SouthEnd High-Rise Projects

[QCxpat]

Today 10:30 a.m. - The Campbell, working on the 9th floor of the 12-story residential tower, with 117 apt. units

Edited September 27, 2023 by QCxpat

[Guest]

On 9/25/2023 at 12:20 PM, Reverie39 said:

This is excellent. So ridiculously impressive. Although, every time I see something like this I can't help but think about how odd the weird triangle of low-density SFH jutting out in the middle is (roughly bordered on two sides by Tryon and Summit Ave). It looks like it has basically bottlenecked the density in South End, narrowing it down to a very skinny width of just a few blocks around the intersection of Park and Camden. I wish we could somehow be developing into that space, but I understand that the people living there will not be fans. Sad.

Also, as someone else said, I wish 77 ran right alongside all this. I know freeways aren't great in urban centers but the view would have been so cool, extending for miles.

Sometimes I read posts like this and wonder if people want to live in Charlotte or just a whole new city. That “weird triangle” is Wilmore, a historic district and historically black neighborhood. I don’t see anyone complaining about Dilworth

Edited September 26, 2023 by Guest

[L.A.native]

20 minutes ago, MothBeast said:

Sometimes I read posts like this and wonder if people want to live in Charlotte or just a whole new city. That “weird triangle” is Wilmore, a historic district and historically black neighborhood. I don’t see anyone complaining about Dilworth

Couldn't have said it better. Not every corner of this city should be tore down and replaced with overpriced, cookie cutter townhouses and apartments. Utopia is what Charlotte is becoming with its gentrification and out pricing the natives.

[15895]

1 hour ago, MothBeast said:

Sometimes I read posts like this and wonder if people want to live in Charlotte or just a whole new city. That “weird triangle” is Wilmore, a historic district and historically black neighborhood. I don’t see anyone complaining about Dilworth

I think it’s because Wilmore noticeably hits into SouthEnd more. It seems less developed than Dilworth too. But at least people talk about Wilmore. People act like the majority of inner neighborhoods don’t even exist so. At least there’s that. 

On the other hand, you have a huge base of NIMBY’s who set themselves on fire over everything and block project after project outside a couple areas. In 1 day they killed Greyhound from temporarily operating out of the light rail parking deck in UC…

I also have a hard time with “historic” stuff in Charlotte because of all the actual historic stuff torn down of significance… uptown and SouthEnd had quite the bulldozers over some actual and significant historical structures... I just feel like it’s a tool used by NIMBY’s (in a lot of places) to block projects than out of actual care about historical preservation. 
 

Lastly. I read post (not your post) and wonder if people care about Charlotte or not because in my opinion, to be involved in civics… you participate. You advocate. To me it’s good to have vision, to push for whatever changes you want to see. Some posts I see, it’s cheerleaders with bad statistics. 
 

I think the optics for people who are pro-urban in Charlotte are in such a minority (even seemingly compared to other similarly sized cities) of overall Charlotteans, it can make people come across as naggy, hyper critical, pie-in-the-sky opinions and naive. 

I think you can love living in Charlotte and advocate for increased density in even Wilmore. There are A LOT of empty lots, crack head convenient stores, terrible drive-thru’s… I mean. Also I want to point out, for all these “historical” areas in town… they sure have no problem knocking down the historical homes and replacing them with brand new homes that do NOT match the character of the neighborhood and are worth way more money and keep supply so low you have to have $1M to live intown…. 

These things are replacing houses all over NoDa, Belmont (Charlotte), Plaza etc. where’s the outrage of historic neighborhoods…. Let’s be real. Most of the historical houses… are gonna be demolished for new much larger more expensive modern homes…. (The below is NoDa)

Maybe instead of those single family homes, build these if people want that look and still want density at a calmer scale.

 

Meanwhile, I was very against losing these buildings/structures we’ve lost recently (which is why I roll my eyes at “historical” while they tear down all the historical homes in their historical neighborhoods and fine the below - it’s just a nimby weapon)

 

 

(^ all the buildings that were a staple of SouthEnd and entering in on Camden.)

