Elizabeth Projects (7th St, Elizabeth Ave, etc)

[a2theb]

16 hours ago, tarhoosier said:

If someone were to build an accessory dwelling unit in Dilworth must it meet historic design conditions?  A new structure behind an existing protected home. Is that allowed?

Yes, to an extent. As Kermit stated, there is a lot more leeway in regards to ADUs, rear additions, etc. 

 

I don't believe I have seen anyone turned down specifically for an ADU but I have seen changes requested based on materials, height, layout etc.

[nicholas]

On 5/14/2023 at 10:42 PM, kermit said:

^ ok, I get that. But relative to a run of the mill HOA the PITA factor of historic districts seems relatively trivial.  I am guessing that 70% of SFH in Charlotte are in an HOA, why are we picking on historic districts while ignoring the problematic nature of HOAs. At least historic districts strive to maintain actual neighborhood character rather than some vague 1990s low-cost, auto- centric, aesthetic. 

If we decide to ignore the creation and continued maintenance of HOAs in the city, why do we feel like its fine to call out historic districts as problematic for supply restrictions? Seems like another suburban-privilege double standard.

Historic districts are added in long after neighborhoods were built up (which greatly hampers future change), whereas HOAs are usually in place from the formation of subdivisions which are not intended to see much evolution anyway.  I don't think anyone wants to see generic apartments take over Dilworth or Elizabeth, but since both neighborhoods are currently decently walkable it is a shame that they are currently filled mostly with SFHs.

Edited May 16, 2023 by nicholas

[kermit]

5 hours ago, nicholas said:

Historic districts are added in long after neighborhoods were built up (which greatly hampers future change), whereas HOAs are usually in place from the formation of subdivisions which are not intended to see much evolution anyway.  I don't think anyone wants to see generic apartments take over Dilworth or Elizabeth, but since both neighborhoods are currently decently walkable it is a shame that they are currently filled mostly with SFHs.

I agree that all neighborhoods need to increase their density. Unfortunately there is not enough land in in-town neighborhoods to accommodate all of the densification we need to meet climate goals. Density increases are going to need to happen in suburban areas along transit corridors (which will inevitably include some subdivisions).

Historically speaking, no part of cities gets a pass from evolutionary pressures -- everywhere undergoes change (either positive or negative), its inevitable.

Edited May 17, 2023 by kermit

[go_vertical]

Deleted. Wrong thread.

Edited May 17, 2023 by go_vertical

[Bat'leth]

15 hours ago, nicholas said:

Historic districts are added in long after neighborhoods were built up (which greatly hampers future change), whereas HOAs are usually in place from the formation of subdivisions which are not intended to see much evolution anyway.  I don't think anyone wants to see generic apartments take over Dilworth or Elizabeth, but since both neighborhoods are currently decently walkable it is a shame that they are currently filled mostly with SFHs.

While, agreed about having mostly SHFs, From where I live in Elizabeth I count 12 quadraplexes within a couple of blocks. These are 2 story bldgs that have existed in the neighborhood for a long time and pretty much fit in seamlessly. There is also a couple of older apt bldgs with 20 units total. That's a total of 68 apt/condo units spread throughout a small area, and does not negatively impact the neighborhood.  On a street near me I count 37 SFH/properties along a 3 block strip. If the city would promote ADU's facing onto the alleys, that could add at least 37 more rental units , adding density, with minimal impact to the overall character of the neighborhood.

Edited May 17, 2023 by Bat'leth

[Nathan2]

16 hours ago, kermit said:

 Unfortunately there is not enough land in in-town neighborhoods to accommodate all of the densification we need to meet climate goals. Density increases are going to need to happen in suburban areas along transit corridors (which will inevitably include some subdivisions).

 

There are many available lots that are currently underutilized as single-family homes. It's important for policies to incentivize and allow these lots to adapt to the market's needs. The rising prices in the market demonstrate a strong demand (for more infill). However, the notion that everyone can live in a single-family home with a large yard within close proximity to amenities is unrealistic. Conversely, giving up on the most walkable and amenity-rich neighborhoods is not a solution. While densifying suburbs is beneficial, it doesn't fully address transportation concerns and long-term infrastructure expenses.

