Baseball in Charlotte, which will happen?

[uptownliving]

Charlotte has hired a UNCC econ professor to do an economic impact study of the proposed stadium and land swap. His report should be completed in the next month. It will be interesting to see what he comes up with.

[eastsider]

Yes. I agree 100%. Too many cities focus on sports venues, as Charlotte has done, and it's easy enough to see the result of that mistake. Now they are singing the same song again that a minor league baseball stadium is going to make a difference when it won't do this. I agree with that if they can't pay for it on their own then that is certainly a red flag that the taxpayers shouldn't be pouring money into it and giving up the opportunity for a large urban park that would attract people to the center city.

[reverbandwhiskey]

It has been stated countless times that the only taxpayer money going to the ballpark is for city improvements to the streets/infrastructure around it. The exact same improvements would have to be made to accomadate the park at that site as well. So what the difference, except that the city now gets a ballpark and a park.

[monsoon]

It has been stated countless times that the only taxpayer money going to the ballpark is for city improvements to the streets/infrastructure around it. The exact same improvements would have to be made to accomadate the park at that site as well. So what the difference, except that the city now gets a ballpark and a park.

[uptownliving]

and a SMALLER park, surrounded by another 5,000 - 10,000 cars in uptown.

[monsoon]

BTW, it's a pretty much pointless argument on my part because I fully expect the city and the county to approve this deal. Given how they railroaded the arena down the resident's throats who voted against it, why should baseball be any different. Charlotte isn't known for good urban planning and this stadium will be right up there with the rest of it.

[eastsider]

and a SMALLER park, surrounded by another 5,000 - 10,000 cars in uptown.

[monsoon]

So the park should be acroos the street from a huge parking deck and a half block from railroad tracks that will limit development? Sounds like Marshall Park all over again.

[Mobuchu]

and a SMALLER park, surrounded by another 5,000 - 10,000 cars in uptown.

[monsoon]

There has been no design presented for the smaller park. As for the size, there is already another thread here that bemoans the fact there is no large urban park in Charlotte.

[uptownliving]

^^^ I could not have said it better myself. Thanks for that post Mobachu!

[Mobuchu]

I will however be dissapointed if there is no street retail around the ballpark. But with the amount of activity going on around it, and from what iv'e heard, we wont have to worry.

[Mobuchu]

There has been no design presented for the smaller park. As for the size, there is already another thread here that bemoans the fact there is no large urban park in Charlotte.

[dubone]

I was positive about the design of the 8 acre park in Third Ward. I am not a city leader, and had no idea that there could be the possibilty to obtain the land closer to Tryon, as the park design consultants had proposed before everyone just decided to "make do" and go with the land. However, at the design meetings, many in the public expressed concerns that being surrounded by parking decks, parking lots, a train station, and being farther from Tryon meant the park would risk being empty most of the time, aka a DEAD ZONE. (Technically, green grass is alive, but in urban planning terms, it is stilll a DEAD ZONE).

But forward thinking city leaders worked very hard to make the park design consultant's recommendation a reality. They figured out a way to trade land to get a better park location, even if they had to trim the size a bit.

I am frankly a bit tired of the mischaracterization of the plan. I grant that there are many valid concerns about the land swap, the baseball stadium, the smaller park, and so forth. But lies are lies. The city is not building a baseball park. 8m is from the city for sidewalks, reconfiguring 4th, Mint, and Poplar to be two way. That expenditure would be required if it were just the park going there. Those are approved parts of the center city transportation plan REGARDLESS of whether there is baseball or not. It is simply that if people are suddenly going to need to go to the current dead zone in Third Ward, they must spend the money to do those parts of the plan now.

Also, this is not a baseball VS park plan. It is simply not true to say this baseball park is going instead of a grass park. There is still a grass park going. There is a valid discussion to be had about the park that is independent of the baseball park, just as the design consultants proposed a different park without baseball even in the picture. They proposed a slightly smaller park, offset by a better location with more development opportunities surrounding it. There is a trade off of location for size, but so is there in all real estate. Charlotte can build a very large and very cheap park in Montana, but the location would not be very good. The better the location, the smaller the land. How valuable is Renaissance Park to the city? Size would be nice, no question, but location is more important than size, as long as it is within a minimum threshold which can support a certain type of park design.

