301 replies to this topic

[UrbanFuture]

My friends live there, they do have high levels of radon in the building, and several units had unsafe levels at the time of the testing.  Latta is taking steps to remedy the situation, I'm not sure exactly what they are doing, but in new construction you can install a sub slab vent system and it'll take care of the naturally occuring gas (i.e. redirect it from entering the building)

I think 131 Main will be alright, the place is never empty.

[Appetite for Construction]

QCkid, on Feb 22 2008, 08:55 AM, said:

I think 131 Main will be alright, the place is never empty.

That's good to hear.  I haven't been to this 131 Main location yet, but really like the one up in Huntersville.

[UrbanFuture]

2inthePink, on Feb 22 2008, 08:09 AM, said:

The view equates to Value.

This project would have a major effect on the value of my property and all others in the Arlington facing downtown.

I've recently started to come to appreciate the beauty of the uniqueness of the Arlington.  I also know the units are very nice on the inside.  However, I'm kind of excited to see a LEED building block it out partially from the view south from downtown.


Also, in regards to legal ramifications, your argument sounds something along the lines of people believing they have the right to sue in urban settings when a new building pops up across the street.  You just can't do it.  Like someone else said "airspace with 4 walls and undivided share of common areas".   Should all of the western units in 5th & Poplar go into uproar when the Vue is built?  No, its a fact that you cannot control land you do not own, especially in urban settings.  Your argument might fly in the burbs.  Sadly, the Arlington (nor any other building) can garuantee or predict what might happen on land they do not own.  The only way you might be able to stop an adjacent building's height would be to argue that your solar panels will be blocked out by the building's height, thus reducing the value of your building by adding to energy costs and reducing sustainability (which last time I checked, the Arlington did not have solar panels, and even if they re-clad the building in them, it wouldn't hold up unless they did it before the rezoning)

EDIT:  Before I get flamed for not stating it, I know you can "control" land use through zoning.  This assumes zoning changes go along with higher density and height as Charlotte continues to grow.

Edited by QCkid, 22 February 2008 - 08:07 AM.

[atlrvr]

2inthePink, on Feb 22 2008, 08:09 AM, said:

The view equates to Value.

This project would have a major effect on the value of my property and all others in the Arlington facing downtown.

In NYC or Boston, you would have a good arguement.  Local courts there recognize views as value.  You would have the ability to sue the city to prevent a rezoning, or if the rezoning is approved, sue the developer or the city to reclaim lost value.  That said, don't expect much in Charlotte.

In essence, it's the same as anyone protesting a rezoning for any other reason....just like people who passionately fought against a fire-station being built next to their houses off Providence Rd. a few years ago.  The bought (hopefully) with the knowledge of what could be built next to them, so had the reasonable expectation that a fire-station could not be their neighbors.  The arguement being that a fire-station would decrease their quality of life and decrease property values.

I will say, the comparison to Factory South isn't quite fair, because when they bought, they had the knowledge that the Park Elevator building site was zoned UMUD therefore could ultimately be any height.  Depending on when 2inthePink purchased, the South End plan may well have been completed, indicating that the maximum allowable height for the Simpson parcel is 120'.  I'm not a lawyer, but I would say this constitutes reasonable expectation, and he would have a case.....were it not in Charlotte.

The reality, this is going to become a huge issue in the future, as Charlotte develops a large inventory of skyscrapers.  With no "natural" view, skyline views will continue to command premiums.  As of now, planning does not have any regulations protecting views as many other more urban cities do.  Perhaps its time it gets addressed.

As far as this particular building, if it does go to rezoning, I would request the developers to provide mock-ups of what the "views" would be from the Arlington.  It might not be as bad as you think.

[Charlotte_native]

I have west and north views in my unit at 230 S. Tryon.  As I write this my view of BofA stadium is disappearing due to Catalyst (it actually disappeared this week with the 14th floor).  When 300 S. Tryon goes up a bit more of my views go and when Novare finishes the rest of their project on the Catalyst site, 1/3 of my mountain views go away.  When they build at 222 Church even more goes.  What do I get in return?  A view of a park, a view of beautiful buildings (to me), and still slivers of views going northwest, west, and other patches here and there.  I knew this was part of the deal when I bought here -- nothing stays the same forever -- if it did, my building wouldn't be here.

I sucks, for sure, but none of these buildings will have the same views for many years, that is just part of a growing urban core.  No one should ever buy into anything assuming or hoping that they are 100% protected with their views.  Nothing personal to anyone on here whatsoever, but any of us living here deal with this and, again, it just comes with the territory.

Edited by Charlotte_native, 22 February 2008 - 09:00 AM.

[2inthePink]

Zoning is exactly my point!

I purchased here at the Arlington based on the zoning in the surrounding area.
At the time the Simpson property was Zoned B2. We all new that TOD-M would be coming and no one that
I know of objected.  It would have to be rezoned to some sort of Downtown for it to go above 120'.
This is The Southend not Downtown! This would set dangerous president . How would you protect Dilworth
if The Southend becomes Downtown? There is still plenty of property to be developed that is currently zoned Downtown.
Some of it is south of 277 but east of the light rail tracks. So saying that downtown needs room to expand is not valid.

