500 West Trade (14 story apartments on site of former Polk Building)

[dubone]

Please don't suggest trade-offs of transportation investments and the desire to adapt and reuse old buildings.     That is not productive, and not even close to something that would ever happen.   

 

Cities with enlightened developers that invest in the reuse of older buildings end up with far more interesting cityscapes.  This is an ideal that is LONG past pointless in Charlotte where the stock was limited to begin with, and was decimated by weak city policy.    In my 15 years in this city, very few older buildings with some interesting history have remained standing.   In this case, it is obviously the fault of the state, which could have easily made positive movement in the long term viability of this structure.

 

Often "inspected and deemed recoverable" is purely based on the willingness of the developers to even entertain reusing an older building.  Most want to start from scratch because they end up with something entirely their doing.  So any repair cost is seen as a reason to level.   But then build new with every corner cut and limited design quality because of the obvious profit motive.     In 50 years, I suspect the Polk building repaired and reused will have more durability than The Mint across the street and whatever developers might build in its place at 6-stories.  

 

If we had CITY POLICY not city funds in line with reusing existing buildings, we would have far more than we do right now.    But keeping this building and building around it would result in a far far more interesting city than we will end up with.  Beige and boring and everything people from big and interesting cities hate when they do not want to move here.  

[BullDurhamer]

I just wanted to chime in with a couple comments and thoughts.  First, I don't see a single personal attack above.  There are numerous other threads where a conversation like this has degraded to a personal attack, so bravo on the exchange of different points of view and keeping it polite.  

 

Second, I don't think the comparison between Durham warehouses or Richmond buildings can be made without significant detail provided as numerous factors impact the ability to repurpose a building (zoning, grant funding, state of repair of the building in question, etc.).  More specifically to Durham, the bulk of downtown renovation was kicked off by "non-rational" (to use the wording above, in a non-derogatory manner).  The first warehouse to be repurposed were done by Blue Devil Ventures (Christian Laettner and Brian Davis), which subsequently went under.  The city of Durham helped the DBAP replaced the DAP.  Then Self-Help provided low cost funding to help restore the downtown loop area.  How many new 10 story plus building are in Durham?...0.  Durham is a much better city than it was, but this is not because of private investment.  It is because of public-private investment.  I know far less about Richmond, so I cannot comment there. If the city, county, or state provided a grant or funding to repair the building, then the financial metrics of the property might warrant the repurposing of the building.  The state in its lack of maintenance and care altered the metrics of this building to where they are now.  Therefore, in my opinion, they deserve the blame.

 

As for midrise stick built apartments in Uptown, I realize these are not ideal.  However, there are a few benefits that I think are being ignored.  First, they get people living in Uptown who might not be able to afford the rent/mortgage on a $400,000 condo in a highrise, and therefore overall increase the Uptown population.  That higher population will lead to more activity and retail in Uptown, which should have an impact on additional positive draws to Uptown.  While we may not like prime locations going to apartments, ultimately, these empty (given the state of Polk, I am considering it an empty lot for this sentence) spaces needed to be used to push the financial metrics for developers into taller buildings.  We are seeing so many midrise buildings because the cost of the land has to be spread out over relatively little rent.  As the remaining land gets pushed up in price, developers will need to build up to create enough space (rent) to support the added land costs.  So, these midrise apartments will eventually lead to more height.  Finally, these midrise apartments will be cheaper in 25-50 years to be torn down for 30 story building than a 10 story condo/apartment tower (unless UP'ers are complaining about their historic value at that time). 

not to nitpick, but the american tobacco campus renovation was basically the start of the modern rebuild of durham and has been a wildly successful mixed use core that has been the core of all of the surrounding redevelopment over the last fifteen years or so.  yes, there was public money involved, but there was also a huge private investment made by capitol broadcasting and duke university. you really couldn't be more wrong about private investment not being the critical component to durham's success. i believe durham built the parking decks and private money did everything else with some state provided historical tax credits moving things along as well.  keep in mind you had some other repurposing far earlier with warehouse areas like brightleaf square as well.  even in different times there was a vision that has seriously paid off for those of us here today.