[kermit]

10 hours ago, Nathan2 said:

There are many available lots that are currently underutilized as single-family homes. It's important for policies to incentivize and allow these lots to adapt to the market's needs. The rising prices in the market demonstrate a strong demand (for more infill). However, the notion that everyone can live in a single-family home with a large yard within close proximity to amenities is unrealistic. Conversely, giving up on the most walkable and amenity-rich neighborhoods is not a solution. While densifying suburbs is beneficial, it doesn't fully address transportation concerns and long-term infrastructure expenses.

I don't disagree with you (except I don't equate historic district status with 'giving up on' densification),  but I think you are underestimating the scale of the carbon emissions problem. Some arbitrary numbers in Charlotte to illustrate the need to transform some of the suburbs:

Within a 3 mile radius of Tryon and Trade the population is currently around 110,000. This is a 28 square mile area, giving a current population density of  3,928 people per square mile in central Charlotte -- lets call it 4,000 pop/mile

If we doubled the density of this portion of Charlotte we add another 110,000 people to the most walkable portion of Charlotte (giving this area a density of 8,000 pop/mile) -- this might be a politically doable task when putting underutilized land into dense use (e.g. the Southend model), increasing densities in existing SF neighborhoods (via ADU and 'plexes) and some residential expansion within Uptown. 8,000 people per square mile is roughly the same density as Helsinki, Stuttgart or Budapest so pushing much past this in the Sunbelt context is probably unrealistic. This level of density will also require big investments in transit since parking requirements would make this kind of density increase nearly impossible to achieve.

Unfortunately, even after creating this doubling of intown density, only 25% of the city of Charlotte (total pop 879,000) will live in a walkable area (roughly 10% of the MSA).  Density increases in the center of the city won't come close to achieving the 50% reduction in car mode share hoped for by the city by 2050. Given this geometric limitation, it seems clear that we can't fully address transportation and environmental concerns without densifying substantial chunks of suburban areas (the areas that can be feasibly served by transit) as well as the urban core.

 

 

Edited May 18, 2023 by kermit

[jthomas]

I've been following the discussion about historic districts with interest across both threads. A few thoughts and observations:

- The widespread demolition of Charlotte's historic structures is widely bemoaned on this site. Therefore, I find it peculiar to read the complaints about the historic districts. It seems to me that they are one bright spot in preserving some of Charlotte's history?

- That being said, no neighborhood should be exempt from change, and historic districts are no different. As has been pointed out, their location and walkability means that they should absolutely be densifying. The problem is that in modern development style, densification means wholesale destruction of existing buildings, and the combining of many small parcels into one large parcel for the construction of large buildings. This approach is clearly incompatible with the character of historic neighborhoods.

- There has to be another way. For one, large single family homes should be allowed to be subdivided into apartments. I know this is anathema to many supporters of historic preservation, who prefer to see the old houses restored to single-family use, but I think it is a sensible and sensitive solution. Just because this subdivision was done cheaply and poorly in previous generations, doesn't have to mean it can't be done well today.

- A couple people have mentioned allowing development along the alleys. To me, this is the key to sensitively densifying neighborhoods which are blessed to have existing alleyways. The alley is essentially a second street, which in many areas is largely undeveloped. Consider the image below, which is a random Japanese residential street:

Now imagine that same type of development allowed along the alleys in historic neighborhoods - a mix of small single-family homes and small-scale apartments, in a human-scaled environment, making use of block interiors which are typically very underutilized. This pattern would allow the historic streetscapes to remain relatively unchanged, while potentially adding a large number of dwelling units (many of which would likely be smaller and more affordable). To make this possible, minimum lots sizes and setbacks would need to be eliminated, and subdivision of existing lots must be allowed.

[Nathan2]

On 5/17/2023 at 12:22 PM, jthomas said:

 

- That being said, no neighborhood should be exempt from change, and historic districts are no different. As has been pointed out, their location and walkability means that they should absolutely be densifying. The problem is that in modern development style, densification means wholesale destruction of existing buildings, and the combining of many small parcels into one large parcel for the construction of large buildings. This approach is clearly incompatible with the character of historic neighborhoods.

