Brooklyn Village Redevelopment in 2nd Ward

[go_vertical]

29 minutes ago, ricky_davis_fan_21 said:

The question is what is the city doing to make sure that stonewall gets the treatment that this new “pedestrian utopia” deserves.

 

I'm sure the city will work as hard at beautifying Stonewall as it did at making Brevard a stroll district.

Edited December 31, 2015 by go_vertical

[DMann]

24 minutes ago, go_vertical said:

I'm sure the city will work as hard at beautifying Stonewall as it did at making Brevard a stroll district.

Oh My!

[SgtCampsalot]

1 hour ago, ricky_davis_fan_21 said:

The 2020 Vision Plan States the following:

“Stonewall Street will be a main connection between Second and Third Wards. It should be a lush, beautiful roadway for autos as well as recreational walking, strolling and cycling, similar to Queens Road in Myers Park.”

Queens Rd is the WORST for bicycles!

[nonillogical]

27 minutes ago, SgtCampsalot said:

Queens Rd is the WORST for bicycles!

I don't understand?

What about the Booty loop? Parts of Queens Rd, if going uphill, aren't the best, but if for nothing other than safety in numbers, light traffic and drivers being more aware, its one of the better areas for cycling we have. 

[ah59396]

Just now, nonillogical said:

I don't understand?

What about the Booty loop? Parts of Queens Rd, if going uphill, aren't the best, but if for nothing other than safety in numbers, light traffic and drivers being more aware, its one of the better areas for cycling we have. 

agree.  queens road is arguably my favorite road to ride in the city.

[Guest]

25 minutes ago, SgtCampsalot said:

Queens Rd is the WORST for bicycles!

Yea, honestly their vision isn't quite my vision. Beautiful Roadway for Autos isn't what I want. i want a beautiful Roadway for pedestrians.

[SgtCampsalot]

49 minutes ago, nonillogical said:

I don't understand?

 

48 minutes ago, ah59396 said:

agree.  queens road is arguably my favorite road to ride in the city.

Well I'll preface by acknowledging everyone has different standards for good biking streets: I feel most comfortable on Tryon St, or most other uptown streets (excluding the de facto drag strips like Graham, parts of 3rd/4th/College) because the roads are kinda tight, and a driver benefits from slower speeds as much as everyone else. I also love the portions of N Davidson St that do have significant development; it's intimate and cozy to be on.

On Queens Rd, with two GP car lanes in both directions, drivers generally treat it like nothing more than a very attractive thoroughfare when I'm riding or driving on it. There's a lot of weaving between lanes a'la Parkwood Ave in my experience. And since there are only a few real "destinations" per se, the SFH residential portions have drivers just trying to get through it as quickly as possible. I feel like Queens Rd is the perfect candidate for a protected bike lane, given its design, but since it's more affluent from the car days the residents wouldn't go for that, at least not for a few decades.
 

[ah59396]

Off topic from The Presley, I came across this article regarding the Northwood Ravin parcel on Stonewall.  I didn't see it posted and I found the statements from David Ravin to be, at the very least, encouraging.

http://www.bizjournals.com/charlotte/blog/real_estate/2015/12/ravin-market-will-reward-thoughtful-apartment.html

I'm not sure if he is just blowng hot air up our asses, which is certainly possible.  But it's nice to see this kind of statement directly from developers.  Hopefully they stand by their word.

[jednc]

1 hour ago, ah59396 said:

Off topic from The Presley, I came across this article regarding the Northwood Ravin parcel on Stonewall.  I didn't see it posted and I found the statements from David Ravin to be, at the very least, encouraging.

http://www.bizjournals.com/charlotte/blog/real_estate/2015/12/ravin-market-will-reward-thoughtful-apartment.html

I'm not sure if he is just blowng hot air up our asses, which is certainly possible.  But it's nice to see this kind of statement directly from developers.  Hopefully they stand by their word.

I think he's definitely saying all the right things and I would tend to believe him. I don't think he has anything to gain by saying one thing and then doing another when (let's be honest here) he could say nothing and they would be allowed to pretty much develop anything they wanted. I say the company is planning what they think will be better than what we're getting so much of now. Whether or not we like their version of "better quality" I guess remains to be seen but I think we should be optimistic.

[Spartan]

On 12/30/2015 at 4:07 PM, Jayvee said:

Between a heavily decorated front wall, public sculpture garden, resident overlook to engage the walkers, an active resident lobby, front doors to a sidewalk lawn, and retail space in the future what else could you possibly want? 

Also this isn't a very pedestrian friendly area. Even when the rest of stonewall is built out its not like people will walk by this site and go "man I wish there was some more activation of this building. A sculpture garden, retail, front porches and a waterfall is just not enough!"

