MarcoPolo

Morning Kermit. You're last observations are "on point". There are substantial studies and much literature on the impact of the second generation suburban ring that squelched the "natural" expansion of the "urban-pre-car" portions of US cities. Not the streetcar suburbs mind you (1st generation), but the wave just after that. It typically stretches outward to the 3rd generation suburbia which developed based on HOA's, PUD zoning, and other legal mechanisms for "maintenance, use, and access", (elaborate legalize for locking in value and making places safe etc, but mostly just a means for masking racist behaviors). These are the areas you accurately describe as "frozen in amber". The birthplace of the NIMBY. And in the long run these are the areas that are the most cancerous to a healthy and resilient city, not counterintuitively, the older 2nd ring that is most susceptible to decay. Cities always molt as they grow. The pressures of decay and growth in the second generation ring are most visible because they are not "frozen in amber" by legal mechanisms. As an aside, your comment about malls has been used to verify the observations I describe. As a rule of thumb (there are exceptions) think about the malls you know that have died and those that have become "fortress", a term used to describe successful, high performing malls. Those that have or are dying most often are located in and around the 2nd generation suburban ring (Eastland) and along overbuilt, commercial highway corridors, and interstate rings that popped up to chase residential white flight, (Northlake and to some extent Carolina Place). Fortress malls are most often in or adjacent to 3rd generation suburbia, (Southpark). Back to the 2nd ring discussion. In most cities it is here where urbanism can break out and expand beyond the historic central cores. The territory covered becomes a hodgepodge of pro and anti development battle grounds using guerrilla warfare tactics, as younger and older retirees, more inclined to embrace higher density urbanism, clash with the yuppy/professional couples with kids at home, or newly "kidless", who move into these areas with suburban expectations of living, but voyeuristic tendencies to be close to, or in "the action". These are the people that ruin everything with their entitled attitudes and money. Fortunately, over time, urbanism does gain the upper hand in such places. Not the case with the 3rd generation ring. If you've studied southeast asian cities, you can get a preview of what happens when "enclaves" remain in the midst of an evolving and growing metropolitan area. It is disastrous, and leads to the development of a 4th generation ring. These places spell the end of civilization. Here is where civil ward foment in countries with weaker or non existing institutions of governance. They are greenfield "newtowns", the suburban model as fortress, faux village. They began in late 60's in the US. Columbia MD is a proto example. They didn't really catch fire until the 2000's. They leach off the success and vitality of the city they orbit and provide no value add in return. You can guess what two areas in Charlotte I'm describing. So what does all this help to explain? The development capacities and social attitudes of a city are decipherable by observing a transect across its geographic area, similar to how viewing a section along a tree trunk reveals tree rings that inform climatologists and arborists about the health, and climate context of a tree's life history. You can gauge the thickness and color of the various development rings and determine quite quickly what type of city you are dealing with. Even the type of development along the street patterns can further inform the job, income, and vitality of a place at the time they were laid out just as the color of tree rings impart key information about rainfall and disease. Keep in mind, the term "ring" does not mean an actual physical ring, although it can manifest as one in some cities. In many there are often wedges and corridors that skew the ring shapes, which ironically enough is also the case for actual tree rings. Charlotte's tree ring study is very telling. It reveals why the City is the way it is today, socially, developmentally, and where it will go and how quickly it will get there, successfully or unsuccessfully over time. It lends understanding to why the rail transit is such a hot topic, why traffic will never be "fixed", and why the social political situation is what it is. The grid downtown is small owing to its small town status for most of its pre car history. The core is surrounded by an interconnected network of streets further out that is significant in area, but in no way the preponderance of the built up fabric of Charlotte. It tells of moderate growth and some wealth creation up to the period of the great Wars. These areas give way subtly to the 2nd generation ring, the post Wars development pattern. The ring of decline. This is the City's slow growth period. It abruptly give way to the conventional suburban pattern of cul-de-sacs, single entry development pods, and DOT limited access thoroughfares that sprawl haphazardly across the "vegetal plain", a phrase Rem Koolhaas once used to describe suburban Atlanta from his airplane window! This is well over half the City of Charlotte and shows the start of the City's big growth spurt. It continues to this day. This is the suffocating blanket that smoothers proper growth, and the most difficult to alter in any meaningful way without dramatic changes to HOA law, zoning, DOT practice, and lending/appraisal tendencies. The last two are especially insidious. Ever wonder why with each land appraisal update, the areas most impacted are poor, while those least impacted are wealthy? For more on this, go to my friend and colleague's website Urban3.com. Joe is fighting the good fight to peel back the curtain of crimes against cities perpetrated by so many institutions responsible for the mess they find themselves in today. One more general rule of thumb, cities with more than half their urban pattern of the 3rd generation type are in big trouble....most of the post war sunbelt cities for example. Cities with a balance have hope. Cities that boomed pre war have the upper hand. So many books to read on the subject. Urbanists and economists have been studying this since the late 1950's! And so many still blindly stumble in the dark about what to do. Another reason to lament the ignorance of so many who are responsible for overseeing the building of the places we live. The politicians, developers, activists, and specialist professionals pandering to those who fear change as a means to make money and/or gain power.