Note that the favored design of the 8 acre park had a roughly 4 acre park, with 2 random sections that were less user friendly on either side of the Virginia Paper building. The main goal of the park was to be an event park, where large numbers of people could come during large events. The designers lamented that they couldn't be nearer to Tryon, as that would make the strategy for the park more attainable and less risky for failure. The new park location (regardless of specific design elements) fulfills the strategic goals of an event park. It is 75% closer to Tryon, the anchor or rainmaker for events. It also has a larger area that can be configured for single event, as the full 5 acres can be included in a single eliptical design. That is, the prefered design geometry for the main section of the park can now be the full 5 acres, rather than within only 4 acres of the 8 acre park.

There are valid points against the current proposal. But when the arguers go extreme and act like there will be no park if the proposal is approved, or act like the city is funding every element of the proposal, it gives the impression that the current proposal must be the best choice. That is, if it were invalid based on the facts, then detractors wouldn't have to invent falsehoods in order to argue against it.

I'm firmly behind this proposal, but if a change came along that offered more of what fits into my own personal strategy for the city, then I'd be for it. It is the magic of evolution. If the next proposal is better than the previous, then we can get behind it without regretting the fact that we supported the previous.

The trade off on this proposal is that 3 acres off the park buys a better location in 3rd Ward, a better location in of a new park in 2nd Ward, affordable housing in 2nd Ward, a baseball stadium location, etc. 3 acres is a lot, but when it buys so much more that is even more beneficial to the goals of the city, I am for it.

Let's deal in reality and truth in debating this plan. Fantasy-based opinions are much harder to debunk than fact-based ones, but that doesn't mean those opinions are right.

[MZT]

If the city had somehow obtained the smaller site, and made those same justifications - "It's closer to Tryon, we can really use all of the land, more developers will build near it" - I suspect a lot of the people upset at losing 8 acres would have climbed on board.

What if a large employer or UNCC was moving into uptown, causing all this land swapping? Would there be as much bemoaning about the 8 acres shrinking? Some, but probably not as much.

It just shows the distaste that still remains from the Arena vote, and even to some extent the NHOF. It seemed to suck up a lot of political air during the months leading up to the proposal, and not much else was being debated. There is a certain backlash at seeing how SPORTS rises to the top of the political agenda so easily.

Anyway, I don't view this as a done deal by a long shot. The council members sound like they need some more convincing, and I'm not sure everything will work out. There are several players in this swap, and a lot of places where sand can filter into the gears.

[jednc]

I was positive about the design of the 8 acre park in Third Ward. I am not a city leader, and had no idea that there could be the possibilty to obtain the land closer to Tryon, as the park design consultants had proposed before everyone just decided to "make do" and go with the land. However, at the design meetings, many in the public expressed concerns that being surrounded by parking decks, parking lots, a train station, and being farther from Tryon meant the park would risk being empty most of the time, aka a DEAD ZONE. (Technically, green grass is alive, but in urban planning terms, it is stilll a DEAD ZONE).

But forward thinking city leaders worked very hard to make the park design consultant's recommendation a reality. They figured out a way to trade land to get a better park location, even if they had to trim the size a bit.

I am frankly a bit tired of the mischaracterization of the plan. I grant that there are many valid concerns about the land swap, the baseball stadium, the smaller park, and so forth. But lies are lies. The city is not building a baseball park. 8m is from the city for sidewalks, reconfiguring 4th, Mint, and Poplar to be two way. That expenditure would be required if it were just the park going there. Those are approved parts of the center city transportation plan REGARDLESS of whether there is baseball or not. It is simply that if people are suddenly going to need to go to the current dead zone in Third Ward, they must spend the money to do those parts of the plan now.

Also, this is not a baseball VS park plan. It is simply not true to say this baseball park is going instead of a grass park. There is still a grass park going. There is a valid discussion to be had about the park that is independent of the baseball park, just as the design consultants proposed a different park without baseball even in the picture. They proposed a slightly smaller park, offset by a better location with more development opportunities surrounding it. There is a trade off of location for size, but so is there in all real estate. Charlotte can build a very large and very cheap park in Montana, but the location would not be very good. The better the location, the smaller the land. How valuable is Renaissance Park to the city? Size would be nice, no question, but location is more important than size, as long as it is within a minimum threshold which can support a certain type of park design.

Note that the favored design of the 8 acre park had a roughly 4 acre park, with 2 random sections that were less user friendly on either side of the Virginia Paper building. The main goal of the park was to be an event park, where large numbers of people could come during large events. The designers lamented that they couldn't be nearer to Tryon, as that would make the strategy for the park more attainable and less risky for failure. The new park location (regardless of specific design elements) fulfills the strategic goals of an event park. It is 75% closer to Tryon, the anchor or rainmaker for events. It also has a larger area that can be configured for single event, as the full 5 acres can be included in a single eliptical design. That is, the prefered design geometry for the main section of the park can now be the full 5 acres, rather than within only 4 acres of the 8 acre park.

