SouthEnd High-Rise Projects

[BJKM]

South End rising today 

[carolinaboy]

21 minutes ago, BJKM said:

South End rising today 

Great picture. Thanks.

[RANYC]

9 minutes ago, carolinaboy said:

Great picture. Thanks.

Thanks for these shots.  Admittedly, I do long for the day when all our urban shots are anchored by a compelling public amenity/civic square or asset filled with gathered residents and visitors and performance, and then that is surrounded by cranes and new construction and other signs of economic vitality.

[CLT Development]

37 minutes ago, RANYC said:

Thanks for these shots.  Admittedly, I do long for the day when all our urban shots are anchored by a compelling public amenity/civic square or asset filled with gathered residents and visitors and performance, and then that is surrounded by cranes and new construction and other signs of economic vitality.

Your best shot at a public amenity/civic square is in the foreground of this photo. CAP 277 and make it a park. Queensbridge Crossing will have an acre of outdoor space and the landscaping, hardscaping and placemaking in front of The Carson will be pretty neat.

Edited November 1, 2023 by CLT Development

[RANYC]

16 minutes ago, CLT Development said:

Your best shot at a public amenity/civic square is in the foreground of this photo. CAP 277 and make it a park. Queensbridge Crossing will have an acre of outdoor space and the landscaping, hardscaping and placemaking in front of The Carson will be pretty neat.

I can never tell when the "Cap 277" or "Make 277 a River" suggestions are to be taken seriously.  I've been reading posts and hearing murmurings about what to do with 277/The Belk since moving here 5 years ago, and it often feels like an inside joke that locals amuse themselves with and bond over but don't seriously advocate for in one direction or another.  It's this oblique allusion to the sins of the city's planning forefathers but an accepted feature and reality of the cityscape. 

The next big pot of money for local roadway assets/thoroughfares is the Transit Plan, but unclear to me if state assets are in scope for its spending.  Is a cap being contemplated as part of Transit Plan spending?

Edited November 1, 2023 by RANYC

[CLT Development]

6 minutes ago, RANYC said:

I can never tell when the "Cap 277" or "Make 277 a River" suggestions are to be taken seriously.  I've been reading posts and hearing murmurings about what to do with 277/The Belk since moving here 5 years ago, and it often feels like an inside joke that locals amuse themselves with and bond over but don't seriously advocate to change, or an oblique allusion.  The next big pot of money for local roadway assets/thoroughfares is the Transit Plan, but unclear to me if state assets are in scope for its spending.  Is a cap being contemplated as part of Transit Plan spending?

"#Make277aRiver" is both a joke and not a joke. It's really just a fun way to seed conversation about the highway's misuse of valuable land. There is interest and headwinds that exist, and there is support on council and within the city. If you assembled the undeveloped and under-developed land from Church to the new pedestrian bridge and put up retaining walls and landfilled the current highway berms you could open up enough land to create at least $2.5-3B in development plus a 5-6 acre linear park over the highway's current footprint. This would immediately erase the blurred line between Uptown and South End.

Edited November 1, 2023 by CLT Development

[Reverie39]

17 minutes ago, RANYC said:

I can never tell when the "Cap 277" or "Make 277 a River" suggestions are to be taken seriously.  I've been reading posts and hearing murmurings about what to do with 277/The Belk since moving here 5 years ago, and it often feels like an inside joke that locals amuse themselves with and bond over but don't seriously advocate for in one direction or another.  It's this oblique allusion to the sins of the city's planning forefathers but an accepted feature and reality of the cityscape. 

The next big pot of money for local roadway assets/thoroughfares is the Transit Plan, but unclear to me if state assets are in scope for its spending.  Is a cap being contemplated as part of Transit Plan spending?

The river thing is definitely a joke, but I think capping a few blocks of 277 is a very serious idea that a lot of people support

[kermit]

48 minutes ago, RANYC said:

I can never tell when the "Cap 277" or "Make 277 a River" suggestions are to be taken seriously.  I've been reading posts and hearing murmurings about what to do with 277/The Belk since moving here 5 years ago, and it often feels like an inside joke that locals amuse themselves with and bond over but don't seriously advocate for in one direction or another.  It's this oblique allusion to the sins of the city's planning forefathers but an accepted feature and reality of the cityscape. 

The next big pot of money for local roadway assets/thoroughfares is the Transit Plan, but unclear to me if state assets are in scope for its spending.  Is a cap being contemplated as part of Transit Plan spending?