This thread is an everything-and-the-kitchen-sink discussion. Very enjoyable! A few points to keep in mind as you continue. Apples to apples comparisons are possible and valid as long as geography is kept consistent for the places being compared, ie: the physical locations of the communities discussed, such as southeast US, midwest US, west US; and the increment of measure kept non-political, ie: not based on jurisdictional boundaries. Charlotte and Atlanta are very much an apples to apples comparison regarding their urban structure and physical location, and even though they have a different form of government it is arguable through observation that they have behaved very similarly due to the oversized business power base in both Cities. The only ingredient that differentiates the two is "time". In every other way they are the same. Older brother and younger brother. Holding physical location consistent and adding time allows you to travel forward or backward along a communities historic arc and make observations that are meaningful, even into the future. Same can be applied to political ideologies as long as you don't hold a party name as the constant. As already brought up by a few in reference to former Mayor Pat, ideologies within parties do change over time resulting in beliefs that can be very different from those held before. A further wrinkle in the "political" discussion is the need to isolate an individual within a party, and where they call home, ie: urban democrat, suburban democrat, rural democrat; urban republican, rural republican, suburban republican, as a partial influence on the approach to their ideology. A few thoughts to add to the salad bowl of topics on this thread in no particular order........... Atlanta was always a "bigger city" than Charlotte, and its infrastructure "boom" happened earlier than Charlotte's for many reasons, not least of which was the benefit of having a President from the same State, at a time when the only infrastructure options were highways, freeways, and wide suburban arterials. While that is still somewhat true, the 70's did not benefit at all from our present understanding that such infrastructure actually dilutes urban "stuff", dispersing it across the landscape. The photo of Atlanta's Downtown Connector is a prime example. It is the reason Atlanta's CBD office total (not population total) is not larger, yes you read correctly.... not greater, not denser. The wonderful aerial of "downtown" Atlanta (Downtown and Midtown which are considered the CBD for the City) posted by CarolinaDayDreaming at the top of this page represents just over 44 million square feet of office space, the Nation's 13 largest downtown. But, the corridor is just over 3 miles in length! There are a dozen cities with larger CBD's, including three from our northern neighbor Canada, (Calgary is as large as Atlanta, Montreal significantly larger, and Toronto...well Toronto is the 4th largest CBD in North America, after DC, Chicago...and you guessed it, NYC). That same 3 mile distance in these cities, and others with larger CBD's, encompass much more office space. An interesting aside, the Charlotte CBD, is usually defined as Uptown, South End and Elizabeth. Some add The Plaza. I do not because of intervening non-office land uses, and an insignificant office total. Here is an interesting observation.....if you overlay this geography (Clanton Rd to Brookshire Freeway) onto Atlanta's Downtown/Midtown corridor (1-20 Interchange to I-85/I-75 split) you will see they are almost identical in length, and if you smooth out some of the bulges here and there, they are roughly the same shape too. Charlotte has 26 million square feet in its footprint, just over half of what Atlanta has in its footprint. Food for thought as Charlotte's CBD continues to grow in the years to come. A wonderful comparison study opportunity that would inform some of the questions raised by those on this thread. Back to the ingredient of "time", Atlanta was a victim of substantial State and Federal Highway dollars, which is why the City has such an extensive highway system. MARTA is an interesting aberration in that same period of time, one caused by the local desire to be recognized as world class (similar to the City's infatuation with hosting the Olympics) and not truly an endeavor based on mobility freedom. Because MARTA was mostly built along freeways, (sound familiar..... hint, hint!) 40 years were required for suburban development in the City to be begin to modify in form. During the 40 years some of you may recall the very racist alternative wording of the initials MARTA? This achilles heel design flaw is why so little has been added to the system since its inauguration, and why repeated measures to extend it into surrounding counties was, and still is, a battle today. Fortunately, they did manage to route it through the center of the City, which is a major reason (hint, hint) select suburban stations have experienced turbo charged redevelopment recently. These mini real estate booms will be the carrot that entices others in the metro to rethink their ideological stance against MARTA. And, as already argued....this will be precisely the wrong foundation to argue for such an expansion. In the meantime, Kermit, I like your list of "things to try to implement while we wait for the adults to come back to the table" as regards the Silver Line. All our sound. About Atlanta envy......... I believe the real reason many verbally fret about Charlotte becoming Atlanta has more to due with repressed envy at Atlanta's "status" which its rapid growth has bestowed it within the national urban pecking order. Kinda like, "oh, go ahead and brag about your airport, movie studios, music, sports, shopping, rich folk....but look at all your traffic......what a nightmare place to live! If that's what it takes to have all that then count us out!" That is every Charlottean's refrain for the last thirty years when any discussion of Atlanta finds its way into a conversation, (often such conversations happen on weekends while driving down to shop at Lenox Mall, see a concert, or stay at a fine hotel). Meanwhile, if I were to drop you blindfolded in parts of suburban Atlanta from which you could not see towers on the skyline, you would not discern any difference to Charlotte. If you could go back in a time machine 25 years, the resemblance between the two cities would be even more striking. And every time Charlotte "achieves" some new milestone shared with Atlanta the fear of becoming Atlanta seems to dissipate, even though, just like Atlanta, every such milestone brings us closer to the traffic nightmare we critique it for. Kayman, I particularly enjoyed your post about Atlanta. It's a bit "all over the place" like the discussion on the last few pages of this thread. Would love to share stories about ATL with you. It sounds like we may have been working there at similar times through the years? Your follow up post I'm not so sure about. Political will is important, but uninformed political will is destructive. Nobody has properly discussed, presented, debated what transit is and why it's important, and specifically how it can be provided to Charlotte's residents. As I've stated before, this is CAT's and the City's fault. In this deep information chasm, politicians and journalists mouthing off and amplifying uninformed opinions only serves to further derail progress. Your reply to Kermit hints that you believe "political will" is the secret sauce for progress. This wrongly assumes that politically willed outcomes always represent progress. This is not the case. History is replete with examples to the contrary, almost all resulting from a lack of knowledge and understanding. Kermit was right to disparage the article and quote. Back to envy... Atlanta had its teenage growth spurt spatially at the precise moment in time when the certrifugal forces stretching cities across the landscape where at their peak. And in Atlanta, these forces were turbo charged by the extensive highway system gifted to the metro area by the federal government under Jimmy Carter's presidency. Charlotte did not receive its "highway gift" until much later. Had we been unlucky enough to have had the outerbelt completed before the early 80's the City of Charlotte would look much different today. Fortunately for us, Charlotte's teenage years were largely free of steroid use unlike our bigger brother, who came back from summer camp a walking billboard for popping roids, lol! Had Atlanta not constructed the highways it did, much of the growth in the suburban office sector scattered along the northern perimeter today would have instead located along the Peachtree corridor. Imagine more than doubling the office stock from downtown to past Lenox Mall! The repercussions of that on residential and retail would have been impressive. Atlanta could have laid claim today to being an "experientially" world class urban place, instead of relying largely on statistics to fill in the many holes in that facade. One big hole is the food scene. While "ok", for a City its size, it greatly underperforms. My office market is bigger than your office market......... I know many of you are data geeks. Through my work I have access to many surveys and studies with all kinds of urban data sets. I've attached one which may be of interest given the posts about CBD's, office space, comparing them etc.... It is not complete. It represents several public data surveys from groups like Cushman, JLL and others, but with some proprietary algorithms to parse the variables with more precision. Don't fixate too much on the exact numbers as it is almost impossible to achieve total accuracy for measures such as these. Even amongst the providers, the figures vary. What is important is the ranking of the places and these are pretty accurate. Charlotte holds up well, especially in new office construction. The arrows indicate velocity of change based on office market size. Red is hot, blue is not. Charlotte is in an exclusive pack of fast movers, joining Vancouver, Austin, and Raleigh All the others on the list are growing at a slower pace, holding their own, or barely inching forward. The CBD list is especially interesting if you've never been exposed to such rankings. I have not provided you the geographies for each CBD, but they are based on industry standard assessments, and where such clusters abut other clusters, but may have an intervening river, lake, park, or freeway corridor, less than a mile in width, my algorithms combine them. I also have not included government office space, which most providers also break out separately. Ok, I couldn't resist! You will notice that Raleigh does not make the CBD top 26 list......even though it is represented on the other two lists..........hmmmm why is that? Well, the largest concentration of office space in the Triangle is the RTP, roughly 13,400,000 ft2. That's over twice as large as downtown Raleigh's 6,544,510 ft2, (if you add government space the total inches up by almost a couple million square feet). And yes, if you go back to do the same to DC, you would understand why it is widely recognized as the second largest office concentration, and the second largest CBD (well north of 200,000,000 sf2) in North America. Only NY is bigger.

Hi guys, see my post back on page 32. Final design of top is almost complete which will place the highest point of the office at about 550', give or take a few feet. Resi will be 485' give or take a few feet.

