has attracted one major tenant...and a couple of small business. And that highway spur...well it functions at an A+++ level for sure as it probably carries the same level of traffic as my neighborhood street! A total and needless fix. Another proud outcome for the NCDOT . However, it is another matter entirely to be asked to re-build an interstate running through a developed city corridor with the traffic volumes of I-77 in South Meck. Keep in mind the DNA of NC State transportation engineers is "rural". The segment of I-77 in question is not. It is even different to the improvements made to I-77 in north Mecklenburg for example, and entirely different to every other highway project in the State. The DOT had to farm out I-77 north to a private company, not only because of efficiency and speed of build, but also design knowhow. Just take a look at I-277. Let's set aside the complete uselessness of this piece of infrastructure and the violence it committed on the urban fabric at the heart of the State's largest city. The physical design is laughable. It's as if I-277 runs through some suburban/exurban landscape. Grass embankments with generous grades, clover leaf interchanges, wasteful lane assignments separating local/and thru traffic, sparsely lit at night (a huge problem city wide)....the list is lengthy.....and kind of embarrassing. Do they do the wildflower planting program along the shoulders and in the clover leafs? Back to I-77. Several design and urban planning shortcomings have conspired to create the FUBAR'd situation the I-77 driving public finds itself in today. When I discuss design, I'm not siding for or against widening, I'm calling out the fact that the NCDOT does not have the skill set to build urban interstates/highways (see comments in paragraph above). Add to this that all the local planning agencies lack sufficient sway to promote a more robust thoroughfare network in support. Widening I-77 through south Charlotte is the same undertaking as widening I-85 in Atlanta back in the 1980's - 90's. It requires a complete redo...terraforming and realignments across a long corridor. Easily a 10 plus year project from start to finish if everything goes to plan. The cost will also be significantly greater than 3 billion. Think 4 billion plus. Second, the thoroughfare system in Charlotte is a poor one. Here is where the argument against widening begins. Too few connections and alternatives linking to one another. By the time the ribbon is cut on a widened I-77 the general lanes will be immediately brought to their carrying capacity. The toll lanes will work fine but will be expensive to use. Because of the poor regional thoroughfare network, the outcome of widening I-77 will be to transfer the current congestion between downtown and Tyvola, southwards toward the outerbelt and into SC. The congestion situation nearer downtown will only be as bad as today's 10-plus years from now. However, south of Tyvola into SC congestion will increase as the capacity of the general lanes, freed up by the toll lanes, will quickly fill. And, because exits to all the sprawling suburbs already present, and those which will be built over the next 10 plus years, will not be sized to handle greater volumes, the entire system will experience daytime chronic congestion. Think Gwinnett County in Atlanta. The end result of congestion reduction after 4 billion plus dollars, and 10 plus years of headaches will be, for the most part, unnoticeable to many, and intolerable for some within one year of ribbon cutting. The design outcome, however, will be improved and for those who enjoy an urban interstate section, ie: the typical City freeway in Atlanta, Miami, Dallas, DC, LA, etc. it will look cool. Maybe not cartoonishly massive as the Katy in Houston, but who would want that in their City! In the right design hands four billion can definitely buy a "cool looking interstate"! Another outcome that is assured will be the displacement of hundreds of businesses and residents, which will be replaced with under performing property from a tax assessment basis. A net downgrade to City revenue immediately along the corridor from what is collected today. So let's add up the score thus far (arguably non-scientific ) NO Congestion relief, (with many experiencing more congestion). NO Meaningful development/redevelopment potential, (along with a decline in property tax revenue). NO Environmental improvement, NO, (take my word for it....carbon emissions reductions will not be generated). NO Mobility and access improvement to I-77 driving commuters, (and this is the target audience.....so imagine when compared to the general population of the City that never use I-77, which is much greater than those who do, and still are forced to pay for the project through all sorts of taxes). YES Better looking, cool design, (but not pumped up on steroids like the Katy). A less impactful alternative, but just as expensive if not more so, would be to build elevated toll lanes along the entire corridor, with separate interchanges and adjoining road improvements to connect. The main line segment would also require interchange improvements at almost every exit, but the land waste would be greatly reduced from the NCDOT's typical rural highway approach because large land purchases would not need to be made along the entire corridor's length, and mass grading no longer needed to mitigate the massive