University City Projects/News

[tozmervo]

Isn't the full length of Old Concord getting the "farm to market" treatment as part of the NECI improvements? I've heard that talked about for a long time

[SgtCampsalot]

2 minutes ago, tozmervo said:

Isn't the full length of Old Concord getting the "farm to market" treatment as part of the NECI improvements? I've heard that talked about for a long time

I'm not familiar with that term? When residents asked about Old Concord Rd the city staff said there are no plans currently.

[tozmervo]

So I can't find any reference to it now, but I swear it was a project at one time. I'm watering it down, but basically the term "Farm to Market" was a fancy way for DOT to refer to two-lane roads they were upgrading with bike paths, turning lanes, sidewalks, etc. Basically it would do exactly what you described to Old Concord. There were a variety of roads this applied to across the county.

[dcharlotte]

^ Ardrey Kell and Community House Roads in Ballantyne comes to mind. I remember seeing a plan some time ago related to this. 

[orulz]

"farm to market" is a term for a country road that is usually narrow, long and meandering whose original purpose was to bring goods from farms in the countryside to market in towns and cities nearby. Never heard it used as a term for a specific type of road improvement.

[jednc]

1 hour ago, orulz said:

"farm to market" is a term for a country road that is usually narrow, long and meandering whose original purpose was to bring goods from farms in the countryside to market in towns and cities nearby. Never heard it used as a term for a specific type of road improvement.

I've never heard it used in that way either. I know in Texas, that's how they label (signage) some state roads. The signs will say FM 1250 for example.

[Third Strike]

2 hours ago, SgtCampsalot said:

Not sure where this fits best, but: I was at the BLE meeting on Tuesday for the Rocky River Road West NECI improvements, and I was reminded by some comments by the residents there about how much of a shame it is that Old Concord Rd hardly has any sidewalks, and has zero bike facilities. I was a UNCC student who had to bike/walk on that road countless times and there's no reason for it not to have any accommodations. I argue that's a more urgent connection than the university portions of the Cross-Charlotte Trail.

I did however drive by the multi-use path that NCDOT built after reinforcing that one stretch of the road for the high-speed rail. It's perfect and exactly what that whole road needs (you can also see the uptown skyline on a clear night at the peak of the hill). I think the only way that road will get improved in the next decade is if residents who live on that road rally together and push for it. There are no plans on the books to do anything on Old Concord Rd, other than a listing that it's something that should be done at some point.

Old Concord is slated to be widened to four lanes and bike lanes before 2040, at least from Harris Boulevard to University City Boulevard. Hopefully it happens sooner. Incidentally, the second phase of widening of UC Boulevard to six lanes is also suppose to happen around this time. I wonder if both projects would use standard bike lanes, or if they would rather use multi-use paths.

2040 MTP Fiscally Constrained Projects

[SgtCampsalot]

2 hours ago, Third Strike said:

Old Concord is slated to be widened to four lanes and bike lanes before 2040, at least from Harris Boulevard to University City Boulevard. Hopefully it happens sooner. Incidentally, the second phase of widening of UC Boulevard to six lanes is also suppose to happen around this time. I wonder if both projects would use standard bike lanes, or if they would rather use multi-use paths.

2040 MTP Fiscally Constrained Projects

Interesting good to know. It seems silly if they didn't continue the multi-use path concept for the rest, especially considering the Rail company's disinterest in having anything on their side of the road.

[Third Strike]

Work on the Tom Hunter Station apartments seem to be imminent. A grading permit for the complex dropped in Accela today. They look pretty decent, but no retail component is attached to the project. However, based on renderings, it looks like the developer can convert some of the street-facing units to retail in the future. The area between Tom Hunter and University City Blvd is really taking shape. Hopefully we'll see some more meaningful development closer to the campus.

[SgtCampsalot]

I'm excited. Pretty decent streetscape presence considering the area. That stretch will develop way sooner than UC proper.

