Jump to content

3rd Ward Midrise Projects


UrbanCharlotte

Recommended Posts

The issue he's referring to is the NCGA's recently passed legislation that removes the ability for local government jurisdictions to codify architectural aesthetics on single family or <7 unit townhouse structures. (ie, prohibiting use of vinyl in davidson and required hardiboard or brick). 

http://rebiccharlotte.com/2015/06/19/governor-mccrory-signs-residential-aesthetics-bill-into-law/
http://rebiccharlotte.com/2015/07/21/charlotte-city-council-discusses-impact-of-new-aesthetics-law-on-zoning-cases/

Generally speaking, it's a move I support. The problem is that it opened a door for municipalities (I think Davidson and Chapel Hill were the prime targets) to micro-manage how houses look, above and beyond what historic district overlays control and what HOA's can require within their own developments. In a city as small in area as Davidson the effect is minimal. But it did mean that if you owned land in Davidson, your development fees were astronomically higher than what they could be if you were allowed to use lower-quality materials, etc. It basically allowed Davidson to price-out "affordable" development via law despite their own requirements for "affordable" units in developments. It's a perverse way of saying "I want you to build all beautiful luxury houses, but some of them have to be sold below market rate."

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Right, because communities should enable cheaper upfront housing costs with cheaper building materials. Surely, the cheap vinyl siding will be replaced in a few years in that entry-level subdivision by the homeowner saving so much on their upfront costs.

And never forget that current mayor and candidate Clodfelter co-sponsored prior versions of this bill. Likely didn't hurt that big developers contributed generously to Dan the Man.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The issue he's referring to is the NCGA's recently passed legislation that removes the ability for local government jurisdictions to codify architectural aesthetics on single family or <7 unit townhouse structures. (ie, prohibiting use of vinyl in davidson and required hardiboard or brick). 

http://rebiccharlotte.com/2015/06/19/governor-mccrory-signs-residential-aesthetics-bill-into-law/
http://rebiccharlotte.com/2015/07/21/charlotte-city-council-discusses-impact-of-new-aesthetics-law-on-zoning-cases/

Generally speaking, it's a move I support. The problem is that it opened a door for municipalities (I think Davidson and Chapel Hill were the prime targets) to micro-manage how houses look, above and beyond what historic district overlays control and what HOA's can require within their own developments. In a city as small in area as Davidson the effect is minimal. But it did mean that if you owned land in Davidson, your development fees were astronomically higher than what they could be if you were allowed to use lower-quality materials, etc. It basically allowed Davidson to price-out "affordable" development via law despite their own requirements for "affordable" units in developments. It's a perverse way of saying "I want you to build all beautiful luxury houses, but some of them have to be sold below market rate."

While I generally agree with what you're saying about Davidson and Chapel Hill (Wedington and Cary were also targets) taking it too far and using it as defacto exclusionary housing laws, that is one extreme. The other end of the spectrum is a place where some level of standards could actually improve the situation. If applied in a thoughtful manner, it could prevent subdivisions like this from happening: https://goo.gl/maps/Vs6z1. IMO, this is a much larger problem on a much larger scale than a handful of uppity liberal suburbs. The developers who build this crap come in from out of town and build "what the market wants" and leave the aftermath to be dealt with by the community (ie: depreciating property values). I'm not suggesting that architectural standards are the cure for this problem, but I am stating that our all-knowing anti-city legislature is steadily removing tools in the toolbox to solve the problems. I don't believe for one second that this law was passed in any sense of altruism to help people with lower incomes find housing. It essentially ensures that cities cannot prevent cookie-cutter subdivisions from happening.

While the issue of suburban single family housing is mostly off topic for this thread, the law also applies to townhomes. If well-designed, townhomes can be an huge asset to the urban fabric. If not, then you get stuff like this: https://goo.gl/maps/0j7CO

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow, both of those examples made me regurgitate a little. Absolutely hideous.

lol, I'm actually working on a website for more townhomes like that on Westbrook.

Many of the people that own the current homes in that neighborhood can't afford the rising property taxes. They want so much for the land that it doesn't make sense for anyone to buy it and keep the little houses that exist on the land. The only way to make money is to tear it down and replace it with multi-unit projects, putting 4+ units on each lot.

The vast majority of that neighborhood will eventually be replaced by townhomes/condos like that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

lol, I'm actually working on a website for more townhomes like that on Westbrook.

Many of the people that own the current homes in that neighborhood can't afford the rising property taxes. They want so much for the land that it doesn't make sense for anyone to buy it and keep the little houses that exist on the land. The only way to make money is to tear it down and replace it with multi-unit projects, putting 4+ units on each lot.

The vast majority of that neighborhood will eventually be replaced by townhomes/condos like that.

Townhomes - Yay

Townhomes that look like that - Boo

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now, the lousy builders that go into established neighborhoods can downgrade them and make them look like crap like the boys from India (builders) are doing in my area. The only difference is that before, when they presented a proposal to build a house, it had to blend with the other homes, and keep up the value,  and meet the  approval of the city.  And, the HOA was involved (me).  Now the builder doesn't have to worry and  is not putting up the shutters and the little nice things that make the neighborhood nice and has always been done. He is making them as cheap as he can so that  investors will scoop them up and rent to people that don't care.  I am seeing the degradation of homes already. Where brick work or shutters once existed, only hardy board is now visible.  t ;least I know who Il definitely know who I will NOT be voting for in future elections, signers of this legislation.    Tarte has a history of not answering correspondence.   Oh well, at least we can look forward to the toll roads.