gash suffered upon either side of the Interstate to accommodate more lanes at grade. Done with correct design it too would look pretty cool, so that would also remain in the YES column. And, we've added one more YES, the development/redevelopment potential. But, alas, this requires a DOT that understands the design differences between cities and small towns/countryside. Are either of these worth 4 billion plus dollars? I would argue NO. The quantum of expenditure versus the increment of improvement is skewed off the chart. Congestion in south Charlotte particularly along I-77 (add to it the southern leg of I-285 which will reach the same conditions in just a few years) has been baked into the DNA of this part of the City. The ingredients for the failure were put into place decades ago, and the recipe for disaster fully cooked into existence since before 2000. There is no "fixing it". One can only apply corrective measures "off line" so to speak to improve other parts of the metro area so the percentage of those who have to live the I-77 experience daily, is reduced in relation to the overall population of the region. Eventually, the traffic volume finds an equilibrium based on tolerance levels. Typically highways like I-77, unimproved max out at 180,000 to 250,000 trips a day. Improved ones can reach 300,000 plus per day. Places that go all in and drink the cool aide handed out by their respective DOT's have Frankenstein highways with crazy widths and carry up to just under 500,000 per day. A completely ridiculous and meaningless statistic, because like a gas....traffic volumes "expand" to fill the number of lanes provided. Build a 50 land highway in a big city and you'll theoretically generate a million trips a day, but the curious thing transportation engineers avoid talking about either because if they do it only validates that everything they do is unhelpful, or they really don't understand what they do in the first place; is that unlike a gas, people have minds and eventually change behavior in response to discomfort and pain. I think it best to keep the pain of I-77 at the 180,000 to 250,000 level. Four billion can be spent on other more impactful and equitable forms of transportation.....like, say....transit. Expensive, yes, but with a quantum of improvement is off the chart in comparison to highway/interstate widening. If the State DOT had invested with the City of Charlotte, the money spent on building the outerbelt and all the upgrades required on this never ending road project, with the money proposed for widening I-77, both north and south, (a total of 6 billion at least) the City would have a full transit network by now. And, by full, I mean every colored line and then some built/planned to date by CATs. We'd also have the capacity to build high speed rail service between Raleigh and Charlotte today. Imagine that world.

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.

I believe a bit of clarification regarding terminology may help this thread along. Reverie39 and AirNostrumMAD had a back and forth pertaining to the word "urban village". Much to unpack with this one term alone, starting with the true definition of "village". I think doing so will assist in furthering the discussions here, many of which are interesting and insightful Warning, this is going to be lengthy so keep scrolling if short on time, or interest. I won't geek out with much detail and jargon. If anyone cares I can do so off-line. In urban design world, a "village" is defined as a settlement surrounded by nature and/or agriculture. In size and vitality, it is larger in area, population, and activity than a "hamlet", which is defined as a settlement arranged immediately adjacent to, or straddling a crossroads, (the smallest scale of community). A village is approximately a 5-minute walk from its center to its edge. The center is the civic and commercial heart of the settlement. The edge is its boundary with nature and/or an agrarian hinterland. This pattern of settlement can be seen across time, cultures, and climates. It is remarkably consistent. Back in the day, (and still possible even now in some countries), a villager would access almost every daily need, and live a full life from cradle to grave, within the boundaries of his or her "village". It is the most resilient and fundamental building block for true urbanism and the corner stone of “place making”. The current crop of concepts bandied about in media and press such as pedestrian sheds, and the latest, the 15-minute City, originated from the DNA of the village. The next level up is the Town, and it is here where a very interesting evolution to the village occurs, as far as urban design goes. As a village grows, and can no longer adequately sustain the needs of its existing and newer residents, the growth is channeled into the creation of an additional village or villages, not by unpacking the elements of the original village and spreading these across larger areas, say for example just constructing new housing without supporting shops, or places of work in tow, (hint hint....the model for building suburbia today). A comparable analogy is cell replication in organisms. An organism does not grow by adding bits and pieces of the original cell adjacent to the first cell so as to surround itself with chunks of membrane, free floating nucleic acids, and various random bits of its guts, (Frankenstein