Legacy Union (former Charlotte Observer redevelopment)

[King of the Queen City]

6 hours ago, MACyr said:

I have 30 years experience as an urban designer and a master's degree in landscape architecture.  I've lived and worked in New York, Berlin and DC before teaching at NC State and working for NCDOT.  I'm not a casual observer on these topics.  No offense but pedestrian bridges suck the life off streets.  "Adding retail" to a project at the street level is not going drive pedestrian traffic to the street, it takes it away.  

Thanks for sharing your impressive resume.  I guess you could call me a casual observer, but from my observations of the former Charlotte Observer site, I do not think that eliminating the pedestrian bridge would create that much pedestrian traffic on Church Street either except for a few minutes at rush hour and it would all just be across a crosswalk to the tower.  If it were connected to Overstreet Mall, maybe that would be a different scenario, but I do not think this particular pedestrian bridge will make that much of a difference.  As for the retail, it is my understanding that at least some of it will be facing Church Street and some of it will face the promenade.  The fact that there will be retail in the area at all should draw pedestrians from other parts of Uptown (including light rail riders from Stonewall Station).  The promenade will probably be popular for Panthers games and other events at the Stadium as well.  Maybe I’m wrong, and time will tell but I think this development is going to add life to the city when all is said and done. I’m not that concerned with comparing Charlotte to other cities anyway.  We should just let Charlotte be the best version of what it is and grow in our own authentic way.

[King of the Queen City]

Picture of last night’s tree lighting  with Legacy Union in the background (taken from the Panthers’ Twitter account). I like the way that the glass corners look lit up.

[urbanlover568]

7 hours ago, ricky_davis_fan_21 said:

Drivers need to be travelling Charlotte streets mindful of pedestrians. Thats how streets get more safe. Delivering people to their cars, past the retail is not how you build a cohesive urban realm.

Nobody said past the retail. You can incorporate retail on the same level as the bridges. Anything that can expedite commerce and people through a city I fully support. Bridges reduce deaths, decrease waiting times to cross a street, and increase vehicular mobility. 

[pgsinger]

1 hour ago, mpretori said:

Nobody said past the retail. You can incorporate retail on the same level as the bridges. Anything that can expedite commerce and people through a city I fully support. Bridges reduce deaths, decrease waiting times to cross a street, and increase vehicular mobility. 

If I want to shop inside, then I will go to South Park.  Putting pedestrians in tunnels because of potential injury is treating the symptom not the cause.    A more pedestrian friendly street will remedy that issue and creates vibrancy.  

[CLTranspo]

We definitely do not need to increase vehicular mobility in uptown. That's like the opposite of what we should do.

[urbanlover568]

13 minutes ago, CLTranspo said:

We definitely do not need to increase vehicular mobility in uptown. That's like the opposite of what we should do.

Whether you like it or not, not everyone can afford to live in uptown and have to commute. Rents are insane in uptown. 

[asthasr]

Uptown is tiny. The entirety of the I-277 loop is 1 square mile. The "area of interest," which is to say -- the commercial district from Mint to Davidson and Stonewall to 8th -- is only a square kilometer. You could make the entire area pedestrian only and, if our city was even a quarter as good for pedestrians as many major world cities, the entire Uptown commercial district would be walkable from a peripheral car park. Half a kilometer is considered the "gold standard" for TOD around a station. That means that, frankly, just the CTC/Arena station should serve the entire uptown commercial district.

When we talk about "increasing vehicular mobility" versus "improving the pedestrian experience," it must be understood in this context: we have a tiny commercial district which is so pedestrian unfriendly that people are already unwilling to walk through it. Within this space we should be calming traffic, making cars less attractive, making walking more attractive, and so on. Gluing brick to the outside of massive parking garages and putting in expensive pedestrian bridges is not the way to improve this situation.

[urbanlover568]

22 minutes ago, asthasr said:

Uptown is tiny. The entirety of the I-277 loop is 1 square mile. The "area of interest," which is to say -- the commercial district from Mint to Davidson and Stonewall to 8th -- is only a square kilometer. You could make the entire area pedestrian only and, if our city was even a quarter as good for pedestrians as many major world cities, the entire Uptown commercial district would be walkable from a peripheral car park. Half a kilometer is considered the "gold standard" for TOD around a station. That means that, frankly, just the CTC/Arena station should serve the entire uptown commercial district.