Edited by caterpillar2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

While I generally agree with what you're saying about Davidson and Chapel Hill (Wedington and Cary were also targets) taking it too far and using it as defacto exclusionary housing laws, that is one extreme. The other end of the spectrum is a place where some level of standards could actually improve the situation. If applied in a thoughtful manner, it could prevent subdivisions like this from happening: https://goo.gl/maps/Vs6z1. IMO, this is a much larger problem on a much larger scale than a handful of uppity liberal suburbs. The developers who build this crap come in from out of town and build "what the market wants" and leave the aftermath to be dealt with by the community (ie: depreciating property values). I'm not suggesting that architectural standards are the cure for this problem, but I am stating that our all-knowing anti-city legislature is steadily removing tools in the toolbox to solve the problems. I don't believe for one second that this law was passed in any sense of altruism to help people with lower incomes find housing. It essentially ensures that cities cannot prevent cookie-cutter subdivisions from happening.

While the issue of suburban single family housing is mostly off topic for this thread, the law also applies to townhomes. If well-designed, townhomes can be an huge asset to the urban fabric. If not, then you get stuff like this: https://goo.gl/maps/0j7CO

Fantastic examples. Going beyond the architectural points - those other homes with NO standards don't age well and the people who bought them cannot afford their upkeep. The developer has made their money and is long gone and left behind a neighborhood where people cannot afford to reinvest into their community which means there will be even more decline. That cycle is brutal and cannot be stopped unless there is some magical demand for real estate in that community due to location which is not often. 

Developers should not be able to build the cheapest product in bad areas as that is simply a recipe for disaster. People will tout 'home ownership' and how poorer people are owning a home, but they would be better off with something they can afford and that will age well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just to follow up on the townhomes on Westbrook discussion, 6 townhomes have just been completed on Greenleaf, with another 3 under construction. On Westbrook, two lots that formerly held single family homes have been cleared, with another 4 homes for sale.

The vast majority of that neighborhood will eventually be replaced by townhomes/condos like that.

It's already happening. It stinks to see people forced to sell, some of whom have owned in the neighborhood for a long time.  But being in 3rd ward, with so many new people and businesses moving in, and eventually the streetcar, it was inevitable that the area would densify.  As a home owner in the neighborhood, obvious I'm ecstatic about our personal gain, but the contrasting architectural styles are quite jarring. There are older, more traditional townhomes, single family dwellings (some of which will stay, certainly those which have been updated recently), and these modern townhomes, all in a 4 block radius.

Edited by birky
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just to follow up on the townhomes on Westbrook discussion, 6 townhomes have just been completed on Greenleaf, with another 3 under construction. On Westbrook, two lots that formerly held single family homes have been cleared, with another 4 homes for sale.

It's already happening. It stinks to see people forced to sell, some of whom have owned in the neighborhood for a long time.  But being in 3rd ward, with so many new people and businesses moving in, and eventually the streetcar, it was inevitable that the area would densify.  As a home owner in the neighborhood, obvious I'm ecstatic about our personal gain, but the contrasting architectural styles are quite jarring. There are older, more traditional townhomes, single family dwellings (some of which will stay, certainly those which have been updated recently), and these modern townhomes, all in a 4 block radius.

I know of at least 8 more planned on westbrook, 4 of which will go on one of the lots that has recently been cleared. 

 

I was over there for the first time in a while last weekend and was blown away by how many of these townhomes there are now. I lived on greeleaf in 2009/2010. A lot of change since then.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The fence surrounding the lot at Trade, Sycamore, and Irwin is coming down this morning.

Yup everything was approved as of Wednesday. This is a lack luster project: no retail, smaller units boring design. I will say they are going to be a lower price point than the over abundance of high end apartments, so there's that. And there's a 20k SF amenity area. I did speak with the owner of the project and I expressed my concern over Charlotte Beige, and he said they never really thought about it and will look to redesign with color and "sex appeal" sooooo I guess there's that.

 

Edited by Jayvee
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...
  • 1 month later...
  • 1 month later...
On March 6, 2015 at 7:58 PM, DMann said:

In 2005 there were rumors that CentroCityWorks was going to put a 25 story condo there with the name of Home Plate.  Would have been cool.

 

Owners Information

 

 

Owner Name Mailing Address 401 SOUTH GRAHAM STREET LLC 720 SUNSET COVE
MADEIRA BEACH FL 33708-2385

401 South Graham Might be back from the dead... Same name, developers newest company name, probably not quite 25 floors, but probably 17-22. :ph34r::ph34r:

Amazing that people are still planning projects that are under the radar.

 

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, ricky_davis_fan_21 said:

401 South Graham Might be back from the dead... Same name, probably not quite 25 floors, but probably 17-22. :ph34r::ph34r:

Amazing that people are still planning projects that are under the radar.

 

Some fun detective work went on finding this out.....name might be a little closer to something like Home Plate Lofts ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Jayvee said:

Some fun detective work went on finding this out.....name might be a little closer to something like Home Plate Lofts ;)

The small surface lot that was not included in the parking deck is the lot in question.

Screen Shot 2016-01-11 at 2.12.23 PM.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.