The Library was recently torn down, that one building that had all the birth certificates was torn down this week. Though I personally don’t care about those. 

Additionally they wanted/want to tear down Marshall Park even though it was like on every science textbook growing up and is such a staple. + these were supposed to come down by a previous developer who stated they were going to tear them down and I assume are likely to go down. 

 

Wilmore has space. They’re tearing down historical homes left and right anyway. I can’t blame them for not wanting SouthEnd style apartments in their hood, I wouldn’t either, but there’s room for more density in Wilmore. I know we have Wilmore posters who will bite my head off but. It’s true about Wilmore. It’s true in almost all wealthier low dense areas of every city. 

Edited September 27, 2023 by AirNostrumMAD

[ertley]

Not to pile on, but I personally think it's fantastic that, as you drive up or down South Tryon, there's such stark demarcation between the two sides of the street in the Wilmore area. I love it. I very much hope that those houses on South Tryon don't get torn down for multi-family or mixed use, no matter how small in size or scale. IMHO it's just great that--at least for now--a true, old school neighborhood can come face to face with modernity, and coexist. I know that several of those houses on one block are owned by one individual, and I just hope they're not being valued or evaluated for their future development returns. 

Anyway, it's a fundamental principle of mine that it's CONTRASTS which make design of any sort striking. I personally want as much old stuff preserved as possible, because it provides contrast with the new, most of which isn't spectacularly designed or inherently interesting--there are notable exceptions, which is how it has always been--and so continuous blocks of it is stultifying.   

[CLT Development]

It'd be nice for people to not automatically look for coded language in the "weird triangle" comment. The fact is South End has a strange urban bottleneck created by both Dilworth and Wilmore as Tryon and South End converge. It's weird because it's unique, I can't think of any other urban district in the country that at its narrowest point has only about two blocks between single-family districts, that'll contain 30-floor buildings in the coming years. As far as land being acquired for development within Wilmore Historic District goes, most of the land along South Tryon does not fall within this historic district, with only one parcel landing on Tryon. 

[15895]

9 hours ago, ertley said:

Not to pile on, but I personally think it's fantastic that, as you drive up or down South Tryon, there's such stark demarcation between the two sides of the street in the Wilmore area. I love it. I very much hope that those houses on South Tryon don't get torn down for multi-family or mixed use, no matter how small in size or scale. IMHO it's just great that--at least for now--a true, old school neighborhood can come face to face with modernity, and coexist. I know that several of those houses on one block are owned by one individual, and I just hope they're not being valued or evaluated for their future development returns. 

Anyway, it's a fundamental principle of mine that it's CONTRASTS which make design of any sort striking. I personally want as much old stuff preserved as possible, because it provides contrast with the new, most of which isn't spectacularly designed or inherently interesting--there are notable exceptions, which is how it has always been--and so continuous blocks of it is stultifying.   

That’s not a pile on. It’s just your opinion which you’re entitled to & makes things interesting to hear perspectives. 

I personally am very much a big fan of preservation and the contrast, saving historical facades at least, structural density, developments having a human scale street level base with a different facade from the tower and matching the vibe of the ‘hood so I actually completely agree with you on that. 

I personally just think “historical-ness” is more broadly being used as a tool for NIMBY’s to not only keep people out but push people out (the actual historical smaller homes going down for those new builds replacing long time residents). If it was legit out of historical charm, that’d be alright but it just doesnt seem like it most of the time outside of SouthEnd & Uptown. I almost feel like a contrarian because usually the roles are reversed and I’m the one who is concerned with historic preservation & others acting like Miley Cyrus on a wrecking ball, lol. But I think I’m consistent in my reasonings. 

But I agree with CLT Dev. It glares out on the map and I just think it’s natural for your eyes to be drawn there & the poster didn’t mean much beyond that. 

[atlrvr]

My mind immediately thinks Beverly Hills and it's "Golden Triangle"....I'm ok with Charlotte and it's "South End Weird Triangle" though....

As far as Wilmore history.  The idea that it's a "historically black neighborhood" certainly is a short dated view of Charlotte history.  Tom Hanchett provides a more accurate account.

http://ww.charmeck.org/Planning/Land Use Planning/Wilmore.pdf

 

Golden Triangle for "urban wedge" comparison on steroids.