 

The modern building we see is a symptom of bad zoning and could be mitigated. easy solutions: 

• remove the minimum parking mandates that force structures into expensive and odd layouts.
• Get rid of crazy articulation requirements for multi-family, this ends up adding costs and looking fairly ugly, there's a reason old brick buildings are beloved.
• Get rid of unnecessary setback rules that limit housing and increase costs.  

[RANYC]

I want street trees, and given the power lines aren't getting buried anytime soon, we will need some setback to accommodate street trees that can grow and not interfere with the power lines after just a bit of growth.

[Bat'leth]

On 5/17/2023 at 12:22 PM, jthomas said:

I've been following the discussion about historic districts with interest across both threads. A few thoughts and observations:

- The widespread demolition of Charlotte's historic structures is widely bemoaned on this site. Therefore, I find it peculiar to read the complaints about the historic districts. It seems to me that they are one bright spot in preserving some of Charlotte's history?

- That being said, no neighborhood should be exempt from change, and historic districts are no different. As has been pointed out, their location and walkability means that they should absolutely be densifying. The problem is that in modern development style, densification means wholesale destruction of existing buildings, and the combining of many small parcels into one large parcel for the construction of large buildings. This approach is clearly incompatible with the character of historic neighborhoods.

- There has to be another way. For one, large single family homes should be allowed to be subdivided into apartments. I know this is anathema to many supporters of historic preservation, who prefer to see the old houses restored to single-family use, but I think it is a sensible and sensitive solution. Just because this subdivision was done cheaply and poorly in previous generations, doesn't have to mean it can't be done well today.

- A couple people have mentioned allowing development along the alleys. To me, this is the key to sensitively densifying neighborhoods which are blessed to have existing alleyways. The alley is essentially a second street, which in many areas is largely undeveloped. Consider the image below, which is a random Japanese residential street:c

Now imagine that same type of development allowed along the alleys in historic neighborhoods - a mix of small single-family homes and small-scale apartments, in a human-scaled environment, making use of block interiors which are typically very underutilized. This pattern would allow the historic streetscapes to remain relatively unchanged, while potentially adding a large number of dwelling units (many of which would likely be smaller and more affordable). To make this possible, minimum lots sizes and setbacks would need to be eliminated, and subdivision of existing lots must be allowed.

A good example of  large home in Elizabeth being divided is the Alexander House at the corner of Clement Ave & 8th St. Years ago it was divided internally into 5 separate condos. The exterior is pretty much intact, and many do not realize that it is not a single family home.

[DEnd]

On 5/17/2023 at 12:22 PM, jthomas said:

Now imagine that same type of development allowed along the alleys in historic neighborhoods - a mix of small single-family homes and small-scale apartments, in a human-scaled environment, making use of block interiors which are typically very underutilized. This pattern would allow the historic streetscapes to remain relatively unchanged, while potentially adding a large number of dwelling units (many of which would likely be smaller and more affordable). To make this possible, minimum lots sizes and setbacks would need to be eliminated, and subdivision of existing lots must be allowed.

The main problem with that is there really aren't many Alleys in Charlotte.  there are a few in Plaza-Midwood, and a couple in Wesley Heights and McCrory Heights, yeah every bit of well done density helps, but it won't be a huge difference one way or the other.  The other thing you have to remember is that Charlotte's Historic Commission is fairly developer friendly (or it has been in the past).  Just look at Fourth Ward, it's one of the highest population densities in the city with a population of 6,000 in 0.25 square mile.  

[unctarheels]

Looks like Skyla pulled the plug on their new HQ on Central Avenue, project is officially cancelled per Polaris3G permit for construction. No public announcement of this as of yet, have an abandoned bank branch and building sitting on Central now, wonder what the plan is....

[SydneyCarton]

 

More buildings in Elizabeth torn down as plans for hotel rezoning are withdrawn

Gordon Rago

Thu, July 6, 2023 at 6:10 AM EDT·2 min read

The Elizabeth neighborhood won’t be getting a hotel — at least not for now.

Meanwhile, two buildings that were on the site for the planned hotel are slated for demolition. Crews were in the process of tearing one down last week. Another building badly damaged in a November fire is also slated for demolition, according to county property records.

The demolitions come months after Durham-based developer Lucrum Seven withdrew its plans to rezone a corner lot in the Charlotte neighborhood for a a six-story hotel and retail. The property sits at the corner of Lamar Avenue and East 7th Street.