Happy to explain further JHart Built-up area is defined as a contiguous "developed" area of human settlement. All human habitation in the form of buildings and infrastructure not separated from the same by intervening agriculture lands, grazing lands, woodlands, wetlands, habitat preserves, and water bodies. Improved lands used for open space/ recreation are included in the built-up area unless these exceed a certain acreage, typically no larger than 1,000 acres. The United Nations and US Geological Survey use satellite imagery (night and day photos) to calculate built-up areas for purposes of energy use, GDP analysis, poverty rates, environmental assessments, and societal health tallies (density being a key ingredient for these). It is an important measure and a well known "term of art" in the planning profession. All the points you raise about boundaries and how they can be manipulated are the reason "built-up area" is used when precision is required to establish apples-to-apples base data for city to city comparison purposes. Two other well defined terms in the profession are density and sprawl. You incorrectly use both in your post. High density can sprawl over land with the same vigor as low density (the shag carpet vs the frayed Persian rug analogy I used). In planning, sprawl is used to describe land area covered by human settlement (built-up land) and does not carry a density connotation. The habitation can take the form of endless blocks of multi-story apartments (Shanghai), or endless cul-de-sacs of single-family homes (Atlanta). The New York built up area is the largest in the US both in population and sprawl. LA is second in population, but has recently begun to loose grip on its #2 sprawl ranking. Guess which cities compete with LA for built up area......Atlanta, Houston, Dallas, Chicago, Boston, and DC/Baltimore. In fact, Atlanta, Houston and Dallas, with substantially less populations, are the fastest growing sprawlers. Houston wins first place in the amount of new sprawl, adding over 200 square miles since 2001 if I remember correctly. At current rates, within 15 years, all three of these cities will be as large, or larger in area than LA. (There was a great article in the Washington Post a year or so ago that colleagues of mine at MIT put together that discussed sprawl across US cities….can’t put my finger on it now. Google it. It is great work!) To recap, my use of built-up area is purposefully so as to not fall into the rabbit hole of “stretching boundaries” as you state. All boundaries have meaningful data to assess against, but in the discussion we are having they are an incorrect method from which to draw comparisons about built up areas and densities. Also, the statement “density is already an average” does not mean anything. It is not factually true. Density can be a mean, a mode, and average, a weighted average, a precise tally…... I used weighted average to show that by one measure you were correct in your statement that NY’s built-up area is the “densest” in the US. Lastly, your counter point about density and transit does not address the conversation we are having, nor the factual measures stated above. True, central LA will never become a Manhattan without a robust transit system. Hyper-density, which I discussed in the last post is dependent on transit. But, hyper-density is not the norm, and is not necessarily a model of growth to be emulated everywhere. Since it is true that most of LA’s built up area is denser than most of NY’s, and most of LA’s built up area has no access to light rail and heavy rail transit, the point about transit not being a precursor for density stands. We were never discussing the merits of downtown LA becoming as dense as Manhattan. Happy to do so if anyone cares?

Morning JHart and Happy New Year! Apologies if my statement has unnecessarily caused confusion! I did not bother to clearly distinguish between "built up area" and metro area, or for that matter City limits! I also failed to introduce and define measures for average and weighted densities. Pretty slack on my part It is true that within each City's municipal boundary NYC is far and away the denser than LA's. Interestingly, it is also true that the densest communities within metro NY are actually along the Hudson River in New Jersey where average pop densities in places like Union City and West NY are nearly twice as dense as NYC's average. But, what I stated is true. LA Metro's average density across the entirety of its built up area (*2,926 people per sq mi) is greater than that of NY's built up metro (*2,744 people per sq mi), (*2020 figures......the counts vary depending on source, but they consistently show LA with a similar or slightly higher average density......and over time show its density increasing whereas NY's has stayed fairly constant...the method used teases out data by focusing on census tracts and adjusts for the significant size discrepancies between Counties and Census tracts in Metro LA vs NY, and the sharp divide between urbanized and non-urbanized lands in metro LA, versus the more blurred boundary in metro NY). LA's density spreads across land like a thick shag carpet with a clear edge boundary....staying fairly consistent across its coverage, with a few lumpy protrusions here and there. Beyond NY's ceiling busting core its average density sprawls across the land like a Persian rug with patches of shag carpet thrown on top here and there, unraveling along its fringes into loose threads. Using weighted population density measures NYC's built up area comes out on top due to its hyper dense core. By this measure it is twice as dense as LA's built up area. And here we have a very surprising and not so well known fact. Guess which metro area is number 4 on the weighted population density measure? Metro Honolulu Crazy to think, right? Its average and weighted densities exceed those of Chicago! Honolulu brings me back to the reason for using LA in my discussion with Kermit. I brought up LA’s average density in my reply to emphasize that significant density is achieved and sustained in the absence of transit, and in and of itself transit is not a precursor to densification and real estate development. The areas around the Brookshire Frwy viewed as "needing-a-hand-by-the-Silver Line", do not actually need its hand. They can develop without the Line just by deploying better planning and design and some inexpensive pp-partnership strategies. Density exists in the absence of Transit, and therefore its provision should not justified as a means to generate development. It is a bi-product. Transit should first and foremost be a tool for population mobility and access to choice (freedom). And it is precisely this need which is not served by the Silver Line's selected routing.

Hi Kermit, thanks for the thoughtful response. You made me go back on my word to move on, lol! We agree on the fundamentals, but your position conflates several observations that detract from your otherwise sound understanding of transit, and arms opponents of transit with reasons (incorrect as they are) to fight against it. I'll be brief. And of course, pragmatism should never be considered a burden Aiming for long term successes while navigating the intricacies of short and mid term needs are never mutual exclusive endeavors if conceived mindfully and with deliberation, (actions obviously absent within CATS and Council). Theory is powerfully pragmatic Firstly, the city comparison explanation was not made from the perspective of an apologist defending America's avoidance of transit because of how we are. American's are just as eager and capable of wanting, using, and supporting transit usage and expenditure as are Europeans, Asians, etc., and Charlotte has a few good opportunities to leverage existing fabric to build a strong transit base on which a multi-generational system can grow. The reason for the comparison was to interject "order" into how successful transit must unfold, (more on that with the third point). Order is important because unlike other parts of the world we do have to defend and advocate for the obvious benefits of transit in the face of a unique set of ideological naysayers that view transit as an affront to their "freedom" to be enslaved by the car. The benefits quickly become obscured by their misinformation when transit discussions are handled or understood at an elementary level, such as has been the case in Charlotte since the Blue Line was built. Every misstep arms these opponents with the ammunition needed to fight against all progress. So, it is very much the case that the timing of transit investment and the sound practicality of its intent are paramount! Secondly, the "freedom shed" includes jobs. Jobs are elemental to one's ability to be free. I would encourage you to read some of Jarrett's literature for a fuller understanding of what this term implies. He is also a theorist such as yourself, and I feel you will appreciate how he folds thought into practice. And it is here where it is important to not become distracted by what transit is suppose to do, as opposed to what it is perceived to influence. Your explanation of density and development is the Achilles Heel in your otherwise strong grasp of transit theory and brings me to the third point. Density is not dependent on transit and transit should not be a proxy for development. It can be argued that Hyper-density is enabled by transit, but high density itself is not. There are many parts of Charlotte undergoing similar "densification" that have no access to transit. They will continue to fill in denser and with growing tax bases without transit. I named several of these in a post a few weeks back. Specific to Southend and Northend, had the blue line never come to pass, redevelopment would have still occurred for a myriad of reasons, many due to the relative ease of rezoning and the presence of existing sympathetic zoning in these areas. It is not a coincidence that most of the multi family built in Charlotte occurs adjacent to, or in parts of the City along wedges of rail and/or commercial thoroughfares historically zoned non-residential and non-single family. These also happen to be the location of the City's minority populations. Would growth have occurred in Southend as strongly as it has since the inauguration of the blue line? No. But that is not the point. The Blue Line's success is not that it kickstarted development. Development had already begun and would have continued in Southend without it. The success of the Blue Line is that it directly accessed the core of the City with an alternative means of mobility. This direct connection is what will enable all the "crooked teeth" suburban areas beyond Southend and Northend to straighten out into bright, toothy smiles in the decades to come. As an aside, Los Angeles is the densest US city across the entirety of its built up area. From its desert edge, to downtown, to its various beachfront communities, its per square mile population on average, is far greater than metropolitan NYC's, and has been so since the early 1980's, well before their metro system. Most of LA remains a transit desert, yet there are vast areas of high density, connected street networks and even walkable urban fabric. Yes, NYC has a spike of hyper dense core in and around its center enabled by a robust transit system, but beyond it the density drops off dramatically into Long Island, Connecticut and New Jersey. The danger of your argument is that by calling attention to a byproduct of Transit, (ie: density), which is an incorrect correlation, you arm opponents with straw man reasons to fight against transit. Let me know the last time someone felt good about subsidizing developers with billions of dollars in tax payer infrastructure to build even less affordable housing, often in once minority neighborhoods, in a City chronically short of broad spectrum housing price points. Routing the Silver Line along underutilized properties (underutilized at the moment due to their adjacency to a freeway) because building it through downtown is "hard", and then pitching the outcome as some how justifiable because it will jump start "development" is a cascade of failure. This is not putting one's best transit foot forward. Happy to get into detail more about LRT/RRT and Charlotte's interesting hybrid situation over that beer at the next UP meet, or when I'm next in town. Or email me here. No need to bore everyone. I believe that KJHburg and CLT Development are too busy these days to organize meets more regularly. But I do get into town every couple of weeks or so and CLT and I do grab a beer on such occasions. Btw, you are spot on about transit along the Monroe Rd/CSX Rail corridor. The benefits to Matthews alone would be as transformational as Southend's, never mind the stretch from Coliseum Dr to Wendover Rd. Off the hook! I wrote about that last year on this thread too!

