- Popular Post
buildleft
-
Posts
55 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Project Database
User Guide
Store
Events
Posts posted by buildleft
-
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
This was taken on Thursday (before the crane was raised obv) from the 15th floor of Towerview
...and this one showing the crane's final height was taken Saturday morning
-
11
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
Looks like glass is going in at the tower base. And even if they are temporary, it is beyond belief that NRW built well-manicured surface lots here...
-
9
-
9 minutes ago, CLT Development said:
I believe they are twin towers, hence my rendering, I did not realize they were both in permitting tho. I'm not sure why they would each have the same amount of spaces vs one parking deck. Thank you for pointing this out, I did this graphic from memory and am still confirming all statuses while I write the article.
Ah thanks, I guess I was just confused as to why they wouldn't be filed jointly as they seem to be progressing together, but I've just realized the parcels are thinly separated. And many thanks for putting together this graphic, it's really helpful to sort things out visually
-
2
-
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
455 units on the YMCA site, not sure if this was already known. Sketch Plan Review dropped in accela today
-
4
-
1
-
On 7/27/2023 at 9:29 AM, CLT Development said:
Fín
I'm kind of confused about the towers across the street from Office Depot on South. It seems 1619 South Boulevard (the Wells Fargo site at South/Kingston) and 1601 South Boulevard (the adjacent retail redevelopment at South/Park) are both in permitting. However, they both have 371 units, 376 spaces, and 6577 sf and 6459 sf of retail respectively, with different amounts of open space. Is it possible these are twin apartment towers, or is it just a mistake in the permitting system? Just pointing this out in case anyone knows any further details
-
3
-
-
19 minutes ago, KJHburg said:
Clue the music again the CARY Files strike again. This is with RAM co-developer of next door Lowes Tech Tower with their 121 West tower.
31-story vertically mixed-use building with 333 apartments,
hospitality suites, co-working spaces, and ~13,600 sf of ground
floor retail. The project will occupy a prominent corner in South
End Charlotte, adding density and a mix of uses in a transit-
oriented developmentThe CARY Files the gift that keeps on giving!
https://carync.app.box.com/s/o2lockq82x1yg8pkd3qozawvrhwjggoa/folder/214543092129
Here is the project in accela
-
3
-
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
Shots from today of progress on "the Bowl" and Lower Ave
I'm glad to see progress on some real connectivity in this area that currently funnels traffic (of all modes) down Ballantyne Commons. Also, I wish these trees could survive phase II construction, the canopy presents such potential for the livability of this future community
Apologies for the negativity, but whenever I come by this project I can't help but see incredible amounts of wasted potential. I see it in the new roads that could have been narrower, the surface lots that could have been housing or green space, the street parking that could have been separated cycle paths or public/commercial space, the segregated uses that could have been integrated, the auto-oriented streets that could have easily been closed to non-delivery traffic, the construction of massive new parking decks in the proximity of existing decks that are almost always empty, the lack of sustainable building materials like mass timber, the absence of social/public infrastructure (schools, libraries, childcare, social services, etc), and I could go on and on... A city only gets so many chances at such a large blank slate, and 2023 is certainly not the time to continue with status-quo, highly carbon-intensive development
Lastly, the CATS link to the Pineville/Ballantyne extension is now a 404 error, which I hope is not reflective of the project generally...
https://www.charlottenc.gov/cats/transit-planning/Pages/Pineville-Ballantyne.aspx
-
4
-
2
-
2 hours ago, southslider said:
CSX could be commuter rail, much like the NCRR corridor. Red Line just makes more sense now as LRT, given several factors. The connection in Uptown will now have to be along Statesville and Graham to reach Uptown. Camp North End shows the promise of more stations in Charlotte. Davidson and Cornelius were always close together for CR spacing, and even Huntersville can have more stations. And with the recent Ohio derailment, NSRR will be hungry for cash and more willing to sell.
I'm not trying to be overly critical but in what ways does LRT make more sense for the red line? It just seems like the cost would be astronomical, journey times to Mooresville could take up to 90min, and I can't imagine it would get decent ridership, let alone as strong as what the blue line currently gets (which isn't much...)
