Metropolitan, Midtown Redevelopment

[lptk]

Actually there are numerous streets that surround BV and are generally appropriate for the area. But it has the same problem that Met will have in that except for the 2000 residents in the Greens @ Birkdale there really isn't any way to get to it except by the car.

And bus

And (maybe) streetcar someday

And the greenway

[Norm2]

if more roads means more traffic then does less roads mean less traffic? nope.

[monsoon]

if more roads means more traffic then does less roads mean less traffic? nope.

Absolutely it does. You can't pave your way out of traffic congestion. That has been proven many times.

[dubone]

Reality is almost a compromise from any and every ideal. But the fact is, even though BV is less than ideal, it is still a useful project. It brought retail and recognition to Huntersville. And you shop there because it is better and closer some than North Lake. People in town don't have the luxury of two major retail destinatior to pick from. We don't have any. We either have to drive out to 485 or do with out. I usually shop online, which keeps valuable sales tax revenue from here.

[dubone]

So even if Met isn't perfect, it is much closer than most else we have uptown. The proximity to retail will bring more people downtown, which eventually leads to the local retail that is more ideal.

[schmopperX]

Absolutely it does. You can't pave your way out of traffic congestion. That has been proven many times.

Exactly where & when has it been "Proven"?

[monsoon]

Exactly where & when has it been "Proven"?

In Charlotte, North Carolina. Many many times. If adding more roads didn't work, there would be no need to spend a lot of money to build mass transit as Charlotte is presently doing.

[dubone]

The key is adding connectivity. The most efficient transportation network according to traffic engineering is a grid of highly-connected, but lower volume streets.

Anyway, I'm not sure why this is being discussed here, Pappas has no control over the street network. His theory is that pedestrian-oriented shopping, in an environment where most people drive cannot be successful by putting those shops on the higher-volume thoroughfares that most people use to go far away. Even retail streets within urban frameworks tend to be less heavily traveled by cars.

I mean, is the city supposed to put a moratorium on all land unless it is a 1/10 of a mile from a mass-transit station? I just don't get it. That land became a available to Pappas, and he has spent half a decade trying to get the numbers to work in bringing national high-volume retail brands to near downtown. What is the problem? This is auto-oriented retail, that they are trying to bring intown to reduce the trips people have to take to the exurbs. But they are trying to blend it into the existing street network and greenway to allow for walkability, bikeability, and driveability. And being 1/4 mile from a rail transit line is a bonus.

Again, this project isn't perfect, and many might even disagree with the whole premise of delivering big-box retail brands to more people. But the bottom line is that big-box has already won the struggle against the mom-and-pops. There aren't any more. Now, we have to go to those big-boxes or shop online, or make do without a lot of stuff that you happen to need or want. Right now, my family must take a 20 mile round trip car ride on the interstate to get many of these things. I cannot tell you how frustrating it is to live in the center of a highly populated city, and not have anywhere to go for a large section of the merchandise spectrum.

My wife has been craving this project since we moved to this city. Many of us are excited about it because it finally delivers on name brand retail that we can be near. But also, many of us urbanites believe that by having the retail brands in town, it will bring more national retailers, as well as bring in people who would otherwise not plan to live too far from 485. The sad fact is, most people would far rather live near the big-box strip malls than near their place of employment. Now, they can finally stop instantly ruling out the idea of living in town.

I can't tell you how many times I have talked to people who have changed their perception about all the sacrifices of living downtown when they are told that a Target and a Best Buy are coming. These are factors that have real-world implications on this city's battle to keep people living in the core.

The fact of it is, people would far rather live in Huntersville than in town Charlotte. There is crime here, there is no retail, there aren't many open spaces, there aren't any culdesacs, the schools are terrible, there are too many of the wrong kind of people, and it is too expensive. So the goal is to add suburban-style amenities like big-box retailers, movie theaters, parks, easy access to interstates, provide plenty of parking, etc. People don't want to sacrifice as much as they ought to. So unless the public and private worlds invest heavily in crossing many sacrifices off the list, the battle will be lost. This city will then end up like most other cities in the region, a mess of suburban sprawl, with a dead downtown office park that is full of crime and squandered potential.

Thank you, Mr. Pappas, for doing your part.

[monsoon]

I mean, is the city supposed to put a moratorium on all land unless it is a 1/10 of a mile from a mass-transit station?

Well yes.... The whole point of transit is to change how Charlotte is developed. The stated purpose is to force high density development along the 5 defined transit corridors, and to discourage development elsewhere. This means making the hard decisions to say no to developers. This is all spelled out in the 2025 transit plan and the city is being remiss for having abandoned it before the first train runs. The Met is an irresponsible choice in regards to the transit plan.