We’re on the same page KJHBurg! Happy New Year Kermit! Your number 2 and 3 options are sound. As stated, your first choice is a bit fanciful, but only because Charlotte's existing density pattern and supporting transportation infrastructure do not enable sufficient benefits to potential riders from such an alignment. Had we been developing transit infrastructure and a more pedestrian based urban economy for generations, (similar to some of the cities you listed), your proposal would be less “fanciful”. One point to make concerning your "comparison" cities. They may be "smaller" as regards their GDP, and in some instances in their populations too, but they are not an apples to apples comparison when it comes to transit infrastructure and usage with Charlotte. Many punch well above their weight in the transit arena. If you were to run a regression analysis holding GDP for the independent variable as an indicator of the presence of robust transit infrastructure (the dependent variable), you would quickly see there is little correlation between the two, which to summarize, means other "variables" are more predictive of robust transit infrastructure. Just because Charlotte "has the wealth", does not mean it has the development profile to support a commensurate level of transit investment. It punches well below its weight in this arena. Sooooo many examples of wealthier metropolitan areas with no, or abysmal transit penetration support this observation. This makes CATS' and Council’s continued feckless deliberations all the more frustrating, as the opportunities for beneficial transit in Charlotte are obvious, but preciously few, and they brazenly ignore them. Their current actions will hobble the City’s transit progress for decades to come. A quick logic exercise based on the above will also shed more light on TCLT's comment as to why "we should even be concerned" about the new projections. As I've stated several times no projection for, or against, should ever be used to make a case for expenditures to increase (or decrease) transit, or auto infrastructure. We should be concerned because CATS and Council continue to pedal them as reason to justify their foolishness. The modeling employed is faulty, and the results meaningless. This is why I call the practice out in my responses; not because I believe CATS “needs to go back and redo the model”. The modeling effort itself is worthless as a predictor of robust and sustainable transit use; as equally worthless as it is in predicting car trips on highways that the DOT is so desperate to widen, and parking needs for financing that lending institutions use to peddle all the unaffordable housing that continues to reinforce segregation. The scam that has been perpetuated by transportation engineers since the 1950’s should be called out for what it is: malpractice. Traffic modeling, trip generation rates, parking requirements…all of these are literally made up and highly patronizing! I’ve been involved in transportation and transit projects for 30 years around the world, and I can tell you I’ve NEVER come across a traffic or transit projection that has been proven accurate over any assigned time period. Not only are they inaccurate, they are wildly so! The ITE manual itself warns users (in very small print of course) that the error terms for the regression models run to support whatever is being pitched as “engineering science” are so great as to be “un-predictive”. Yes, the very bible responsible for most of the devastation wreaked on our cities since WWII states “do not take what we say seriously”. So the logic exercise goes something like this….can a transit system be built that generates few to no riders even with high projection estimates? Of course! Just because you build it does not mean people will ride it. And the opposite is also true. Just because transit is absent does not mean people are in no need of it. The open ended systems and human decision trees that weave into every nook and cranny of “real world” situations regarding accessibility and mobility make any attempt at computerized modeling impractical in the field of transit. It is a tool of voodoo science. There are sound methods and analysis that deserve more discussion than possible here. Suffice it to say the end game should never be to “predetermine” how many people will use transit, an impossible task; but rather to plan for a system that unlocks choice and accessibility for the most people possible. It has to increase a population's “freedom-shed”. Modeling cannot identify this most fundamental of transit outcomes. Please re-read my post on page 194 of this thread for context and background. And for more, please visit humantransit.org, a website of a colleague of mine named Jarrett Walker. A serious source of practical information for seriously minded people. There are links to many books and articles. Read up on them. Back to the real conundrum. Why is this inferior routing supported so dogmatically by CATS and Council? When you stop to think a moment, it really isn't so mysterious. A cursory look at the “corridor” shows: 1- that no end-to-end point benefits from any local destinations along the line, and 2- the capture sheds for most of the corridor are riddled with auto-centric development, and in downtown (arguably the most important location), actually make love to a Freeway…the complete antithesis of pedestrian freedom. 3- and the land along the route is less expensive, with fewer people impacted (while fewer "impacted" may sound like a positive, the real way to read this last point is "fewer people" which for transit is arguably a negative, wouldn't you agree?) Who is going to get on a train that bypasses downtown for a ride to 4th ward from the Matthews side of town? Who in the Belmont area will do the same? Is Alexander Micheals such a draw? What jobs lie along Independence Blvd that people from these same areas can access as a result of the Silver Line, the Walmart Supercenter, Bojangles Coliseum, Rick Hendrick Chevrolet, The Greek Agora? How many will voluntarily ride transit that requires multiple block walks and/or additional bus connections that also end with lengthy walks, to access jobs, education, health care, recreation and housing, not to mention the pathetically conceived, elementary school level, design proposal to integrate with the Blue Line. All these needs tantalizing close but nonetheless may as well be on the Moon as regards the Silver Line. Non of these are rhetorical questions. And, as we discussed a long while back, a train ride to the airport is not sufficient reason to build a +$1 Billion dollar transit line. The Line is poorly placed along most of its corridor. An exercise akin to throwing a piece of spaghetti against a wall to see how it sticks. The Silver Line’s routing is being justified purely an “aspirational” real estate play, in order to obscure the main reason for its failure, which is that the roll-out and discussion about what transit is and how it can benefit Charlotte were botched from day one, making it all but impossible to advocate for real and beneficial options due to their associated costs and politics. The projections are a sideshow, as witnessed by the comical responses used to address them. I use the word “aspirational” purposefully because even as a real estate play, the line is ineffectual. If certain land owners and lobbyists/politicians want to convince us that downtown Charlotte needs help in attracting development they need to get out more; and if we fall for their condescending stance , we deserve the crap on a plate we’ve been handed. To claim that the Silver Line will unleash some “just around the corner” orgy of construction is a false. As discussed a few pages ago, transit lines are not the guaranteed development Viagra many believe. And as I have already argued, real estate development is not the primary purpose of transit infrastructure. Happy to chat more offline, or at the next UP meet, but I've said my piece about this topic.

