37 replies to this topic

[NCtarheel]

You're right....160-200,000 isn't that much. And that's actually about what most of the construction out in the burbs costs anyway (and in many cases cheaper). So the trade off...less space but closer to where you work, same relatively easy interstate access, closer to the restaurants, nightclubs downtown etc. etc. I don't think it'll decline too much.

[Miesian Corners]

I don't think there will be a decline.  Remember, transit issues are only going to get worse as time goes on.  Who wants to sit in a car for hours to get to work?  One of the reasons urban living is in such a renaissance is because of this.  People are tired of wasting time driving somewhere.  

With gas now over $2 a gallon, air pollution concerns, the inability of government to continue widening freeways (or even build them), close in becomes a hot commodity.  Not to sound snooty, but I think urban cores will become places for upper-income folks and the suburbs (at least some of them)  will be for the less fortunate.  We already see this happening in Union County.  Indian Trail is full of "starter homes" that have no resale value at all.  Houses get built out of crappy materials, fall apart, homeowners can't sell them, so rental comes about.  We are creating new slums daily that have names like "Ridge Valley", "Lake Park", and "Holly Park".  Meanwhile, Myers Park, Dilworth, Elizabeth, Plaza-Midwood, Sedgefield and Cotswold have skyrocketing property values.  Of course, this is all dependent on how much employment stays in town.  The outer belt and it's Ballantynization could spell doom for uptown because of cheap office space.

[DigitalSky]

rockhilljames, on Mar 5 2005, 08:53 PM, said:

Ummm Metro...Moria Quinn's a woman.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I saw her once at the eye doctor's.  Remember when she used to be on WBTV?

[Raintree21]

2002

Huge map deleted.  Please resize or post link

It shows most all of uptown as stable.  Course, 20 years from now that could all change.

But it also lists Southend as Threatened, and it seems to be on the upturn currently.

Edited by metroboi, 15 April 2005 - 09:00 AM.

[Mobuchu]

I was about to complain about some things on here but then saw that its from Oct 2002.

Alot has changed since then.  A Gentrification catagory could be made on here in blue and take place over most of the yellow's.  Morningside is shown as threatend, lol.  I drove through there a couple weeks ago and couldn't afford any of those houses...

On a side note, the Scaleybark area was said to be on a down turn on here in another thread.  Collingwood (#70) is shown as stable, is this still true?  Or is it just certain apt complexes over there that have gotten worse.
The same with Seneca Pl and the neighborhoods off of it.  Looks like very quiet peaceful neighborhoods.  Do you think this will continue.  I ask because I'm looking at a house in Selwyn Park off of Seneca.

[Raintree21]

Mobuchu, on Apr 14 2005, 10:54 PM, said:

Alot has changed since then.  A Gentrification catagory could be made on here in blue and take place over most of the yellow's.  Morningside is shown as threatend, lol.  I drove through there a couple weeks ago and couldn't afford any of those houses...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yeah, most of that area is pretty nice now, but there is that low income housing project between McClintock and Commonwealth that would definitely fall into the category of sketchy.


Having to respond to these areas for 911 calls, I see a totally different side of areas than most people so I actually agree with most all of the red, "fragile" areas and quite a few of the areas it leaves blank or white would be colored red too.  Also, several of the "threatened" areas should be red also.

[lupitachica]

Quote

poor kids make friends with middle class kids and learn behaviors that are more likely to lead to future success than those behaviors learned in ghetto neighborhoods.

Like increased drug use and promiscuity?  The middle and upperclass, for example, are the biggest drug users. Studies prove that poor and minority children are much less likely to use drugs and drink underage than their white middle class/upperclass counterpoints.  The issue is that the bad behaviors that do happen in the "ghettos" essentially have a more obvious toll for a variety of reasons including the fact that many of the people in these places can not pay their way out of problems.

I am a NYer recently moved to Charlotte and the issue I see with Uptown is that its not well used.  The "city" part of Charlotte is basically just a bunch of tall buildings where people work.  The activity after business hours is miminal when compared to other cities.  There isn't enough life to keep it booming and the city is not encouraging a vibrant downtown (Uptown).