[Skyybutter]

What type of development should we expect the closer one gets to UC , meaning closer to Harris/N.Tryon . I figure since you guys arent mentioning anything that nothing specific has been announced, but what do you all expect? are we looking at development similar to Southend?

[SgtCampsalot]

From what I've gathered, I think the only UC proper developments that'll happen in the near-ish future are infill in the shopping center parking lots, and those owners are taking the slow, long view. Will probably be a while. The real unfortunate thing is that I can't see any area around the UNCC BLE station with any land that could become a mixed-use student hangout area, let alone any interesting old buildings to develop around. That's the kind of thing UNCC needs more than anything. If only that damn Ortho Carolina building would disappear...

Edited February 2, 2016 by SgtCampsalot

[tozmervo]

[insert obligatory architectural/urban design commentary]

Does anyone know where this is? Light rail borders one side, but I can't ID any streets.

 

 

Edit: n/m, it's this thing: http://ww.charmeck.org/Planning/Rezoning/2015/011-023/2015-020%20site%20plan%205th%20rev.pdf

Edited February 2, 2016 by tozmervo

[SgtCampsalot]

^I can't tell if I'm grateful for that street to get infill, or if I'm aghast at the scale of that parking lot. 

I mean at a certain point you don't want to force developers to build a deck every time, driving up costs/rents, but you need impeccable streetscapes to make it work.

Edited February 2, 2016 by SgtCampsalot

[urbanlover568]

20 hours ago, SgtCampsalot said:

^I can't tell if I'm grateful for that street to get infill, or if I'm aghast at the scale of that parking lot. 

I mean at a certain point you don't want to force developers to build a deck every time, driving up costs/rents, but you need impeccable streetscapes to make it work.

I agree. If they added a deck, they could add more units. Makes perfect business sense. 

[Rufus]

Here's the thing.  I would be ok with the parking lot if the site plan was more urban in design.  There was no effort at all put in this design to make it even close to resembling TOD.  In fact, it was almost as if they thought TOD design meant just put more buildings on the site and somewhat close to the street.  This is ridiculous.  If the city had any guts on improving density, quality of design, and urban form, this company would be laughed out of the city.  It pisses me off that this is getting passed for University City, an area which has decent bones in place for great urban development, but keeps getting thrown to the wayside in favor of suburban bulls**t design.  It's atrocious that the only real urban designed building in the area is the Crescent project across from campus that is basically falling apart. 

[urbanlover568]

9 minutes ago, Rufus said:

Here's the thing.  I would be ok with the parking lot if the site plan was more urban in design.  There was no effort at all put in this design to make it even close to resembling TOD.  In fact, it was almost as if they thought TOD design meant just put more buildings on the site and somewhat close to the street.  This is ridiculous.  If the city had any guts on improving density, quality of design, and urban form, this company would be laughed out of the city.  It pisses me off that this is getting passed for University City, an area which has decent bones in place for great urban development, but keeps getting thrown to the wayside in favor of suburban bulls**t design.  It's atrocious that the only real urban designed building in the area is the Crescent project across from campus that is basically falling apart. 

Wait. This PASSED? LOL 

[CLT2014]

36 minutes ago, Rufus said:

 This is ridiculous.  If the city had any guts on improving density, quality of design, and urban form, this company would be laughed out of the city.  It pisses me off that this is getting passed for University City, an area which has decent bones in place for great urban development, but keeps getting thrown to the wayside in favor of suburban bulls**t design.  It's atrocious that the only real urban designed building in the area is the Crescent project across from campus that is basically falling apart. 

What are the decent bones in University City? The areas feels more sprawling to me than Ballantyne. You have power center strip malls with massive parking lots like Belgate, Commons at Chancellor Park, Walmart, University Place and older suburban garden apartment complexes. University City Blvd, WT Harris, and Tryon are extremely busy and terrifying to cross as a pedestrian. I feel like the only "bones" are the college. Everything else is pretty much the definition of suburban sprawl. 