When we talk about "increasing vehicular mobility" versus "improving the pedestrian experience," it must be understood in this context: we have a tiny commercial district which is so pedestrian unfriendly that people are already unwilling to walk through it. Within this space we should be calming traffic, making cars less attractive, making walking more attractive, and so on. Gluing brick to the outside of massive parking garages and putting in expensive pedestrian bridges is not the way to improve this situation.

So reducing lane widths and closing roads will solve the problem? Who will these changes benefit? Uptown should be enjoyed by all, not the upper incomes. I can't imagine why someone would want to increase barriers for someone to nagivigate uptown from the suburbs. I know people who make 40k. What apartment in uptown can they reasonably afford? Start by providing housing that's not insanely expensive. 

Edited November 21, 2018 by mpretori

[Dale]

My surmise is that most people are going to drive. You can make it your life’s aim to make driving more and more miserable, but they are still going to drive. Can’t we all just get along ?

[asthasr]

3 minutes ago, mpretori said:

So reducing lane widths and closing roads will solve the problem? Who will these changes benefit? Uptown should be enjoyed by all, not the upper incomes. I can't imagine why someone would want to increase barriers for someone to nagivigate uptown from the suburbs. I know people who make 40k at boa. What apartment in uptown can they reasonably afford? Start by providing housing that's not insanely expensive. 

They will benefit pedestrians, cyclists, and other road users. People who might live a stop or five away on the light rail and commute into uptown and walk from the station to their $40k/year job at BoA, or who might live in lower-cost apartments in "North End" and ride their bike to work. Half a kilometer is not a long walk, and yet people are completely unwilling to walk it here in Charlotte. Why? And why does one mode of transportation -- the least efficient mode that serves the least people with the most investment -- deserve more consideration than all others?

[NotSoAlien]

Monday:

[Windsurfer]

41 minutes ago, mpretori said:

Whether you like it or not, not everyone can afford to live in uptown and have to commute. Rents are insane in uptown. 

Simple things like looking for lunch for many of us working the northern industrial area can become a nightmare when all the street parking is eliminated for "special events", or we pull into the wrong parking deck that charges us $10 for an hour.  There are indeed MANY of us who don't live uptown and DO drive in and park just to enjoy the ambiance.  I have employees who drive down there from Statesville Ave. just to park the car and walk a couple of miles for exercise.  (It'  ain't walking friend up here and, besides they enjoy the scenery.)

[urbanlover568]

5 minutes ago, asthasr said:

They will benefit pedestrians, cyclists, and other road users. People who might live a stop or five away on the light rail and commute into uptown and walk from the station to their $40k/year job at BoA, or who might live in lower-cost apartments in "North End" and ride their bike to work. Half a kilometer is not a long walk, and yet people are completely unwilling to walk it here in Charlotte. Why? And why does one mode of transportation -- the least efficient mode that serves the least people with the most investment -- deserve more consideration than all others?

Question: out of the total number of people who work in uptown, what percentage lived in uptown. Guarantee you it's below 50. What about the handicapped with those incomes? I make good money but am not selfish to the lower income residents of this great city. We need to accommodate all, not the select. And all this over a bridge from a commuter parking lot to the office LMAO.

[asthasr]

15 minutes ago, mpretori said:

Question: out of the total number of people who work in uptown, what percentage lived in uptown. Guarantee you it's below 50. What about the handicapped with those incomes? I make good money but am not selfish to the lower income residents of this great city. We need to accommodate all, not the select. And all this over a bridge from a commuter parking lot to the office LMAO.

A few points.