The values of my units here were based on Zoning protecting the view with a premium placed on properties above the 10th floor. Rezoning to Downtown would inflict major devaluation on allot of property here. Probably in the $1,000,000 range.

I know that the buyers at Factory South got taken advantage of.
All neighbors were not happy about such a large building being placed here. Zoning at the time did not prevent it.
So something was done about it.  All zoning was updated and with a cap of 120" outside of Downtown.
After this was done and the building was getting built, I made my decision to purchase here. (In a blue building, by the way)
My decision was based on Zoning protecting my investment.

I know this will be a tough battle as Harris is powerful long time Charlotte developer.
Charlotte has always been a development whore. If Harris does apply for rezoning to downtown
it will be a test of just how bad is it.

Edited by 2inthePink, 22 February 2008 - 09:25 AM.

[cltcardfan]

2inthePink, on Feb 22 2008, 11:15 AM, said:

This is The Southend not Downtown! This would set dangerous president . How would you protect Dilworth
if The Southend becomes Downtown?

...., he shouted from his Arlington balcony, 150' off the ground, to no one in particular.

[2inthePink]

Charlotte_native - your situation is much different than ours here.
All the properties you listed were zoned for downtown and anyone could reasonably have expected these buildings because of the zoning.

Not so here in the Southend. This most important property to us, Simpson's, was zoned B2 with the reasonable expectation that it would be rezoned to
TOD-M because of the Southend plan. Making the jump to downtown was far beyond a reasonable expectation.

[Appetite for Construction]

^ As easy as rezoning is in this town, I don't ever trust existing zoning as any sort of protection.  I bought in the Avenue downtown, where land use on surrounding blocks are cemetary, church, Fifth and Poplar (probably going to be there for a while), and the Ivey's building.  Even so the construction of Catalyst will limit sunset views in the winter and the Vue will limit mountain views to the west.  And there ultimately is nothing I could do if Ivey's or the church was redeveloped.

That being said, I hope things work out to your satisfaction, redevelopment of the Simpson property will be a good thing no matter how it ends up.

[2inthePink]

cltcardfan - I am shouting to all residents of the Southend and Dilworth and anyone who thinks that zoning is done for a reason.
Are we going to change zoning on a weekly basis? If you have enough money and don't like whats there, what the heck, just change it.
If its this flexible, why spend tax dollars on it all? What is its purpose?

Who are you shouting to?

[Charlotte_native]

2inthePink, on Feb 22 2008, 10:33 AM, said:

Charlotte_native - your situation is much different than ours here.
All the properties you listed were zoned for downtown and anyone could reasonably have expected these buildings because of the zoning.

Not so here in the Southend. This most important property to us, Simpson's, was zoned B2 with the reasonable expectation that it would be rezoned to
TOD-M because of the Southend plan. Making the jump to downtown was far beyond a reasonable expectation.

Not meaning to argue on a personal level, but everyone has known for a long time what was coming for South Blvd.  No one thought that The Pink Building would stand alone for very long.  I'm not saying that you are unreasonable in your expectation that the zoning around you should protect you, but this corridor has long been slated for dense development and, to most, it is quite an appropriate place for it.  Bounded by major thoroughfares, a couple blocks from downtown, no single family homes within a handful of blocks, along the new light rail line, etc.  Making an assumption about what would be built anywhere or what zoning would change to in any area is just that:  an assumption.  I've lived in the area since 1998 and people have talked about the skyline spilling out of the 277 ring down South Blvd and over to I-77 along Morehead as long as I've been here.  Exact height?  No one knew, but they fought your building (Dilworth folks -- not me, though) tooth and nail.  It got ugly and personal with the developer.  If anything, your building set the precedent.

Again, not personal to anyone in your building or situation, but this IS going to happen all up and down South Blvd.  It isn't a Harris Development situation or a developer running over the city, he is building what they WANT in this area:  residential, office, hotel.

As for making the jump to 'downtown' for Southend, they have been doing that already with combining the area with Center City Partners jurisdiction, with merging the police districts of uptown and southend, and other minor changes here and there.

Edited by Charlotte_native, 22 February 2008 - 09:50 AM.

[atlrvr]

My personal opinion on the matter is I like the general massing of the project....I like the density it brings adjacent to a LRT stop, I even like the prospect of a mini-South End skyline.  As a former resident of Lexington Ave., I even like the idea of something of this scale encroaching on Dilworth.

All that said, I do empathize with 2inthePink based on a couple of points.  It does the city little favors to spend years developing specific plans, and then casting them aside....they haven't done that YET in this case though.  That said, there are places where I do agree more density is needed.  Perhaps next to a LRT stop is one of them.  The city really needs to consider form-based zoning, or at least in certain areas.  Designating certain parcels, or portions of parcels, that would allow greater height, would be ideal, because the city could protect people, but still allow some additional density in certain areas.