[Reverie39]

16 hours ago, MothBeast said:

Sometimes I read posts like this and wonder if people want to live in Charlotte or just a whole new city. That “weird triangle” is Wilmore, a historic district and historically black neighborhood. I don’t see anyone complaining about Dilworth

My comment was purely geographical - the triangle is "weird" because, as can be seen on a map, it constrains a dense urban core to a width of literally two blocks in a rather striking way. Sure, Dilworth is on the other side, and I'd love for South End to expand in both directions. But this neighborhood just sticks out a lot, that's all I'm saying. I agree with @CLT Development's comment above.

I don't want us to get rid of historic districts or black neighborhoods. I just lament the fact that somehow in other cities, historic districts and black neighborhoods seem to fit their urban landscapes a lot better than Wilmore does. 

[Guest]

Didn’t mean to imply you were using coded language. I only mentioned its status as a historically (yes not always, I’ve read his book and spoken to Hanchett several times) black neighborhood to accentuate its uniqueness and value. I won’t make any assumptions of your intentions, but posts like yours and many others to me almost frame Charlotte as nothing more than a blank canvas to be painted with newer taller buildings. Wilmore is admittedly a massive barrier to the corridor of density blooming in South End, but Wilmore was there first and I think most people ignored it until it got “in the way” of the new and tall. Dilworth has the same restrictions but people know about it because they shopped on East or drove around to look at the Victorians. I rarely see people complain about the historic district status in that neighborhood despite it having similar effects on development because its homes admittedly have more aesthetic value. But Wilmore has very similar zoning restrictions as Dilworth, historically the difference has been the market. Now there is a demand and we should all expect higher density projects in the neighborhood especially along Tryon, Mint and Summit. This should help it fit more into the urban fabric as you say. But even with all that density there will still be a weird triangle. I support density but I also don’t want to lose the old Charlotte. A lot of the appeal of Wilmore is the winding hilly streets and greenery, not the rundown homes, many of which aren’t even pre WWII. As long as that remains it will be a weird triangle. A very weird triangle, but again it came first and no one knew Charlotte would be this big in the early 1900s when the neighborhood was planned. Again, no assumptions about you, I just feel like a lot of posters here are a bit removed from the place of Charlotte itself based on their posts and how they talk about the city and places full of real people.

Edit: your bit about wanting 77 to run through Wilmore so that people driving through/past the city get a good view of the big and tall further speaks to my concern. It seems like you’re just cutting and pasting entire neighborhoods in your brain like people don’t live in them. Reminds me of urban renewal in the 50s

Edited September 28, 2023 by Guest

[Nathan2]

16 hours ago, MothBeast said:

Didn’t mean to imply you were using coded language. I only mentioned its status as a historically (yes not always, I’ve read his book and spoken to Hanchett several times) black neighborhood to accentuate its uniqueness and value. I won’t make any assumptions of your intentions, but posts like yours and many others to me almost frame Charlotte as nothing more than a blank canvas to be painted with newer taller buildings. Wilmore is admittedly a massive barrier to the corridor of density blooming in South End, but Wilmore was there first and I think most people ignored it until it got “in the way” of the new and tall. Dilworth has the same restrictions but people know about it because they shopped on East or drove around to look at the Victorians. I rarely see people complain about the historic district status in that neighborhood despite it having similar effects on development because its homes admittedly have more aesthetic value. But Wilmore has very similar zoning restrictions as Dilworth, historically the difference has been the market. Now there is a demand and we should all expect higher density projects in the neighborhood especially along Tryon, Mint and Summit. This should help it fit more into the urban fabric as you say. But even with all that density there will still be a weird triangle. I support density but I also don’t want to lose the old Charlotte. A lot of the appeal of Wilmore is the winding hilly streets and greenery, not the rundown homes, many of which aren’t even pre WWII. As long as that remains it will be a weird triangle. A very weird triangle, but again it came first and no one knew Charlotte would be this big in the early 1900s when the neighborhood was planned. Again, no assumptions about you, I just feel like a lot of posters here are a bit removed from the place of Charlotte itself based on their posts and how they talk about the city and places full of real people.