1. Why does nobody live in uptown? Part of it is that there isn't enough housing built there. The for-sale options are ridiculously small and/or overpriced, and rentals are too expensive. The way that this will be fixed is to build more housing.
2. Wheelchair-bound people should be served by transit as much as anyone else; more, in fact, because special point to point services should be provided where necessary. You can look at modern cities like Singapore and Seoul for examples of accessible transit.
3. Cars represent a massive expense. Owning, maintaining, insuring, and fueling a car are, in effect, regressive costs. (They are far worse for lower income people than middle and upper income people.) Offering effective ways to avoid needing a car would actually make our city more useful for more people.
4. This is not over a single pedestrian bridge. It's an entire urban design philosophy. In essence, those of us who are in favor of improving the pedestrian/biking experience believe that we can increase the return on investment and value of our downtown core by focusing on those people who are intense users of the downtown core. That can include commuters, but it should not include commuters to the exclusion of all others. I live in a suburb; I expect to be able to use the downtown area, but I don't expect Stonewall or Tryon to allow me to travel 45 miles per hour through downtown.

Edited November 21, 2018 by asthasr

[deleted]

1 hour ago, asthasr said:

 

When we talk about "increasing vehicular mobility" versus "improving the pedestrian experience," it must be understood in this context: we have a tiny commercial district which is so pedestrian unfriendly that people are already unwilling to walk through it. Within this space we should be calming traffic, making cars less attractive, making walking more attractive, and so on. Gluing brick to the outside of massive parking garages and putting in expensive pedestrian bridges is not the way to improve this situation.

I actually agree with almost all of this.  I'm for improving the pedestrian experience, calming traffic, eliminating lanes, adding bike lanes, closing streets to cars altogether.  I simply have no objections to giving people the option of accessing buildings above street level also.  I don't think they are mutually exclusive.  I don't understand why pedestrians and retail 20 feet above the street is damaging to street level design.  Fix the streets, add the retail, let people decide how they will access them.

[CLTranspo]

Making uptown more friendly to bikes, peds, and transit and less friendly to cars WOULD benefit people with lower incomes and people with disabilities. Do you think it is people with the highest incomes who take the bus? Can all people with disabilities even get a drivers license? No - people with lower incomes disproportionately use transit to begin with, and people with disabilities benefit from improved pedestrian accessibility - safer crosswalks and ramps and better visibility. 

[deleted]

9 hours ago, elrodvt said:

Don't take my downvotes personally but you guys are so wrong.

We need to have the streets busy with people not cars. Putting retail in tunnels is nuts until there is no space on the streets. We're talking about a city with virtually NO retail! It's friggin dead compared to many cities of 50k or so. That's ridiculous and a pox on our leaders. I really don't think most of you have ever lived in the uptown area which clouds your judgement. In 5 years I've seen almost no progress. Yeah you can get all excited over office towers but for a resident..... Whatever....

Personally I've had enough. Might as well live in the darn burbs.

I never take downvotes personally if they are accompanied by a well-reasoned position (as yours was).  Regarding your position, I'm not against anything you want, I just believe that having other pedestrian options isn't as damaging as some claim.  I've worked Uptown for ~15 years and spend 10 hours a day here.  I come on the weekends.  I eat here.  I exercise here.  I want it better also.  If today we imploded the Overstreet Mall and all pedestrian tunnels, the city would not be even a little more vibrant.  Fix the streets and add the retail.  That's what will add vibrancy.  

[asthasr]

8 minutes ago, JBS said:

If today we imploded the Overstreet Mall and all pedestrian tunnels, the city would not be even a little more vibrant.  Fix the streets and add the retail.  That's what will add vibrancy.

This is the only point on which you and I have a disconnect, I think. Fundamentally I think that the bridges do have an impact. Not necessarily on volume of pedestrians directly; after all, these bridges and tunnels are mostly pretty low-use because they're not visible. Instead, I view it as opportunity cost. When we allow a developer to build a bridge, that's acknowledging "this street is unpleasant to cross, but we're not going to fix it." With these massive development projects, to me it seems like it'd make much more sense to say: "No, guys, look. You are completely reconfiguring everything about this space. You control the pedestrian environment. Make it safe and easy for people to cross the street from the garage to the office so that a pedestrian bridge isn't needed." This won't just take the people who would walk across the bridge and put them on the street, 1:1, but will instead make it more likely that people in general use the space--people who aren't just parking in the garage. If the developer puts in some street trees, a pedestrian crossing island, brick pavement, good signals, maybe a corner cafe, then people can traverse the space easily and it becomes a place where people might want to be. If they put in a pedestrian bridge then the people who park in the garage can cross easily.