KJHBurg, I hope your use of the word "interesting" is intended as an expression of doubt as to the legitimacy of the ridership numbers now being circulated and the competence of the selected proposal? If so, I suggest a new font color for "sarcastic" commentary! Maybe purple? If you are being sarcastic, I agree...the latest numbers are "interesting". They are also entirely fictitious and transparently self-serving. You only need to read Brent Cagle's and Andy Mock's responses in the article to realize this, as they are left to babble their way toward partial cover by offering to "go back and take a look at what changed". I nearly chocked on my drink in laughter reading this...imagining the look on their faces as they uttered such nonsense! It must have physically hurt their mouths to speak that response, lol! Such public facing, bold faced ineptitude must have a formidable behind the scenes reason for being. Why are CATS and Council conspiring to generate self-serving studies to promote an obvious transit planning failure? Since the selected Option has no bearing on transit and transit usage, (and as discussed previously, even less so on sustainable/resilient development) whatever has happened "behind the scenes" must be one hell of a barrier to common sense. I can only deduce that it is politically based, as such motives are usually the most idiotic, and drenched in special interest ideologies. As discussed in my previous post, no competent and respected transportation firm, transit financing authority, or transit advocacy group would have their name anywhere near a recommendation as asinine as this. Maybe the real reasons will be made public some day when, after the proposal fails to secure funding after multiple tries, people with hands raised will ask why one of the most important infrastructure investments in the City's history was so poorly managed. I look forward to that day when we are made privy to the special interests and their cronies responsible for this fiasco.

I would posit the lack of ridership projections is purposeful in order to distract from the folly of the Committee's LPA routing recommendation. Projecting ridership is far from a science, falling more in the realm of the mystical. It is as fanciful an exercise as traffic count projection is. Even so the "made up ridership" numbers generated by such an exercise would categorically show the harsh reality of the LPA Line's under performance.......so poorly conceived it is, (I can explain further off-line). Wilmore, the real "head scratcher" is not why the Committee cares little about the actual transit mobility of and use by potential riders, and the many positive attributes a proper alignment would address (as I discussed in a post on this thread last year); but rather the perplexing argument on which their recommendation rests, ie: that the routing will spur "re-development". Disregarding for a moment the fact that promoting development should never be the primary reason for building transit, let us focus on the type of development that would occur along the LPA route as it bypasses downtown while straddling the Brookshire Freeway. Redevelopment of expressway frontage is not pedestrian enabling, smart growth in character. It does not generate more "SouthEnds". The greatest failure of transit planners and politicians is the notion that transit lines magically transform any surrounding landscape into cool, hip, dynamic, and prosperous urbanism; and simultaneously ween a population from reliance on environmentally and socially crippling car dependency. Advocates of rail transit, return from overseas tours of Europe and Asia in a lather over the amazing options rail of all kinds provides the populations there, and of course the cool developments along the corridors of the cities they visit. Very chamber of commerce friendly stuff, which is to say, cosmetic. What they fail to observe and understand during their tours is the robustly layered support systems of other modes of transit (buses, trolleys, shuttles, etc..), and urban fabric (pedestrian oriented, generating cycling, and walking traffic) that surround and feed these rail systems. They wrongly assume all rail works, because they see so many people using it. All you have to do is build it! The Blue Line has been around for how many years now? Over that period less than 5 of its over 16 mile length (outside of Uptown) has blossomed into fledgling urbanism. The stretches that have "blossomed" have specific attributes, the most important being; 1- a pre-existing interconnected thoroughfare network and finer grain block structure, 2- immediate adjacency to residential neighborhoods fully interconnected to the regional thoroughfare system, and 3- a significant commercial component serving the adjoining neighborhoods that is proximate to the corridor..., aka: Southend and Northend. The richness and resiliency of these three attributes quickly dissipate as one heads further afield into the disconnected and buffered, large lot/superblock, gated, cul-de-sac environment of suburban Charlotte. These locations will take much longer to "correct" with the best outcomes more akin to privatized enclaves of mixed use nodes, ie: variations of Ballantyne, Phillips Place, Piedmont Town Center both larger and smaller, high income, and low income, that have sprouted in some suburban areas of rapidly growing metropolitan areas around the US, (important to point out that most of these have developed regardless of whether light rail is present, and while they are an improvement over conventional suburbia, they should not be the long-term goal of any municipality striving to be resilient and equitable). So, if Southend/Northend (and any traditionally laid out pre-war fabric) represent the gold standard for transit investment and urban retrofit, and most suburban areas represent the aspirational battleground for rectifying three generations of planning/financing/and engineering mistakes, then expressway frontage would be classified as the "black hole" of urban design and development. It is where city life goes to die. Even when all three attributes described above are available, the presence of a freeway permits no urbanism to escape from them and into the surroundings. A more hostile environment does not exist...except maybe a radioactive wasteland filled with brain eating zombies. The Brookshire Freeway is such an environment. It is also an important link in the regional car-centric transportation system (unlike the John Belk), so its replacement, elimination, or rebuilding will be measured in generational time spans. The Freeway's design profile (elevated along most of its path bypassing downtown) increases its "kryptonite like" impact on adjacent properties. Just look at a Google Earth image. The land immediate to the Corridor is either buffered with trees and grass slopes where it lies lower than surrounding property, or is backed onto with the ass-ends of buildings, vacant parcels, and parking lots where it rises up and over surrounding properties. The expressway’s highly negative externalities, (noise pollution, air pollution, heat pollution) necessarily create an edge condition for the adjacent communities, (same is true for the John Belk). The Brookshire is the edge of, and barrier between "communities", not a connector of, and seam connecting "communities". Light Rail should always be a connector. Co-locating such a facility next to a Freeway is professional negligence, and prioritizing the "development opportunity" first and foremost is counter to best practice. Thankfully, the FTA's criteria provide a safety net of sorts as any request for funding the recommended route will almost certainly be rejected. For the sake of discussion let's assume it is built as recommended. The argument made by the Committee, that adding a facility having a total of three stations (the fewest of all the alternatives, two of which will be suspended above the City's streets like the monorail system at Disney World), with no direct connection to the Blue Line; that this exemplar of short-sighted incompetence will somehow increase the desirability of the area for redevelopment is, to say the least, naive. The Brookshire carries 100,000 cars a day, is a major link for the region's freeway system, and provides multiple exits accessing directly into the highest concentration of jobs and entertainment in a two-state region Why is it not fully developed along its ROW already? This is not a rhetorical question. Adding light rail will not trigger some magic tipping point that suddenly makes the area desirable. The best case scenario is so subpar when compared to the cost of the facility as to be laughable. Imagine the best case, decades from now, being the blocks facing the John Belk that have been redeveloped since the "urbanization" of its ROW. The ass ends of all the new developments face onto it. Now, imagine an elevated train line meandering next to the parking decks, and blank walls, on one side and the freeway on the other. Let's all chant "world class". It is a monumental waste of money, and will provide more examples for anti-transit advocates to fight against the real and pressing need for alternative forms of transportation in this City. Bite the bullet, regroup, and re-message the needs and opportunities transit can deliver for Charlotte's residents and businesses. Bury the line under Trade St, with the Gold Line above, smooth out the curves entering into and out of downtown, access the core through proper integration with the Blue Line, the proposed bus terminal, and the future Amtrack Station, and be done with it already! Focusing the debate on how efficient the LPA route is because it does not mix with traffic as do the other two alternatives is akin to arguing where to place deck chairs on the Titanic to achieve the best view! We have been given a dog’s breakfast selection of choices (to borrow a saying from my friends Down Under) and the discussions on this thread read as if we are ok with that?!?!? We deserve much better. Hell, a few pages ago, I felt that we had moved into a more positive space, with the submission of two alternatives that at least from a routing perspective showed competency. It is not a stretch to label today’s disappointing recommendation of the Committee as grossly negligent. One step forward, one step backward. That should be the official line dance of Charlotte.