like), that were nicely arranged to create life within the first cell. No, it replicates the first cell in full, adding more and more complete cells as it grows. Villages grow into towns the same way. A second center would be built, the same fabric would surround it, and the daily lives of the residents in this new 5-minute walking shed would be supported within it. The precise point when a village flips to Town status is not a hard line, but many would agree that once two, or more distinct villages abut one another, a Town is born...and in this birth, the villages become neighborhoods within the larger "Town". So, to recap, a neighborhood is the same as a village but having common boundaries with another village or villages, and a village is the same as a neighborhood, but standing free from other villages in the countryside. This is not merely urban design speak. The historical evidence of this pattern can be witnessed in the place names of parts of cities today. For example, Greenwich Village in NYC was once the Village of Greenwich, before it became a neighborhood in the ever expanding neighborhood fabric of NYC on its march up Manhattan island. Much of London is the amalgamation of dozens of older villages that grew together over time into the City of London we know today. Similar patterns exist in the Middle East, Asia, and Africa. The outline of neighborhoods can be detected across pre car urban fabric from Google Earth imagery if one knows what to look for. In addition to being defined differently by urban planners, there is also a design difference between a village and a neighborhood, that is also supported by real world examples. Typically a village's center is located in the geographic center of the settlement unless some natural feature exists to alter this pattern. Neighborhoods on the other hand have their centers along their edges, abutting major thoroughfares. Major thoroughfares typically become the boundaries between neighborhoods, and contain the commercial hubs that service them, ie: Main Streets. The actual physical "center" of the neighborhood becomes the location for parks or civic uses, such as a church or school for the residents of the neighborhood because it is less hectic than the commercial main streets along the perimeter boundaries. This design alteration occurs for the all the subsequent new neighborhood additions for places that grow even larger and achieve the next level of settlement, the City. A City is an amalgamation of towns, which themselves are a quilt of neighborhoods. The cancer that killed this elegant structure and way of life was primarily the invention of the car and the priority it was given to dictate how all settlements are built. Before the car even more modern forms of travel, beyond foot, horse, and carriage, such as the train, trolley and subway, respected the design DNA of the village/neighborhood. The car shattered it. The size of the pre-car fabric of a village, town, or city is a good indicator of its overall vitality, resiliency, and attractiveness today. Settlements that grew mostly post-car grew analogous to a cell that replicated by vomiting out its internal parts, such as can be seen in most parts of the southern and western US for example. The car enabled the breakdown and dispersal of all the parts of villages and neighborhoods into purpose built, single use, limited access versions of “place”. The result is suburbia....an amalgamation of placeless-ness. Within the vast suburban shag carpet of placeless-ness surrounding the rare pre-car oases of urbanism in cities that grew big post-car, such as Charlotte, Dallas, Atlanta, Raleigh, Houston…etc, etc…., opportunities occasionally present themselves to repurpose underutilized lands, typically in the least desirable areas of the community at first. South End is such as example. So is NoDa, and The Plaza. Empty lots are filled in and meat-put-back-on-the-bones so to speak (let’s assume the city/developer do so properly for the purpose of this discussion). Immediately surrounding such areas, other opportunities happen now and again, but these are often deeper into the shag carpet, surrounded by inhabitants called NIMBY’s that do not understand how parasitic and costly their lifestyle is to their own community specifically, and to the world generally. The value created by the successes of the easier to permit first wave of urban redevelopment made builders see dollar signs, so the immediate reaction was to make moves into the less explored lands of the NIMBY. When developers and cities made these first forays into NIMBY world back in the late 1980’s early 1990’s, both took note of the hostile reactions encountered and began to strategize a way around them. Most (but not all) took the path of least resistance, and diluted the urbanism, to cater to the tastes and expectations of NIMBYs, who demand urban services and distractions, but rural living and costs. This was the beginning of the Frankenstein hybrid, mixed use infill, and greenfield projects, of which Charlotte has been binging on with great zeal ever since this type of development became a “thing” here in the mid 1990’s. Faux Main Streets, ample parking, spotless and expensive bollards, banners, bushes and pavers, and a buffet of over the top, sometimes comical looking, street lighting…think Phillips Place. The cherry on top, invented by the marketing teams of the development