 

more than just the tobacco warehouses and mills being renovated, even the "old" regular four and five story type of building are being saved and rebuilt.  now you can stroll through downtown on an evening and step into a wine bar with a back alley patio that makes you feel like you're in italy, or dine on some awesome pizza in an old firestation.  the list goes on and on and only continues to get greater. the experience for the individual on the street is overwhelmingly positive so much to the point that durham is a regional draw.  the economics of this strategy have benefited the city far more than i'm guessing anybody would have ever imagined 20 years ago with the baseball stadium was built in what was probably a similar setting to what the ericcson stadium in charlotte was built in that lonely part of town way back when.   for durham, being neat and "cool" has been incredibly valuable and i am so thankful we haven't allowed all of our old buildings, warehouses or not, be torn down because some developer could come in and build something new and fancier while being able to fill his own pockets even more than he would have .

 

i'm not here to say durham is great and charlotte sucks, and i don't believe that to be the case at all.  i understand politics are very different as well, so i guess i'm just trying to share my experiences from my home town and explain just how valuable our old buildings have been to our own renaissance.    we have a powerful historical commission that has helped keep things in check along the the way and we're doing ok.  i don't think it's crazy to suggest that developers to do better and actually hold them to a higher standard and we'd all be better off if we told them to do better more often than we do.  again, i remind you charlotte that developers are jumping over each other to get a piece of charlotte.  if there was ever a time to require greatness, this would be it.  if big ass lobbies and stucco facades don't cut it, then stop allowing it.  

Edited May 7, 2015 by BullDurhamer

[BullDurhamer]

Ha ha, no one is offended, you are fine.  I'm not sure what shape this building is in (probably bad).  While I do think that developers should be held to a higher standard in our fair city, I'm at the point where I could care less about the Polk Building as it stands.  It's been vacant for as long as I've lived here (1996), you probably can't find a soul in the city that has an actual tie to it, and let's face it, Charlotte is just not a historical city.  We've got a paltry stock of historic buildings, saving 1 more isn't going to make a difference.  No one is ever coming to Charlotte for our stock of historic architecture.  I know that's not a popular opinion around here, but there are 100 other cities in this country I'd rather go to to explore American history, Charlotte won't move up that list by saving the Polk building.

 

Tear it down and build something of high architectural standards in its place.  Of course, that is where developers need to be held to a higher standard.

so what if it's been vacant for fifteen years?  the south end of uptown was vacant forever and now look at it. it seems like almost every old building that's been renovated across the south in recent years had been vacant for some time before bring brought back to life.  i find the mindset that since the entire city isn't filled with old buildings that one more doesn't matter insane, but i understand that your opinion isn't unique.  why does it have to be all or nothing?  variety is precisely what will draw people to the core of the city.  tourists may oooh and aww at the big skyscrapers, but when it comes down to livability, the experience on the street level and accessibility of the core is what's key.  that giant bank of america building is stunning, but it looks like fort knox to me with the guard on every corner as i walk past.  

Edited May 7, 2015 by BullDurhamer

[15895]

I'm not sure the whole "lacks character" thing is still really all that relevant of a description anymore. Uptown is thriving. Uptown has its own character and if a more funky or warehouse feel is your thing, Plaza, NoDa & SouthEnd are right there.

I would prefer this structure be repurposed, but whether it gets tore down or not, it will not really change how little historic midrises we do have uptown.

I think a few more Lowrise buildings uptown (with a nice street presence) would be a nice balance.

Edited May 7, 2015 by AirNostrumMAD

[birky]

A couple of thoughts as I wade into the discussion here...

 

Is there a difference between saving an "old" building versus saving a "historic" building?  Is the Polk building worth saving simply because of the fact that it's old?  Are we drawing an arbitrary line in the sand here?  Or does the Polk building have a unique history or architecture that makes it truly stand out?  I think there is an argument to be made that people enjoy seeing variance in architecture; that "whitewashing" a city by making it entirely modern can make an urban area feel bland or uninspired.  But at the same time, if the option is tear down + redevelopment or Polk building remains standing in crummy state for another 30 years, which is the best option for Charlotte?  I'm not sure what the right answer is, but I'm skeptical of saving the Polk building purely for the purpose of saving an old building.

 

Secondly, as others have pointed out, it's really on the voters to force the city government to require renovation of property like this, if that's what we want.  It's not wrong to expect some sort of corporate social responsibility, but at the same time, not everyone's opinion will be the same on whether the Polk Building is worth saving.  If we're interested in saving old buildings, then the we have to press upon the city's leadership that it's both what voters want and good for the city, and we have to set some sort of standard for how this gets decided.