There are valid points against the current proposal. But when the arguers go extreme and act like there will be no park if the proposal is approved, or act like the city is funding every element of the proposal, it gives the impression that the current proposal must be the best choice. That is, if it were invalid based on the facts, then detractors wouldn't have to invent falsehoods in order to argue against it.

I'm firmly behind this proposal, but if a change came along that offered more of what fits into my own personal strategy for the city, then I'd be for it. It is the magic of evolution. If the next proposal is better than the previous, then we can get behind it without regretting the fact that we supported the previous.

The trade off on this proposal is that 3 acres off the park buys a better location in 3rd Ward, a better location in of a new park in 2nd Ward, affordable housing in 2nd Ward, a baseball stadium location, etc. 3 acres is a lot, but when it buys so much more that is even more beneficial to the goals of the city, I am for it.

Let's deal in reality and truth in debating this plan. Fantasy-based opinions are much harder to debunk than fact-based ones, but that doesn't mean those opinions are right.

[lukedog]

I also can't say enough how tired I am of hearing about the ARENA. Wow...let it go. That "vote" should have never happened in the first place. We live in a republic. We elect people to make decisions for us. Those people have money and staff at their disposal to study issues and gather facts. They should never have put it to a vote anyway. This was only done to appease the ones who yell the loudest! They went ahead and decided to build the arena. Your recourse (and that's if you live in the city of Charlotte) to this decision is to not vote for these people who approved the arena if it's really such an issue for you. To my knowledge, Lynn Wheeler is the only person who lost their office due to support of the arena. I'm not even sure that was the real reason she lost...but, that's the common reason sited. At any rate, do something more productive than complaining about how the arena was voted down. It's over, we have an arena, and the same people who approved it are still in office. If you don't live in Charlotte...just exactly what IS your beef with it? You got an arena for free...

[swh1972]

Yeah, Lukedog, can I just say ditto also! It would be so much faster

Great points!!

[cinco]

ok, i'm having a little problem trying to convey my thoughts today... but here goes.

while i'm not as opposed with this project as i once was (i see the positives of both sides) - i still cannot get a few things out of my mind.

1. triple A baseball (wow, we're moving up now)

2. deadzone (i don't see how this would be remedied... i'm skeptical of retail connected to this thing - does a knights souvenir shop really count)

3. smaller park

4. loss of virgina paper building (i know it's just old brick and mortar... but center city hardly has any left.)

here are my issues... i remember and would love to see baseball back in the southend - and i consider the uptown land more valuable than to house farm ball.

the topic of good planning keeps coming up, and i think (as i've posted in the past), that a center city park is as good of planning as you can get. therefore, as big as you can make it... the fact that the smaller park is closer to tryon and would be used by more during the day - is great. but, we already have "the green" just a few blocks away and i view the concept of 3rd ward park as more of a neighborhood park rather than an uptown worker lunch hangout... obviously it's both - it just seems in this forum that the neighborhood side gets overshadowed.

as for development... alot of the arguement for the landswap leads one to believe that novare, furman, and others will only develop if AAA ball is approved. i simply do not buy that... developers will jump on the chance to build around an urban park just as they would a ballpark.

the best part of the landswap to me is the fact that we would see momentum in 2nd ward. i do believe in dubone's notion that if the landswap fails, then 2nd ward probably will not be developed for another 10 years. however, i am a little skeptical of the cities eagerness to appease developers. i would almost rather 2nd ward not be developed, than to see it pop-up tomorrow, looking like some of the projects we have been getting around town.

but, honestly... i think the area will end up looking more like the garden district - which is a good thing.

what would really get me behind the landswap, is if somehow, there we're a clause on the ballpark land... that after X amount of years the land goes back to the city for it's original use as a park. it seems that everyone would win with that deal. i mean, do we really think there will be a need for AAA baseball in X amount of years, even there were, maybe there would be enough team history that the city could move the ballpark elsewhere with limited negative impact.

we already know that the AAA land cannot house a MLB park... so, let it return to what it was supposed to be... a city park. that way we would have 2 parks somewhat connected to make an even bigger city park for the future.

there is no question in my mind - which one is the better plan in the long run.

