IKEA's Charlotte Store

[Windsurfer]

If encouraging density, vacant land offers a blank slate for new development. Likely a better slate than underutilized land (aka grayfields, like land about Scaleybark). Some LYNX stations are more greenfield than others. Look at Arrowood as an example. The planned "University City" station (near N. Tryon St. & Stetson Dr.) has the most undeveloped land of any station location, and not just between Tryon and IKEA, but both sides of Tryon.

[southslider]

The planned station around JW Clay near University Place and CMC will build on existing density and destinations. But other off-campus stations in the University Area will be more of a "blank slate." Since Mayor Pat infamously called South Boulevard "a corridor of crap," I think it's a safe bet that little on North Tryon is worth saving from redevelopment. It's just around IKEA, it's more so new development than redevelopment.

If anything, a silver lining to this economic downturn is that the land around IKEA and Wal-Mart hasn't yet turned into an auto-oriented wasteland of new sprawl. In other words, the LYNX line is on borrowed time to refine its schedule before a revived economy turns the area into Carolina Pavillion.

[monsoon]

If encouraging density, vacant land offers a blank slate for new development. Likely a better slate than underutilized land (aka grayfields, like land about Scaleybark). Some LYNX stations are more greenfield than others. Look at Arrowood as an example. The planned "University City" station (near N. Tryon St. & Stetson Dr.) has the most undeveloped land of any station location, and not just between Tryon and IKEA, but both sides of Tryon.

[southslider]

^I was referring to the Harris Development Group's aptly named "Arrowood Station" development.

http://www.harrisdevelopmentgroup.com/prop...tails.cfm?id=67

If looking at recent aerials, you can see this large site was just trees a few years ago, much like all the land around the planned "University City Boulevard" station.

[Spartan]

You are offering up a "theory" that Light Rail drives proper development. It doesn't. City policies do and the city has abysmal relevant planning that it is willing to enforce in regards to building a city that could use LRT. In your "look at arrowood" example it doesn't go without notice that it is basically park and ride station. From Southend south, there isn't ANY TOD including the much ballyhooed Scaleybark station which was to be the signature station of this line. The station sits there in the middle of the road with no development and a number of closed businesses that were hoping to cash out on this. The city's own tax financed plan to build a new urbanist city is also in shambles. This should prove to anyone that LRT doesn't drive development. City policies and economic need does.

[monsoon]

.....but to say that rail does not impact development is like saying roads do not impact development either.

[Spartan]

The economy is obviously a major driver, but the economy is not the SOLE driver as you indicate. To that end, there are several projects that are moving along despite the economy, even around Scaleybark Station. What drives development when the economy is good?

The "associative argument" that I am making is quite valid. If you care to do the research, there are plenty of articles in planning, architecture, real estate development, economic geography, and urban history books, magazines, reports, academic journals, and text books. The Journal of the American Planning Association, the Brookings Institute, the Urban Land Institute, among others, all have research and statistics that back up what I'm saying. I spent quite a bit of time in graduate school researching the history of the transportation and land use relationship. The fact is that they do influence each other, so if we can alter one, the other will follow suit. What's even more interesting to me is that this is starting to trickle down into civil engineering field too.

Transportation impacts urban development. The one commonality across the entire world when it comes to urban development is transportation. It's why cities are where they are. You can go to any city and see that rail, as a form of transportation, generates a different type of development than vehicles and streets. You are correct in that policy, too, dictates how this development occurs. However, policy does not always dictate whether or not it occurs to begin with. As for policy related to roads (also called streets), it's true that NCDOT builds highways, and their policies are atrocious at best. However, in North Carolina, cities can build streets and even pay to enhance state highways beyond the NCDOT standards if they chose. Larger ones including Charlotte do it quite frequently. To that end, if you have not read through CDOT's Urban Street Design Guidelines, I highly recommend that you do. This document itself is not policy, but it guides policies that the city has and will create to guide the development of its streets. It is widely recognized as one of the most progressive transportation planning documents in the United States.