[DavieNative]

22 hours ago, tozmervo said:

H[insert obligatory architectural/urban design commentary]

Does anyone know where this is? Light rail borders one side, but I can't ID any streets.

 

 

Edit: n/m, it's this thing: http://ww.charmeck.org/Planning/Rezoning/2015/011-023/2015-020%20site%20plan%205th%20rev.pdf

Honestly I don't hate it because it has good street frontage and its not another box store. Just remember we're talking about UC here... It could be so much worse.

[tozmervo]

Truth. I think "Arcadia" set the bar for worst UC complex. 

[videtur quam contuor]

(This may be elsewhere in this section from the past) Years ago when Harris  Boulevard was nearing completion the Council was asked to determine which of the three corners of the NC 49-Harris interchange to approve for commercial strip center development. The planning recommendation was for one corner, as I recall. Council could not agree so they approved all three.

[Niner National]

1 hour ago, tozmervo said:

Truth. I think "Arcadia" set the bar for worst UC complex. 

Didn't they at least leave the corner open for development in the future? It's pretty awful as it stands now, but maybe we can at least get some faux urban development on that corner to mask it a little bit.

[NCMike1990]

Work is underway on the University Pointe Blvd extension over I-85. A roundabout will also be constructed where the street meets with IBM Drive.

 http://charmeck.org/city/charlotte/epm/Projects/Transportation/Roads/Pages/UniversityPointeBlvd.aspx

[Spartan]

On January 29, 2016 at 9:48 AM, SgtCampsalot said:

Not sure where this fits best, but: I was at the BLE meeting on Tuesday for the Rocky River Road West NECI improvements, and I was reminded by some comments by the residents there about how much of a shame it is that Old Concord Rd hardly has any sidewalks, and has zero bike facilities. I was a UNCC student who had to bike/walk on that road countless times and there's no reason for it not to have any accommodations. I argue that's a more urgent connection than the university portions of the Cross-Charlotte Trail.

I did however drive by the multi-use path that NCDOT built after reinforcing that one stretch of the road for the high-speed rail. It's perfect and exactly what that whole road needs (you can also see the uptown skyline on a clear night at the peak of the hill). I think the only way that road will get improved in the next decade is if residents who live on that road rally together and push for it. There are no plans on the books to do anything on Old Concord Rd, other than a listing that it's something that should be done at some point.

The good thing about NECI and the BLE is that North Tryon will be dramatically improved, so Old Concord could become less important as a route for bikes and peds unless you live on it.

 

On January 29, 2016 at 10:49 AM, orulz said:

"farm to market" is a term for a country road that is usually narrow, long and meandering whose original purpose was to bring goods from farms in the countryside to market in towns and cities nearby. Never heard it used as a term for a specific type of road improvement.

This is correct. It's definitely jargon, but its a generic term for 2-lane rural roads surrounded by urban development (i.e.: most roads in the outer portions of Charlotte). There are some projects around town where you will see that in the title (i.e.:Oakdale Rd FTM, Johnston-Oehler FTM, Bryant Farms, Community House, etc). Usually those projects will widen the street to add bike lanes, sidewalks, planting strips, and a center turn lane (i.e.: all of the features that would make it an urban street). Its definitely confusing because the project technically removes the "FTM" features and as an adjective that would be used to describe the road.

Old Concord is in this category. While it's not on an adopted plan for improvements in the short term, I've heard that the City wants a side path rather than a sidewalk because the RR companies will not allow any sidewalk on their side of the road.

The most frustrating thing is, even though these roads are the source of many problems in the city, City Council has opted not to fund the program that would improve these types of roads.

[kermit]

Boggles my mind that you guys still have some hope for U City. I wrote it off years ago despite (or because of) working there for 16 years. Its a friggen radioactive wasteland.

(I am a horrible prognosticator, so if there is hope for change I may be the last to see it)

Edited February 4, 2016 by kermit