[krazeeboi]

If the goal is to create a livelier, more active streetscape, putting retail at the street level seems to be the best way to go about that, no? That is where it will be best accessed by the public and not just office workers. 

[deleted]

19 minutes ago, asthasr said:

This is the only point on which you and I have a disconnect, I think. Fundamentally I think that the bridges do have an impact. Not necessarily on volume of pedestrians directly; after all, these bridges and tunnels are mostly pretty low-use because they're not visible. Instead, I view it as opportunity cost. When we allow a developer to build a bridge, that's acknowledging "this street is unpleasant to cross, but we're not going to fix it." With these massive development projects, to me it seems like it'd make much more sense to say: "No, guys, look. You are completely reconfiguring everything about this space. You control the pedestrian environment. Make it safe and easy for people to cross the street from the garage to the office so that a pedestrian bridge isn't needed." This won't just take the people who would walk across the bridge and put them on the street, 1:1, but will instead make it more likely that people in general use the space--people who aren't just parking in the garage. If the developer puts in some street trees, a pedestrian crossing island, brick pavement, good signals, maybe a corner cafe, then people can traverse the space easily and it becomes a place where people might want to be. If they put in a pedestrian bridge then the people who park in the garage can cross easily.

Those are very compelling arguments.  I'm still inclined to believe you could do both but I'll admit you have me reconsidering my position.

[krazeeboi]

19 minutes ago, JBS said:

Those are very compelling arguments.  I'm still inclined to believe you could do both but I'll admit you have me reconsidering my position.

Also, at this early stage in the game, do you actually think there's enough retail to go around at both the street level and above the street? And do you think retailers, if given the option of where they would prefer to locate, would actually prefer being above the street instead of along the street?

[deleted]

2 minutes ago, krazeeboi said:

Also, at this early stage in the game, do you actually think there's enough retail to go around at both the street level and above the street? And do you think retailers, if given the option of where they would prefer to locate, would actually prefer being above the street instead of along the street?

My argument has never really been about retail in the tunnels (I've only briefly mentioned that in a single post of many on tunnels and bridges).  I'm more focused on the tunnels themselves as a means to move people to street level retail.

[BullDurhamer]

the world's biggest parking garage will ultimately be much worse for charlotte than any pedestrian bridge that might hang in the sky. 

[krazeeboi]

17 minutes ago, JBS said:

My argument has never really been about retail in the tunnels (I've only briefly mentioned that in a single post of many on tunnels and bridges).  I'm more focused on the tunnels themselves as a means to move people to street level retail.

Ah ok; sorry for the misunderstanding.

So with that in mind, I would say the tunnels are unnecessary. We're only focusing on the retail aspect in this discussion, but a lively streetscape is the result of having a critical mass of 'stuff' that can be easily accessed on foot within a relatively compact area. Even if one's destination is a jewelry store or boutique clothier, there should be active uses of all sorts within the vicinity to make the trip just as much about the journey than the destination itself. The most successful urban spaces are those where people can wander a bit aimlessly because there's so much stuff around that engages them and pulls them in. Uptown isn't there yet, but tunnels would certainly work against this ultimate goal.

[BullDurhamer]

cars too.  adding a billion cars to a zone that wants to encourage pedestrian activity is a bit counterproductive.  down the road though, it's really just a big waste of space and resources, not to mention being terrible for the planet (like anybody in charlotte cares!!!).   in a few short years automated cars will not need to be parked below your building all day taking up prime space.  something tells me that charlotte will be remembered for building the last giant parking deck.  we'll have discussions here in the future like we do about the old new charlotte coliseum and convention centers being so short-sighted.   

 

is there any way for this giant deck to be converted to something else down the road? doubt it.  too bad because that's how they're rolling elsewhere.  interesting read on futureproofing parking garages: http://www.dreamit.com/journal/2018/1/31/developers-rethink-the-parking-garage-with-rise-of-autonomous-vehicles