Misc. Uptown Projects/News

[CarolinaCrown]

I'm Chiquita Banana and I'm here to say

I shall take these incentives then go away

I've re-written their jingle for them. 

FYI they have to give back most of the incentives and are stuck with their lease due to no early termination clauses in the lease they have. I think in order to receive the incentive package there had to be no early termination clauses in the lease. 

[kermit]

documented only because I was biking past today....

Edited November 16, 2015 by kermit

[GeauxCLT]

FYI they have to give back most of the incentives and are stuck with their lease due to no early termination clauses in the lease they have. I think in order to receive the incentive package there had to be no early termination clauses in the lease. 

So if the sign came down, I wonder if someone else has sublet the space and is about to move in? If I was still paying, I'd probably want to keep the advertisement. 

[grodney]

The remodel/update of the 400 S Tryon lobby is coming along well....except that the flooring they chose is so slick that they've had to put down temporary carpet runners and are advising everyone to walk on those until appropriate actions can be determined.

 

Edited November 16, 2015 by grodney

[SgtCampsalot]

The guy handling the industrial polisher was a little too high on his shift.

[asthasr]

Wow. Look at the reflection of the people in that floor. That is some high gloss...

[CLTProductions]

https://www.charlotteagenda.com/27072/should-this-1920s-uptown-building-be-saved/

Interesting insight on the builders building. I generally don't care too much about saving deteriorating buildings (Polk building) but this seems like one that should be saved. I do like the idea of mandating a developer to recreate its feel though, if they do have to knock it down. Sounds like its in bad shape

[Deleted.]

1 hour ago, Jayvee said:

https://www.charlotteagenda.com/27072/should-this-1920s-uptown-building-be-saved/

Interesting insight on the builders building. I generally don't care too much about saving deteriorating buildings (Polk building) but this seems like one that should be saved. I do like the idea of mandating a developer to recreate its feel though, if they do have to knock it down. Sounds like its in bad shape

I think saving buildings definitely depends on how old the building is and aesthetically pleasing it is. So I was presented with an option to save either a 1920's brick/stone building with heritage and that adds character vs a 1950's delapitdated factory, I'd chose the 1920's building, even if both buildings were great oppunities for redevelopment. 

But if a building is going to cost a lot to repair and make structurally sound, then is it worth it? I don't know, but what would you prefer an architecturally-different building or a generic, modern day building we see around CLT? 

[Spartan]

9 minutes ago, Piedmont767 said:

But if a building is going to cost a lot to repair and make structurally sound, then is it worth it? I don't know, but what would you prefer an architecturally-different building or a generic, modern day building we see around CLT? 

You'd think in a city with so little of its architectural heritage remaining that it would be a higher priority than it is. There's no such thing as a building that's impossible to save. It's just a matter of whether or not there is will power to figure out how (both physically and financially).

[cltbwimob]

The facade on that building is stellar-absolutely gorgeous...I know what we should do with it, we should tear it down.

The tear-down culture in Charlotte is a disease.  Even institutions which should be the hallmarks of social responsibility-the churches-are getting in on the tear-down game.  Charlotte has to be the demolition capital of the world.

 

 

[Deleted.]

10 minutes ago, cltbwimob said:

The facade on that building is stellar-absolutely gorgeous...I know what we should do with it, we should tear it down.

The tear-down culture in Charlotte is a disease.  Even institutions which should be the hallmarks of social responsibility-the churches-are getting in on the tear-down game.  Charlotte has to be the demolition capital of the world.

 

 

Another one of my hated demolitions, is the church on Central. Why couldn't we save it and use it as retail?! That would be so much better than demolishing it for an appartment complex with shops- it's those types of conversions from old buildings to retail etc. that gives cities like Seattle and Portland it's character and vibe.

And you are right about the tear-down disease, new residents to CLT demand culture but then want apartments and other developments that destroy culture, I mention this in the NoDa thread with the development of the Chop Shop site. 

Edited November 20, 2015 by Piedmont767
Spelling

[Guest]

BEFORE

AFTER

Keep this in mind when you guys say a building is dilapidated and should be demo'd. When you got the bones, all you have to pay for is the upfit. Polk and Builders building look like a freaking masterpiece to me.

And while we are on the subject. Redo these buildings to be retail, build something in front of the damn Johnson and Wales student housing monstrosity. and then redo the polk building, and you would have an incredibly respectable stretch of development on Trade.

Edited November 20, 2015 by Guest

[CLT2014]

Can the church sell that plot of land to a developer willing to restore the building? I understand the church does not want to take on the financial task of asking for people to increase their offerings for a building the church doesn't need. It also is tough to justify a building as the most important cause when a church should be taking care of people, not buildings. 

I hope they can find an investor willing to take on the challenge. 

[cltbwimob]

1 minute ago, ricky_davis_fan_21 said:

BEFORE

AFTER

Keep this in mind when you guys say a building is dilapidated and should be demo'd. When you got the bones, all you have to pay for is the upfit. Polk and Builders building look like a freaking masterpiece to me.

 

I am in 100% agreement (I would say I am in 150% agreement, but my Econometrics and Statistics professors have both told me that's impossible).  Polk State, the Builders building, and the low rise buildings sandwiched in between the two on the 400 block of West Trade are all architectural masterpieces that offer a much needed reprieve from the blandness being built around the city.  Good developers could leverage the character of those buildings to create an area unlike any other in the city.  And what better place to save some near-century-old buildings than right beside the future home of Gateway Station and the streetcar line.  Since cities of old were often built around the train stations and trolley lines, this area of Trade is perfect for reinvigorating some modicum of history in Charlotte.  If we demolish Polk State and the Builders building, we will effectively kill that area's chances to develop into something truly unique and interesting.