Connectivity really means nothing if you have too much traffic. It just means you have more places where cars are backing up. More cars on the road is a bad thing in air polluted Charlotte.

[dubone]

But the city's strategy is to densify. They are using transit to densify, but if other areas can densify without it, then that is still part of the strategy. The city's vision is to put density in the transit corridors and the activity centers. As people living within activity centers, like around downtown and around SouthPark are more likely to walk for many of their trips. And even if they don't, many of those car trips would only be within a couple of miles.

But this whole discussion is moot. Met Midtown IS within a transit corridor. Here is a quote from the North Meck Town's Transit Station Area Joint Development: "A transit station area is generally defined as the area within a

[e2ksj3]

Well yes.... The whole point of transit is to change how Charlotte is developed. The stated purpose is to force high density development along the 5 defined transit corridors, and to discourage development elsewhere. This means making the hard decisions to say no to developers. This is all spelled out in the 2025 transit plan and the city is being remiss for having abandoned it before the first train runs. The Met is an irresponsible choice in regards to the transit plan.

Connectivity really means nothing if you have too much traffic. It just means you have more places where cars are backing up. More cars on the road is a bad thing in air polluted Charlotte.

What about other areas not served directly by the lines that are already established and need to be redeveloped? Do we just ignore them because they aren't exactly on the transit line? I have to agree, I think it's better to re-develop an abandon area where the infrastructure is already in place versus, building further out, therefore reducing trip times for people in Uptown and surrounding areas. To be honest, I don't think this city will ever see a moratorium, the developers wouldn't stand for it.

[ElricSeven]

The key is adding connectivity. The most efficient transportation network according to traffic engineering is a grid of highly-connected, but lower volume streets.

Anyway, I'm not sure why this is being discussed here, Pappas has no control over the street network. His theory is that pedestrian-oriented shopping, in an environment where most people drive cannot be successful by putting those shops on the higher-volume thoroughfares that most people use to go far away. Even retail streets within urban frameworks tend to be less heavily traveled by cars.

I mean, is the city supposed to put a moratorium on all land unless it is a 1/10 of a mile from a mass-transit station? I just don't get it. That land became a available to Pappas, and he has spent half a decade trying to get the numbers to work in bringing national high-volume retail brands to near downtown. What is the problem? This is auto-oriented retail, that they are trying to bring intown to reduce the trips people have to take to the exurbs. But they are trying to blend it into the existing street network and greenway to allow for walkability, bikeability, and driveability. And being 1/4 mile from a rail transit line is a bonus.

Again, this project isn't perfect, and many might even disagree with the whole premise of delivering big-box retail brands to more people. But the bottom line is that big-box has already won the struggle against the mom-and-pops. There aren't any more. Now, we have to go to those big-boxes or shop online, or make do without a lot of stuff that you happen to need or want. Right now, my family must take a 20 mile round trip car ride on the interstate to get many of these things. I cannot tell you how frustrating it is to live in the center of a highly populated city, and not have anywhere to go for a large section of the merchandise spectrum.

My wife has been craving this project since we moved to this city. Many of us are excited about it because it finally delivers on name brand retail that we can be near. But also, many of us urbanites believe that by having the retail brands in town, it will bring more national retailers, as well as bring in people who would otherwise not plan to live too far from 485. The sad fact is, most people would far rather live near the big-box strip malls than near their place of employment. Now, they can finally stop instantly ruling out the idea of living in town.

I can't tell you how many times I have talked to people who have changed their perception about all the sacrifices of living downtown when they are told that a Target and a Best Buy are coming. These are factors that have real-world implications on this city's battle to keep people living in the core.

The fact of it is, people would far rather live in Huntersville than in town Charlotte. There is crime here, there is no retail, there aren't many open spaces, there aren't any culdesacs, the schools are terrible, there are too many of the wrong kind of people, and it is too expensive. So the goal is to add suburban-style amenities like big-box retailers, movie theaters, parks, easy access to interstates, provide plenty of parking, etc. People don't want to sacrifice as much as they ought to. So unless the public and private worlds invest heavily in crossing many sacrifices off the list, the battle will be lost. This city will then end up like most other cities in the region, a mess of suburban sprawl, with a dead downtown office park that is full of crime and squandered potential.

Thank you, Mr. Pappas, for doing your part.

Yes. Thank you Mr. Pappas. The only reason my wife and I drive more than 3 miles on any particular day is to go to 1) Target, 2) a movie theater, 3) a book store or 4) a home improvement store. If we can get those four things Uptown, my already low mileage of about 4,000 per year will drop by more than half. We might even be able to get rid of the second car...hmmm.