Edit: your bit about wanting 77 to run through Wilmore so that people driving through/past the city get a good view of the big and tall further speaks to my concern. It seems like you’re just cutting and pasting entire neighborhoods in your brain like people don’t live in them. Reminds me of urban renewal in the 50s

It's one thing wanting to retain the uniqueness and charm of a neighborhood but it's another to expect that neighborhood to be frozen in time. You can have change and the existing uniqueness and charm, but the city needs to do a much better job of pushing better development that can coexist with its surroundings while still providing the needs of today's Charlotte. The problem with wanting to essentially "freeze' a neighborhood in time is that the neighborhood becomes exclusive to no one else except the wealthiest of the city, it's selfish. I hear this sentiment all over Charlotte and I see it in places like Plaza and Noda and it's frankly disgusting. I think people forget that there are real people who would love to afford a home but can't because of neighbors' unjust power to never allow change.  Why should the wealthiest be the only ones with access to green and walkable neighborhoods? Why should everyone else be forced to move out of the city purely because a few people want the existing neighborhood to stay the same? This form of preservation doesn't work as some have described and many of us have seen in the form of large modern homes taking the place of the homes with so-called "Character". So everyone can take your pick of what you want, homes for everyone, or "Character" for a few. 

Edited September 28, 2023 by Nathan2

[Genesis704]

Beautiful day.  Also hello I’m new here, just moved to Charlotte from GSO about 6 months ago so here is my first contribution, cheers.

[kermit]

On the Wilmore Triangle (the portion of Wilmore that is east of Mint):

I'll point out that 'gentle density', (like we are seeing come up now on the Dilworth side of South blvd) hasn’t really jumped over Tryon in this area yet. I am not sure I see a need to completely transform landuse in  the triangle and I think it will feel very different when higher density arrives to this side of the street (all of the Tryon frontage is already zoned TOD-NC). This thpe of density is inevitably going to start to emerge along Mint as well.

I do agree with the sentiment that, in a high growth city like Charlotte, no neighborhood should be allowed to pull up the drawbridge. Folks in the triangle, Wilmore, Dilworth and Piper Glenn, and Quail Hollow (among other places) all need to expect higher residential densities.  

Edited September 29, 2023 by kermit

[Guest]

Now I want to just start calling Wilmore the “triangle” lol. Didn’t mean to divert discussion to the neighborhood, my point was much more about the way some people talk about Charlotte in a detached manner. I’m all about density but don’t see a reason to bulldoze Wilmore just yet when the market hasn’t even kicked off for what is already allowed and there is still so much room for growth in areas of center city with no current residential population. And anything less than bulldozing the entire neighborhood won’t address its comparative weirdness in shape and land use. I’d be happy to discuss the merits of its historic district status in the Wilmore thread, I’ll hop over there now. 

Edited September 28, 2023 by Guest

[Matthew.Brendan]

16 hours ago, Genesis704 said:

Beautiful day.  Also hello I’m new here, just moved to Charlotte from GSO about 6 months ago so here is my first contribution, cheers.

Nice view!

[DMann]

Welcome Genesis704!

[kermit]

A couple of afternoon HopDrops has made me wistful about this fine 1988 era neighborhood monument. (Glad I could share my commute home across 4 different UP threads. Thanks for indulging me).

 

Edited October 19, 2023 by kermit

[Professor]

On 9/27/2023 at 11:51 AM, Reverie39 said:

My comment was purely geographical - the triangle is "weird" because, as can be seen on a map, it constrains a dense urban core to a width of literally two blocks in a rather striking way. Sure, Dilworth is on the other side, and I'd love for South End to expand in both directions. But this neighborhood just sticks out a lot, that's all I'm saying. I agree with @CLT Development's comment above.

I don't want us to get rid of historic districts or black neighborhoods. I just lament the fact that somehow in other cities, historic districts and black neighborhoods seem to fit their urban landscapes a lot better than Wilmore does. 

