The River District

[KJHburg]

This is the first detailed plan I have seen of the first part of the River District.  I think they call it Westrow. some of these renderings I have not seen before. 

On the home page 

https://www.theriverdistrict.com/

this is the next big thing for Charlotte especially in the suburbs. 

 

Edited June 29 by KJHburg

[CLT2014]

Zoomed in photos: "Look at this cute little walkable village like you are in Europe"

Reality of zoomed out photos: Swimming pool with view of surface parking lot, apartments wrapped around big surface parking lot, little market with a surface parking lot bigger than it, more apartments with a surface parking lot, et....

It is better than most suburban developments in the region, but with the lack of transit connections, sprawling layout, and heavy amount of parking I think in reality we will be looking at a traffic congested urban sprawl zone full of Range Rovers and minivans. Even the one public school planned to be built is a car-dependent isolated campus down a long road that nobody would be able to walk their kids to without getting in a car.

Edited June 29 by CLT2014

[Madison Parkitect]

11 hours ago, KJHburg said:

This is the first detailed plan I have seen of the first part of the River District.  I think they call it Westrow. some of these renderings I have not seen before. 

On the home page 

https://www.theriverdistrict.com/

this is the next big thing for Charlotte especially in the suburbs. 

Westrow is the name, yeah. There will also be a "working farm" which you can see in the last rendering you posted, but as of now there any definite parameters for how big or how "working" the farm will be. I may or may not be working for a certain architectural firm that may or may not be doing this project and may or may not have designed the buildings in these renderings.

[JeanClt]

Don’t really like this development… similar to Ballantyne as it too was first meant to be a mixed use community and not just a corporate park. It’s really just sprawl. That money land development could have been spent on something more dense. This is the ultimate sprawl though with it going on extremely forested area and now many trees torn down for this sprawl. I like the idea of a river walk which isn’t even in the plans thus far and the fact that it isn’t transit connected makes even less appealing imo. I don’t see how the benefits outweigh the costs here.

The school being down that long road and secluded is just embarrassing. Are they trying to hide the kids? Are they trying to make intentionally harder to reach? Because If they’re doing that for “safety” ( which that may not be the case they just are terrible at making decisions ) there isn’t anything that long road can stop any incident from occurring. In fact it just pushes the school away from the community where it is not easily accessed by those who actually need to gain access. Not entirely sure who’s idea was it to put it there. Walkability is not so great when there are an astonishing amounts of SFH Lots all down a long road ending in the prevalent cul-de-sacs I see there. The sprawl is sprawling itself. Doesn’t give me that town feel as the houses themselves transition into the town enter like say Lincolnton, waxhaw, or concord. Just looks like center with disconnected SFH neighborhoods floating around connected by long roads. With the size of this development I hope they incorporate street trees. That would definitely be a plus at least and lots of them.

I’m sure it would resemble the area around premium outlets with a slightly more density and mixed uses throughout but the overall idea is the same… and I find that glum…

[KJHburg]

I think this is a great plan.  It is better to have one master plan for all this land than to have a piecemeal of suburban development.  This project will be very successful as I have seen projects like this around the country.  Reminds me of Lake Nona outside of Orlando.   The community gardens remind me of Harvest Green outside of Houston where there are areas where people can grow food.  I know most are very anti- suburban  on this site but even your revered Dilworth was a suburb once.  So was Wesley Heights, Villa Heights and every other neighborhood outside the loop.  This is a great project for a growing city.   We need options just like this as much as options for in town living.  

[go_vertical]

While Lake Nona has been very successful it is widely considered sprawl to many Orlando residents.  I remember a lot of pushback from locals as plans were being released.  Sure, similar to this project, it was considered better than what it could have been, but it was sprawl nonetheless. 