Government gas subsidies, pro auto zoning and parking ordinances, along with modern transportation planning succeeded in eviscerating the downtowns of America's cities as thoroughly as the Allies carpet bombing campaigns did to the centers of downtown Dresden, Berlin, etc...etc., during WWII. We often use comparison maps showing the downtowns of US cities before the Federal Highway Act of 1956 and the results unleashed by it a generation later. They are stark. Pre War maps of the same area of Charlotte would show a rich fabric of buildings (in black), as opposed to large swaths of parking and highway ROW's by the late 1970's early 1980's (shown in white). Same are true for pre and post War Detroit, Cleveland, etc, etc. Viewed side by side with maps of European cities pre and post war and tears will well up in your eyes. And, unlike the War in Europe, we visited this devastation upon our cities voluntarily, even reallocating large amounts of National wealth for it....something we continue doing to this very day.

Jumping in during a short breather between projects to add my 2 cents As you may remember back in Aug of last year (page 194 of this thread) I lamented the colossal failure in urban and transportation planning represented by the Silver Line's proposed alignment. My intent was two fold, 1) broaden the discussion and introduce transportation planning principles to educate and help raise the level of discourse on this forum, and 2) covertly reach out to those with access to local decision makers and implore them to re-evaluate the designs. As regards the first intention, I have enjoyed reading the many wonderful posts since, when my crazy schedule has allowed me to. Many of you UP'ers are well versed in planning principles and techniques. I have also been pleased to see my second intention bear fruit. When I stated my astonishment at the original CAT's proposals for the Silver Line, I was not the only voice in the wilderness. Many colleagues of mine were equally dismayed. Unfortunately, few work in the Charlotte region. I hoped my post here would raise a flare and grab the attention of more local actors who could begin a "behind-the-scenes" push for the better outcome. It did. A timely Tweet from CLTDevelopment helped draw even more attention to my flare Slowly, but surely, the discussions amongst the professionals have started to "re-align" (pardon the pun) with best practice, and the plans are now visibly beginning to follow suit. Hopefully they fully straighten themselves out to achieve the optimum routing, the one along Trade St. (option 3). Option 2, at, or below grade, (I know....odds are almost certain it will not be below grade) is by far the superior alignment for all the reasons I discussed in my post on page 194 over a year ago. The concerns about car traffic mixing with the line are irrelevant. Separating the two is not rocket science. And, by the time the line is operational, it may be the case that Trade St need only accommodate the Gold Line Trolley, CATS buses, cycling ways, and pedestrians. Car traffic may not need be part of the future equation at all, if we develop the CPCC to Johnson C Smith corridor correctly. I know, outwardly, the CATS process of outreach and presentation looks chaotic and at times half-baked, and it is. If you were privy to how messy the inner workings of all this are, you would be more than happy to cut everyone some slack given the consequential turnaround in planning that has been orchestrated over the last 6 months. Not to say we are out of the woods....but at least we now can see a few nearby clearings through the tangled underbrush. If we could only alter the other portions of the alignment leading into and out of Uptown we'd really be in a happy place! wink, wink One comment concerning the bus transfer station's design, as it is a relevant factor in the planning of the Sliver Line along Trade St. If a bus transfer station is to be built in Charlotte's uptown (not going to get into a discussion here about whether such a facility is needed, or beneficial) the biggest urban design challenge is to limit the impact large numbers of buses, parked, maneuvering, queuing, and idling, have on surrounding civic spaces. They are loud, even electric ones, large, and impact all the geometries of surrounding roadways and sidewalks. While they are pedestrian enabling along routes and corridors, the stations needed to facilitate transfer and terminal functions are not. The current and proposed location is at the heart of the State's largest and densest urban center. Setting aside an entire surface block (as we have now) to make buses happy is a terrible waste of prime downtown property, and more importantly a major intrusion into the Civic Realm at the very heart of the City. Burying the facility, or raising it above street level as part of a larger development is paramount for the future prosperity of this part of downtown. While obviously not at the same scale, or purpose as say the Port Authority Bus Terminal in midtown Manhattan, our bus transfer station is contextually identical, and therefore should emulate a similar design approach. If it were located in a less central location more options about the design would be viable.

Well done "jthomas". Your post is correct. Rail infrastructure's capacity to outperform auto oriented infrastructure's capacity is without question. I've copied a paragraph from my post back on page #194 of CATS Long Tern Transit Plan - Silver & Red Line in support below: "I know this is a round-a-bout response to your question Hushpuppy321, but if the Silver Line is viewed through the lenses above you can begin to see why the current alignment in some places, falls short. Rail transit, light and heavy, provide high rider output with maximum efficiencies regarding space and energy needs (geometry again), and minimum emissions and noise externalities. One light rail train carries 200 to 300 people. A well planned system running trains at 5 to 10 minute intervals can easily deliver 10,000 people per hour through a station without delays, (as well as each station along its route, which gets into the topic of predictability and development, also fascinating, and a topic I can talk about for days). Freeways are the exact opposite. They are land, energy, pollution and noise maximizers, and like cancer in the body, destroy community tissue. They are also delay prone, as rush hour traffic demonstrates, and are almost always through systems, which is to say their integrations with surrounding community are restricted. Independence Blvd/Freeway and Brookshire Freeway's current ADT's hover at about 10,000 trips (read people) per hour, the equivalent of one light rail line. In Charlotte, neither pass through centers of employment, they pass by them. By shadowing their trajectories does the Silver Line increase job opportunities, or avoid delays to a transit rider's "opportunity shed"? Will it permit easy and complimentary transit support in the form of BRT, or regular buses to further make a rider's opportunity shed a richer experience, or increase its footprint beyond the immediate corridor? The answer to both questions is no. If you envision each light rail corridor with the capacity of an Independence Blvd in terms of "people moving", minus the grossly exaggerated space needs, pollution generation, and traffic delays that come with, you become aware of the potential of the Sliver Line, and indeed all the other light rail lines too. The most bang for you buck is not found along an existing system that serves different goals, but instead introducing new capacity along an underutilized system that aligns with the goals aspired to". Of course, in order to have light rail (any rail) function at its optimum level and deliver such capacities, there needs to be an urban fabric, and supportive transit system in place. Both have to be encouraged in Charlotte to successfully wean the City from the dysfunctional spiral the current transportation network is spinning us into the future on. For the sake of better discussions/debates, it may be helpful to start a thread that merges transportation and mobility (transit and highways), rather than have them silo'd in separate threads? If design professionals can acknowledge the need to dismantle their silos, I feel we should follow suit here on UP

