Jump to content

The River District


cltbwimob

Recommended Posts


I still think this project will suck, but that's mostly because I don't trust developers to do anything of quality that far out of uptown next to the airport.  Also, I don't trust our city leaders to actually hold these developers to anything other than sprawlsville.  But that's me.  I've completely given up on any render.  I'll just wait for the crappy end product and shrug my shoulders. (Meh)

That said (can't believe I'll say this) losing the trees isn't a big deal IMO.  It's no like it's a well used nature preserve now, it's essentially a giant buffer area for about 30 people who live on the Catawba.  Had it been the area where they built the WWC, I'd be more inclined to protect it for further use, but the WWC is on the other side of 85 and another major highway.

Even with light rail, it's probably too far away to ever be an effective city park or nature preserve.  It's similar is size to say, Madrid's Caso de Campo, but that park basically bounds downtown and is about a mile from city center.  This thing is 5 miles away.

I think we will end up with something similar to what they've got going on in Rock Hill with their Riverwalk.  

 

Edited by ah59396
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, RaleighHeelsfan said:

So where is the Catawba in this photo? Please don't tell me that small mud hole in the middle? Lol

 The river is behind or right below the camera. The water you see on the left is a small inlet off the river. If I'm oriented correctly, the white patch on the left is Berryhill Elementary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^^It's not like CharMeck ever had a realistic shot of meeting tree canopy goals.

And you can't blame this project to the west, when there are other large projects all around 485 are wiping out trees from 485/Providence on the south to 485/Albemarle on the east to 485/Prosperity on the north.

Edited by southslider
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, southslider said:

^^It's not like CharMeck ever had a realistic shot of meeting tree canopy goals.

And you can't blame this project to the west, when there are other large projects all around 485 are wiping out trees from 485/Providence on the south to 485/Albemarle on the east to 485/Prosperity on the north.

Homeowners have to share in the responsibility for this.  The neighborhood I purchased in was an old family farm and the roads were laid around large trees.  Granted this was back in the 80s but now my neighborhood has a tree lined canopy over 90% of it.  My home had 5 trees on it when we purchased.  When we looked, many of the newer homes had 1.  Planted in the middle of the front yard by the street.  Since we moved here we have planted another 2 thanks to http://treescharlotte.org/support-us/donate/.

On the flip side, not only are developers clearing all trees to make the build out easier but they are not even bothering to plant enough new ones for the hope of a canopy in 20-30 years from now.  When we started to DQ homes just on the lack of trees our agent got a little frustrated because she had not really had to deal with that before.  Said almost every buyer purchased for square footage and what the inside looked like.  

Until buyers start to value the canopy it's not going to happen...which is sad and stupid.  While the leaves suck...my canopy saves me a grip on cooling in the summer on top of looking awesome.

 

Edited by cjd5050
fix
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, cjd5050 said:

Homeowners have to share in the responsibility for this.  The neighborhood I purchased in was an old family farm and the roads were laid around large trees.  Granted this was back in the 80s but now my neighborhood has a tree lined canopy over 90% of it.  My home had 5 trees on it when we purchased.  When we looked, many of the newer homes had 1.  Planted in the middle of the front yard by the street.  Since we moved here we have planted another 2 thanks to http://treescharlotte.org/support-us/donate/.

On the flip side, not only are developers clearing all trees to make the build out easier but they are not even bothering to plant enough new ones for the hope of a canopy in 20-30 years from now.  When we started to DQ homes just on the lack of trees our agent got a little frustrated because she had not really had to deal with that before.  Said almost every buyer purchased for square footage and what the inside looked like.  

Until buyers start to value the canopy it's not going to happen...which is sad and stupid.  While the leaves suck...my canopy saves me a grip on cooling in the summer on top of looking awesome.

 

Yeah no kidding.  Some new neighborhoods are great about planting trees, others are downright embarrassing. And typically it's the cheaper the house, the less trees the developer plants. Even worse is the HOA that restrict what you can/can't plant.  Plant one tree out front and they are done with it. I see so many with zero trees in the backyards.  Who the heck doesn't at least want a few shade trees in the back yard?

I am on my second house now and between the two homes, I have planted 30+ trees, mostly hardwoods (I have a big ass yard) even though my properties had plenty of trees to begin with.  Having leaves for a few weeks a year is nothing (although willow oak leaves are a PITA). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, cjd5050 said:

When we started to DQ homes just on the lack of trees our agent got a little frustrated because she had not really had to deal with that before.  Said almost every buyer purchased for square footage and what the inside looked like.  

Another reason why I couldn't do realty. I'd get on my high-horse about things and ruin my career. (see: Realty seems to be the go-to suggestion people give  as career advice)

Edited by SgtCampsalot
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, cjd5050 said:

Homeowners have to share in the responsibility for this.  The neighborhood I purchased in was an old family farm and the roads were laid around large trees.  Granted this was back in the 80s but now my neighborhood has a tree lined canopy over 90% of it.  My home had 5 trees on it when we purchased.  When we looked, many of the newer homes had 1.  Planted in the middle of the front yard by the street.  Since we moved here we have planted another 2 thanks to http://treescharlotte.org/support-us/donate/.