Edited May 7, 2015 by birky

[ah59396]

so what if it's been vacant for fifteen years?  the south end of uptown was vacant forever and now look at it. it seems like almost every old building that's been renovated across the south in recent years had been vacant for some time before bring brought back to life.  i find the mindset that since the entire city isn't filled with old buildings that one more doesn't matter insane, but i understand that your opinion isn't unique.  why does it have to be all or nothing?  variety is precisely what will draw people to the core of the city.  tourists may oooh and aww at the big skyscrapers, but when it comes down to livability, the experience on the street level and accessibility of the core is what's key.  that giant bank of america building is stunning, but it looks like fort knox to me with the guard on every corner as i walk past.  

 

Yeah, but South end had a pile of vacant buildings that were re-purposed into a district, same with NoDa.  That type of preservation, I understand.  This is one building, alone on a corner, with nothing of historical interest around it.  Everything around it will be brand new, including the train station and ball park.  It doesn't have to be all or nothing.  We've got a couple historical buildings left that have been re-purposed.  I just don't care if the Polk Building remains or not.

 

Frankly I think we put too much stock into the fact that because something is old, it's immediately untouchable and has "character".  Every American city seems to have some sort "warehouse district" and "art district" or "[unique set of brick buildings built in 1910]".  Charlotte has a nice little district in southend, Noda and P-midwood, and maybe something will come out of the Gold District.  But that's about it.

 

 

 

Edit:

 

My point is larger, but Polk building kinda works as a focal point of it all.  What I'm saying is this:

 

Charlotte gets a lot of flack for not having a "soul" or "character", which is fine because we are shiny and new and an identity takes time to create.  But we aren't going to set ourselves apart from the rest of the Southeast, let alone the country, by trying to save the random old buildings we have left.  In fact, we will just be doing what everyone else is doing, and even worse, we will be the worst at it...by a large margin.  Like I've said before, it Charlotte truly wants to set itself apart, it needs to embrace its future and not the past, because there isn't anything left for us anyways.

Edited May 7, 2015 by ah59396

[HopHead]

I think ah59396 brings up a great point... Charlotte has never been a city that people come to for historical purposes. As much as I'd prefer to not level the Polk building for something new in its place where there are still parking lots that could be used, it's not going to change the perception of our city. The one comment however I always get from friends and family that come here to visit is that it's one of the cleanest cities (center city) that they've ever been to. And I think there's a lot to be said for that. We should embrace it for what it is. I lived in Richmond for number of years and what cltbwimob is correct. For what it lacks in tall, new shiny 40+ story towers it makes up for with density and great reuse of old buildings. I've often thought if you took Richmond's density and re-purposed buildings and stuck it in Charlotte with what we have, you'd have one of the great American cities. Unfortunately, that just can't happen. We won't have the character that some places have, but other places would also be enviable of the things we do have. Charlotte is like that kid of yours who may not be perfect, but she's yours and you love and accept her for what she is.. 

[tozmervo]

And she also makes more money than your other kids, so she can get you into a nice assisted living facility.

 

#ilikethismetaphor

[BullDurhamer]

why is the latta arcade so revered while this is deemed to be not worthy of saving?  both were built around the same time as each other and this building is surely a much stronger and capable structure.   with this polk building you have basically the last link to what this area looked like almost a hundred years ago.  it would be a huge shame to lose that just for the sake of "progress".  it almost feels like this is the one of the last animals of a certain species alive and the hunters have raised their hands up and told us that since they're almost all gone anyway, we might as well finish the species off.    

[ah59396]

why is the latta arcade so revered while this is deemed to be not worthy of saving?  both were built around the same time as each other and this building is surely a much stronger and capable structure.   with this polk building you have basically the last link to what this area looked like almost a hundred years ago.  it would be a huge shame to lose that just for the sake of "progress".  it almost feels like this is the one of the last animals of a certain species alive and the hunters have raised their hands up and told us that since they're almost all gone anyway, we might as well finish the species off.    

 

 

Because the Latta Arcade has actual historic importance (listed on the national register of historic places in 1975), has functionality and it was never coated in stucco.  What would you actually save on the Polk building?  The old steel?

[15895]

why is the latta arcade so revered while this is deemed to be not worthy of saving? both were built around the same time as each other and this building is surely a much stronger and capable structure. with this polk building you have basically the last link to what this area looked like almost a hundred years ago. it would be a huge shame to lose that just for the sake of "progress". it almost feels like this is the one of the last animals of a certain species alive and the hunters have raised their hands up and told us that since they're almost all gone anyway, we might as well finish the species off.