[ElricSeven]

But the city's strategy is to densify. They are using transit to densify, but if other areas can densify without it, then that is still part of the strategy. The city's vision is to put density in the transit corridors and the activity centers. As people living within activity centers, like around downtown and around SouthPark are more likely to walk for many of their trips. And even if they don't, many of those car trips would only be within a couple of miles.

But this whole discussion is moot. Met Midtown IS within a transit corridor. Here is a quote from the North Meck Town's Transit Station Area Joint Development: "A transit station area is generally defined as the area within a

[atlrvr]

Not to drift too far off topic....but I also find it amusing that the Orange Line of the Gold Rush stops EVERY block down Tryon St.

[dubone]

But your offices have parking spaces. Most people don't have that. Most people would walk 3 blocks and take a streetcar for a mile than to walk the mile. But you know what, I don't even care if they drive. That is driving less than a mile at moderate speeds, compared to the 10+ miles most people commute.

[monsoon]

That's funny, though, since I can't get people to walk the 350 yards to my place from our offices. It seems to me that if it is more than one block, we can forget about encouraging 90 percent of the population to walk anywhere. Walking for most further than a block or so is beyond comprehension. I worry about the transit project for that very reason.

The problem is due for the most part because Charlotte is a very unwalkable city. It's a vast suburb starting just past I-277 and radiates out that way for hundreds of square miles. What I mean by unwalkable is the things that are needed for day to day living are not reachable by most residents by walking or easy to use transit. The same issue exists even in the center city where you do have the right conditions, but not the development, that would encourage people to walk. People use their vehicles for everything, because its not possible to live without one here. (without a lot of sacrifice that most are unwilling to make) The fact that a Home Depot and Target are appearing just past I-277 does nothing to change this for downtown residents.

Cities with successful transit systems, and there are very few of them in the USA, have gotten that way by putting the needs of the city ahead of property rights which remains a significant problem in the South. The question is will the future of Charlotte continue to be based on the automobile which is how it had been developed for the last 70 years, or based on something more progressive where people can enjoy the city from some place other than a speeding vehicle? Remember we are not here at UrbanPlanet to encourage the building of highrises and condo towers (leave that for the SS fanboi sites), we are here to encourage the building of a sensible city that people will want to live in. One does not necessairly mean the other.

Developments, such as the Met, continue to make this problem worse, because basically it can only be reached by the automobile and I don't see very many people deciding to walk to the place. In the past the city and the county realized that if they don't want to become another Atlanta (which ironically has the most people on rail transit in the South) they would have to change the way the city is developed. This means, discouraging development in the vast areas where congestion is becoming a problem and instead directing all new growth along the transit corridors. For property owners that are not on a transit corridor, this stinks for them, but the city is in gridlock now because it has bowed over to every developer's plan that looks to maximize profits by building cheap car oriented transit. This is well stated in the 2025 plan and I am surprised that anyone here would question the logic behind it.

The Met is nothing but a strip mall, albiet a pretty one, however if you put perfume on the pig it might smell better, but if you look closely, it's still a pig.

[Miesian Corners]

^I believe we've lost the battle of building a sensible city at this point. We are a community of cul de sacs. What we can do is build better infill. I think Mr Pappas could have done better (the positioning of the parking garages irritates me), but overall, it's a good project, it will fill a niche that intown residents have been craving.

And while I know that most people would not walk from Target or Home Expo to the transit station, how is this development any different from the Home Depot in the Loop in Chicago or the K Mart in Manhattan or the Target in downtown Minneapolis or the Bed Bath and Beyond South of Market in San Francisco?

[Charlotte_native]

Truth is it will be a great walkable city for those that choose to make it so. Move to South Boulevard, move to Metropolitan, move somewhere where you, yourself, can have a walkable lifestyle. Move to NoDa and wait for the train in a couple years. Those that choose to remain in the outlying areas WILL have to deal with traffic. I won't.

Generally, from my view, those that complain the most about traffic deal with it because they choose to live further out so they can 1) get that pot at the end of the rainbow, lower property taxes and a big yard, 2) think downtown is not safe, 3) don't want to "deal" with urban living. They also cry for more and more roads, wider interstates so they can drive their car by themselves, alone, all day long. They oppose things like rail lines, and complain incessantly about taxes, schools, and the things we all have to deal with by living in a city. If they get stuck in traffic, it is what they asked for. I don't want to force a more sensible lifestyle on them, so I feel that time and an expanding population will do that for them. Happily, my neighbors "get it" and I am glad they live around me.