On the flip side, not only are developers clearing all trees to make the build out easier but they are not even bothering to plant enough new ones for the hope of a canopy in 20-30 years from now.  When we started to DQ homes just on the lack of trees our agent got a little frustrated because she had not really had to deal with that before.  Said almost every buyer purchased for square footage and what the inside looked like.  

Until buyers start to value the canopy it's not going to happen...which is sad and stupid.  While the leaves suck...my canopy saves me a grip on cooling in the summer on top of looking awesome.

 

Actually trees do increase home values by about 20-30%. Developers are so entrenched with logging companies who offer money to clear-cut it all. It's easy money, rather than waiting and getting more money when homes sell. Don't expect this land to be touched for several more years. Gonna be a long time just to get utilities out there.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...
  • 2 weeks later...
On 3/26/2017 at 0:46 PM, Popsickle said:

I've been looking around for any updates on this project but have not found anything worth while.  Does anybody have an insight?

Thanks

This was a good read:

http://www.charlottemagazine.com/Charlotte-Magazine/April-2017/River-District-The-Country-Behind-the-Airport/

As I mentioned in another topic, I was in Chattanooga and again lamented the absence of water in Uptown.  I really hope that Crescent cares as much as this indicates and that this project becomes Charlotte's waterfront (particularly since our lakes offer so little public access).  I also hope that eventually there is (at least) a beautiful pedestrian bridge over the Catawba.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/4/2017 at 3:50 PM, caterpillar2 said:

It would be wonderful if a lighted riverside walkway would run next to the river where the project is to be built so that the public could enjoy, i.e. walk, run, bicycle, etc. . House properties would not expand to the riverbank. I imagine a nice riverwall and 8-10 foot walkway. 

Like this....

Tampa did a great job wth their Riverwalk including a floating ped/bridge which we would most likely need on the Catawba due to tide levels. It's true Tampa has more infrastructure being the city is right on the Hillsborough River, but if done right, this River District project could blow away Ballantyne and be something Charlotte could boast about. 

 

source: http://www.riverwalktower.com/news/

             tampabay.com

             active.com

crop.jpeg

hills_river052215_15240928_8col.jpg

29543937-e7e2-440e-83f2-d2d56a750e03.jpg

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the city is willing to sell their parcel planned for a waste water facility, there might be a potential for some good waterfront once combined. The two fragments Crescent was able to buy along the water are so short currently I'm afraid we might just end up with a park. Would the high voltage power lines running to the steam plant along the other side of the lake be able to get burried? It really cuts off the water front from the rest of the development.

2017-04-06_11-46-47.jpg

Edited by CLT2014
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, UPNoDa said:

Like this....

Tampa did a great job wth their Riverwalk including a floating ped/bridge which we would most likely need on the Catawba due to tide levels. It's true Tampa has more infrastructure being the city is right on the Hillsborough River, but if done right, this River District project could blow away Ballantyne and be something Charlotte could boast about. 

 

source: http://www.riverwalktower.com/news/

             tampabay.com

             active.com

crop.jpeg

hills_river052215_15240928_8col.jpg

29543937-e7e2-440e-83f2-d2d56a750e03.jpg

This would work nicely. The bridge is already there (I-85). All we would need to do is to dredge the river so the large ships can get there. The Boulevard adds a nice touch as well. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, CLT2014 said:

If the city is willing to sell their parcel planned for a waste water facility, there might be a potential for some good waterfront once combined. The two fragments Crescent was able to buy along the water are so short currently I'm afraid we might just end up with a park. Would the high voltage power lines running to the steam plant along the other side of the lake be able to get burried? It really cuts off the water front from the rest of the development.

2017-04-06_11-46-47.jpg

Always wondered who owned that large chunk of land.  Glad to see it's just a single owner and the city to boot.  Thanks for posting.

Also hope they can do something with the power lines.   

Edited by cjd5050
missing word
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
1 hour ago, archiham04 said:

not putting a component of public high density use on the waterfront will be a huge missed opportunity.  I am rather disappointed to see the density taper off from the interstate to the river.

As cool as a high density waterfront would be, the actual waterfront land owned for this development is very small. All the waterfront in this area not in that snippet posted above is already occupied. Given that, it makes sense to taper down to lower densities since those homes are not going anywhere, and I'd hope to see a waterfront park and other outdoorsy, greenway-connected amenities built on those prongs. Like I said earlier, the city land in between is having some pretty great mountain bike trails built on them right now that will be somewhat integrated into the development. There is a hefty power line easement there FWIW, which I imagine might be why its not part of the development in the first place. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, nonillogical said:

As cool as a high density waterfront would be, the actual waterfront land owned for this development is very small. All the waterfront in this area not in that snippet posted above is already occupied. Given that, it makes sense to taper down to lower densities since those homes are not going anywhere, and I'd hope to see a waterfront park and other outdoorsy, greenway-connected amenities built on those prongs. Like I said earlier, the city land in between is having some pretty great mountain bike trails built on them right now that will be somewhat integrated into the development. There is a hefty power line easement there FWIW, which I imagine might be why its not part of the development in the first place. 

Isn't it safe to assume some if not most of those lots will be purchased?  I mean it's going to be a billion dollar development and I am sure both parties could reach a number.

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.

×
×
  • 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.