Yes indeed....steps, planters, bollards....buffers. I guess we should be thankful they decided against a grass lawn and berms planted with "native species" . Nothing like Charlotte's fear of urbanity to sterilize more of downtown's sidewalks with another multi-level elevated plaza, circa 1970. Pretty to look while ensconced on the 8th or 9th floor of a building, or in a car driving by. For the pedestrians its just another mundane gap on the way to other places. Please someone pass out John Gehl's Life Between Buildings, or William Whyte's The Social Life of Small Urban Spaces and City: Rediscovering the Center. Wonderful books on the subject of urban/civic space design, published before most on this forum were born. The quicker we can skill up those responsible for building our City, the faster we can avoid suffering their relentless rediscoveries of failed design ideas from the past. Apologies for the salty commentary. Not directed at you BJKM. I'm just disheartened by the never ending "one step forward...one step backward" progress of city building here in Charlotte. So much potential, diluted by so much mediocrity.

The number of lanes are not the issue with traffic congestion along this stretch of I-85, so adding more will not improve the current situation. In all probability it will encourage more drivers lured by the promise of reduced congestion, which will......you guessed it, make matters worse for a while. As this reality settles in, congestion will ease back to what it is today. Unless, of course, my assumption about how the money is allocated is incorrect. I'm assuming it will be used entirely for lane additions, not interchange reconstruction. Since the funding is only $100million, this appears to be the case. Rebuilding all the interchanges would cost more. If the interchanges are part of the allocation, then, well, congestion will be reduced....temporarily. If you want to temporarily improve the congestion issue along I-85 in eastern Gaston County look at the design of the Interstate vis-a-vis access points onto it. The exits are laid out based on engineering from another era (which is when it was built!). Car handling and sizes have changed significantly, as has the type of traffic, ie: trucks. Site distances, deceleration/acceleration, and subtle elements involving centerline radii, and super elevation are calibrated to the equivalent of "horse and buggy" usage. I've listed the four reason congestion occurs along this stretch in hierarchical order of impact to volume/capacity: 1- the rural design specs of the interchanges themselves, (ie: low volume, low speed) 2- the routing of the interstate corridor itself, which spans 13.5 miles, but only covers a straight-line distance of 12.5 miles.... many curves, a few of which are at the approaches to exits. 3- the forced weaving/merging needed to access the exits between I-485 and HWY 321 along this somewhat curvy stretch of Interstate, 4- the accidents the excessive weaving and merging cause. These "bottlenecks" are the true constraints to capacity, and therefore whether congestion is present. The number of lanes are not. Before I go any farther I want to establish the following fact as the basis for any discussion that occurs after. I used the phrase "partial solution" above. There is no solution to traffic congestion from an engineering perspective. The adage, "you can't build your way out of it" is true for this aspect of urban development and infrastructure. In a growing and dynamic metro like Charlotte the choice is not how to solve traffic problems, the choice is how do you want your traffic problems delivered to you...... at 2 lanes, 4 lanes, 6 lanes, 8 lanes...etc. As long as a transportation system is primarily auto centric, the outcome of auto oriented investments has been, and always will be the same......more roads, more lanes, more congestion. It does not help that the NCDOT, firmly entrenched in eastern NC's myth of the Jeffersonian rural ideal, has little skill at designing urban level interstates. One need only look at the first phases of Charlotte's outer belt. Another good example that is pertinent to this discussion is the stretch of I-85 just to the west of the I-485/I-85 interchange heading into Gaston County. I keen observer would raise an eyebrow at the almost daily traffic back ups and congestion caused by the on ramp from north bound I-485 to south bound I-85. This stretch is "brand new" in relation to the segments in Gaston County, the latest in NC-DOT know-how. And yet, this stretch, which is 8 to 10 lanes wide, is routinely congested. It is poorly designed. I have little faith that even if the NC-DOT had the financial means to rebuild all the interchanges and add lanes to I-85 in Gaston County, that the effort would result in any improvement to traffic flow, beyond the first 12 months of completion. Congestion would return, and would be worse than before. New lanes on I-85, without reconstructing the interchanges, is just a make work project to employ contractors, and NC-DOT staff. The strapped finances of the NCDOT compel them to accept and deploy whatever money they can get to put bandaids on the many traffic wounds around the State. This creates situations where "improvements" often occur out of the logical order they should.

Apparently, the residential tower will be just about 480'. The office is in flux. Final floor height not settled. Max appears to be just over 600', but most likely will fall between the 550' and 575' range. Still a formidable duo. For you Raleigh enthusiasts, these two buildings would become the tallest and 3rd tallest buildings if built in that City's downtown. Yep...I went there I'm not certain, but once completed I believe Charlotte will be home to 9 of the 10 tallest buildings in North and South Carolina. Oops.... I did it again

KJHburg, your "before" pictures will become wonderful archival photos to compare the "after" photos against in a little more than a decade. As I stated several pages back on this thread, the transformational impact of the Pearl District on the City of Charlotte's future economic and cultural profile is difficult to overhype. The quantity of new buildings and urbanized streetscapes that will descend on this underutilized, suburban corner of uptown will be breathtaking. Morehead St, Mcdowell/Second Ward, Kings Dr/Midtown will become Charlotte's version of Buckhead / Midtown in Atlanta. And, while all the new "hardware" in terms of urban development will be visually impressive, it will be the introduction of all the new "software" in terms of businesses, professions, and the spin-off cultural offerings generated by these that will "transform" the City. The built-form is fun, and what we on this page geek out about, but the social structures that activate buildings, streets, and parks are what enable successful, desirable cities. The invisible mass of the iceberg only hinted at by the portion protruding the waterline. Stay tuned!

Hi AirNostrum. Yes, an MSA measure is much more comparative when assessing GDP. I believe that is the only way the census currently measures this metric. There may be other more elaborate methods. The numbers I listed are for the metro's for each City.