Though I solidly agree that there should be more stations within Charlotte
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
7 hours ago, AirNostrumMAD said:I don’t think one size fits all.
I Completely see how Authorities can cater too much to suburbanites, with Philadelphia as a good example (or BART imo). But I think an Authority would be best for Charlotte, specifically. If we are talking for rail transit, I think it’s perfectly fine to serve suburbs well as long as the intercity routes fit the needs of the city and it can work well. Everywhere is pretty unique and what works in one place doesn’t work in another. Will Charlotte do bigger and better things running CATS than an authority? I don’t think I could say they could.
Most Authorities have been successes and IMO have seen bigger successes than non-authorities. If I’m not mistaken, some of y’all know way more than me on mass transit governance. What would Denver look like without its regional authority?
Look at Portland for Example.
These are the districts of board members represented by the TriMet board.
Here is their rail system. Suburbs get their rail but it’s routed through the core & TOD nodes that fits the needs of urbanites.
I also don’t think republicans at the level and functions of say serving on regional transit authorities are that bad. They’re usually cooperative when it comes to things like that or election positions, & civic related issues etc. So while I’m always critical about state GOP, I think these positions we shouldn’t be too afraid of them.
Only using WMATA (also an authority) as an example because I like this map that shows frequency and I can’t find a better chart other other cities. Charlotte - & other cities - can serve the suburbs AND the urban core(s) at the same time. If Gaston County wants to foot part of the bill for a light rail extension & tell their GOP friends in the state to throw a bone, route it through the urban core in a way that suits the cities needs and gives the suburbs their token rail (which we should want the metropolitan area to have various transit oriented cores/nodes) and not just uptown.
But ignoring future extensions and plans, I think an authority would have better oversight and run it more properly. Long-term. Meck needs Gaston, union, etc for any ambitious plans. The metropolitan area is quite red outside of meck. The state legislature is solid red for the foreseeable future. This is an area where NC gop & Dems can work together.
just my IMO.
I can definitely understand the thought process behind a single, regional authority for transit in the metro area and with proper governance structuring I believe it could actually be quite effective. However, suburban expansion is not the only path towards ambition, and Charlotte doesn't need Gaston, Union, or any other county to use (for example) a 1¢ sales tax effectively. In my view, cost effectiveness as analyzed through cost per passenger km is the most straightforward way to develop successful transit and, frankly, spending limited funding on low-frequency long-distance suburban light rail is not how the city will reach its supposed goals of a 50-50 auto/non-auto modal split as adopted in the Strategic Mobility Plan. I've attached some maps to show how a regional vs. municipal agency could (or likely would) prioritize capital investment.
Map 1, metropolitan authority: current rail network + silver line + red line (+ new South End station)
Map 2, municipal authority: blue line (+ new South End station) + phase III of gold line w/ conversion to light rail, Stewart Creek branch, and Albemarle extension + central segment of silver line
Suburban expansion through just the full silver line buildout is nearly 29mi of new track while the denser, more urban network that stays within city limits is only 23.6mi of new track. The gold line projects would avoid costly ROW acquisitions while the shortened silver line, not having to continue west to Gaston, could have direct terminal access at CLT. As an example of the consequences of costs: considering that the silver line is already planned to have significant grade-separated segments, the extra ~$1.5 billion saved in this scenario could be used to fully grade-separate the line, and in turn achieve automation w/ 4min headways instead of 20min headways. And to harp on the importance of gold line phase III: even though today's gold line is objectively abysmal, it has immense potential. The 9 (Central) and 7 (Beatties Ford) are already the city's top two highest-ridership bus routes, so (partially) replacing them with a higher capacity/quality product is kind of a slam dunk.
Lastly, I want to respond to one point specifically... the transit situation in Denver would arguably look much better without its regional authority! A single 8 mile mass transit route down E Colfax would likely have higher ridership than the sum of the city's 113 mile light rail network, but the city couldn't pursue such a route because RTD is obligated to spend transit $$$ to serve suburbs with rail along poorly chosen corridors without any significant changes to station-area land use.
I guess my point is that this is all a game of priorities, and a metropolitan transit authority would have fundamentally different (and as a Charlotte native and urban planning student, worse) priorities than a municipal one.