[RANYC]

1 hour ago, KJHburg said:

I think this is a great plan.  It is better to have one master plan for all this land than to have a piecemeal of suburban development.  This project will be very successful as I have seen projects like this around the country.  Reminds me of Lake Nona outside of Orlando.   The community gardens remind me of Harvest Green outside of Houston where there are areas where people can grow food.  I know most are very anti- suburban  on this site but even your revered Dilworth was a suburb once.  So was Wesley Heights, Villa Heights and every other neighborhood outside the loop.  This is a great project for a growing city.   We need options just like this as much as options for in town living.  

Frankly, at first glance, this is a much better planned community than Dilworth, Wesley Heights, Myers Park and other communities were.  Not nearly the amount of setback,  probably wider sidewalks, with a greater variety of housing product and better integration with walking-accessible mixed uses.  In a quote, Crescent's CEO likened the vision for this development to Baxter Village down in Fort Mill, except along a riverfront.  If that materializes, this will be stunning.  I wish you all luck in waiting for 277 to be a river in center city, while I'm sure plenty will go and scope out spots for themselves in the River District proximal to an existing river.

Not happy about the loss of forestry or ecosystem, although to @KJHburg's point, given our policies allow for development on such lands, I'd rather this holistic approach that's preserving 40% of the space, than to have a piecemeal series of single-use subdivisions likely resulting in cul-de-sac streets lined with garages with probably far more aggregate clear-cutting than River District could ever imagine to engage in.

Edited June 29 by RANYC

[tozmervo]

The aerial renderings look like they're straight out of City Skylines

[Nathan2]

3 hours ago, KJHburg said:

I think this is a great plan.  It is better to have one master plan for all this land than to have a piecemeal of suburban development.  This project will be very successful as I have seen projects like this around the country.  Reminds me of Lake Nona outside of Orlando.   The community gardens remind me of Harvest Green outside of Houston where there are areas where people can grow food.  I know most are very anti- suburban  on this site but even your revered Dilworth was a suburb once.  So was Wesley Heights, Villa Heights and every other neighborhood outside the loop.  This is a great project for a growing city.   We need options just like this as much as options for in town living.  

The difference between this "suburb" and the likes of Dilworth, Wesley Heights, etc.. is that they weren't built with giant sprawling surface parking lots originally and each one of them were connected and close by to a vast network of streetcar lines. Even today you do not have to get into a car to get to a major urban area in Dilworth unlike the river district. The river district will require every person to jump into a car to get to work or school, thus furthering traffic congestion into charlotte. 

[JeanClt]

I think this is a great plan.  It is better to have one master plan for all this land than to have a piecemeal of suburban development.  This project will be very successful as I have seen projects like this around the country.  Reminds me of Lake Nona outside of Orlando.   The community gardens remind me of Harvest Green outside of Houston where there are areas where people can grow food.  I know most are very anti- suburban  on this site but even your revered Dilworth was a suburb once.  So was Wesley Heights, Villa Heights and every other neighborhood outside the loop.  This is a great project for a growing city.   We need options just like this as much as options for in town living.  

Dilworth is mostly a grid and not the modern disconnected neighborhoods in the last half of the last century and all of this one. If it were more like dilworth it wouldn’t be as bad sprawl. That grid format is one reason why it is revered.

It’s just this:


Doesn’t resemble this:



It appears that there’s a correlation between being a desirable neighborhood if generally a grid. It’s more walkable. Simply much more sustainable. I wouldn’t necessarily say I don’t like this development for being suburban alone. If it’s going to get done so be it. It is the fact that despite the community-based theme they have… it just resembles what any suburban neighborhood in charlotte would look like and not actually a community. People who want a more from “ring cities” small town feel… this isn’t exactly what those towns look like and definitely won’t achieve the same feel. This first phase in particular isn’t what I would refer to when I’m saying these comments more so the outlying plans for those weird satellites suburban style sfh neighborhoods. Those kinds of neighborhoods create disconnect and isolation. Most of all aren’t walkable.

[AirNostrumMAD]

Dilworth compared to this University City/Concord Mills type development? lol.