I lived in the apartments on West Blvd. across from Wilmore when I was young. Wilmore was predominately a working-class white neighborhood highly occupied by returning WWII veterans. It wasn't occupied by blacks until the mid to late 60s. Wouldn't that make it a "historic" white neighborhood if a label must be given?  Who gives a crap anyway? Times have changed. Anyone that can afford to live in Wilmore is allowed to do so.  I wonder if we will ever be able to label Thomasboro and Hoskins as "Historic" white neighborhoods? They were historically all white and occupied by poor white mill workers that lived in small "cracker" type houses? 

[Norm2]

6 minutes ago, Larry Singer said:

I lived in the apartments on West Blvd. across from Wilmore when I was young. Wilmore was predominately a working-class white neighborhood highly occupied by returning WWII veterans. It wasn't occupied by blacks until the mid to late 60s. Wouldn't that make it a "historic" white neighborhood if a label must be given?  Who gives a crap anyway? Times have changed. Anyone that can afford to live in Wilmore is allowed to do so.  I wonder if we will ever be able to label Thomasboro and Hoskins as "Historic" white neighborhoods? They were historically all white and occupied by poor white mill workers that lived in small "cracker" type houses? 

Those neighborhoods would only be called historic neighborhoods, not historic white neighborhoods.

[Professor]

27 minutes ago, norm21499 said:

Those neighborhoods would only be called historic neighborhoods, not historic white neighborhoods.

If that's the case, why are black neighborhoods called historic "black" neighborhoods and many of their schools referred to as "Black" historic schools? Why is one group allowed to have a label and not the other?  I agree that they all should simply be called historic neighborhoods. 

Edited October 20, 2023 by Larry Singer

[Synopsis101]

33 minutes ago, Larry Singer said:

If that's the case, why are black neighborhoods called historic "black" neighborhoods and many of their schools referred to as "Black" historic schools? Why is one group allowed to have a label and not the other?  I agree that they all should simply be called historic neighborhoods. 

Label them historic white neighborhoods if you want.

[15895]

2 hours ago, Larry Singer said:

If that's the case, why are black neighborhoods called historic "black" neighborhoods and many of their schools referred to as "Black" historic schools? Why is one group allowed to have a label and not the other?  I agree that they all should simply be called historic neighborhoods. 

The same reason we call “Senior Housing” senior housing but we don’t have a name for housing that isn’t not senior housing. 

The same reason we have “affordable housing” but we don’t have a name for housing that isn’t affordable housing. Technically “market rate” but the layman doesn’t go around saying “I think I want a market rate House” 

The same reason we call certain areas “Blue collar” and we focus on “Main Street America”, the “little guy” and focus on their “dinner table” problems. 

The same reason people specify a farming community or area full of farmers but we don’t say “non-farming” areas.

There are peculiarities, social and economic circumstances surrounding these communities. That’s why you see some government officials standing up to Amazon or the big banks and their woke corporate Wall Street bankers in favor of small business owners who are struggling against big box retailers. They can affect the folks in WV where the coal mines left, farmers that are finding it harder to compete with international trade. When you pass laws, you affect people. That’s true for everyone. Would you like a Walmart built IN your neighborhood? Think about all the jobs or could bring, more shopping, lower food prices. But you might not want it because of traffic, your land value, etc. You have to put things in perspective. 

Why do we care about stuff being made in America? Corporate profits could go up if we just had free trade across the board. Prices could be cheaper. Lots of benefits. But people are against it because it could hurt many “working” Americans (which it’s worth noting there’s no “non-working class” people either). Laws can’t just be written Willy nilly without appreciating the impact to the broader society or the people they affect. 

Ironically, you’re looking at it from purely a race stand point and ignoring the broader context, history and challenges/opportunities of these neighborhoods.  

Edited October 20, 2023 by AirNostrumMAD

[KJHburg]

Southend high rises today. 

[atlrvr]

*** I removed the post above due to personal attack ***

The topic debate is (at best) for the Coffee House at this point.  Let's try to roll this back to actual South End high-rise discussions.  

[Synopsis101]

Blacks were not allowed to attend predominantly white universities, hence the need to create historically black colleges and universities. Some people need to know this.