companies, and later, adopted by zoning departments, were the names given to such places. How do you put a non-threatening face on something that is different from the single use suburbia surrounding it? Wait for it…. you give it a cute name! What could be more harmless and nostalgic than the words, Town and Village. NIMBY world is nothing if not nostalgic. Especially for things they've never experienced in the first place! Thus was birthed the now ubiquitous Town Center and Urban Village concept, which has peppered the suburban landscapes of a majority of cities here in the States, as well as abroad. China has so beotchized the terminology that village or town have lost all connection to urban place making. A village or town center in China can describe a cluster of 50 story high-rises surrounding, or built atop million plus square foot shopping podiums, just as freely as it can describe a faux replica of London’s Belgrave Square. So, with our urban design principles and history background in place, we return to RAM and their project. Calling RAM’s project, an urban village, or even a town center, if they go with either moniker, is meaningless at the end of the day. So too is trying to categorize or label such projects in other cities. What they all are, if executed correctly, is urban, mixed-use, and walkable, with all the design principles and techniques that come along with such places. A return to building settlements correctly. Should they be allowed to expand beyond their initial acreage, they would begin again the process of “neighborhood replication", and depending on the size of the city and location visa-vi the accessibility network, the developments would take on low-rise, midrise, or high-rise massing. The missing link today, and the cause of confusion for the casual observer, stems from the continued disconnect between a development industry that has rediscovered the knowledge and expertise allowing them to build real places again, and a bureaucratic world that administers zoning without the proper tools and understanding of comprehensive, city scale planning. A large and complex problem to tackle. It would require a day-long seminar to merely outline the topics involved in the discussion! Apologies for the length of this post.....I have the day off today

Hi MothBeast. No, you are not wrong. My description is the problem, lol! The RAM project is decidedly urban in character. The proposed program, disposition of buildings on the site, and the detailing of the pedestrian realm are all decidedly urban. Fingers crossed they pull it off as proposed! One point to keep in mind, however. Density is not the determining factor for being urban, and I purposefully did not call it out in the list of attributes above. For example, China is very dense, yet almost none of the developments that have been built in and around its mega cities over the past 40 years can be categorized as "urban", ie: walkable, mixed, and sustainable. RAM's plan is not urban because it is dense, it is urban because of its character. My use of the word "suburban" was to identify its location within the developed fabric of Charlotte. The surrounding context is decidedly suburban. The importance of such projects within suburban contexts rests in their ability to showcase the differences between urban and suburban place making. If done correctly projects like RAM's serve to influence the latter to transition, over time, towards the sustainable and resilient character traits of the former.......very important for the world today. The more RAM like projects developed in suburban contexts the more sustainable a city becomes. Any metropolitan area with a built fabric majority suburban in character will struggle in the decades to come. Bringing down the percentage of suburbia and increasing the percentage of urban fabric is akin to eating healthier. A good diet cleanses the body and reduces the chances of all kinds of debilitating and even deadly afflictions. Same with cities. For these, the suburbs are the physical embodiment of a fast food diet. Fine in small doses, but deadly as the main source of dietary consumption. If RAM like projects can become more common place within the "shag carpet" of suburbs surrounding the handful of urban oases Charlotte has, the better Charlotte will become. The Queen is has been feasting her bloated self on cakes and puddings far too long, lol! You'll notice I typed "if done correctly" in bold font. Charlotte has many Frankenstein examples of wanna-be "urban" developments. To keep the diet/health analogy going, too many courses of reduced fat/sodium sausages and low carb mac and cheese, chased down with tasty diet sodas, lol! Even with its makeover, Ballantyne is not urban. The Lake District is not urban. University Place is not urban. Waverly is not urban.....the list goes on. The tiny bit that is Sharon Square in Southpark is well executed, as is the Main Street at Birkdale Village with the adjoining apartments. So to is Baxter Village. Arsley was a valiant effort and a decent model. If you want to go back in time to one of the first, there's Lake Park, just outside Indian Trail. Almost none of the techniques now common in mixed use development circles existed when Lake Park was designed and started. It represented a huge leap of faith and is worthy of recognition. RAM's project will significantly improve upon these. I have high hopes!