 

Charlotte has a good case study on great suburban development. It's called LKN (Cornelius, Huntersville and Davidson). Antiquity in Cornelius is a nice development that is very typical of LKN that I wish Charlotte would emulate more. Parking in the back or in alleys, Houses to the front, somewhat of a grid in their neighborhoods even if only a few connections to main roads, etc. I love LKN's zoning standards. This looks really good for what it is though. 

[RANYC]

Not a developer or development engineer, but I suspect that a planned community with this much tree-save and proximity to an ecologically sensitive area like a riverbank probably couldn't just conform the landscape to a strict urban street grid without far more extraordinary clear-cutting and much wider-spread site-grading.  It is relatively dense for not being along a mass-transit line, it's mixed-use, it's mixed-income.  The surface lots are relegated to the interior of the blocks from what I can tell, with structures sited along streetscapes and sidewalks to give pedestrian accessibility and alt-mobility choice.  If the retail spaces were going to be commercially viable, I think they had to strike a compromise in design by creating some accommodation for cars.  River District retail and office surely aren't going to be for just those living within walking distance, but will draw folks from a great deal of surrounding subdivisions.  

I've heard there's a conflict between a strict urban grid for new developments, and creating a woodsy, arborous, embedded-in-nature feel for new developments.  Not sure how much tree-save was happening when Dilworth was created, but I recall reading that Dilworth was mostly tree-less farm area and the treed feel its residents enjoy today was generations in the making.  

Edited June 29 by RANYC

[RANYC]

2 minutes ago, AirNostrumMAD said:

Dilworth compared to this University City/Concord Mills type development? lol.

 

Charlotte has a good case study on great suburban development. It's called LKN (Cornelius, Huntersville and Davidson). Antiquity in Cornelius is a nice development that is very typical of LKN that I wish Charlotte would emulate more. Parking in the back or in alleys, Houses to the front, somewhat of a grid in their neighborhoods even if only a few connections to main roads, etc. I love LKN's zoning standards. This looks really good for what it is though. 

Dilworth was created in the late 1800s and early 20th century, so not really a comparison to take seriously.  We've learned a ton since places were designed then, and infrastructure is quite different now, so that will be impactful to design today.  Dilworth was the escape form urbanity for its time, at least as much escape as late-1800s tech and mobility could accommodate.  River District seems to balance a number of design and development and commercial constraints quite reasonably.

[KJHburg]

If any of you have driven through the River District area you will see the deep gulches and small valleys where creeks are feeding into the lake and this is why there could not be grid pattern developed there it is not feasible and it would be environmentally terrible.  This development is protecting the watershed and these natural areas. 

This is where I will have to disagree with many of you.  We need more quality development in a master plan like this or it could be developed piecemeal with no connectivity and overall plan.  This city is increasing in density in the intown areas and this city is growing in population.   We have acres of vacant land in the city center right now!    But even that is not without a fight when new development is proposed  (think the new apartment building on 36th St and the people so upset from NoDa)    This city can grow or it can be stagnant.   Plus many people can not afford the homes or places to live in Dilworth, Center city, NoDa etc their values are out of sight.  

So what is your solutions to population growth ?  don't allow any new developments in the suburbs to be built to drive YOUR property values even higher?  How does not building or heavily restricted where one can build make housing more affordable?    As I said I like this plan will just disagree with many of you  for my point was and is all these intown neighborhoods were greenfield developments at one point.  This project has a mixture of housing types with various levels of affordability including an affordable housing project by Laurel Street. From rental apartments to townhomes to SF homes.   

When it goes vertical within the next year I will post some photos but done talking about it.  

 

 

[AirNostrumMAD]

I said before, it looks good for what it is. I actually like it. It’s charming. 
 

But… This is going to sound negative to some but it shouldn’t. 