Edited July 6, 2023 by SydneyCarton

[NYtoCLT]

2 hours ago, SydneyCarton said:

 

More buildings in Elizabeth torn down as plans for hotel rezoning are withdrawn

Gordon Rago

Thu, July 6, 2023 at 6:10 AM EDT·2 min read

The Elizabeth neighborhood won’t be getting a hotel — at least not for now.

Meanwhile, two buildings that were on the site for the planned hotel are slated for demolition. Crews were in the process of tearing one down last week. Another building badly damaged in a November fire is also slated for demolition, according to county property records.

The demolitions come months after Durham-based developer Lucrum Seven withdrew its plans to rezone a corner lot in the Charlotte neighborhood for a a six-story hotel and retail. The property sits at the corner of Lamar Avenue and East 7th Street.

Too bad they pulled out.  A hotel would honestly be pretty great there.  Neighbors are going to complain no matter what in Elizabeth but it's probably the (realistic) use that would upset the fewest people.  God knows apartments would cause an uproar (and no one is building office). 

[CLT Development]

2 hours ago, SydneyCarton said:

 

More buildings in Elizabeth torn down as plans for hotel rezoning are withdrawn

Gordon Rago

Thu, July 6, 2023 at 6:10 AM EDT·2 min read

The Elizabeth neighborhood won’t be getting a hotel — at least not for now.

Meanwhile, two buildings that were on the site for the planned hotel are slated for demolition. Crews were in the process of tearing one down last week. Another building badly damaged in a November fire is also slated for demolition, according to county property records.

The demolitions come months after Durham-based developer Lucrum Seven withdrew its plans to rezone a corner lot in the Charlotte neighborhood for a a six-story hotel and retail. The property sits at the corner of Lamar Avenue and East 7th Street.

It was replaced with a Multifamily building though... there's still a project moving forward on this site.

[NYtoCLT]

25 minutes ago, CLT Development said:

It was replaced with a Multifamily building though... there's still a project moving forward on this site.

Any idea if they are planning for ground floor retail?  Any sense of # of units?

[SydneyCarton]

38 minutes ago, CLT Development said:

It was replaced with a Multifamily building though... there's still a project moving forward on this site.

That’s good news.  Thanks 

[hinsp0]

Elizabethans beware.  Complain too much and you will be stuck with a Kenny Rogers Roasters!  I’ve had roots in Elizabeth since 1982.  Don’t be so progressive that you repeat the past.  

[KJHburg]

14 hours ago, hinsp0 said:

Elizabethans beware.  Complain too much and you will be stuck with a Kenny Rogers Roasters!  I’ve had roots in Elizabeth since 1982.  Don’t be so progressive that you repeat the past.  

This reminds me of the big rezoning battle in Arboretum area in south Charlotte.  Belks and Lord and Taylor were signed up for an open air major retail center.  The neighbors fought it and got a Walmart and Harris Teeter.  

[kermit]

14 hours ago, hinsp0 said:

Elizabethans beware.  Complain too much and you will be stuck with a Kenny Rogers Roasters!  I’ve had roots in Elizabeth since 1982.  Don’t be so progressive that you repeat the past.  

I would go to an Elizabeth Kenny Rogers Roasters twice a week for the remainder of my days! (but my wife would not go with me)

Its currently a bit too much effort to get my fix from the Kuala Lumpur location (which is arguably the closest to Uptown)

Edited July 8, 2023 by kermit

[Professor]

17 hours ago, hinsp0 said:

Elizabethans beware.  Complain too much and you will be stuck with a Kenny Rogers Roasters!  I’ve had roots in Elizabeth since 1982.  Don’t be so progressive that you repeat the past.  

Agreed! Kenny Rogers does suck. 

[Bat'leth]

On 7/8/2023 at 1:24 PM, Larry Singer said:

Agreed! Kenny Rogers does suck. 

The Kenny Rogers is now the Showmars in Elizabeth

[Professor]

5 minutes ago, Bat'leth said:

The Kenny Rogers is now the Showmars in Elizabeth

That's much better. 

[sakami]

Today at the old Dollar General on 7th Street. Haven’t heard any info about tenants other than some neighbors are opening a wine bar in one of the new spots.