[monsoon]

.... If you care to do the research, there are plenty of articles in planning, architecture, real estate development, economic geography, and urban history books, magazines, reports, academic journals, and text books. The Journal of the American Planning Association, the Brookings Institute, the Urban Land Institute, among others, all have research and statistics that back up what I'm saying. .....

[orulz]

Perhaps it's not wise to interject here, but here is how I see it.

(1) In a world where all decisions are rational, economics (local, regional, national, global) drives development. This holds true most of the time in the US, because developers are (usually) private entities operating freely, and can therefore be expected to act in their own rational, economic self-interest.

(2) Transportation (roads, rail, etc), along with a host of other factors, can alter or dictate the form and location of said development, thereby affecting the relative desirability of certain areas.

But yes, in a rational world, it all comes back to economics.

Take this example: Though relocations are often driven by economics, that is not always the case. Walkability and access to transit are indeed examples of factors that can drive relocations that are not necessarily related to economics. Walkable areas can be desirable, even in the face of poor economic conditions such as high costs and no jobs. For example. A couple I know quit their jobs in Raleigh and moved to a walkable neighborhood in Asheville (with no job lined up) at the end of last year, apparently because they grew tired of their boring suburban lifestyle in Raleigh. This is in spite of the fact that housing in Asheville is fairly expensive and jobs are harder to come by there, especially in today's poor economy. This was definitely not an economically-driven relocation.

However, even though the relocation itself was not economically driven, such a relocation still creates demand for housing in Asheville, which feeds into the economics that drive development mentioned in (1) above.

[monsoon]

^But there is a difference. The couple that moved to Asheville did so with their own money. Building public transit is done with spending everyone's money and thus opens the discussion as to what is a rational use of the money. The point I made in this topic, is that spending, what looks like $2B to run a train to University city, given the lack of any kind control over what has and is being built in this area like IKEA, is a foolish waste of public money. At best it, it will be a very expensive park and ride system.

So once that statement is made, then people get unglued and show up with the arguments that "oh but look, rail will turn University City into an urban paradise". It won't and that is because of what I said above.

[Bikeguy]

In all the hub-bub regarding the utility of light rail to this destination, no one has brought up the point that those working in this store and other nearby retail outlets (which will be built in this parcel) might choose to use the Lynx as an option to driving...

When the Bike Parking Ordinance was hammered out, naysayers from REBIC and other auto-centric developers, were very quick on their feet to minimize the likelihood that anyone would bother to bike to where racks would now be required... For example, why put one at a grocery store, or a school.. or at a manufacturing plant on Westinghouse Blvd ?? Or for that matter... a golf course? Well guess what.. it's happening. Bike racks all over town are now being used by those who now have choices... There are even discussions underway for bike racks at BofA Stadium.

No, I would not expect a family of four to be seen lugging the latest Swedish concoction onto the light rail, but I fully expect to see Ikea employees boarding the blue/green line at Sharon Road West to get to their jobs on North Tryon Street...

And I may be also wrong about the unliklihood of someone toting appliances onto the Lynx... particularly after seeing a golfer bicycling into the Renaissance Golf Course on Tyvola, carrying a day bag....

[orulz]

Building public transit is done with spending everyone's money and thus opens the discussion as to what is a rational use of the money.

[orulz]

I have done my research. Since you bring it up, then give us some statistics or relevant examples. Make sure you have the case study that shows what happens if rail had not been built. Also make sure you are talking about the modern day USA. You continue to talk generalities and I am giving you specifics on what is being accomplished in Charlotte. If rail generated development, then you should see construction up and down the Lynx line. The exact opposite is taking place. There are places closing and plans on paper are being canceled and shelved. All the theoretical urban planning documents in the world can't explain that if they are saying the opposite.