[uptownliving]

Just a reminder that the neighborhood part of 3rd Ward already has 2 parks. They have the 1 acre pocket park off of Cedar St. And they also have 12 acre Frazier Park...which is very nice with landscaping, gardens, and statues...not to mention the Greenway.

So the Third Ward Park really isnt for the residential part of 3rd Ward but really for all of Center City.

[turbocraig]

Maybe I'm missing something here, but why is Marshall Park always dead and about to be churned into something else? Why haven't developers built condo towers or low-rise housing around that existing park? How is shifting an existing underutilized park in Second Ward that's surrounded by deadness with a new Third Ward park that will be surrounded on two sides by deadness going to somehow be different this time? I'd like to think that any park, be it an 8-acre or 5-acre, or located close to or 2 blocks from Tryon would be packed with people, but I just don't see it happening. If we were talking about a 40-acre park that had lots of wooded areas combined with lots of open space and walking and biking trails, etc. then you'd see some use. Either form of this Third Ward park just seems to small to me to be of any real value to most people.

If it comes down to A) an 8-acre park surrounded by a whole lotta nothing that will be used as much as Marshall Park currently is, or B) a baseball stadium that's used even part of the year by a few thousand people a game, still leaving a small(er) park besides, I'd have to say "B". I'm probably in the minority here, but that's my $0.02.

[Charlotte_native]

Maybe I'm missing something here, but why is Marshall Park always dead and about to be churned into something else? Why haven't developers built condo towers or low-rise housing around that existing park? How is shifting an existing underutilized park in Second Ward that's surrounded by deadness with a new Third Ward park that will be surrounded on two sides by deadness going to somehow be different this time? I'd like to think that any park, be it an 8-acre or 5-acre, or located close to or 2 blocks from Tryon would be packed with people, but I just don't see it happening. If we were talking about a 40-acre park that had lots of wooded areas combined with lots of open space and walking and biking trails, etc. then you'd see some use. Either form of this Third Ward park just seems to small to me to be of any real value to most people.

If it comes down to A) an 8-acre park surrounded by a whole lotta nothing that will be used as much as Marshall Park currently is, or B) a baseball stadium that's used even part of the year by a few thousand people a game, still leaving a small(er) park besides, I'd have to say "B". I'm probably in the minority here, but that's my $0.02.

[turbocraig]

^But if the city/county is the owner of the land surrounding Marshall Park and they're willing to swap it with someone, in this case MassMutual, who'll redevelop it, why couldn't they just sell their own land outright to develop condos, etc in Second Ward and create what's being proposed for Third Ward? Why the need for the shell game? And would the "full size" 8-acre park really be close enough to Tryon to attract people from that area? I don't think it will. And it'd only really be surrounded on two sides with new development, if I'm remembering correctly. The south side butts up against the Duke parking garage and the west fronts Graham St and the RR tracks just beyond that. It just seems like it'd be 'slightly' better than Marshall Park at best.

I know there are a lot of factors in play here, and I'm surely oversimplifying the matter, but it seems like a lot of debate and hullabaloo over a park that'd more than likely be empty during the day and filled with vagrants at night.

[Mobuchu]

1. triple A baseball (wow, we're moving up now)

2. deadzone (i don't see how this would be remedied... i'm skeptical of retail connected to this thing - does a knights souvenir shop really count)

3. smaller park

4. loss of virgina paper building (i know it's just old brick and mortar... but center city hardly has any left.)

here are my issues... i remember and would love to see baseball back in the southend - and i consider the uptown land more valuable than to house farm ball.

the topic of good planning keeps coming up, and i think (as i've posted in the past), that a center city park is as good of planning as you can get. therefore, as big as you can make it... the fact that the smaller park is closer to tryon and would be used by more during the day - is great. but, we already have "the green" just a few blocks away and i view the concept of 3rd ward park as more of a neighborhood park rather than an uptown worker lunch hangout... obviously it's both - it just seems in this forum that the neighborhood side gets overshadowed.

as for development... alot of the arguement for the landswap leads one to believe that novare, furman, and others will only develop if AAA ball is approved. i simply do not buy that... developers will jump on the chance to build around an urban park just as they would a ballpark.

[atlrvr]

Instead of just turning over large amount of acreage to a single developer, it would be nice if the city/county would break up the large blocks they own, and piecemeal it off......I know developers would hate this, but it would provide such a better streetscape, than the monolithic blocks that are going to be created. There is no way that the 2nd Ward plan will ever resemble the great Land Design renderings by selling it all to one developer, or it will look very fake urban like Piedmont Town Center, with different facades stuck to 1 building.