[dcharlotte]

Perfect example, @ricky_davis_fan_21

[Guest]

Just now, cltbwimob said:

I am in 100% agreement (I would say I am in 150% agreement, but my Econometrics and Statistics professors have both told me that's impossible).  Polk State, the Builders building, and the low rise buildings sandwiched in between the two on the 400 block of West Trade are all architectural masterpieces that offer a much needed reprieve from the blandness being built around the city.  Good developers could leverage the character of those buildings to create an area unlike any other in the city.  And what better place to save some near-century-old buildings than right beside the future home of Gateway Station and the streetcar line.  Since cities of old were often built around the train stations and trolley lines, this area of Trade is perfect for reinvigorating some modicum of history in Charlotte.  If we demolish Polk State and the Builders building, we will effectively kill that area's chances to develop into something truly unique and interesting.

Not impossible at all. Buy the land assemblage, restore those buildings, develop the rest. There was an article a couple years back about a Canadian firm that was exploring doing just that. 

[CLTProductions]

I am in the process of having a dialogue with that Dan moron. He should be fired for his comments, he obviously has no idea how to do his job.

[cltbwimob]

There are so many great potential uses for Builders and Polk State, and there are developers that would likely support.  Some developers even specialize in historic renovations.

Examples I can think of include urban chic condos/apartments, a hostel, hotels (Kimpton I believe specializes in historical renovations for hotels), and creative office space.  The possibilities are endless provided they aren't paid a visit by the wrecking ball.

 

 

Edited November 20, 2015 by cltbwimob

[dubone]

1 hour ago, cltbwimob said:

The facade on that building is stellar-absolutely gorgeous...I know what we should do with it, we should tear it down.

The tear-down culture in Charlotte is a disease.  Even institutions which should be the hallmarks of social responsibility-the churches-are getting in on the tear-down game.  Charlotte has to be the demolition capital of the world.

 

 

The churches should be LESS sacred for tear downs.   If they can't even keep their own congregations to care about them and keep them, then they should go and the land be put back on the tax rolls, and developed into something that helps the community.  It annoyed me last night that they had practically every building in First Ward torn down and rebuilt in their renderings, including Cosmos, the Library, Treloar, etc., but kept that stupid Church right there at 7th and College.    

Give me a break, talk about a dead zone, those things are only used 3 hours a week!   

Of course the Builders Building should remain, and the C.C. Coddington Building (Polk is the name under the State of NC, but they laid waste to the building, so it should be referred to by the historic name during its glory days).   Even the churches might find productive uses like Bonterra and McColl center found.  But the vintage office buildings have more reuse possibilities than the churches.  It is awkward to be at Bonterra and ordering drinks at the altar.  But if it is aesthetically nice, then fine.  Otherwise, good riddance to the churches. 

 

[CLT2014]

So any ideas of who would be willing to buy this building from the church? How much would renovating Builder's be compared to building a brand new building on a similar plot of land in Uptown and do you think they would be able to charge more for rent if it was mixed use office/retail?

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, CLT2014 said:

So any ideas of who would be willing to buy this building from the church? How much would renovating Builder's be compared to building a brand new building on a similar plot of land in Uptown and do you think they would be able to charge more for rent if it was mixed use office/retail?

I'd say 15-20M to renovate, 20-30M to build anew. 

[cltbwimob]

If the the new deed covenants would require an exact replica of the facade, I would imagine a demolish and rebuild would be much more expensive than a renovation.  The thought of tearing down a building then putting a building in its place with an exact replica of the facade is both silly and infuriating at the same time.

Also, just to add a little fuel to this flame, the article in the Agenda did allude to the possibility that this building could be demolished to create extra parking for the church.  Interestingly enough, the actual footprint of the building is so small, I can't imagine that they'd be able to add more than about 20 parking spots if they did tear down the building.  So congratulations Charlotte, it is now possible that you may have a historic landmark demolished so that an extra 20 or so parishioners per week will have parking across the street from the church rather than, heaven forbid, having to walk a few blocks from one of the other nine million surface parking lots we have in downtown.

[CLT2014]

I wish I knew some developers to make phone calls to and see if they'd like to buy it. The church isn't going to be the one to fund repairing the building, the cost is just way too high and they would never get the offerings from their own members to fund it. Could the city buy it from the church until they find a private developer? I know the city's own finances aren't great, but maybe the church would sell it at a discount just to get it off their hands. Perhaps for a swap for some free parking spots in other areas nearby?

[Vitamin_N]

1 hour ago, dubone said:

Give me a break, talk about a dead zone, those things are only used 3 hours a week!   

Depends on the church, some churches have things going on all the time.

[CLT2014]

2 hours ago, dubone said:

  It annoyed me last night that they had practically every building in First Ward torn down and rebuilt in their renderings, including Cosmos, the Library, Treloar, etc., but kept that stupid Church right there at 7th and College.    

 

That stupid church at 7th and College has an important role in Charlotte's history. After the Civil War, the black church goers at First Pres that owns the Builder's office building left to start their own church. Established in 1866 (one year after the Civil War) the church bought the church building they are now located in at 7th and College in 1869. The church joined the Presbytery in 1911. That church is a symbol of the accomplishments of Charlotte's African Americans after the Civil War and throughout the 19th and 20th century. After many of Charlotte's black neighborhoods were leveled in Uptown, you'd think their church could at least stand the test of time. You may not use that building because it isn't a bar or public library, but this church is much more historically significant and architecturally interesting that the Builder's office.