[Andyc545]

Light rail increases desirability, therefore increasing demand and impacting the economics of development nearby. More people are likely to want to live in a dense, vertical, walkable neighborhood if it is served by light rail. Is it worth it to spend $1+ billion to use as a tool to make vertical, walkable neighborhoods more attractive? That is a question, and it is certainly worthy of debate, but I also think it's not as black-and-white as you hold it to be.

[monsoon]

The impact of rail transit on development and desirability will further be borne out as the Silver Line is constructed at Tyson's. Of course I can't prove it because it hasn't happened yet, but you will see.

[Andyc545]

On the argument of desirability, the most desirable neighborhood in DC is Georgetown. It is not served by the Metro.

[DCMetroRaleigh]

On the argument of desirability, the most desirable neighborhood in DC is Georgetown. It is not served by the Metro.

[monsoon]

The closest station is at GWU. It is a very short walk to most of Georgetown. And it is served by a circular bus in the same transit system as the subway.

[DCMetroRaleigh]

The closest station is at GWU. It is a very short walk to most of Georgetown. And it is served by a circular bus in the same transit system as the subway.

[Spartan]

I have done my research. Since you bring it up, then give us some statistics or relevant examples. Make sure you have the case study that shows what happens if rail had not been built. Also make sure you are talking about the modern day USA. You continue to talk generalities and I am giving you specifics on what is being accomplished in Charlotte. If rail generated development, then you should see construction up and down the Lynx line. The exact opposite is taking place. There are places closing and plans on paper are being canceled and shelved. All the theoretical urban planning documents in the world can't explain that if they are saying the opposite.

[AuLukey]

Do any of you realize that IKEA isn't just furniture? They actually have a lot of great affordable stuff you could otherwise also pick up at walmart, target, etc. I know comparing IKEA to those chains isn't going to help its image, but everybody keeps arguing, who's gonna take the LRT or bike to get furniture? I'll be the first to admit that I've made trips there with friends just for lightbulbs, LED lighting you can't buy anywhere else in Charlotte, batteries, pet accessories, and candles to name a few. And I can definitely go on. How much furniture have I bought there? None.

So my point is that IKEA is there for much more than furniture, most people just don't pay attention to what's actually on the "floor" where they keep the smaller stuff. I can definitely say I would've biked there if they would just finish IKEA Blvd down to JM Keynes. I don't feel like biking on Tryon just yet though.

And nobody is saying the LRT is going to cure UC. Has it cured anything on the south line? Maybe helped with traffic and with events uptown a little, but the point isn't to suddenly alter the developments around the line, it's a gradual thing; let's say a couple decades. But with the rising price of the NE line also comes the decrease in my belief that it will be built all at once. I wish CATS would slowly purchase ROW and property along the future line now. Then when the time comes that development and costs are rational, then it may be a lot easier to get off the ground.

[monsoon]

Do any of you realize that IKEA isn't just furniture? They actually have a lot of great affordable stuff you could otherwise also pick up at walmart, target, etc. ...

[AuLukey]

You guys don't read my posts. I said it reminded me of a mashup of Pier One, Pottery Barn, Bed Bath & Beyond, and Family Dollar.

[Spartan]

If you are not prepared to back up your arguments then I don't know what to say about that. I gave examples above, but here are more, Jacksonville, Burlington, Miami, MARTA, Detroit, Tampa, Memphis, and so forth. Your response tells me you really have not done any research on this especially with real world examples. I've also given this information in detail in the transit topics on this forum, some of which you have responded to.

[monsoon]

A read of this article goes into why IKEA is one of the most unsustainable companies in the world. A purchase from there is harming the environment and people. It's pretty much what I said earlier in this topic. If you read that article, you will also find why Charlotte was the perfect location for a new IKEA. It's not a good statement for our city.

However I will give credit to IKEA for being excellent marketeers. They have reeled in a segment of the market hook line and sinker.