What concerns me is most Charlotteans desire for the city to be a development whore.  I'm not saying the South End plan is ideal, but the city needs a back-bone, in fact it needs to get more restrictive, and it needs to carefully consider each proposal and how it fits into the urban landscape.  I just really hate the idea of the city so eager to approve anything that it throws all previously adopted plans out the window.

I think that ultimately, a fair compromise can be reached, with the developer able to orient the buildings to have minimal visual impact of Uptown views....at least this is the way it works in cities that aren't complete whores.

[cltcardfan]

2inthePink, on Feb 22 2008, 11:42 AM, said:

Who are you shouting to?

I'm not shouting, I'm just pointing out the comedy in your gearing up to do battle over your belief that a new high-rise shouldn't be built next to your 22-story high-rise because high-rises aren't becoming of SouthEnd, and well this just isn't downtown for goodness sakes!

The last line was deleted.  Do not make personal attacks on other members.

EDIT:  Totally a joke, should have made that more clear, my apologies.

Edited by cltcardfan, 22 February 2008 - 10:52 AM.

[Spartan]

2inthePink, on Feb 22 2008, 10:15 AM, said:

Charlotte has always been a development whore.

That statement is very true. I think its important for everyone to keep that in mind, particularly if you're going to invest in property anywhere in this town. The status quo is constantly in flux.

[2inthePink]

Hi All,

As you can tell the Simpson's property issue is a quite a sensitive subject for me.

After reflecting, I decided the best thing to do was to contact Harris and start a dialog.

I have spoken with Matt at Harris Development Group and had a decent conversation with him about the
concerns of the Arlington Owners.

A Few of things came out in the conversation.
1. The rendering shown was a fist effort and they are working on a new plan that may or may not have the same effects on us.(could be better or worse)
2. They could be looking as high as 200".
3. They are in the process of applying for a variance on the the height without rezoning.

I must say that the tone of the conversation was quite good. He said he would like to send us the new rending as soon as it is finished and
we would be open to meeting to discus changes that would mitigate damages to us. Hopefully this is in good faith.

This is a good first step.

I am cautiously optimistic we will not be left in shadows.

Edited by 2inthePink, 22 February 2008 - 11:52 AM.

[uptownliving]

Thanks for being proactive about it and posting what you found out on here.

I think this site is a prime one for dense and tall development since it is next to the Carson Station. Hopefully they can come up with a new design that limits the blocking of the skyline views from the Arlington.

[Andyc545]

I'm not in any position to get into this debate, so I will just say this about, 2InPink, I understand your concerns and in honestly, if I were living in your unit knowing that my best feature was about to disappear, I would be concerned.  On the contrary, I agree with what others are saying.  You're only safe if you build like Avenue with a cemetary, or something like Royal Court where you have a wide interstate giving you some border.  Although a view may be lost, hell, you are going to be part of the first major skyline outside of uptown.  As someone that is looking on this project from the outside, I am quite happy with gaining more density, more height along S. Blvd, and the addition of a hotel amongst other aspects in S. End.  BTW- isn't this South End's first hotel?  It's going to do wonders with the Carson Station right there.  Hotel guests will have that luxury to get in uptown and hate to say this, get a view of the skyline.  Plus looks like some residential, so that will help getting people onthe train and less in their cars.  Good luck to you 2InPink, but good luck to this project too, I love it so far!

[cltheel.sdl]

2inthePink: Could you take a picture from your unit and mass the Harris project in the photo to let us see how it will be blocking your view?  If it's only a partial block, it may not be so bad.

[dubone]

Sadly enough, it is likely to be easier for them to get a rezoning that includes the 2 short towers rather than one big tower that is closest to South to avoid blocking views of the Arlington.  That choice would resolve the conflict, but would start a new conflict with Dilworth even though there is already a 20+ story tower right there in the area.  Hopefully, though they are doing just that, taking a few floors off the tower at Carson and the Light Rail and adding a few floors to the tower on South Blvd by the old fire station.

Really, zoning is no guarantee, and the best option you have is to start a fight to help the city leaders know that the planned use is not in keeping with keeping the existing neighbors protected.  

The other option they have is to try to shave a little off the light rail side of that building to preserve some skyline views of their neighbor.  If the tower is more than ~75 feet from the light rail, then all Arlington views can see the new Wachovia tower.  But they'd have to jump back all the way to mid block to retain views for the Bank of America building.  

Really, though, part of the problem is that the city really wants that density at the light rail lines, but they let the whole area get zoned with a height restriction.  Carson is the first stop outside of Uptown and it is reasonable to expect that 15 story towers should be built around it.  

I hope they can come up with a compromise that retains the density while making sure Arlington has some views, even if it isn't the exact same view they have now.

[Raintree21]

Appetite for Construction, on Feb 22 2008, 08:45 AM, said:

Switching gears, the Biz Journal has an article in this coming Monday's issue regarding high radon gas levels at Latta Pavilion.  Anyone out there with a print subscription that could summarize what it says?

This can't be good news for 131 Main.  Maybe that restaurant spot is cursed ...

This was actually really old news that the CBJ and other tv news stations jumped on again for some reason. I remember hearing about this at least a year ago. I don't know why they are freaking out again.