CLT Development is right, this is much more impactful than not just Queen Park Commons, but most if not all of the suburban mixed use developments built of planned in metro Charlotte. In fact, I'd venture to say, if RAM executes as they have envisioned, their development will serve as the benchmark for proper suburban mixed use planning in the region. What they are looking to do is more akin to Ayrsley, its older, first generation mixed-use companion just down the road at South Tryon and I-485. Much has evolved in the industry since Ayrsley was built, and many of the dearly held mantras of the older generation of mixed use builders have been replaced with the techniques and tools that permit plan execution at a much higher level today......for those willing to take the plunge. I've been looking forward to this one for a while now. Fingers crossed!

Great work all! Looks like we are getting close to a final number. While we tabulate and cross check, I'm sleuthing about to make sure other City candidates for inclusion, are, lol! Miami, and the South Florida metropolitan area, North America's version of Dubai, most certainly will give Toronto a run for its money. Austin, is another peer City that may join the list.... and believe it or not, Mexico City and Monterrey (Mexico), may both crack into it as well. Some of you may already know this, but others will be surprised to discover that Monterrey has quite a Texan vibe about it, in terms of skyscrapers. Just south of Texas and on the main commerce corridor linking the US and Mexico, this beautifully sited City has developed an impressive collection of tall buildings, including one currently under construction that will top off at 1,559ft. Yep, you read correctly! This figure does include a spire, however the main structure is just over 1,300ft tall. With the spire, I believe it will be the 4th tallest structure in the western hemisphere after the CN Tower in Toronto, 1 WTC, and the Willis Tower, and just inching above Central Park Tower in NYC. How's them tortillas! Kidding aside, the carnita asadas in Monterrey are pretty damn delicious!

Let me rephrase "overlooked". It's not that they don't know about Charlotte. Their team of data collectors, typically assess a market based on "buzz", industry press, and historic precedent as regards construction booms. Using these as "rules of thumb" it is not completely unbelievable that Charlotte would be overlooked. We are not recognized in the industry, from the perspective of recent history lenses, as a "boom town". Our growth is less "flashy". With just a bit more research they most likely would have spotted the recent trends that have ignited what would be generally considered a significant boom here. We will be correcting this oversight soon enough. Get me those crane counts!

Thanks CLT Development, great idea to crowdsource this! Hi all, it's been a minute since I was last here. But, I'm back for a bit between projects. I was chatting with CLT last week. Over a beer I explained how curious I was as to why Charlotte had not appeared on the latest Crane Index, tabulated by a reputable North American project/construction and management consulting firm, that I have some contacts at. They compile a yearly Crane Index for North America, counting the number of cranes per major City. Charlotte has not been on their list, something that should be corrected, even if we had an unimpressive crane count, because after all...we are a major city in North America, right? Other peer cities such as Portland are included...so I decided to remedy the oversight. However, the real reason I want to do this is because I'm fairly certain that our impressive collection of cranes may just place the Queen City in the upper ranks of the list and raise some eyebrows across the Country for those geeky enough to find such data exciting. CLT, his lovely wife, well mannered dog, and I, spit balled at least 25 to 30 tower cranes across the metro area. If accurate, this easily places Charlotte in the top 5, possibly number 4 after Toronto, Seattle, LA , and ahead of Denver, the current number 4 market. Hell, if we can find 48, we'll be at number 3. For those interested, Toronto had 238 as of April this year, followed by Seattle at 51, LA at 47 and Denver with 36. List the number of cranes to the left of the project name on CLT's list. If you know of other projects not on the list please add them. If you go across County lines please make reference to this. Get out-and-about and find me some cranes! To count toward the tally, the crane must be a fixed, tower crane, mounted on site onto a slab, or attached to the building with a boom that can turn up to 360 degrees. You know the kind. Do not include mobile cranes...no matter how big. I don't think we have any of those anyway? If you know that a crane is about to come down, don't count it, but it is fair to count a crane ready to rise, with base installed, such as what's about to happen at Queensbridge. I can negotiate the details with my contacts. Have fun!

