Misc. Uptown Projects/News

[Professor]

23 hours ago, CLT Development said:

So is that the story? I saw it once in Hickory and couldnt find any info.

I suppose that he had a couple of homes. I was visiting my cousin in Connley Springs that moved there from San Diago and he was driving my wife and me around showing us interesting this. I was surprised to see this large house that was the home of Col. Sanders for many years. I don't have any information either, but I will see if I can dig up some. 

[Professor]

22 hours ago, AirNostrumMAD said:

I don’t have a problem with the stuff you post that always drifts off topic, I don’t have a problem when I find post to be delusional and I certainly don’t have a problem with people discussing the little building by Skye / Hyatt House becoming a retail space similar to a Walgreens in Atlanta. 

It’s not triggering for me & I don’t feel the need to shut down conversation over it so. You do, that’s cool, but I was just wondering if you were aware this isn’t a blog & I guess you are. I never whined about your profane tirades in the past & I certainly am not going to whine over a passive aggressive KFC post. 

When I moved back to the area, I remember (and it still happens) I would be interested in a particular posting. Whjle following the posting, I would continue on the same subject and find photos that I thought were related to the topic (which was Charlotte area) and they would actually be some insignificant, uninteresting structure(s) of some place in Newhaven, Indianapolis or some other place which the poster assumed was better than what was focused upon in the topic. I believe that things that are personal and not relative to the discussion should be posted where the topic fits. For example, the topic of this thread is "uptown-project news." For every project planned or in the works, I could post 50 related photos from a number of places, but what would be the point? For example, the structure in Cincinatti above. How is that to influence the topic of uptown Charlotte. It isn't an unusual building or even interesting, only to the person posting.  With a little imagination the station in Cincinatti looks like the WWI war museum in Verdun, France except for the headstones. Since you aren't going to "whine" over my "passive aggressive" KFC post, I won't whine over your subliminally passive aggressive response.  Have a good day and I will try to modify the way my clock ticks and stop such responses. But as you know, I have failed in some of my past commitments. Have a great day, seriously. 

Edited December 13, 2023 by Larry Singer

[15895]

29 minutes ago, Larry Singer said:

When I moved back to the area, I remember (and it still happens) I would be interested in a particular posting. Whjle following the posting, I would continue on the same subject and find photos that I thought were related to the topic (which was Charlotte area) and they would actually be some insignificant, uninteresting structure(s) of some place in Newhaven, Indianapolis or some other place which the poster assumed was better than what was focused upon in the topic. I believe that things that are personal and not relative to the discussion should be posted where the topic fits. For example, the topic of this thread is "uptown-project news." For every project planned or in the works, I could post 50 related photos from a number of places, but what would be the point? For example, the structure in Cincinatti above. How is that to influence the topic of uptown Charlotte. It isn't an unusual building or even interesting, only to the person posting.  With a little imagination the station in Cincinatti looks like the WWI war museum in Verdun, France except for the headstones. Since you aren't going to "whine" over my "passive aggressive" KFC post, I won't whine over your subliminally passive aggressive response.  Have a good day and I will try to modify the way my clock ticks and stop such responses. But as you know, I have failed in some of my past commitments. Have a great day, seriously. 

My post specifically in mentioning the Cincinnati Union Terminal was about adaptive reuse. 

Uptown in my opinion would be better (and more vibrant like south end) if it didn’t tear down buildings even to this day (and more painful than ever)  that are quite historical or old and the new that replaces it in uptown tends to be dull or sterile. 

Although a new development might produce more revenue than saving a historical building and encouraging retail or civic spaces etc, it could lead to a more vibrant neighborhood that encourages more development and attract more residents. 
 

That’s on topic to this thread…. If we were to be strictly on topic… there wouldn’t be any replies for weeks for most of these topics…

Edited December 13, 2023 by AirNostrumMAD

[Professor]

5 hours ago, AirNostrumMAD said:

My post specifically in mentioning the Cincinnati Union Terminal was about adaptive reuse. 

Uptown in my opinion would be better (and more vibrant like south end) if it didn’t tear down buildings even to this day (and more painful than ever)  that are quite historical or old and the new that replaces it in uptown tends to be dull or sterile. 

Although a new development might produce more revenue than saving a historical building and encouraging retail or civic spaces etc, it could lead to a more vibrant neighborhood that encourages more development and attract more residents. 
 