So, I think the issue here is a misunderstanding of concept. I'm not saying that the features you're describing aren't pedestrian friendly. They absolutely are. The developers are building wide sidewalks, planting strips that can have large-maturing trees and provide a horizontal and vertical separation from traffic, and the building materials (even the waterfall) will make it a comfortable to exist as a pedestrian. They are doing all of that because they have to. It's a zoning requirement.

The key concept though is that being pedestrian friendly can be achieved without creating a great place. That is the distinction I keep trying to make. Regardless of my opinions of modern architecture and material selection, the success and/or failure of creating a good urban place hinges on the ability of development projects to create places that generate pedestrian activity.

 

On 12/30/2015 at 4:40 PM, AirNostrumMAD said:

As usual, it's better than nothing. It doesn't make it good. Its tolerable at best. It's just simply better than nothing. 

I'm not trying to pick on you AirNostrumMAD, but if I could wave my magic wand and change anything in Charlotte it would be this attitude. I feel like a lot of us settle for 'its better than nothing' when in reality it CAN be better. A lot better. We need to hold ourselves to a higher standard.

 

On 12/30/2015 at 4:48 PM, Jayvee said:

Those 2 links Spartan put there, those 2 projects have stoops....big whoop. As a pedestrian, I really couldn't care less about a stoop that no one utilizes. This area of Stonewall is never going to feel like a quiet neighborhood. Now as a pedestrian walking from Target or Whole Foods, if I walk by a tiny public park or a cool waterfall feature....thats WAY better than a never used stoop.

This is essentially the core concept behind our disagreement (probably on this topic and all of our other disagreements). It's true that most people won't care about stoops. They aren't something that people stop and look at - and that's not the point. Good urban design isn't solely about 'stuff to look at' along a street. It's about how it looks, how it functions, and what these things subtly communicate. It's part of the idea of 'creating a sense of place' that makes a city feel like a city.

For starters, let's clarify a couple of urban design concepts. A 'blank wall' is a term that a lot of people use around here, but probably inconsistently. A blank wall can be literal (ie: the College St side of the Omni), but it is more often just a significant portion of a façade that doesn't have any 'active' features - the most important being doors and windows. Doors and windows are the most important things because it subconsciously communicates the idea that 'people are supposed to be here.' (This is why fake doors and fake windows are installed on walls that can't have an actual active use - like the side window of a store in a mall or along a street).

How its designed depends on the context. Commercial tends to have more glass so you can see in. Residential usually has a bit of a setback for the front door and a stoop of some sort (the stoop being key to residential entrances that 'feel' right). In each case these things work together to create 'eyes on the street' which, in turn, help make a place more comfortable for pedestrians by creating a sense of common security (the idea that people could be looking out on the street and checking out whats going on). Residential entrances are key in the absence of retail because everything can't be retail (there are many reasons for this). Stoops, in turn, are a visual que that you're in a residential area. Residential areas have people living there, and thus tend to generate pedestrian traffic. People CAN use their front doors, and if the city is well designed, they will gladly use their front door over their garage door. This is the key reason why a city like Charleston or Boston feels so much more walkable than Charlotte.

It's not that people walking by think about these things. It's entirely subconscious and psychological in nature (and academics have spent a lot of time researching this subject to prove these points). Additionally, having a stoop (or stoops) in and of itself isn't the solution, but if all of the buildings along McDowell and Stonewall had them it would make a huge impact. It would create a more vibrant feel to the city. 

 

On 12/31/2015 at 8:32 PM, CLT2014 said:

Yeah, nobody is going to pay the same amount of rent to have a ground level unit facing Stonewall. Honestly, outdoor space at most of this complex will probably be loud. It is an awkward lot, not walkable to anything desirable, and got an awkward building designed to buffer the interstate. Fairly long walk to work in the middle of the summer too for workers in the city center. You'll be dripping in sweat. A lot of Uptown workers would probably prefer to be a short walk from a light rail stop and ride in the A/C from other neighborhoods.

I think that the desirability of a ground floor unit depends on how it's designed. The units on the ground floor of the apartments at 3rd/Kings are a bad example of ground-floor design, so if that's what had been installed then I would agree 100% with your comment.

As for the walk? I fully expect people will make that walk. It's not a particularly pleasant walk - but people park outside of uptown and walk in all the time. Especially in South End.

 

On 12/31/2015 at 9:03 AM, Jayvee said:

No one pitched it to me. I just walked around and saw it formyself. But again no one is giving me what COULD have been. Done instead. What could have been done so that all of you would go "wow great" because it seems like there's nothing on earth that could be done to satisfy you.  there's retail to use in the future. A buffer between side walk and cars zooming down stonewall. There's a pocket park. What else do you want?