 

42 minutes ago, CLT Development said:

"#Make277aRiver" is both a joke and not a joke. It's really just a fun way to seed conversation about the highway's misuse of valuable land. There is interest and headwinds that exist, and there is support on council and within the city. If you assembled the undeveloped and under-developed land from Church to the new pedestrian bridge and put up retaining walls and landfilled the current highway berms you could open up enough land to create at least $2.5-3B in development plus a 5-6 acre linear park over the highway's current footprint. This would immediately erase the blurred line between Uptown and South End.

The average Charlotte resident (along with the average American) has never imagined the prospect of paring back auto infrastructure. Most folks reflexively assume that auto-mobility is the ONLY form of mobility, and it will remain viable forever. Because of this nearly universal reflex, it is nearly pointless to seriously advocate for the removal of 277 (or just the Belk or Brookshire portion of it), these suggestions generally just get laughed out of the room. So jokeish proposals like the Belk River are used to illustrate how the massive amount of space consumed by this freeway can be reused, this is an effort to get the folks who can't imagine a non-car commute to begin to see how much space their lifestyle choice wastes (because they will just shut down if you start talking about removal). The absurdity of the proposal also keeps most folks from getting mad about the prospects of removing a road.    I have thought a great deal about it, but I can't see a more effective way to get Charlottean's to begin to acknowledge that there is some logic to reducing the space we devote to cars (but I am not an expert in advocacy). IMO the River joke has been a surprisingly effective way to get mainstream Charlotteans to begin to think about some of the ways we can address the automobility problem (we are still talking about it here and I would wager to say all UPers understand the physical impossibility of turning the top of a hill into a river).

AFAIK the state has never once acknowledged the possibility of capping the Belk so I am not aware of any state dollars for the project. For me, capping seems to be very expensive, while generating little return. While people generally support a cap, very few of them are aware of the costs involved in this.  I am all for removal and repurposing the land into park, transit and mixed use space which would bring much of this land back to the tax rolls. Unlike a cap, removal would generate a huge ROI as well as substantially improve quality of life for folks in the area.

Edited November 1, 2023 by kermit

[Matthew.Brendan]

 

 

 

16 years and counting after Blue Line opened missing the pedestrian bridge that was supposed to be part of day 1 should tell you all you need to know

 

 

 

 

[CLT Development]

50 minutes ago, Matthew.Brendan said:

 

 

 

16 years and counting after Blue Line opened missing the pedestrian bridge that was supposed to be part of day 1 should tell you all you need to know

 

 

 

 

damn it. I was just sitting here being productive at work, popped over at lunch, and now all I want to do is make a rendering of what I would do here in a CAP scenario.

[J-Rob]

10 minutes ago, CLT Development said:

damn it. I was just sitting here being productive at work, popped over at lunch, and now all I want to do is make a rendering of what I would do here in a CAP scenario.

and now we are all spending our productive afternoons waiting for a CLT-Dev rendering special. LOL

Edited November 1, 2023 by J-Rob

[TheMightyBK]

10 minutes ago, CLT Development said:

damn it. I was just sitting here being productive at work, popped over at lunch, and now all I want to do is make a rendering of what I would do here in a CAP scenario.

You deserve a break if you’ve been productive!  A break during which you can sketch it out so we can all be unproductive for a few minutes this afternoon.

[ClassicColtrane]

39 minutes ago, CLT Development said:

damn it. I was just sitting here being productive at work, popped over at lunch, and now all I want to do is make a rendering of what I would do here in a CAP scenario.

Do it, do it, do it! 

 

2 hours ago, kermit said:

 

The average Charlotte resident (along with the average American) has never imagined the prospect of paring back auto infrastructure. Most folks reflexively assume that auto-mobility is the ONLY form of mobility, and it will remain viable forever. Because of this nearly universal reflex, it is nearly pointless to seriously advocate for the removal of 277 (or just the Belk or Brookshire portion of it), these suggestions generally just get laughed out of the room. So jokeish proposals like the Belk River are used to illustrate how the massive amount of space consumed by this freeway can be reused, this is an effort to get the folks who can't imagine a non-car commute to begin to see how much space their lifestyle choice wastes (because they will just shut down if you start talking about removal). The absurdity of the proposal also keeps most folks from getting mad about the prospects of removing a road.    I have thought a great deal about it, but I can't see a more effective way to get Charlottean's to begin to acknowledge that there is some logic to reducing the space we devote to cars (but I am not an expert in advocacy). IMO the River joke has been a surprisingly effective way to get mainstream Charlotteans to begin to think about some of the ways we can address the automobility problem (we are still talking about it here and I would wager to say all UPers understand the physical impossibility of turning the top of a hill into a river).

