Dilworth Projects (Kenilworth, Morehead, East)

[JorgiPorgi]

13 minutes ago, Hushpuppy321 said:

Actually love the ‘Canyon Effect’ when I drive down the portion of I-277 from Kenilworth towards I-77.   Charlotte is really developing impressively.

I was going to say just this. I know 277 is heavily hated on this site- but I really like driving it and the views it provides 

[videtur quam contuor]

My memory is that the design was intentional to reduce the appearance of the highway from Business district view. Blasting and excavation is expensive when grade level would be least expensive.

[KJHburg]

9 hours ago, JorgiPorgi said:

I was going to say just this. I know 277 is heavily hated on this site- but I really like driving it and the views it provides 

I do too and I dont think NC DOT will be in the mood to give it up anytime soon. 

[kermit]

I like driving on it too, but that doesn't excuse the fact that there are LOTS more productive uses for that land. I suspect that NCDOT will be facing a billion dollar number to rebuild the Belk in the next decade (it will be well over 50 years old by then). I would bet that NCDOT will be much less attached to 277 when they see the cost of refurb (even more so if carbon reduction strategies become an element of federal highway dollar allocations). 

In a world where state DOT’s will need to make rational and considered budgeting decisions, I can’t imagine the Belk will survive for long. I don't think any observer would see it as a critical piece of the road network.

Edited May 12, 2023 by kermit

[Poo Diddy]

On 4/22/2023 at 10:18 PM, Hushpuppy321 said:

I noticed that Cleveland Construction is the General Contractor for the East Blvd Development (Near Freedom Park) and things  seem to be progressing quickly.  A real difference from the Glacial pace of things at the Carolina Theater Renovation.

I assure you there was enough shenanigans in the bidding process to fit the mold of a Cleveland Const job

[Bat'leth]

Axios has picked up on the Elizabeth neighborhood's struggle to get historic district status. Dilworth is brought up as an example of an existing historic district. I was very surprised to see that the President of the Elizabeth Community Association allowed himself to be quoted trashing Dilworth:

https://charlotte.axios.com/328519/charlotte-elizabeth-historic-designation-development/

Quote from article:

But West Bryant, president of the ECA, sees Dilworth as “a little kingdom of very wealthy people surrounded by a legal moat.”

[Nathan2]

On 5/13/2023 at 10:22 AM, Bat'leth said:

Axios has picked up on the Elizabeth neighborhood's struggle to get historic district status. Dilworth is brought up as an example of an existing historic district. I was very surprised to see that the President of the Elizabeth Community Association allowed himself to be quoted trashing Dilworth:

https://charlotte.axios.com/328519/charlotte-elizabeth-historic-designation-development/

Quote from article:

But West Bryant, president of the ECA, sees Dilworth as “a little kingdom of very wealthy people surrounded by a legal moat.”

I mean he's not wrong. It's a neighborhood where almost every home now is reaching a million bucks. They have effectively stamped out the competition by limiting what you can and can't build there.  Elizabeth isn't much better but it's on its way to the same fate if they approve historic status.

[kermit]

22 hours ago, Nathan2 said:

I mean he's not wrong. It's a neighborhood where almost every home now is reaching a million bucks. They have effectively stamped out the competition by limiting what you can and can't build there.  Elizabeth isn't much better but it's on its way to the same fate if they approve historic status.

But is building really limited in Dilworth? Its a neighborhood that still has original 4 unit apartment buildings in the middle of it,  could the historic district block the construction of more of those now that they are kosher again thanks to the UDO? Seems like mill houses would also fit the historic profile of the neighborhood and a couple still exist.

I'll certainly concede that building townhouses in a Charlotte historic district is probably a non-starter, but I don't see Charlotte historic districts as any more exclusionary than most Charlotte neighborhoods thanks to their well-documented history of mixed uses. While HD property is expensive, I would bet that has far more to do with the undersupply of walkability in Charlotte than HD regulation.

Edited May 16, 2023 by kermit

[videtur quam contuor]

700, 704, 708 Lexington in Dilworth are classic mill house architecture. I know not the original purpose for those homes but they fit the bill. I have been in 704 and it was classic straight front to back hallway with small kitchen on rear. Unmistakeable as a home for those who came from farmland and accepted limited cooking and bathing requirements in their new life in ~1900.

2005 Cleveland is also a mill house and a block from the original Atherton Mill in 1890. It has been said to be perhaps the oldest house in Dilworth as the finer homes came after the worker housing that accompanied the cotton mill. It is unrestored and was owned by a woman for many, many years*. She was Ruth Purser. Her property is listed as shown in Map Book 5 which means a LOOOONG time ago.

*When I say many many years you know it means a looooong time

[jjwilli]

HDC has allowed townhomes and a duplex to be built in Wilmore.  Seems like they generally balk at taller buildings that don’t “mesh” with the existing buildings.

[Nathan2]

17 hours ago, kermit said:

But is building really limited in Dilworth? Its a neighborhood that still has original 4 unit apartment buildings in the middle of it,  could the historic district block the construction of more of those now that they are kosher again thanks to the UDO? Seems like mill houses would also fit the historic profile of the neighborhood and a couple still exist.

I'll certainly concede that building townhouses in a Charlotte historic district is probably a non-starter, but I don't see Charlotte historic districts as any more exclusionary than most Charlotte neighborhoods thanks to their well-documented history of mixed uses.

It appears that my initial assumptions were premature. After reviewing the city's Historic design standards document, it seems that there may still be an opportunity to construct multifamily buildings. However, the requirements outlined in the document would likely increase both the cost and time associated with the project. The height, scale, and context regulations could also present challenges when trying to introduce new density into a neighborhood dominated by single-family homes.