Urban renewal could have been the best thing for Charlotte in the long run. It has led to an extraordinary growth. While old buildings may have been lost, arenas, office towers, etc have been built in their place.

It's like if I kept saying "why oh why did the Raleigh region create Research Park? It stalls the growth and competes with Raleigh and is 18 miles away from Raleigh, closer to Durham which creates another competitor to downtown Raleigh" . Well, who knows if the Triangle would be a strong tech hub without the research park and who knows if Uptown would still be a financial powerhouse and growing uptown if urban renewal hadn't occurred.

I'm not sure I would want to repeat history and not choose urban renewal so that a small minority of swanky liberally (which I am one for the record) "urbanites" can shop at NaNa's Clothing in an old brick building before 5pm and yet still have to drive to the suburban parts for still, majority of my shopping (I really doubt Durham's warehouses satisfies all your shopping needs for dog food, Toilet paper and I would imagine you don't get all your clothes from the old buildings? If you do, Kudos to you for really sticking to your values)

It's just beating a dead horse at this point. It is what it is. Uptown has a bright future as a destination for different reasons other the NaNa's Bull City Clothing.

[BullDurhamer]

what is the historic value of the latta arcade as opposed to another building from the same era (historic label notwithstanding)?

 

furthermore, had it not gotten that seal of historic approval, you know that thing would have been razed a while ago, and then what?  would it be missed or would it be a target or something by now?

[ah59396]

what is the historic value of the latta arcade as opposed to another building from the same era (historic label notwithstanding)?

 

furthermore, had it not gotten that seal of historic approval, you know that thing would have been razed a while ago, and then what?  would it be missed or would it be a target or something by now?

http://www.cmhpf.org/S&Rs%20Alphabetical%20Order/surveys&rlattaarcade.htm

[birky]

The issue with using Latta Arcade as a comparable to the Polk Building is that we're really talking about two different things here.  I think the attachment to Latta (and more importantly, Brevard Court) is based on usage and not necessarily age/history of the buildings.  People would certainly miss the social scene at Brevard Court if it was razed. Would they miss the buildings? Maybe, maybe not.

Edited May 7, 2015 by birky

[ah59396]

The issue with using Latta Arcade as a comparable to the Polk Building is that we're really talking about two different things here. I think the attachment to Latta (and more importantly, Brevard Court) is based on usage and not necessarily age/history of the buildings. People would certainly miss the social scene at Brevard Court if it was razed. Would they miss the buildings? Maybe, maybe not.

Where the hell would I drink!?

[cltbwimob]

Did I land on the wrong Urban Planet? Everyone was so quick to argue how disgusting it was that a developer would put a stick building on a G--D--- grass-covered berm over on Stonewall but it's perfectly acceptable on the Polk site where a historic structure has to come down. Sure, it may not be where the Declaration of Independence was signed, but the fact that it has survived this long is historic by Charlotte standards. Everyone here knows full well that the Polk building if renovated will likely be way more beautiful than what will replace it.

Profitability and responsibility are not mutually exclusive concepts, and embracing our future does not mean we have to destroy every single vestige of our past if its not on a landmark registry or not part of a district with other buildings just like it. I think I have found the true source of my ire. It's not just the developer, or the state, or any one person/entity in particular. It's this attitude that because the building is not on a historic list, and Charlotte is not a historic city, then it should come down and be replaced with cheap crap.Why? Because well, it's Charlotte and that's the Charlotte way. SMH

[birky]

^Sounds like two different arguments here: 1. Is the Polk Building worth saving? 2. Are we OK with crummy stick built projects?  I think you can say no to the first built still want transformative projects.

 

EDIT:

 

Are they interrelated? I'm not sold.  Regardless, if the option is "crummy stick built 6 story or crummy polk building remains abandoned for another decade (or more)", I guess I would be for the crummy stick built and what I've written below is probably why:

 

----------------

 