The park could be nice. I'll give you that- though I'll hold my opinion on the park until I see the final product.

IMO, the park could have been substituted by a plaza, it would have a retail spot on the ground floor on the corner. It would be lined with a few apartments on the ground floor - ideally designed like the links I posted a few pages back using 3030 South as a template. Obviously the product is much denser than 3030 South, so they would need to find another way to incorporate the ideas. 

I agree that the end product that we are getting will probably be attractive, and pedestrian friendly. I just think that it won't do all that it could to make Charlotte a better city. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[go_vertical]

So I drove by the Presley today for the first time in a month or so and while I think the quality is decent I'm just not impressed with the touted wall. Yes, the waterfall will sound soothing to passersby, but is anyone really going to care about what is still a blank wall? I know all of us have varying opinions on what contributes to the urban environment in a positive way but IMO this thing doesn't quite cut it. It's just......eh. This project really could be picked up and plopped down in Southpark and it would fit better aesthetically. In fact it would look rather nice next to the other overdone water feature on Barclay Downs across from Symphony Park. 

A perfect example to Spartan's comment about fake windows is the HOF. Those hideous window boxes on Stonewall are soul draining.

And one last thing. I feel that stoops are an important component to urban residential units. Without it you would be walking directly onto a probably busy sidewalk that is attached to a well used street. The utilization of the stoop gives ground floor residents that much desired elevation separation so that whenever you look out your front window you don't have strangers looking right back at you. Also, that little set of steps is your tiny front yard. You can sit there without anyone hassling you (ideally) and enjoy your street, your block.

[Spartan]

Point of clarification - I am saying that fake windows are good in many instances. The HOF site is bad because there is no retail component to support it.

[go_vertical]

Gotcha, misunderstood what you were saying there. I really do hate that entire wall on the HOF though. It just really gets under my skin when it is painfully obvious that a developer went with the absolute bare minimum option on such a visible spot.

[ScottCLT]

I have to say that when I lived at Fifth and Poplar, hanging out on my first floor stoop was fun. People-watching on Friday and Saturday nights when we weren't joining in the lunacy ourselves, enjoying a glass of wine (OK, for me, it was bourbon) on any night, or just hanging on the front porch/stoop/whatever on an afternoon was enjoyable. It might not make it any better for the pedestrians, but if you live on the first floor and don't have a  balcony, it's your only little outdoor spot. I honestly don't think I would have traded it for a balcony on a higher level.

[jednc]

On 12/31/2015 at 5:15 PM, ah59396 said:

 

21 hours ago, Spartan said:

So, I think the issue here is a misunderstanding of concept. I'm not saying that the features you're describing aren't pedestrian friendly. They absolutely are. The developers are building wide sidewalks, planting strips that can have large-maturing trees and provide a horizontal and vertical separation from traffic, and the building materials (even the waterfall) will make it a comfortable to exist as a pedestrian. They are doing all of that because they have to. It's a zoning requirement.

The key concept though is that being pedestrian friendly can be achieved without creating a great place. That is the distinction I keep trying to make. Regardless of my opinions of modern architecture and material selection, the success and/or failure of creating a good urban place hinges on the ability of development projects to create places that generate pedestrian activity.

 

I'm not trying to pick on you AirNostrumMAD, but if I could wave my magic wand and change anything in Charlotte it would be this attitude. I feel like a lot of us settle for 'its better than nothing' when in reality it CAN be better. A lot better. We need to hold ourselves to a higher standard.

 

This is essentially the core concept behind our disagreement (probably on this topic and all of our other disagreements). It's true that most people won't care about stoops. They aren't something that people stop and look at - and that's not the point. Good urban design isn't solely about 'stuff to look at' along a street. It's about how it looks, how it functions, and what these things subtly communicate. It's part of the idea of 'creating a sense of place' that makes a city feel like a city.

For starters, let's clarify a couple of urban design concepts. A 'blank wall' is a term that a lot of people use around here, but probably inconsistently. A blank wall can be literal (ie: the College St side of the Omni), but it is more often just a significant portion of a façade that doesn't have any 'active' features - the most important being doors and windows. Doors and windows are the most important things because it subconsciously communicates the idea that 'people are supposed to be here.' (This is why fake doors and fake windows are installed on walls that can't have an actual active use - like the side window of a store in a mall or along a street).

How its designed depends on the context. Commercial tends to have more glass so you can see in. Residential usually has a bit of a setback for the front door and a stoop of some sort (the stoop being key to residential entrances that 'feel' right). In each case these things work together to create 'eyes on the street' which, in turn, help make a place more comfortable for pedestrians by creating a sense of common security (the idea that people could be looking out on the street and checking out whats going on). Residential entrances are key in the absence of retail because everything can't be retail (there are many reasons for this). Stoops, in turn, are a visual que that you're in a residential area. Residential areas have people living there, and thus tend to generate pedestrian traffic. People CAN use their front doors, and if the city is well designed, they will gladly use their front door over their garage door. This is the key reason why a city like Charleston or Boston feels so much more walkable than Charlotte.