AFAIK the state has never once acknowledged the possibility of capping the Belk so I am not aware of any state dollars for the project. For me, capping seems to be very expensive, while generating little return. While people generally support a cap, very few of them are aware of the costs involved in this.  I am all for removal and repurposing the land into park, transit and mixed use space which would bring much of this land back to the tax rolls. Unlike a cap, removal would generate a huge ROI as well as substantially improve quality of life for folks in the area.

Mostly agree with this, but why does a park have to generate a return? Does Polk generate a return? Does Freedom? The cost will be substantial, but the "return" should be a state of the art public amenity that visitors and Charlotteans enjoy for generations. I think it'll almost single handedly rid Charlotte of its "You feel like you're inside of a bank lobby" quip thst we've endured for decades.

[RANYC]

TTX, the railcar and freight services company relocating its HQ to Charlotte from Chicago, will take 70,000 square feet in the Line, bringing that building to 65% occupancy, according to the Bizjournals.  TTX will relocate 100 employees from Chicago as part of the transition, and will hire 50 folks locally.  Average salary for the 150-person HQ operation will be north of $179k, which is appropriate given the beer prices at Sycamore Brewery.  In many other sunbelt cities, a railcar company office could very easily have wound up in the suburbs.  City Center wins again.

Edited November 1, 2023 by RANYC

[kermit]

5 minutes ago, ClassicColtrane said:

Mostly agree with this, but why does a park have to generate a return? Does Polk generate a return? Does Freedom? The cost will be substantial, but the "return" should be a state of the art public amenity that visitors and Charlotteans enjoy for generations. I think it'll almost single handedly rid Charlotte of its "You feel like you're inside of a bank lobby" quip thst we've endured for decades.

Just me being clumsy w phrasing. I was suggesting that a portion of the land be used for mixed use dev, which would add to tax rolls. Alongside of that could be linear park space which would have no expectations of direct financial returns.

The ROI approach is just another way to attempt to appease the car dependent who will look for ANY reason to keep a road (despite roads being massive fiscal drains on cities, states and the federal govt).

[15895]

41 minutes ago, RANYC said:

TTX, the railcar and freight services company relocating its HQ to Charlotte from Chicago, will take 70,000 square feet in the Line, bringing that building to 65% occupancy, according to the Bizjournals.  TTX will relocate 100 employees from Chicago as part of the transition, and will hire 50 folks locally.  Average salary for the 150-person HQ operation will be north of $179k, which is appropriate given the beer prices at Sycamore Brewery. 
 

In many other sunbelt cities, a railcar company office could very easily have wound up in the suburbs.  City Center wins again.

I don’t know, sunbelt cities have good success with scoring larger developments In center cities while suburban office locations (and older stock in general) have been in decline. Atlanta even scored the Norfolk Southern headquarters in Midtown with a pretty cool development recently. 

There’s still quite a bit of demand for newer, modern and more urban locations for office tenants. Other than RTP & I guess Plano, i haven’t seen the trend buck towards campuses much lately. 

I think SouthEnd has the dynamics to keep scoring these larger office tenants.

As far as the cap. I think as Morehead fills in, the “gap” between Uptown & SouthEnd will lessen. I think it’s just more uncomfortable with the faster traffic and lack of immediate development before you get to the thick of SouthEnd. Of course who could complain about a cap but I think the mental barrier will lessen over time (like… literally over the next few years) 

I’d be more interested if that portion of 277 could be raised & converted into a boulevard? I wonder if that would be cheaper/better? Have there been discussions on converting 277 into a boulevard? In other words, the reverse of what happened to Independence Blvd. 

Edited November 1, 2023 by AirNostrumMAD

[kermit]

8 minutes ago, AirNostrumMAD said:

There’s still quite a bit of demand for newer, modern and more urban locations for office tenants. Other than RTP & I guess Plano, i haven’t seen the trend buck towards campuses much lately.

Has anyone other than Apple gone to RTP in the past decade?

[15895]

24 minutes ago, kermit said:

Has anyone other than Apple gone to RTP in the past decade?

Honestly, I don’t know. I mostly follow Charlotte, Atlanta, Nashville & Austin in the south. But casually I’ve still heard pretty good things about it as far as remaining healthy (though come to think of it the area around North Hills has been soaking up tenants but I think those are different types of tenants from RTP.) 

