The River District

[Professor]

19 hours ago, tozmervo said:

You're also setting a very low bar for walkability. I mean I sure as hell wouldn't want to walk on a narrow sidewalk jammed up against Sharon Road. 

Cornelius Elementary has a ton of walkers. It's safely accessible from multiple directions on pleasant, low-speed neighborhood roads. This isn't rocket science, we're just so used to car-oriented design it's hard to see just how bad it is. That River District school could instantly be improved by just eliminating that hundreds-of-feet long driveway that adds meaningful time for walking. 

The only issue I see in Cornelius is at the I-77 bridge pedestrian walkways crossing over the highway.  That walkway is confusing with the placement of the zebra crossings insanely configured and that stupid "merging diamond" monstrosity system of construction. I walk a lot and I am particularly careful to not drink too many if I have to walk across the bridge.  Other than that, Cornelius is a very walkable town. 

[CLTranspo]

3 hours ago, J-Rob said:

there are competing push-backs here. Some think the development is too suburban and some people think it is an ecological disaster.

Honestly I think these two issues go hand-in-hand? The more suburban and sprawled a development is, the more land it consumes/trees it tears down/runoff it creates/natural habitat it destroys. Versus the more urban, compact, and dense a development is, the *less* land it will require or consume. 

[kermit]

I know this is completely unrealistic but the urge to rant has moved me…

IMO Mecklenburg needs to shut the door on any new large scale single family development. Let it go to surrounding counties and let them deal with the fiscal difficulties associated with sprawl (see Houston’s pending bankruptcy).

Instead we should be building suburban nodes of medium density which can be served by transit. While many of y’all will laugh at this suggestion, we all know that every new medium density unit would sell/rent quickly and would probably generate a higher ROI for the developer. As a bonus the new housing will generate enough property tax revenue to make it worthwhile to provide municipal services to.

Every new SFH in an urban area (no matter how much green space) is climate arson. Let it go elsewhere.  Implement a congestion fee on commuters to fund transit (it’s not a tax, it’s just a partial  recovery of the costs imposed by people who make the choice to drive)
/rant/

Edited March 29 by kermit

[Blakcatfan]

I think  about this quite a bit, and am very curious to  hear from folks that know more about this than I do.  It appears to me that my scenario below is natural progression of cities, (and is already beginning to happen), and the proposed policy would help to speed up the process.  Maybe I play devil's advocate too much inside my own head, or just don't understand the bigger picture, but I've always imagined the scenario playing out like this.   If we eliminate new single family homes within the county borders,  lack of inventory would cause property values would rise, more single family properties would be are sold and replaced by denser development, more lack of inventory, more rise in value, repeat, etc.   Over time this would cause an exodus of wealthy individuals, who have no desire to live in a multi-family property?   Creating more sales of single family homes, meaning more multi-family development, and more upward pressure on home values.  Wealthy, property owning tax payers, would steadily be replaced by renters, who pay little to no property tax,  and likely spend less money on products, goods and services within the county (i.e. sales tax revenue).    Then, when a down turn occurs, there are no ties to the area for the renter, and they can just up and move to the next boom town.   I have no experience in city planning, just using Layman's logic based on things I've seen happen in other places.  Rising costs (property values and taxes) chases away the wealthy (who can afford to move elsewhere), the wealthy take the business with them.    

I know it's more complicated than this, and I'm not wanting to start a debate, I'm just looking to gain some knowledge., and respect the opinions of everyone on this site.  

[kermit]

On 3/28/2024 at 6:11 PM, Blakcatfan said:

…Over time this would cause an exodus of wealthy individuals, who have no desire to live in a multi-family property?   …

Wealthy, property owning tax payers, would steadily be replaced by renters, who pay little to no property tax, …

[not picking a fight, just sharing my perspective. I apologize that it is ungraceful] 

Have you been to Manhattan, the Gold Coast, Beacon Hill, Rittenhouse Square, Brickell, the Charleston Peninsula? That is LOTS (probably around 2 million) of VERY rich folks in multifamily. Hell, every character  in Succession lived in multifamily.  I am certainly not suggesting most rich folks live in multifamily, but a significant number choose to. [edit: London, Paris, Madrid, Berlin, Tokyo, Mexico City, Vancouver offer plenty more examples of hyper-wealthy multifamily options]

Renters probably pay more property tax per square foot than home owners. Just because it is bundled in rent does not mean they aren’t paying it. Multifamily residents are also much less expensive to provide municipal services to so net revenue to the city from renters is almost certainly higher than most SF.