-
7
-
1
-
1
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
Yes, CATS is a complete disaster and wholly inadequate for a city of our size. But I fail to see how forming a regional authority would help. Political authority would shift towards transit-hesitant Republican governments in the surrounding counties, consensus on long-range planning would grow increasingly difficult, and large-scale, high-dollar capital investment projects would almost exclusively serve suburban and exurban interests. Regional bodies already in place like CRTPO and the MTC have already shown that authorities extending beyond city borders create a suburban mindset. The MTC is all-in on a multi-billion dollar, nearly 30-mile(!) light rail line to Union/Gaston counties and a commuter rail line to Iredell that will never happen. Meanwhile, getting around Charlotte within Route 4 (the sole part of our metropolitan region with land use suited to transit) is still extremely difficult without a car. Coverage is low, frequencies are awful, reliability isn't great, and most stops are just a pole in the ground. Personally, I don't see how broadening oversight of transit to suburban governments would fix any of these problems, and in fact would likely worsen structural problems with how transit funds are provisioned in the Charlotte region.
CATS definitely needs a wholesale cleanup. The entire leadership of CATS needs to be replaced with competent, experienced people who genuinely want to see ridership increase and transit succeed, and city council must maintain a greater focus on transit and not let these significant problems continue indefinitely. However, imho a regional authority is not a step in the right direction.
Oh, and if you would like an independent transit management consultant to fix all of our problems created by John Lewis, may I suggest... TransPro transit management consulting leader John Lewis.
-
6
-
3
-
2
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
Took a lengthy walk today and snapped some photos, so here's a somewhat comprehensive (but not nearly complete) look and review at development in this area...
Apex Parkwood: 10 townhomes, 12 apartments, 2.3k sf of commercial space. Located at the southeast corner of Parkwood/Allen
Belmont Korners: 16 age-restricted (55+) condos, 2.5k sf office, 2.8k sf retail. Located on the north corner of Belmont/Allen. I must say I'm not sure if this is still the exact plan so feel free to correct me if project specs have changed, though work on site was definitely under way today.
1030 Seigle: Proposed mixed-use three-story development in rezoning now. The project would include 3k sf of ground floor retail and accommodate either six residential units or 6k sf of commercial space.
Broadstone Craft: 7-story, 297-unit apartment building wrapping Birdsong Brewing
Alexan Mill District: 290-unit apartment building with a 645-stall parking deck that will be shared with the planned adjacent 130k sf office building developed by White Point.
The Joinery phase II: Two seven-story buildings with a combined 360 units and 15k sf of retail. Between the alleys, micro-retail, and low parking count, this is surely my favorite ongoing project in the area.
https://swinerton.com/project/the-joinery-phase-2/
Broadstone Optimist Park: 323-unit apartment building with 1.25k sf of retail developed by Alliance.
https://broadstoneoptimistpark.com/
Proffitt Dixon Optimist Park: Proposed site of up to 330 apartments as well as plenty of commercial space. Does anyone know what the status/timeline looks like for this project?
Union Noda: Flournoy project that will bring 271 apartments to the east corner of N Davidson/25th. Work stalled for a long time but is now active again.
https://flournoycompanies.com/fdg-projects/noda/
Bladerunner: Site of a proposed project across from Rhino and next to UDM that would bring 390+ apartments and 8500sf of retail
Camden Noda: Nearly completed 387-unit building w/ 5k sf of retail. Truly looks fantastic in person (if only the intersection wasn't pedestrian hell
)
https://www.camdenliving.com/apartments/charlotte-nc/camden-noda
There are quite a few projects I missed, but this whole area (which is only ~2/3 of a square mile!) is truly on fire with several thousand new residents arriving in the coming years. It's hard to overstate the magic of TOD zoning...
-
10
-
2
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
I'm not sure if this was already known info on this site, but this is for the parcel next to UDM and across from Rhino. Looks like nearly 400 apartments and 8500 sf of retail.
It's satisfying to witness the development in this area gradually become taller
-
10
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
Also: a townhome update (apologies for double posting
)
1: Here is "Elm Terraces", a 20-unit for-sale townhome development completed last year. There is a large, unused patch of pine needles to the left that easily could have been two or three more homes, but alas, 'open space'... overall, looks very nice though.