Haven't been on in a while.....crazy busy. Lot's of great news and discussions on the various threads, so it's been fun catching up! Density vs population, one of my nerdy pastimes, is a tricky undertaking when attempting to make comparisons between cities. OneRJ's, JeanCLT's, and Hushpuppy321's thread is a great example. Gentlemen, each of you are simultaneously right and wrong in your assessments. Before I go on, I want to make clear, this is not a game of "my town is bigger/better than your town". I know how sensitive the Charlotte vs Raleigh beef is on here, lol! Accurately determining the population of an area requires some MacGyver'ing of available data tools, because populations locate based on many factors, but the least sticky of these are the legacy, political boundaries that make up the map of our States, Counties, and municipal limits. Not much detail can be gleaned regarding density dispersions relying on such boundaries. Currently in the US, the best available tools are census tracts, zip codes, and Google Earth satellite imagery. When you add the underlying Zoning, then you're "cooking-with-gas" so to speak. A fun source of info that won't bog you down in the weeds, while still providing useful info for dinner party convo fun, is www.freemaptools.com. You can draw radii around any area and find out the underlying population. It's a next step up from relying on city limits, and county lines. Caveat, the sources of data can be a few years old, and if you do so for other countries, the methods used to collect the underlying data are not always reliable. For the purposes of general discussions it, and several other similar websites, will suffice. Getting deeper into the issue than the websites go, I had to do a pretty in-depth analysis several years ago about density/pop/and market analysis, and was surprised by some of the results. Back to Charlotte vs Raleigh, or vice-verse depending on which is your preference, the populations using radii only show that for almost every increment of distance, the total population from downtown Charlotte outward is greater than similar circles drawn around downtown Raleigh. This is also the case when you "weight average" the "nodal" center (geographic center of a population mass) for each. Charlotte's is conveniently centered near downtown because its urban spatial form is centrodial, vs Raleigh's which skews westward because of the likes of Cary, Durham, and Chapel Hill. About 110,000 more people live within 10 miles of downtown Charlotte than downtown Raleigh. A quarter million or so more people live within 25mi of downtown Charlotte than downtown Raleigh. Same is true at 50mi. At 100 mi, which is mostly a comparison for fun, the population around Charlotte is 1.4 million more than Raleigh's, but only 600,000 less than Atlanta's. The real comparisons can be made when you factor in water bodies, and zoning. For example, Charlotte's central core area, the 10 mile ring, includes large industrial areas, the airport, and large employment districts. The result is that the population density within the predominantly residential urban fabric of Charlotte's is higher than that of Raleigh's, where many of these big footprint, non residential uses are located beyond the 10 mi ring. The density difference isn't dramatic, but measurable, at 200 to 300 more people per square mile. On the ground the character of a community is discernible at these numbers. That's why Charlotte can "look and feel" bigger than Raleigh at times. I know everyone is thinking....what about Atlanta? The 10mi population from downtown Atlanta is 920,000. Within this 10 mile ring there are large industrial areas, part of the airport, large commercial districts and therefore the residential population densities are much greater. For comparison, the 10mi ring around downtown Charlotte is 570,000, and Raleigh's is 460,000. That's why Atlanta feels so much "bigger". SydneyCartonII's comment about dominance is one that should be looked at in terms of yearly GDP to be comparable from a metrics standpoint because population is not enough of a measure for "dominance". The latest estimates for US city GDP's bear out that Charlotte is indeed the dominant economic engine in NC, at $185 billion. That's about the same size as all the other large cities in NC combined...including Raleigh's which stands at $85 billion. Atlanta's, by the way, is over twice is large as Charlotte's. Have fun drawing circles!

The project was never "dead", or "indefinitely on-hold", just delayed as deal flow and financing re-adjusted in response to COVID. CLT Development's news about the Hotel is accurate.

Madison Parkitect, to answer your follow-up question to CLT Development's wonderful and spot-on discussion of floor heights, the first rule of construction to keep in mind is that a developer never views a height allowance, or cap, as a number to hit. Within the allowable building envelope, the floor heights are determined based on the combination of use, market price point, and building code requirements. The cost implications for each are known with great precision beforehand. Therefore, a developer builds what he can sell at the price point he believes the market he seeks can bear. So, the hypothetical of a few extra feet "left-over" within a building envelope, added to another floor, just to achieve the height allowable, would not occur. CLT explained very well how different uses result in different floor heights, ie, parking vs office, or residential, and listed the general rules of thumb for each. These are both general and accurate because costs can be generalized too. Within these general rules there are variances based on price point, and use-flexibility, for example. In luxury residential product, residential floor heights routinely exceed the 13 to 15 foot mark. Depending on the Class of office space being developed, office floors can range from 13 ft to 18ft. Ground floor commercial in a mixed use building typically has the most variation. This is for flexibility purposes. CLT Development pointed to examples of floor heights approaching 20 feet. In addition to the reasons he raises as to why this is the case, I'll add another. The added height also permits re-purposing of the space to add mezzanines if desired. Back in the day "retail space" use to have wonderful high ceilinged floors. That changed starting in the 50's and gained steam in the 70's and 80's with the advent of drop ceiling panels to hide new wiring demands, which reduced elegant building interiors into shoe boxes for people. This regrettable period in architecture has passed, and the wisdom of providing taller spaces on the ground floor has revived. Adds value to the project by expanding the tenant pool. Post COVID, look for ceiling heights, especially on the ground floor of mixed use buildings, and office floors in all types of buildings to move toward the high-end of the ranges listed and become "standard".

I am relieved that the decision, this time around, fell into the win column for urbanism, and reality. When forces in support of informed observation clash with the pitchfork and torch crowd it is all too often a toss up as to the outcome. For those who champion equity, and mindful outcomes, the cumulative randomness reflected in the score card of the "public process" is disheartening. I put quotes around "public process" because the reality is that it is almost always neither. I know this is your neighborhood TheRealClayton. I'm particularly happy for you Keep up the fight my friend!

I've got to hand it to you SydneyCarton, your over the top enthusiasm does make for entertaining reading

Kermit, yes this is one of the report images. The plans which are coming together for the actual development are, to put it mildly, somewhat more refined I've lost some faith in CATS, as is evident in my previous postings. Suffice it to say, odds are high the planned interface with this important hub will be, to put it mildly....underwhelming. I hope to be proven wrong.

Good find JeanCLT. I was wondering how long it would take for the initial renderings to be discovered / revealed. The project looks even better than the image shown. The track side of the station is handled just as well as the street sides are. This will be transformative to the center city urban fabric. Much as I discussed many pages back. Stay tuned! Also, now that the "train has left the station" so to speak, here are a couple of images I'll throw out for discussion. Lots going on in each. There is some "behind the scenes knowledge" sprinkled amongst the urban design principles and techniques illustrated by the two conceptual plans, emphasis on conceptual. Redeveloped and infill blocks in yellow. New streets in dark grey. New parks in dark green. New civic structures in dark blue. Fuzzy lines are trolleys, solid lines light rail, dashed solid underground. Stations are black rectangles. Amtrak is solid black line. Enjoy The full Monty (brave new worlds discovered) A half Monty (acknowledging what's outside your front door). This could turn into a half-Mont -peekaboo, if the JBF were to be capped/re-purposed.

Most definitely Nick2! Matters of such importance demand broad participation, from both the experienced and inexperienced, professional and novice. Especially true when the topics discussed touch so many people across so many aspects of their daily lives, as for example, city planning and urban design do. The glue that binds large groups together in productive conversation is the transfer of knowledge and lived experience to as many as possible, geeks included . After all, a professional is just another way to describe a geek who took the extra step to learn everything possible about their passion. Knowledge reduces the tendency for "opinion" and misinformation, to derail informed inquiry.