It's not that people walking by think about these things. It's entirely subconscious and psychological in nature (and academics have spent a lot of time researching this subject to prove these points). Additionally, having a stoop (or stoops) in and of itself isn't the solution, but if all of the buildings along McDowell and Stonewall had them it would make a huge impact. It would create a more vibrant feel to the city. 

 

I think that the desirability of a ground floor unit depends on how it's designed. The units on the ground floor of the apartments at 3rd/Kings are a bad example of ground-floor design, so if that's what had been installed then I would agree 100% with your comment.

As for the walk? I fully expect people will make that walk. It's not a particularly pleasant walk - but people park outside of uptown and walk in all the time. Especially in South End.

 

The park could be nice. I'll give you that- though I'll hold my opinion on the park until I see the final product.

IMO, the park could have been substituted by a plaza, it would have a retail spot on the ground floor on the corner. It would be lined with a few apartments on the ground floor - ideally designed like the links I posted a few pages back using 3030 South as a template. Obviously the product is much denser than 3030 South, so they would need to find another way to incorporate the ideas. 

I agree that the end product that we are getting will probably be attractive, and pedestrian friendly. I just think that it won't do all that it could to make Charlotte a better city. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

13

This is what I meant when I was talking about having something to SAY vs a D.A. comment like "BOOM". This is clearly written by someone who understands the concepts that Urban Planet exists to promote and discuss. The points are well made and make sense. Well done.

Clearly when we talk about whether or not this project will add to the on-street experience, no one is talking about giving pedestrians something to look at as they pass by. It would be much better to have ground level entrances to apartments that are at street-level (a stoop) than a giant wall with a waterfall on it. And, it's ludicrous to even suggest that people up on the pool deck are going to "interact" with anyone at street level by looking over a wall.

[Guest]

Doing a little side project, and I wanted to share this map I created for the project. Hope you guys enjoy.

[DMann]

Love it!

[Rufus]

Am I the only one upset about some of the heights of these projects?  I know height isn't everything, but when developers like Northwood Ravin and Proffitt Dixon say 6-8 stories, I'm not necessarily encouraged.  I would much rather see something between 10-15 stories on some of these lots.  

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Rufus said:

Am I the only one upset about some of the heights of these projects?  I know height isn't everything, but when developers like Northwood Ravin and Proffitt Dixon say 6-8 stories, I'm not necessarily encouraged.  I would much rather see something between 10-15 stories on some of these lots.  

I actually don't mind most of it. As long as the heights are good around Tryon, Church and College. Keep in mind, this is stepping down into Southend, which will eventually start filling up with buildings in the 10-20 floor range. The skyline is going to stay pretty linear whether we like it or not, just based on the land prices of the land.

In the end, because of the purchase price of the land, ($13M) I suspect Northwood Ravin will end up being more like 10-12 floors, the size of the Ashton South End.  

[go_vertical]

Does anyone think that in a couple years when all of these projects are open or near completion we might see increased interest in some of the parcels across Stonewall? I would love to see something rise on the lot directly on front of the Hilton Garden Inn. That is not a pretty building to stare at when crossing 277 on South Blvd.

[kermit]

2 hours ago, ricky_davis_fan_21 said:

Doing a little side project, and I wanted to share this map I created for the project. Hope you guys enjoy.

1) Thanks! This is groovy

2) At the risk of repeating myself I'll say that it is truly a crime that the city does not have a document which sketches out what a 277 cap would look like if funding magically appeared for it. None of these projects will be built in a way that would address the cap if it existed = huge wasted opportunity.

[15895]

I love the heights. We have decent height. We need more density

[Guest]

Just wanted to share my little side project.

http://www.charlottefive.com/development-along-stonewall-is-great-and-all-but-what-about-the-pedestrians/?utm_content=buffer2d8d1&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

 

[Deleted.]

3 minutes ago, ricky_davis_fan_21 said:

Just wanted to share my little side project.

http://www.charlottefive.com/development-along-stonewall-is-great-and-all-but-what-about-the-pedestrians/?utm_content=buffer2d8d1&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

 

I wondered if that was you! Good know you're doing some little projects!

[carolinaboy]

On 1/7/2016 at 0:22 PM, ricky_davis_fan_21 said:

Doing a little side project, and I wanted to share this map I created for the project. Hope you guys enjoy.

FYI, misspelled "County".