That’s on topic to this thread…. If we were to be strictly on topic… there wouldn’t be any replies for weeks for most of these topics…

 

5 hours ago, AirNostrumMAD said:

 

Yep, Charlotte had some treasures. I remember (as a very young kid) the old YMCA, Pound and Moore Co., and other treasures. I agree that it would be great to see these structures still here. I am afraid that the days of the nice little shops like Charlotte had decades ago are gone forever. Land and building costs make it difficult for small entrepreneurs to exist. Looks like the best we can hope for in uptown is a Steinmart or similar. Many of us wish for a reincarnation of Belks uptown. Places like Charleston haven't become a banking or finance center like Charlotte and can fortunately keep small shops and great old buildings. Even London, my favorite town, is losing lots of its old central city pubs, great bistros, and little tourist offices, etc. to new, larger structures. I'm excited with much of the change, but it is a shame to lose so many jewels.

 

Edited December 13, 2023 by Larry Singer

[rumphy]

All this talk of reuse and no one mentions the Cotton Mills/Crave/Gray/Sodoma/Land Design/CVS/Dunkin strip along Graham St from 5th to 6th streets?

Map

[RANYC]

25 minutes ago, rumphy said:

All this talk of reuse and no one mentions the Cotton Mills/Crave/Gray/Sodoma/Land Design/CVS/Dunkin strip along Graham St from 5th to 6th streets?

Map

I do like this stretch of Graham but love its potential..  I’m anxious to see the surface lots across the street fill in with structures to achieve a true corridor effect.  I also wish there was a way to significantly slow down the traffic on Graham to make this area much more of a pedestrian destination allowing strollers to dip in and out of bars/lounges and to easily and seamlessly traverse Graham while doing so.

[kermit]

^ I was in that CVS a few days ago for the first time ever. Much nicer and larger than I had expected. I was impressed. The Duncan on the other hand has seen better days.

[KJHburg]

finally got a decent shot of the apartments on N Tryon right outside of 277 loop.  Those being built with cinder blocks. 12th and N Tryon. 

 

[turbocraig]

10 hours ago, KJHburg said:

finally got a decent shot of the apartments on N Tryon right outside of 277 loop.  Those being built with cinder blocks. 12th and N Tryon. 

 

These photos are jarring. 

[Norm2]

1 hour ago, turbocraig said:

These photos are jarring. 

Why is a cinder block building jarring? Most. Buildings in many places are built of cinder block.

[turbocraig]

7 hours ago, norm21499 said:

Why is a cinder block building jarring? Most. Buildings in many places are built of cinder block.

The entire composition.  Angles.  Looks like it’s sinking.  

[Professor]

Yea, what's up with the leaning tower of Tryon?

[KJHburg]

1 hour ago, Larry Singer said:

Yea, what's up with the leaning tower of Tryon?

thats a drive by photo

1 hour ago, turbocraig said:

The entire composition.  Angles.  Looks like it’s sinking.  

it was a drive by photo 

and I think the cinder block will be covered with stucco or something.  I have no idea as I have never seen a rendering for this project.  

[Reverie39]

Photos on my iPhone while moving at some speed typically have some distortion, giving things an angled look

[KJHburg]

Couple more from yesterday.  Some oldies but still great towers.  

I noticed Honeywell now has Thrift RE leasing their retail space and since they are probably the best urban retail leasing firm in town I would expect this to get leased.  

[carolinaboy]

Observation (not to derail this thread): 110 East would look fantastic where Honeywell is and Honeywell would fit in perfectly where 110 East is. 

[Take2]

On 12/9/2023 at 4:14 PM, KJHburg said:

as for uptown something I saw in Austin make me think.  Every block there downtown is a hotel or apartment tower or both.  We need more residential all over uptown not on the edges.  We need to have 2 Wells Fargo convert to residential along with Johnston Bldg and along old Duke offices.  Downtown Austin is so vibrant because you are never far from a residential tower. 

Speaking of uptown here is the remains of the Duke Energy data center on S College and old offices on S Church to be converted to residential.  I hope that gets started soon.   anyone know when that will happen?  

as for the data center site I hear several hotel brands not represented in the market are looking around.  Hopefully one lands here on the convention center owned parcel on that larger parcel. 

Bingo!! More residential.  Period. This is not a hard concept. Create environments LOTS of people want to live in. Build spaces for LOTS of them to live in. Make owning cars expensive and difficult in these areas. Good things will follow.

[Windsurfer]

4 hours ago, Take2 said:

Bingo!! More residential.  Period. This is not a hard concept. Create environments LOTS of people want to live in. Build spaces for LOTS of them to live in. Make owning cars expensive and difficult in these areas. Good things will follow.

Rather than deliberately make something "expensive", why not just make it easier and cheaper to use alternatives?