All good points SydneyCarton, but the examples you raise are not comparable. Very different settings. Polk is at Trade and Tryon....the actual center of uptown. Socially, functionally and contextually it requires a different design, one that prioritizes its location at the bustling nexus of the City's two main uptown cross streets. It should also serve to anchor the somewhat ill defined corner spaces on the adjoining three blocks of Trade and Tryon to establish the City's central plaza or piazza....celebrating the heart of Charlotte. The Park's previous design failed to do so, leaving the 4 corner statues erected to fill the void, too heavy a lift for public art at their scale. All in all, a "throw spaghetti on the wall and see what sticks" assembly of incoherent efforts. The pocket parks you refer to in NYC are distributed amongst sub-districts and neighborhoods in very dense settings, often as add-ons to ground level spaces attached to individual towers, or private open space interventions such as Greenacres Park which offers a wonderful spot to linger for residents of the Turtle Bay neighborhood. I frequent it often, and yes, if it were to be removed...there would be blood. The spaces you list are "refuge" spaces, moments of respite within the hustle and bustle of the City. The total opposite of what Trade and Tryon represents to Charlotte. This is why the Polk Park failed as an urban space. Context and hierarchy are important to the coherency of a city. However, on one thing we do agree, I hope something great is built soon, Charlotte does deserve it. CLT Development is on the right track with his suggestion.

I, for one, am very pleased that Polk Park is being re-imagined. It was a disaster at every level as regards urban, open space. Functionally, socially, contextually...... A prime example of the 1970's and 1980's landscape planning profession's manic obsession to recreate "the shopping mall experience" on every city block in our country's downtowns. The curse of the imported modernist European aesthetic, inaugurated by Victor Gruen (father of the modern mall) back in the 1950's. To subject this amazingly situated parcel of land, at the very center of the City, to a buffet of landscape theatrics and high school level abstractions, was so Charlotte at the time (sill kinda is unfortunately). Frustrating that, by its completion in the early 90's the school of thought behind such follies had already fallen into disrepute internationally and nationally, except here in Charlotte of course! The reactions to its removal are also very Charlotte. I'm not surprised given that the City is starved for high caliber, quality civic realm. A perceived taking, even of marginal spaces is met with fear and loathing. I spent last week at the Congress for the New Urbanism's yearly gathering held at the Westin. Great to see CLT Development there! Many of my colleagues from around the world attended and I was proud to show some of the successes (past and present) in development and planning around the metro. Hopefully, in the years to come, if the Congress returns, we will have continued to improve our "urban quality of life" to a level that precludes comments like, "what is that?", or "oh, what a shame", or "big missed opportunity", or "is that a placeholder for something?", from being made. Walking by Polk Park elicited three of these four remarks! A proper urban civic space, with a combination of hardscape and tasteful tree plantings to highlight the adjoining built fabric and frame the corner would transform Trade & Tryon into more of the "Square" its moniker promotes. Done correctly such a design would encourage the eventual opening up of the ground floors of 112 N Tryon and 121 W Trade to front and fully open onto the space, activating the public realm, and providing a liveliness it has not had since before the buildings that once stood there were demolished. A true gathering place at the heart of the City.