The examples above show us that high costs don’t chase wealthy people away. IMO it is low amenity environments are the biggest wealth displacer. The most sure fire way to create unpleasant places is by focusing on keeping costs low. Mississippi has one of the lowest costs of living in the nation (and very little multifamily) -- I don’t see rich people flocking there in significant numbers.

Edited April 1 by kermit

[KJHburg]

some of things discussed on this thread are like this photo.

 

[Blakcatfan]

Kermit.  Thank you for your insight.

 

KJH Apologies for diverting the discussion off topic.

[MarcoPolo]

@Blakcatfan your question was excellent, not only in topic, but in how it was asked.  Well done, and please, feel free to divert more often!   

I've been loitering on this particular thread a while....reading everyone's observations, debating whether to add any thoughts.  @kermit weighed in with accurate feedback related to wealth and density, and provided helpful insights to the questions you raised.   I'll refrain from adding more with my typical treatise style of post........ (I know, I see everyone's eyes rolling,  !)   So, I'll focus instead back on the River District.  One point to make about this project pertains to both its site and situation.  Each would guide astute developers/designers/municipalities toward a different direction than the one taken.  

As a location for development much of the land is very challenged.  A quick glance at the topography and water courses underneath the plan, will provide you the reasoning behind its layout.  Development of any significance is most practical along the ridge lines between the many creek and stream ravines draining into the Catawba.    Therefore, the parti (planner speak for the hierarchical configuration of block and thoroughfare systems) for the River District is highly compromised in its ability to deliver a rational development, at any density level.  At high densities the disconnected ridge lines would choke on themselves mobility wise.   If one sought a solution using lower densities, it would achieve little added value to Charlotte and cost more to the developer than could be gained by its development.   The approved master plan sits between the high and low density options.

The plan has design intent, and place making elements, but as a comprehensive unit it more resembles spaghetti being thrown against a wall to see what sticks.  Certainly it is "developable" and the money behind it has settled on the program and density that will provide return, but is what is proposed the best use of the land, given its site and situation?   I would say no.  The further the plan heads west from I-485, the further it strays from opportunities to provide best practices in sustainable design, and place making.   The negative impacts of doing so will not be suffered immediately.   In fact, the project will be praised and may win a few awards in the short term.....however the negative impacts, or externalities, will be quite significant in the long term to this side of Charlotte.

One outcome certain is that either density scenario, including the one chosen,  will succeed in worsening traffic along the west side.  Few entry points...limited access.  With the river to the west and I-485 to the east, the entire thoroughfare system functions as a series of long cul-de-sacs feeding into a limited access highway and just a couple of city thoroughfares.   The ideal recipe for maximizing traffic congestion.    Another certainty involves the vulnerable Lake Wylie watershed it sits within.  Any development high or low in density will worsen water quality, even with the "buffers" and "tree saves" proposed.   Too close to the river.   Given these conditions most would assess the potential in a different light.   By most, I refer back to my earlier description of "astute developers/designers/municipalities.  

I'm not one to default to the mantra "make everything a park".    However, in this instance, given the importance of the river and its two lakes for the City's water resource, a strong case can be made that in this area of metropolitan Charlotte development should have been limited and open space (both passive and active), prioritized.   History will not look kindly on the River District.  

[JRCLT]

On 3/28/2024 at 10:15 AM, J-Rob said:

Maybe I am just being naive, but it seems like there are competing push-backs here. Some think the development is too suburban and some people think it is an ecological disaster. My naivety is giving the developer the benefit of the doubt their plan addresses these competing priorities with balance. Saving 550 acres in the manner they did inherently leads to fewer connecting roads. They were also working around the topography near the river and several parcels they don't control. Given that, developing a town center with residential to the west (near the river) and office to east (near the interstate) seems pretty strategic to me, and also allows for some level of walkability.

Are there better examples of master-planned communities that both create an urban, car-free environment, while also preserving 500 acres?

I mean… it’s a disaster no matter what you design…it's sprawl, plane and simple. The tree cut also could have been more selective and the community garden or whatever sounds like a good idea ideally but a Central Park or canopied plaza (in Birkdale as a crude example) would have been better. 

Edited March 30 by JRCLT