There's actually a bigger point for discussion here regarding urban development and gentrification, something that has been lightly touched on in this forum. It seems like we're all sort of skirting around it right now. Just because they have been in the news relatively recently and will likely continue to be: the gentrification of Cherry and Belmont.  We're seeing a lot of it in the former, and little of it in the latter, which will likely only expand when the BLE is complete.  These are neighborhoods that are historically black, low to low-middle class.  Should we spend the sort of time discussing the preservation of those neighborhoods as we do with things like the Polk Building? I could be wrong, but I think we've already spent more ink in this thread than we have in the Cherry or Belmont threads on discussions of this nature. A lot of those people/families will likely get priced out of their own communities over the coming decades.  As I said in an earlier post, making your stand at the Polk Building while letting development essentially run over people in these neighborhoods (in the name of development/gentrification) seems fairly arbitrary, if not hypocritical (and I stress that's not directed at anyone in particular; it's probably a statement regarding the nature of the forum in general).  We also need to consider how we shape history, because we most certainly do.  We praise the foresight of long term city planning in the mid 20th century, but too often forget or ignore how the city tore down public housing in 1st ward or the Brooklyn neighborhood in 2nd ward.  In fact, Charlotte has a real problem in general of selective memory (as most cities do); most people here can tell you why the city is nicknamed "The Hornet's Nest", but probably don't want to think about the city's relationship with slavery (40% of the population by 1860) or Jim Crow. And I'm certainly not absconding myself here, because I'm guilty of it too.

 

Maybe the Polk Building matters and maybe it doesn't, I don't know. But we are constantly shaping our own history and I guess, to me, it seems rather silly to fight for the Polk Building and not for other stuff.  That's probably why I don't feel too tied to the Observer building, and why, even though I would lament the loss of Brevard Court, I don't think it would be due to the loss of the old buildings, but rather the individual places & atmosphere where I like to hang out.

Edited May 7, 2015 by birky

[cltbwimob]

^^^If you read the last three pages worth of debate you will realize that the two arguments are very much interrelated because the proposal to replace Polk is a 6 story apartment building. How many six story apartment buildings in Charlotte are "transformative" or transformative enough to replace a century old classic building?

[15895]

^^^If you read the last three pages worth of debate you will realize that the two arguments are very much interrelated because the proposal to replace Polk is a 6 story apartment building. How many six story apartment buildings in Charlotte are "transformative" or transformative enough to replace a century old classic building?

Well, technically 6 floor apartment buildings have been more transformative than this building for decades.

Crescent Stonewall doesn't have any meaningful height but it will have a great street presence.

[ah59396]

Did I land on the wrong Urban Planet? Everyone was so quick to argue how disgusting it was that a developer would put a stick building on a G--D--- grass-covered berm over on Stonewall but it's perfectly acceptable on the Polk site where a historic structure has to come down. Sure, it may not be where the Declaration of Independence was signed, but the fact that it has survived this long is historic by Charlotte standards. Everyone here knows full well that the Polk building if renovated will likely be way more beautiful than what will replace it.

Profitability and responsibility are not mutually exclusive concepts, and embracing our future does not mean we have to destroy every single vestige of our past if its not on a landmark registry or not part of a district with other buildings just like it. I think I have found the true source of my ire. It's not just the developer, or the state, or any one person/entity in particular. It's this attitude that because the building is not on a historic list, and Charlotte is not a historic city, then it should come down and be replaced with cheap crap.Why? Because well, it's Charlotte and that's the Charlotte way. SMH

 

 

"Everyone knows full well that the Polk building if renovated will be way more beautiful than what will replace it".

 

But we don't know that.  At all.  That's purely your opinion on the matter.  I have my reservations about a 6 story apartment and how "transformative" it will be, but if it's a quality design and offers retail, I'm fine with it.  No one is advocating for cheap crap, regardless of your interpretation.

 

The century old classic building you speak of, has been used as a home for squatters and had a car crashed into it during the last 2 decades.  That's about it.  It's an eye sore AT BEST and if the option are:

leave it as is versus tear it down and replace it with a functional and aesthetically appeasing residential structure is proposed, I'll take the latter.  Every time.

[Guest]

Okay, so Crosland LLC had some kind of merger but Crosland Group still remains. I got their number and could only have my name put down. I'll call them again in a few days. Darn accountant didn't know anyone I could talk to.

As for the recent discussion, the loss of the building wouldn't be the end of the district, but I hate the argument "there's so little remaining that there's not much point saving the rest". Saved historical buildings can act as architectual anchors that help developers build in similar scale.

God forbid if the developers make the buildings so they 'ignore' the historical buildings, promoting their isolation by building out of scale and facing their facades opposite of the buildings.