Very true Southslider. For all its imperfections the Blue Line is a blessing to Charlotte. If, through continued government and agency incompetence it remains the only line built, it will still work its magic over time to transform a good chunk of the City, a transformation that no BRT line running through a suburban setting has ever delivered anything comparable to. So in that sense Charlotte does have a bit of an advantage over say a Raleigh, for example, which has had to settle, at least for now, with BRT as the backbone of its system because of the insane costs of fixed rail. Why do I say "settle". Here's why. I've been involved with BRT planning and design in Australia and China. Brisbane and Guangzhou to be exact...some of the best systems as rated by the Institute for Transportation & Development Policy (ITDP). Check their website out to learn more about this and other transit/mobility topics. Brisbane had a bus system in place decades ago that had many of the traits now considered crucial to BRT styled systems, ie raised platforms, dedicated lanes, etc.. One could say Brisbane was a founder of what we call BRT today. It runs extensively through the CBD and inner city high density neighborhoods, in the same fashion as the streetcars once did there, and it works wonderfully. It does so because it came after development, and is structured as an accompaniment to and support service for the City's extensive urban rail network. Guangzhou's is much newer and also an accessory to its extensive new rail network. Important to emphasize the words "accessory" and "accompaniment". In neither City does the BRT spur walkable development patterns in suburban settings. In fact, in Brisbane the newer BRT corridor lines, akin to what Raleigh and Charlotte are contemplating, are criticized because they do not provide the same "curative" pedestrianization and walkability outcomes to the built environment through which they pass. There are other critiques as well, but this is a big one for purposes of our discussions here. The BRT's augment the mobility freedom for the residents of each city, but without the heavy lift fundamentals provided by fixed rail, their BRT systems would be a failure on their own. The further away a BRT line from a fixed rail line, the less impactful the BRT line becomes, most importantly to mobility freedom, but also to changing development patterns. The former is impacted by how BRT systems are necessarily structured, using fleets of buses that result in peak "dead running" to manage the delivery of buses during high usage along mostly suburban corridors. This is necessitated by lengthy station spacing because of the suburban densities they pass through. And because they do not influence the type of infill that would warrant adding new new stations over time, the system fails to deliver change to the mobility options, and development pattern of the city. On their own they do not help transform a city like a Charlotte, or a Raleigh. BRT works wonderfully in the urban core and surrounding high density fabric of Brisbane, because it mimics the older street car system, and unsurprisingly not so well in the 2nd and 3rd generation suburban rings of that City. Fortunately, Brisbane has less of these later rings, so the impact is not as underwhelming as it is here in the States where BRT's run through, or are planned to run through, vast tracts of predominantly 3rd ring suburbia. Studies completed to parse through the impacts of one type of transit vs another have repeatedly shown significant differences between the performances of highly rated, real BRT systems (per ITDP standards), the many lesser hybrid bus transit versions, and fixed rail of all kinds. The findings are clear, and the reasons behind them understood. Fixed rail out preforms at all levels of measure. Fixed rail accompanied by BRT service is a win-win for both, but the reverse is not true. BRT without fixed rail is not a successful transit outcome. Because BRT and regular Bus transit investment is not perceived as "permanent" like a fixed rail line, or even a major city street are, BRT's do not lend the level of assurance and predicability to investors and residents that the facility will stand the test of time. In fact there are examples of BRT lines that have closed or moved after being built. Very difficult to alter the social habits, and walkable development pattern around a transit investment not acknowledged as "infrastructure". It does not carry a sense of permanence. BRT's do not impose a heavy enough weight to anchor robust development patterns, and as such are more at the mercy of migrating markets and populations. Oddly enough, this trait is an argument used by the uninformed and the apologists for their construction over that of fixed rail! Their flawed logic goes something like this...why spend billions to develop a line that may succumb to changing markets, when BRT is cheaper and has the flexibility to relocate if required to "follow" changing growth patterns. In other words, a BRT can follow uncontrolled sprawl, where as fixed rail cannot, and it's cheaper and quicker to build, so it must be superior! My friends, fixed rail, fixes in place, the pedestrian, higher density urban development around it. It changes lifestyle and mobility choices by offering high capacity, permanent mobility. It and only it, can serve as the backbone for all other forms of transit in cities that reach the threshold to contemplate its provision. If you think for a moment that a BRT along New Bern Ave in Raleigh, or in the median of the Independence Freeway is going to change both into Southend....I've got some land in the Everglades I can sell you that is sure to become the next Miami Lakes and make you rich, just you wait and see! Have you ever seen the weight of a tree supported without its trunk.....its called a bush? And that's what league your are in when you do not properly construct a transit system...the bush league! BRT's are wonderful accessories to a robust transit system, but more akin to the lesser tree branches of a tree. Fixed