[A2]

lupitachica, on Aug 26 2005, 10:04 AM, said:

I am a NYer recently moved to Charlotte and the issue I see with Uptown is that its not well used.  The "city" part of Charlotte is basically just a bunch of tall buildings where people work.  The activity after business hours is miminal when compared to other cities.  There isn't enough life to keep it booming and the city is not encouraging a vibrant downtown (Uptown).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

WELCOME TO UP AND TO CHARLOTTE, lupitachica !!!
Great to have you.  

This is rapidly changing lupitachica. With eight condo high rises going up and more on the way, the resident count in downtown is projected to double within the next 5-10 years. Yielding more clubs, bars , restraunts, and even students with the arrival of more J&H students and Queens and UNCC to biuld downtown. (and let's not forget the arena. That alone with the concerts and games will make people almost frustrated with the amount of traffic and people that will embrace uptown after work hours. )

Trust me when I say this.

Uptown will be far from dead within just the next two to three years. I will stake my reputation on the line by stating that in three years you will have a hard time getting around just due to the density and number of people that will be embracing the city streets.  B)

A2

Edited by A219724, 26 August 2005 - 10:32 AM.

[monsoon]

I think there is wide disagreement the arena will be the manna from heaven that will bring life and vitality to downtown.  There is no evidence to prove that it will and most other arenas have the opposite effect as they are huge buildings that take up a lot of land and sit unused most of the time.

[SmellyCat]

lupitachica, on Aug 26 2005, 12:04 PM, said:

The "city" part of Charlotte is basically just a bunch of tall buildings where people work.  The activity after business hours is miminal when compared to other cities.  There isn't enough life to keep it booming and the city is not encouraging a vibrant downtown (Uptown).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What cities are you comparing it to - NYC, DC or Miami?  Put things in perspective, Charlotte is a relatively small city which was a commuter city for the longest time.  Although still small, Uptown population has nearly doubled over the past several years.

You should have seen it 2 years ago, there were probably half as many places to dine or drink as today.  It's changing for the better.  I rarely go out late during the week, but this past Wednesday night places uptown were pretty hopping.  With the students coming back now it can only pick up more.

[ElricSeven]

I think we're looking at this from the wrong perspective.  Cities have been strong popular places for people to live for thousands of years due to people wanting to be in a centralized location where business is transacted and amenities are plentiful without having to spend excessive amounts of time travelling.  The invention of the automobile derailed that for a bit, but now they popularity of cities are returning to prominence as commuting becomes (again) expensive, exhausting and time consuming.

To me, suburban existence is a much more recent (and potentially endangered) phenomena than urban living.  In fact, many of the suburban locations are now trying to imitate cities by having town centers.

[monsoon]

Actually that is a bit off.   People did not "want", they "had" to live in cities to survive.  That is where the work was located if they were not farmers.   And prior to industrialization, cities where places of defense.   Transportation for more than just a few miles (basically where you could walk) was beyond the means of the vast majority of people, so they lived in densely packed cities.   Cities were never popular places to live as they were often dirty, disease and crime ridden, and anyone well off enough to do so would move out.

In the 20th century, cheap transportation became available, and people started to move out of these conditions.  And the de-industrialization of modern economies has further negated the need for people to live in a dense city.  Its my opinion, that given the choice, that most people would choose to have more space if the costs are not too high.  Commute time is a cost and people have to judge if the extra space is worth it or not.  

In the Charlotte area, commutes are not that bad in the scheme of things and many businesses, such as the one I work for, offer tele-commuting so the commute time is not an issue. And things such as improving highways and installing more mass transit will continue to make it easier for people to live in the suburbs where they can enjoy its advantages (to them) and not have to deal with the hastles of living in a city.   While that isn't something that most of the urbanites here would say is good, it is the reality of our region here.

[ElricSeven]

monsoon, on Oct 3 2005, 03:04 PM, said:

Actually that is a bit off.   People did not "want", they "had" to live in cities to survive.  That is where the work was located if they were not farmers.   And prior to industrialization, cities where places of defense.   Transportation for more than just a few miles (basically where you could walk) was beyond the means of the vast majority of people, so they lived in densely packed cities.   Cities were never popular places to live as they were often dirty, disease and crime ridden, and anyone well off enough to do so would move out.