Even “suburban” submarkets have been shifting to be more urban (Ballantyne, etc) in their office deliveries so even then, office tenants and workers have seem to shown a preference towards more mix-used urban centers so. I think the industry has just changed with Millenials and younger generations. It’d be dope for Raleigh if some RTP tenants started shifting to the warehouse district & Glenwood 

Edited November 1, 2023 by AirNostrumMAD

[CLT Development]

3 hours ago, TheMightyBK said:

You deserve a break if you’ve been productive!  A break during which you can sketch it out so we can all be unproductive for a few minutes this afternoon.

So this would be around 22 acres total  with 11 acres of parkland. You would bury parking on the South End side allowing you to build smaller footprint buildings. I tried to make the buildings translucent so you could see the greenspace between them. 

You could yield easily 2200 residential units, 500,000 sq feet of office and 800 hotel rooms.

 

 

Edited November 1, 2023 by CLT Development

[J-Rob]

and here I was excited about a much delayed pedestrian bridge with cool lights.

Edited November 1, 2023 by J-Rob

[RANYC]

33 minutes ago, CLT Development said:

So this would be around 22 acres total  with 11 acres of parkland. You would bury parking on the South End side allowing you to build smaller footprint buildings. I tried to make the buildings translucent so you could see the greenspace between them. 

You could yield easily 2200 residential units, 500,000 sq feet of office and 800 hotel rooms.

 

 

Looks good but is the city even planning to conduct a formal study of a cap?  The Biden administration has the Reconnecting Communities initiative that's supposed to pay out hundreds of millions in the next few years to evaluate bridging various highway divides nationally.  I think a grant from this initiative may be paying for a study on reconfiguring the interchange between 77 and West Trade to better connect West End and Uptown.  I guess the disadvantage for a 277 cap is that it's not really been labeled as a tool of racial inequity, at least not for the portion of it capped in your rendering.

Separately, a couple years back, I seem to recall a tweet from Julie Eiselt suggesting that a city-funded stadium renovation might also incorporate a "stadium district" concept, meaning more than the venue would be rebuilt, but the venue's context might also include a vast civic gathering space.  A stadium district wouldn't include a cap over 277, would it?

Edited November 1, 2023 by RANYC

[Crucial_Infra]

1 hour ago, CLT Development said:

So this would be around 22 acres total  with 11 acres of parkland. You would bury parking on the South End side allowing you to build smaller footprint buildings. I tried to make the buildings translucent so you could see the greenspace between them. 

You could yield easily 2200 residential units, 500,000 sq feet of office and 800 hotel rooms.

 

 

Looks great. I stilll don’t understand how this section around Grandview works. I assume the green space slightly slopes down from the rail crossing to Grandview so they aren’t below grade?

[kermit]

32 minutes ago, RANYC said:

  A stadium district wouldn't include a cap over 277, would it?

Since 277 is elevated here it can't really be capped.

[CLT Development]

37 minutes ago, RANYC said:

Looks good but is the city even planning to conduct a formal study of a cap?  The Biden administration has the Reconnecting Communities initiative that's supposed to pay out hundreds of millions in the next few years to evaluate bridging various highway divides nationally.  I think a grant from this initiative may be paying for a study on reconfiguring the interchange between 77 and West Trade to better connect West End and Uptown.  I guess the disadvantage for a 277 cap is that it's not really been labeled as a tool of racial inequity, at least not for the portion of it capped in your rendering.

Separately, a couple years back, I seem to recall a tweet from Julie Eiselt suggesting that a city-funded stadium renovation might also incorporate a "stadium district" concept, meaning more than the venue would be rebuilt, but the venue's context might also include a vast civic gathering space.  A stadium district wouldn't include a cap over 277, would it?

They did a formal study back gosh 20 years ago.

8 minutes ago, Crucial_Infra said:

Looks great. I stilll don’t understand how this section around Grandview works. I assume the green space slightly slopes down from the rail crossing to Grandview so they aren’t below grade?

it would have to slope down for sure, Camden likely F'd this part up for us.

[ertley]

The thing is, I've said before, you don't even have to do it all at once, or even have to move any exit ramps if you started with the 'block' between Tryon and Church, or Tryon and College. One, or both of them, could be developed first, if the prospect of a mega project was too intimidating for officials involved, serving as a sort of proof of concept. (Of course I realize that the engineering exigencies might necessitate that it all be done at once.)

I'm naturally an incrementalist, so the idea of doing it in stages appeals to me anyway. I tend to think that large scale projects done all at once can end up being a little...Hudson Yards-ish. Doing things piecemeal, IMO, if done right, allows for more consideration over time and a wider group of players who can make it less homogenous.