In another dozen years, when it takes 2 hours to get from Cornelius and Lake Norman to center city maybe others will wake up and realize spending their life in the car to save $600 a year in property taxes isn't worth it.

Is it much different for many cities? Just on a different scale. Plenty of people commute HUGE amounts of time to get into Chicago, Manhattan, Seattle (they had worse traffic than I ever expected), and plenty of cities we feel are great. Others choose to live close to mass transit or within walking distance to work and they choose to do so.

[monsoon]

^That only applies to people who work in the center city and choose to live far away, or for that matter choose to live in the center city and work out in the suburbs. The fact of the matter is the vast majority of jobs in the Charlotte metro are not located in the center of town, and because people commute doesn't mean the city can't stick to its guns when it comes to the 2025 plan. People have to choose how much they want to spend their time getting to work.

In any case it is irrevant to the discussion at hand as it still does not excuse bad development and council members that ignore their own development plans by continuing to encourage and promote automobile based development. There is no reason however that any of these places can't do more to make the cities more walkable for the residents that choose to live AND work in their localities. If anything the communities at the Lake are more progressive in trying to stop bad development than the Charlotte city council and encouraging high density development ONLY along the future transit line passing through the area. BTW, there really isn't much tax savings by living in these places as everyone in the county pays county taxes and they make up the bulk of the taxes we do pay here.

Pappas has built 3 flashy, but in terms of sustainable development, really bad developments. I personally don't have any praise for him in what he has done. His development in Huntersville is exactly what we didn't need (thankfully they have learned somewhat from that mistake) and the Met seems to be cast from exactly the same mold.

[dubone]

I can't think of anything more walkable than a greenway. The fact is, it is a mixed use development on a greenway blending into an existing street network with sidewalks. even TOD like Bryton generates significant auto traffic. Everything does, as we live in the US, where almost everyone drives, including you. it is a lot better to have retail development nearer to where people live. the fact that Met is easy to bike, walk, and take a train to provides valuable choice we don't have now.

[Charlotte_native]

BTW, there really isn't much tax savings by living in these places as everyone in the county pays county taxes and they make up the bulk of the taxes we do pay here.

I was actually making fun of the lame argument that there is a tax savings by living outside the city. The pittance of difference is easily sucked away with auto costs: gas, mileage, wear and tear, etc.

That doesn't stop me from hearing people say they move to the 'burbs to "escape" high city taxes...

sorry, i digress and i'll stop!

[monsoon]

It is a digression however one more post on the subject. I am discussing Mecklenburg only. I consider the counties surrounding Mecklenburg to be pretty much a lost cause. If you move to one of those places there is a significant savings in taxes especially if you cross the line into SC. That comes at a cost however and its my hope that we can make the higher taxes in Mecklenburg worthwhile by making it a more desirable place to live. However if we continue to fill it with big box retail, cul de sac development, and dense development only served by the automobile, then there really isn't any reason to live in the county when by most measures, its much cheaper to live outside the county.

[e2ksj3]

From looking at the their map, the development doesn't seem to far from Uptown. Are the streets not well connected just outside the loop? If that's the problem, maybe city leaders could think about maybe making the streets outside the loop more walkable and more connected to the one's inside the loop.

Big-box I agree do generate more auto traffic, but people want them because of their prices. It's not like your likely to find a pedestrian walking down the street with a 50 inch plasma TV or something, not to say they can't co-exist. There are plenty of developments where big-boxes are in an urban environment. There are ways you can reduce auto-traffic around them, like the obvious, getting rid of the parking lots and also adding delivery service to the consumer, like I'm sure a lot of electronic retail stores do in major cities.

[dubone]

The city is spending millions of dollars to make Stonewall more pedestrian friendly under 277 to Met Midtown. There is no real barrier between this development and uptown except for people who don't live in the area, and for people held up on specific neighborhood boundaries. The only problem is that no one lives in 2nd Ward because the government owns all the land since they kicked out all the poor people. If redeveloped as planned, they would be very complementary.

[voyager12]

I think it comes down to individual lifestyles and personal choices. I don't have kids and never want any. I love living in the city and would never want to live in the suburbs. So for me a higher crime rate and all the other attendant issues are risks worth taking. Obviously, if I were part of a young growing family I would make other choices. For residents like myself that live near Metropolitan it will be eminently suitable for walkability. I happen to live in Dilworth but the site is on the greenway and accessible to Uptown and even Elizabeth. Seems pretty user friendly from a feet perspective to me. I moved here from peninsular Charleston where I used my car perhaps twice a week. Charlotte is not nearly as pedestrian friendly but many of the city neighborhoods do offer decent connectivity and its only getting better.