[kermit]

On 12/21/2023 at 10:08 AM, Windsurfer said:

Rather than deliberately make something "expensive", why not just make it easier and cheaper to use alternatives?

Carrots alone have not worked well to decrease driving in the US, and its really hard to find money for transit improvements when the voting public sees driving as a better (and thus more deserving) option.  London is a great urban place because driving has always been a huge pain in the ass (more so now with the congestion charge). London transit success is certainly not because it is cheap, but it is easy and very effective.

I’ll suggest a middle ground exists before we need to discuss making driving ‘expensive’. Instead, we can talk about ending the myriad subsidies that have been given to drivers since the 1950s. This would start with doubling the gas tax (current user fees only pay for less than half of actual road costs), ending exploration tax credits for oil producers, ending property tax subsidies (tax parking lots based on highest and best use rather than unimproved values), charging per parking space walkability impact fees to developers, ending priority road use for cars (putting bikes and pedestrians on more equal footing — an actual Vision Zero plan which will require reduced speed limits), and introducing carbon, noise and other fees to address the externalities of cars. Much of this new revenue could be earmarked for transit to make it cheaper and better. And if you are worried about how these cost-recovery changes might impact low income folks (who can still afford to buy and maintain a car) then these fees can be rebated back based on income if you want. None of these changes would make driving ‘expensive’, they would merely remove drivers from the welfare that they have grown accustomed to.

I don't see why it would be controversial to expect everyone to pay the full costs of their lifestyle choice -- lets end welfare for drivers!

[thank you for listening to my campaign speech, polls show me trailing my opponent by two million percent]

Edited January 3 by kermit

[RANYC]

1 hour ago, kermit said:

Carrots alone have not worked well to decrease driving in the US, and its really hard to find money for transit improvements when the voting public sees driving as a better option.  London is a great urban place because driving has always been a huge pain in the ass (more so now with the congestion charge), its certainly not because transit there is cheap (but it is easy and very effective, except on Christmas day) 

I’ll suggest a semantic middle ground might exist before we need to make driving ‘expensive’. Instead, we should talk about ending the myriad subsidies that have been created for drivers. This would start with doubling the gas tax (current user fees only pay for half of actual road costs), ending exploration tax credits for oil producers, ending property tax subsidies (tax parking lots based on highest and best use rather than unimproved values), charging per parking space walkability impact fees to developers, ending priority road use for cars (putting bikes and pedestrians on more equal footing — an actual Vision Zero plan which will require reduced speed limits), and introducing carbon, noise and other fees to address the externalities of cars. Much of this new revenue could be used to improve transit. And if you are worried about how this might effect low income folks (who can still afford to buy and maintain a car) then these fees can be rebated back to low-income groups if you want. None of these changes would make driving expensive, these changes would merely mean that drivers would no longer be the largest single welfare class in the US.  

Drivers need to pay their own way.

[thank you for listening to my campaign speech, polls show me trailing my opponent by two million percent]

Trailing indeed, ha.  You'll need a different approach or set of approaches if you plan to chip away at this issue in a meaningful way while we're all still alive and breathing.  You could probably get a number of folks on board with a land value tax.  Also, individual households owning cars results in a lot of wasted capacity and untold costs for car storage.  I could see government assistance/subsidy for a significantly expanded rideshare infrastructure with a clean and variegated fleet of cars, big cars, vans, buses, etc.  Imagine a public-private partnership giving Uber public transit responsibility for a corridor lined with TOD developments supported by its tech and analytics tracking total addressable residential market in the corridor, detailing and responding to that market's patterns of mobility and optimizing transit stop scheduling, etc.

 

Edited December 21, 2023 by RANYC

[15895]

1 hour ago, kermit said:

Carrots alone have not worked well to decrease driving in the US, and its really hard to find money for transit improvements when the voting public sees driving as a better option.  London is a great urban place because driving has always been a huge pain in the ass (more so now with the congestion charge), its certainly not because transit there is cheap (but it is easy and very effective, except on Christmas day) 

I’ll suggest a semantic middle ground might exist before we need to make driving ‘expensive’. Instead, we should talk about ending the myriad subsidies that have been created for drivers. This would start with doubling the gas tax (current user fees only pay for half of actual road costs), ending exploration tax credits for oil producers, ending property tax subsidies (tax parking lots based on highest and best use rather than unimproved values), charging per parking space walkability impact fees to developers, ending priority road use for cars (putting bikes and pedestrians on more equal footing — an actual Vision Zero plan which will require reduced speed limits), and introducing carbon, noise and other fees to address the externalities of cars. Much of this new revenue could be used to improve transit. And if you are worried about how this might effect low income folks (who can still afford to buy and maintain a car) then these fees can be rebated back to low-income groups if you want. None of these changes would make driving expensive, these changes would merely mean that drivers would no longer be the largest single welfare class in the US.  