In the 20th century, cheap transportation became available, and people started to move out of these conditions.  And the de-industrialization of modern economies has further negated the need for people to live in a dense city.  Its my opinion, that given the choice, that most people would choose to have more space if the costs are not too high.  Commute time is a cost and people have to judge if the extra space is worth it or not.  

In the Charlotte area, commutes are not that bad in the scheme of things and many businesses, such as the one I work for, offer tele-commuting so the commute time is not an issue. And things such as improving highways and installing more mass transit will continue to make it easier for people to live in the suburbs where they can enjoy its advantages (to them) and not have to deal with the hastles of living in a city.   While that isn't something that most of the urbanites here would say is good, it is the reality of our region here.

Hopefully we're not dirty, diseased and crime ridden anymore.  )

With so many more people these days than in yesteryear, I think we're not going to have much of choice than to start having larger, but more compact cities.  I guess we'll have to see in 20 years...

[monsoon]

Most of the driving in the Charlotte is related to three things.  

• Work
  
• School
  
• Daily living Shopping

Until you see these things concentrated into smaller areas, you won't really see any changes if is is driving conditions that are going to force people to move into certain areas.   It should be noted that many of the jobs found in the center city are the very type that can be converted to telecommuting, and the employers there probably will start offering that as an employee benefit.

[graydog]

monsoon, on Oct 3 2005, 03:04 PM, said:

Actually that is a bit off.   People did not "want", they "had" to live in cities to survive.  That is where the work was located if they were not farmers.   And prior to industrialization, cities where places of defense.   Transportation for more than just a few miles (basically where you could walk) was beyond the means of the vast majority of people, so they lived in densely packed cities.   Cities were never popular places to live as they were often dirty, disease and crime ridden, and anyone well off enough to do so would move out.

In the 20th century, cheap transportation became available, and people started to move out of these conditions.  And the de-industrialization of modern economies has further negated the need for people to live in a dense city.  Its my opinion, that given the choice, that most people would choose to have more space if the costs are not too high.  Commute time is a cost and people have to judge if the extra space is worth it or not.  

In the Charlotte area, commutes are not that bad in the scheme of things and many businesses, such as the one I work for, offer tele-commuting so the commute time is not an issue. And things such as improving highways and installing more mass transit will continue to make it easier for people to live in the suburbs where they can enjoy its advantages (to them) and not have to deal with the hastles of living in a city.   While that isn't something that most of the urbanites here would say is good, it is the reality of our region here.

ElricSeven and monsoon both make valid points. In Charlotte and many cities in the past, and to some extent today, city living was considered desirable. In Charlotte for example, rich people lived downtown and close to work because it was most convenient and because more people could see their houses. The poor people lived on the outskirts of town.

People moved out because again, it was the thing to do. If you had the money, you could afford the car to get you to work. Gradually, as MB said, the auto became affordable for most everyone and thus suburbs.

I think MB is right that most people would choose more room at least in this country. In other countries, what's most efficient is desired. Those folks see no logic in maintaining a yard and hosue or the commute that goes with it.

So it is today that so many desirable areas are nice neighborhoods, with SFH close to the city. Best of both worlds. Those who want even more house and yard instead of city access, move to Ballantyne and Weddington.

[monsoon]

Actually there are single family detached homes with very small yards right inside Tokyo.  It's desired even there.

Tokyo has about 13M (city, not metro) in 844 sq/miles which is smaller in land area than Mecklenburg and Iredell counties.

[cinco]

monsoon, on Oct 6 2005, 07:38 AM, said:

Actually there are single family detached homes with very small yards right inside Tokyo.  It's desired even there.

Tokyo has about 13M (city, not metro) in 844 sq/miles which is smaller in land area than Mecklenburg and Iredell counties.

so... sex is pretty popular there.

speaking of tokyo, nice avitar MB.

[hokiehigh]

I only said yes because every area goes through cycles and given the time frame is 20 years I would say there is a decent chance.  Look at downtown Atlanta.