As an example, next to the ugly Charlotte Transit System Building, near the ugly surface parking lots, and next to the mediocre Hyatt hotel is the charming Grace on Brevard church. It's a beautiful structure surrounded by garbage. If those surface parking lots can be redeveloped, developers can build three to four story apartments, facades facing the church. Limited masonry on the ground can be used to match the church's brick. Perhaps the city the can purchase the parking right next to it and try to turn it into green space. So, with new development paying a bit of attention to the nearby buildings, a mini-district could form or an area with a sense of place.

[BullDurhamer]

The issue with using Latta Arcade as a comparable to the Polk Building is that we're really talking about two different things here.  I think the attachment to Latta (and more importantly, Brevard Court) is based on usage and not necessarily age/history of the buildings.  People would certainly miss the social scene at Brevard Court if it was razed. Would they miss the buildings? Maybe, maybe not.

you don't see the irony here?  why are these unique businesses there in the first place?  tear down latta and you have a skyscraper with a giant lobby and if you're lucky a starbucks.   or maybe you get terrible single use stick built apartment complex that really does little for the city but fills the developer's wallet. 

Edited May 7, 2015 by BullDurhamer

[UrbanGossip]

Okay, so Crosland LLC had some kind of merger but Crosland Group still remains. I got their number and could only have my name put down. I'll call them again in a few days. Darn accountant didn't know anyone I could talk to.

 

 

I'm telling you, Northwood Ravin is somehow involved in this.  They took almost all of Croslands development deals and land in the downturn.

[Guest]

I contacted Northwood Raven today and they said non of their agents knew of that building. It might remain with Crosland. In a company merger, would you leave the crappy building behind?

[pgsinger]

not to nitpick, but the american tobacco campus renovation was basically the start of the modern rebuild of durham and has been a wildly successful mixed use core that has been the core of all of the surrounding redevelopment over the last fifteen years or so.  yes, there was public money involved, but there was also a huge private investment made by capitol broadcasting and duke university. you really couldn't be more wrong about private investment not being the critical component to durham's success. i believe durham built the parking decks and private money did everything else with some state provided historical tax credits moving things along as well.  keep in mind you had some other repurposing far earlier with warehouse areas like brightleaf square as well.  even in different times there was a vision that has seriously paid off for those of us here today.

 

 

 

Actually, no.  Blue Devil Ventures started buying warehouses in the late 1990s and that was the first movement that created any efforts towards improving anything east of Duke St.  I grew up there, and I remember all the hype about the deal.  Additionally, the ballpark and self help were the first major catalysts for downtown.  After the ballpark opened in 1995 there was a clear move towards downtown (the N&O called it the Renaissance of Downtown, and this spurred the BDV purchases).  I worked int eh Kress building in 2003, and you could see the renovations happening in the downtown loop.  Prior to 2000, you couldn't even eat lunch in the downtown loop.  By 2003, you had three south or central american restaurants, a couple coffee shops, a bookstore, and a couple seedy bars.  All this preceded the American Tobacco Campus, which never happens without the ballpark or any of the other developments.  It is certainly the gym of the renovation, but far from the catalyst.  

 

Also, Duke and CB are far from rational actors in this scenario.  Duke has significant motives in making the downtown area better, beyond a profit.  CB, as owner of the Durham Bulls, gets far more out of an adjacent property than a true third party developer.

Okay, so Crosland LLC had some kind of merger but Crosland Group still remains. I got their number and could only have my name put down. I'll call them again in a few days. Darn accountant didn't know anyone I could talk to.

As for the recent discussion, the loss of the building wouldn't be the end of the district, but I hate the argument "there's so little remaining that there's not much point saving the rest". Saved historical buildings can act as architectual anchors that help developers build in similar scale.

God forbid if the developers make the buildings so they 'ignore' the historical buildings, promoting their isolation by building out of scale and facing their facades opposite of the buildings.

As an example, next to the ugly Charlotte Transit System Building, near the ugly surface parking lots, and next to the mediocre Hyatt hotel is the charming Grace on Brevard church. It's a beautiful structure surrounded by garbage. If those surface parking lots can be redeveloped, developers can build three to four story apartments, facades facing the church. Limited masonry on the ground can be used to match the church's brick. Perhaps the city the can purchase the parking right next to it and try to turn it into green space. So, with new development paying a bit of attention to the nearby buildings, a mini-district could form or an area with a sense of place.

 

If you really wan to chase them down they are located on the 3rd floor of 5960 Fairview Rd.  Right behind the Panera between Piedmont Row and Park South.