Drivers need to pay their own way.

[thank you for listening to my campaign speech, polls show me trailing my opponent by two million percent]

IMO, so spot on. 

Another thing in fundamentally changing Charlotte from auto-oriented sprawl to a more sustainable & dense city with adequate transit options is thinking long-term. It’s going to take decades for almost any city outside of a few to move towards a more urban future (and I think quite a bit of cities have taken that leap). Even mature dense & urban metropolitan areas are still laying the ground work for a more urban metropolitan area. 

I look at Denver & there are some criticisms or disappointment surrounding the ridership of the light rail. But if we fast forward 60 years… 60 years of their rail network, Denver might have transformed into an area resembling the DC region, for example. And it’s not just rail, it’s new housing policy, new climate policies, new tax structures so many things that will move at glacial speeds but one day people will wake up wondering how Denver became such an urban area (if it does). It was boring, dry policy that at the time seemed inconsequential and low impact. 

IMO it’s going to be monumental and probably impossible in the political climate of Charlotte / NC. Balancing the needs of today with the needs of the future in addition to the saying “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”.  I don’t think there’s political will from the voters for that shift. I do think there’s political will to build another rail line & piece meal policies that won’t really shift anything fundamentally, but not the entire package to transform Charlotte away from an urban-sprawl model of growth. And that’s ok - many people prefer it & well, we can still advocate for other things within that frame to make a lot of progress in urbanity and sustainability.

Edited December 21, 2023 by AirNostrumMAD

[kermit]

16 minutes ago, AirNostrumMAD said:

but not the entire package to transform Charlotte away from an urban-sprawl model of growth. And that’s ok - many people prefer it...

IMO it is not OK to stick with sprawl (and certainly not OK to subsidize it). It is so clearly unsustainable from the perspective of finance (see my post above) and the environment. The cities that are unable to adapt away from sprawl are going to make present day Cleveland, Detroit and Youngstown look positively Singapore-like in their prosperity.  Nothing will be more worthless in the post-auto age than a 100% car dependent neighborhood, if a city is 100% that then we can all see what the future of those places will look like.

[yea, I got a bit carried away here, but that is what candidates who are trailing in the polls need to do to remain visible]

 

Edited December 21, 2023 by kermit

[KJHburg]

Here is what some other cities are doing in terms of office conversions and how the local governments are helping out.

How Incentives Boost Office Conversions - Commercial Property Executive (commercialsearch.com)

Obviously it is not easy as people think to convert office space to housing as only certain buildings would work.  Tax incentives might have to be used.  Because think of this way a fully leased office building is worth a lot more than a mostly vacant one.  We now have a vacant 32 story office building uptown the former 2 Wells Fargo and some other buildings with extremely high vacancies.   The values of these building will decrease which decrease property tax revenue in the future.  They need to be dealt with in some form or fashion.  

[videtur quam contuor]

Kermit touches on this issue in his campaign speech. Many here are familiar with the concept of land tax versus property tax. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_value_tax

(Kermit should run for vice president with US representative Stephen Lynch as presidential candidate. I would pay good money for the campaign yard sign for this ticket.)

Edited December 21, 2023 by videtur quam contuor

[JHart]

4 minutes ago, KJHburg said:

Here is what some other cities are doing in terms of office conversions and how the local governments are helping out.

How Incentives Boost Office Conversions - Commercial Property Executive (commercialsearch.com)

Obviously it is not easy as people think to convert office space to housing as only certain buildings would work.  Tax incentives might have to be used.  Because think of this way a fully leased office building is worth a lot more than a mostly vacant one.  We now have a vacant 32 story office building uptown the former 2 Wells Fargo and some other buildings with extremely high vacancies.   The values of these building will decrease which decrease property tax revenue in the future.  They need to be dealt with in some form or fashion.  

We are still building new commercial office space here in Charlotte, there is zero need for any incentives to be provided for poorly maintained commercial offices. That office didn't suddenly become unleaseable and lose 50% of its value overnight.. Those cities in the article do not have acres of vacant land ready for construction and have development costs that far exceed Charlotte's which make the math more compelling. How would the city paying incentives to convert an office building to residential make the tax revenues go up? People aren't paying $40/sqft for residential leases...