2, 3: A 17-unit townhome development is going in here across the street from Elm Terraces at 11902 Elm Ln. While it is sad to see such a quaint home go, the area really needs more inventory.
Also, a block north is a vegetarian/vegan Indian place, and directly adjacent to the south is Ma Ma Wok, a vegan Chinese restaurant, which this vegan finds heartening
4, 5: A 52-unit townhome project at the east end of Endhaven Ln is replacing a single house, which was demolished recently. Last week I noticed some utility work underway, so I'd expect dirt to move sometime soon. This project will finally allow pedestrian access from Endhaven to Elm (Stonecrest area)
6: A wide multi-use path between Elmstone and Endhaven (over I-485) abruptly ends, meaning everyone living to the south of here loses greenway access (among other connectivity problems). While the proposed community to the north of here near Trader Joe's would provide similar, wide multi-use paths from Rea and Elm to Bevington Pl/Four Mile Creek Greenway, I am not aware of any CDOT activity related to building a sidewalk or path to connect the ~0.7 mi gap.
7: Also below is a reminder of the site plan for the proposed 1100-unit development south of Bevington. There is already a lot of pushback on this proposal, but quite frankly 1100 units seems kind of mediocre for a 53 acre MF project. And for a very different critique to that of the Piper Glen NIMBYs, I am kind of confused as to why they couldn't put a bit of retail in here, even just space for a coffee shop or corner store. I can't believe we're still segregating uses to this degree...
And to those who may be concerned about traffic impacts, instead of stopping new development on land that isn't yours, push to make the 62x a standard local bus line with an extension to Blakeney, agitate for better pedestrian and bike connectivity, ask your state lawmaker to limit exurban growth, etc. For even if Piper Glen retirees and banking execs still drive their 3-ton SUV less than half a mile to do some light grocery shopping, there are others who *would* change habits given the choice (and everyone benefits from fewer cars on the road!)
-
7
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
From Saturday... a new, yet unopened, signalized intersection just east of Ballantyne Corporate Pl was installed a few weeks ago. They also added the marked crosswalks, which is nice.
and some general pedestrian "improvement" work (not sure what the ramp in the fourth following pic is supposed to lead to...)
...and from this morning.
...and Novel Ballantyne (285 units) just down Johnston
Just a few last notes:
1) The width of the new roads in the Bowl are staggering in person. If they wanted to create a walkable center, I am not sure why they went with 40+ feet wide ROWs.
2) The Harris Teeter in Ballantyne Commons East already gets a surprising (albeit anecdotal) amount of foot traffic. The apartment complexes adjacent to the shopping center have about 1,600 residents, it only makes sense that some residents walk.
3) And a question: is it expected that CATS could shift routing of the 43 Ballantyne after completion of Ballantyne Reimagined? I really don't see the Pineville/Ballantyne extension going anywhere anytime soon, and it would be nice if the routing of the bus through Ballantyne was a little less convoluted in the meantime.
-
6
-
On 2/2/2023 at 3:32 PM, Reverie39 said:
This is probably silly and more of a far-fetched thought experiment than anything else. But could there be some potential use for that railway if it is unneeded by anyone else?
Thinking ahead to a NoDa corridor in 2035 that is chock full of high-density apartments and popular commercial spots... would some sort of NoDa tram be useful there? If you go too far north it's just single family housing but wondering what a tram would look like that maybe starts where those tracks cross Sugar Creek Rd, making several stops through NoDa and possibly doing something like hopping onto Brevard, ending at 25th St station for Blue Line transfers? Just brainstorming since it's not often you have unused railroad tracks just happily sitting there running through a medium-density urban place. Of course, the Blue Line already runs through NoDa but seems more useful to connect to other neighborhoods of Charlotte, as opposed to allowing people to travel (or like bar hop) within NoDa itself.
How much traffic does the in-town segment of the ACWR get anyway? Genuinely asking, as that is really unclear to me.
Anyway, I've always dreamed of an east branch of the Blue Line, but I suppose a stub-end or partially-street-running tram could work, too. If the city could somehow get their hands on the ROW, this could probably be one of the strongest potential rail projects on a cost v. ridership basis
-
3
-
-
8 hours ago, SoDoSoPa said:
If you take a look at the area schools, the demographic breakout is accurate.