rail systems, light and heavy, are the trunk and main branches of the tree. They feed ridership and create a greater number of mobility sheds that all other forms of transit rest upon. A quick reply to RANYC and AirNostrum's exchange. I understand the gist of what each of you are each trying to say, however, both of you conflate observational points that contradict the direction of the argument you make. RANYC, I believe the density you picture in your mind, ie: hyper density, aka, Manhattan, is not one you even need to invoke as part of your commentary. Almost all the residential and hip neighborhoods in NYC are Hamburg/Munich scaled in massing. The visual bulk of Manhattan's skyline is not were many people live...it is where many people work. The vast majority of the City's residents live in 2 to 7 story walkups in fantastically walkable mixed use neighborhoods. The taller the built form, the less pleasing the walkable environment in almost every case. Midtown Manhattan does not hold the charm of any of the neighborhoods that surround it. It's definitely a fun place to hang out in, but when you are in the hands of a New Yorker, or urban aficionado, leading you to the latest amazing restaurant, park, theater, boutique hotel, or even their home, you almost certainly are not doing so in midtown or downtown Manhattan. The densities you should envision and support, and for that matter all UP'rs should have in their minds eye, when we speak of density, are places you rightly refer to, such as Hamburg. I would add Paris, Barcelona, and Milan on the denser scale, and Bruges, Savannah and Charleston on the lower scale as bookends. Yes, that's right Savannah and Charleston. Did you know that Charleston south of Calhoun St averages 40 units to the acre, all at 2 and 3 floors max with beautiful tree canopies, deep courtyards and pedestrian scaled streets and blocks. Try finding that in Charlotte over an equivalent area! Density should never be thought of as how tall the buildings are. It is not the normal living condition for most of the planet's population. The high rise cores and districts of a select few cities on Earth are the aberration to the norm. Density is best baked at 2 to 6 floors. With that massing over a large area you can accommodate amazingly high residential densities in beautiful environments; and as described in my post about office square footage earlier, this scale also supports amazing concentrations of office space, aka DC. These are the densities real urbanists talk about when addressing all things related to city building, from transit to open space, to housing. Skyscrapers are urban elements to be dealt with and accommodated with special care, not a goal to be achieved. As one off objects they are exciting to look at, but should never be fetishized as the building form for city development. AirNostrum, I know you posted your discussion after I posted mine. All I would ask is that you go back and read what I wrote. Pandering to the needs of those who want all the benefits of city living without any of the realities and needs to sustain urbanism is a loosing proposition for the city. The type of lifestyle you argue many people desire, those who enjoy their large lots and would never need to go to downtown, but only require access to shopping is both framed incorrectly and not a factual description of how people use transit. In proper urbanism people rarely hop on a train to go to the store...they walk down the street to a corner market, a luxury that properly scaled urbanism can deliver. Just mentioning Wegmans and Walmart in the same sentence about shopping and transit negates your point. The only people that benefit from those stores are those directly adjacent to them or a very short walk. Definitely a stop in the right direction, pardon the pun, but not impactful at the scale of city level mobility. Everyone else drives to another auto oriented strip shopping center or if they feel lucky with their chances to find on street parking or don't mind the deck, they go to urban Wegmans and Walmart. Some of the northern Virginia and the Maryland suburbs exhibit good urban outcomes, as do the older commuter rail suburbs of NYC, Boston, Philadelphia, Chicago, and even Toronto. The issue is not the character of the individual node of density, but the way they are distributed around enclaves of lower density and connected by weak transportation systems. As any driver will tell you, the suburbs of DC are a traffic apocalypse every day and Sunday. And unlike a NYC or Boston or Chicago, walking to and from nodes is not an option. The pattern is unsustainable and will collapse in on itself without significant changes to HOA laws, zoning ordinances, DOT practices, and lending/appraisal tendencies, as I wrote above in a previous post. A daunting battle to wage against the 3rd ring suburbia these nodes reside within. Again, one only need to look at a few southeast asian cities to get a glimpse of the not so distant future of places like this. The World's return to building proper urbanism once again after having abandoned the practice for the last 80 years is a long term war, waged against the status quo, and all its providers, supporters, apologists, and fear mongers. How to deliver good cities is a known technique with established principles and long running successful precedents that offer endlessly adaptive outcomes. Many of you point these out in your posts on occasion, but then confuse the observation made with opinion and contradictory observations. I am not stating this to demean any of you. It's difficult to express tone in words. I type all my replies with a happy smile on my face and an eagerness to share. I'm impressed with the passion and thoughtfulness you display by being on the UP site in the first place. I wish more people were as interested in the nuts and bolts of community! Keep it up...I love the opportunity to break from a hectic work day and visit here. I can tell many of you are very knowledgeable about the topic, and you are often more inquisitive than some of my clients !