I still agree with the general statement on Dilworth and many similar neighborhoods as the main goals of all of these regulations are to limit and slow down growth. Growth is needed in existing neighborhoods not in the exurbs. 

 

https://www.charlottenc.gov/files/sharedassets/city/growth-and-development/planning-and-zoning/documents/hdcdesignstandards.pdf

[videtur quam contuor]

When I moved to Dilworth in the early Holocene there was substantial multi-unit housing but not in the conventional meaning of the word today. The large older homes that were inappropriate for families of that time, and wildly expensive to heat, were converted to apartments and living quarters. Not so much legally, mind you. Safety and code compliance was not at a level one might expect from today. Landlords found higher rent from multiple users and made low cost renovations to the houses to enable separation into apartments, some with shared space such as kitchen. I myself was a sub-tenant my first year in the neighborhood. Then I rented a home and took on a second person to share the space and rent. The early period Dilworth homes from Park to Tremont and the cross streets were commonly occupied this way, a few with multi-generational families. The low value of those homes at that time made this use a requirement as the market offered little else to retain or attract an owner. Multi unit structures were common but not in a way that would be acceptable today.

If one sees the situation from this perspective the good news is that the built fabric of the neighborhood was maintained long enough for the resurgence to carry all properties into the historic area it is today. I believe that many historic areas throughout the U. S., and maybe elsewhere, have a similar pattern. Growth, stability, decline, change of use, rediscovery, recovery.

 

[kermit]

4 hours ago, Nathan2 said:

I still agree with the general statement on Dilworth and many similar neighborhoods as the main goals of all of these regulations are to limit and slow down growth. Growth is needed in existing neighborhoods not in the exurbs. 

I certainly agree that Charlotte (and every other US city) needs a crapton more infill. but we also gotta have significant densification along corridors connecting burbs to the center city.

I also agree that HD status makes infill marginally more expensive. But, can you point to a single neighborhood in Charlotte (other than Southend where the % of owner occupiers is minuscule) that does not have a NIMBY mindset? I kinda feel like Dilworth has been more tolerant of densification along its edges than most other parts of Charlotte (and certainly more tolerant than NoDa).

I’ll admit that I don’t pay much attention to what the DCDA has to say, so I may be missing some anti-density rhetoric.

Edited May 16, 2023 by kermit

[go_vertical]

Stumbled upon this the other day and it is a perfect little addition to what has been discussed lately.  I don't think it adds much that hasn't already been said over the last week or so, but it does provide some interesting examples from a few different places of how the implementation of historic districts have affected the surrounding communities and its residents.

 

[KJHburg]

the Morehead apartment towers rising and the Med school rising in the distance.  

[QCxpat]

Today 9:00 a.m.

Edited May 25, 2023 by QCxpat

[davidclt]

On 4/10/2023 at 7:55 PM, DJ8hep said:

The Campbell project today!

 

[QCxpat]

Today 9:30 a.m.

Edited June 7, 2023 by QCxpat

[j-man]

[Blue_Devil]

You all should take a look at this: https://www.dilworthonline.org/land-use

 

a ton of rezoning approvals. 720 E. Morehead is a huge one. 450 apartments across from the retirement apartments being built, with 15000 ft of retail.

[DownEast]

Wow. Such intense density instantly rising here. I expect the neighborhood to stiffen up a bit and hold development to the the Morehead front. All this development in stark contrast to 2nd Ward has me feeling it will jump the highway soon, jumpstart  Brooklyn Village or some other manifestation. But, I'm loving Morehead from Mint to the Greenway right now.

Edited June 20, 2023 by DownEast

[NYtoCLT]

3 hours ago, DownEast said:

Wow. Such intense density instantly rising here. I expect the neighborhood to stiffen up a bit and hold development to the the Morehead front. All this development in stark contrast to 2nd Ward has me feeling it will jump the highway soon, jumpstart  Brooklyn Village or some other manifestation. But, I'm loving Morehead from Mint to the Greenway right now.

No real accessibility between this part of Moorehead and Second Ward.   South Blvd. is a pedestrian dead zone even if you could get to it so it really only opens up at Tryon.  It will be interesting to see how Moorehead looks when all is said and done though -- going to be pretty stark contrast to most of Dilworth right behind it.

[RANYC]

4 hours ago, Blue_Devil said:

You all should take a look at this: https://www.dilworthonline.org/land-use

 

a ton of rezoning approvals. 720 E. Morehead is a huge one. 450 apartments across from the retirement apartments being built, with 15000 ft of retail.

Not sure if this is related, but in the first weeks of the year, there was a deadline for land use/rezoning applications to be considered by Planning before new plans would be judged under the UDO.

https://charlotteledger.substack.com/p/plans-announced-for-2400-south-charlotte

Developers rush to file rezoning changes to avoid new UDO

[Blue_Devil]

22 minutes ago, NYtoCLT said:

No real accessibility between this part of Moorehead and Second Ward.   South Blvd. is a pedestrian dead zone even if you could get to it so it really only opens up at Tryon.  It will be interesting to see how Moorehead looks when all is said and done though -- going to be pretty stark contrast to most of Dilworth right behind it.

McDowell street is direct access to 2nd ward and Brooklyn village from here, with the new medschool in between 

[DownEast]

Quote

45 minutes ago, NYtoCLT said:

No real accessibility between this part of Moorehead and Second Ward. 

While not the most pleasant crossing point between the two places. Add some fun lighting and art under there and your set. The new park under 20/59 in Birmingham looks a stunner. I thought of a possible crossing from near Royal Court but that looks a little to redundant and even the walk from Euclid to Second Ward isn't far if  BV or actual destinations were built. 

 

Edited June 20, 2023 by DownEast