Using AKHS as an example:
This data is at least several years old. Ardrey Kell is now majority-minority: 48.7% White, 25.0% Asian, 12.5% Black, and 10.7% Hispanic
https://nces.ed.gov/ccd/schoolsearch/school_detail.asp?Search=1&DistrictID=3702970&ID=370297002910
I can't find CMS census #'s rn for some reason, but I recall them showing similar figures for the '21-'22 school year.
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
Contradictions...
P
A
R
K
I
N
G"Designed for people"
-
5
-
7
-
1
-
Seemingly some activity at 1601 S Blvd, a half-acre lot across 3 parcels and the current home of Sandwich Max and Beijing Chinese. The project is called South and E Park and is owned by Newton Properties.
This property was not on my radar, anyone know of any plans here? Hoping for something significant
-
3
-
-
I was looking at the Ballantyne Reimagined site and noticed that Phase I renderings include two new surface parking lots, and a third large one at the grocery site. This is on top of the surface lots at the Aloft hotel, Ballantyne Resort, and The Lodge. As long as these remain undeveloped I would not expect this project to have the urban feel that developers are touting. I'm very grateful that 260 units of affordable housing (+lots more) are replacing a golf course, but I sense that this project is going to be a major letdown
-
3
-
-
Yeah, ideally I'd like to see that off-ramp closed and developed, but I just have zero faith in NCDOT to do the right thing and go forward with it.
I was thinking of something more like this:
This isn't because I want to keep the exit, it's just realistically the only way College could be (mostly) pedestrianized within the next few years.
-
3
-
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
I don't think anyone has posted this yet so I'll add here:
10-unit townhome project filed for rezoning at Seigle/Van Every on the old site of two single family homes
https://charlottenc.gov/planning/Rezoning/RezoningPetitions/2021Petitions/Pages/2021-211.aspx
-
8
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
Now that the slip lane from Tryon will be going away, the College St bridge should be pedestrianized. There are already 11 places for cars to cross the John Belk in/out of Uptown, so removing one low-traffic bridge wouldn't do much harm
At least, since working with NCDOT to close the off-ramp onto the bridge is a non-starter, the left two lanes that originate at Morehead should be pedestrianized. There could be a 30-foot wide, lightly-landscaped promenade that could happen a lot faster and a lot cheaper than a new bridge. Plus, College is arguably a more useful ped connection (closer to Tryon) than a new crossing near the Blue Line, especially once the Riverside site+enterprise lot are completed
The ROW is just sitting there! For the sake of climate-neutrality and walkability, let's make better use of it
-
12
-
1
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
4 hours ago, Blue_Devil said:You are not wrong. However, the Redline, if permission is ever given to use the track, should be made a priority due to cost and the sheer # of suburbs up there. As Charlotte densifies and grows out more, the redline would likely become the most used rail line we have.
The red line will never be the most used rail line we have, as it would have 1 tph off-peak. Ridership estimates put it at 4-5k, and honestly I doubt whether it would reach these #s
Also (unrelatedly), Ballantyne and north Meck should not be equated. Ballantyne, aside from being in Charlotte, is much more urban and connected to the city than anywhere north of city limits, even if it is 12 miles away
And fwiw I really do think an additional sales tax for transit could pass without north Meck's support... just saying
-
5
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
29 minutes ago, JHart said:A couple of properties bought under the name Apex Parkwood LLC. 1102-1112 Parkwood Ave.
This project includes 10 townhomes and 12 units above 3k sf retail. Great project imo and we need a lot more like it
-
11
-
3
031323.jpg.2727ddd38c1ce40b06c23d2ff0ceb620.jpg)
NoDa (N Davidson St Arts District) Projects
in Charlotte
Posted · Edited by buildleft
Here are some photos/plans of the project...
The low amount of parking is incredibly refreshing, I really hope the other buildings get moving along with this phase. Grading permit filed just a few weeks ago:
https://aca-prod.accela.com/CHARLOTTE/Cap/CapDetail.aspx?Module=LandDevelopment&capID1=23GP1&capID2=00000&capID3=00440&agencyCode=CHARLOTTE