This is not sustainable growth nor dense growth. It’s sprawl. Low density sprawl. It’s bad for the environment (leaving it a nature preserve would have been better for the environment. Not single family homes cul-de-sacs) Etc. It’s only “densifying” Charlotte in the sense there are more people in Charlotte. A technicality. Quite frankly, I’m not even sure where all of Charlotte’s growth occurs. Uptown’s population is only 21,000 people (density around 11,000 per sq. Mile) and SouthEnd is only 11,300. https://www.charlottecentercity.org/research 
Based on memory, which could be faulty, I think  2010 uptown was around 14,000. Yet the city of Charlotte has grown rapidly since 2010… I imagine there’s been a lot of low density growth throughout the city. 

Building these sprawling low density areas even though it’s adding people and technically increases the density of the city isn’t in the spirit of smart sustainable growth. 

Also, Just because the city doesn’t have solutions to affordability (in urban settings), sustainability, smart growth, dense growth, low income housing doesn’t make these developments the “answer” or somehow less sprawly, or somehow smart growth. The choice isn’t between “stagnate” or “growth” when pursuing policies on affordable housing policies, smart growth, increased mass transit, etc. It could actually lead to more growth. Who knows. 

It’s actually desirable to a lot of people to have these developments. People want this. It is really pretty too. Also, there is the political reality that there is no political will to change Charlotte from the sprawly growth. Having a few pockets of urbanity is peanuts (if that) and even then, you have the conundrum that the only tiny slices of urbanity in Charlotte isn’t even accessible (in terms of living) to majority of Charlotteans except for mostly transient young single white professionals or no kids. 

I say Lake Norman (the Meck portion) is a good model for suburban developments in Charlotte. One that could realistically and politically work in Charlotte too. 

And again. I like this development, personally. But it’s not environmentally friendly, it’s sprawl, it’s very low dense, it’s not sustainable, completely car reliant, etc. And that works for the city and people can get more “bang for their buck” with a bigger and cheaper house, land, in a safe community, etc. So there are trade offs depending on what your priorities are IMO so no opinion is right or wrong.

Also, I’m sure most people here would prefer office growth concentrated in uptown and ringing around it as opposed the office towers being split around the city. What if a few 30 floor towers went in Ballantyne, maybe University city got a tower, maybe an Atlanta Station type development off of 77 as opposed to where they have been going? What if the Hornets moved back to the old Coliseum area? And the Panthers to Rock Hill? The Knights back to Fort Mill? Technically, the area would still have basketball, still have the same office workers. I think most everyone here can agree that is less ideal than being concentrated in greater uptown. They together create synergy, multi-use that makes the center city vibrant which attracts people to center city for various things. Something that might not happen if diffused. It’s really the same concept as dense/smart growth.  There would be better mass transit, more retail potential, more bike lanes etc if it were similarly dense like Charlottes office & sports developments has been dense. 

After the Charlotte Knights game in Fort Mill? What did nearly everyone do after the game? Go to the parking lot and try to drive away. After a Knights game in uptown, what do people do after a game? Why did peoples behaviors change? They built a very expensive stadium in a land constrain area on very valuable land. Attendance went up. People walked around after. Ate after. Some walked, bikes or took light rail home. Are ticket prices more pricey? Probably. Is it better for the region to be uptown? I think so. 

 sorry for long post. I’m definitely a nerd in urbanity (whether I’m wrong or right. I enjoy urbanity and can get long winded xD)

Edited June 30 by AirNostrumMAD

[CLT2014]

Anybody have details on infrastructure improvements planned for the broader area? I know there are plans for the actual development, but are we getting large scale improvements to intersections south of the airport that are currently "rural" roads with one lane in each direction. These roads will become major commuting routes for the River District to head towards Uptown, South End, et... and the reverse commute when the major employment district of the River District is built. Wallace Neel alongside the airport also doesn't have any stoplights, and will become a major route for River District residents to connect to Wilkinson, Belmont, and the airport. 

Also, is the West Blvd bridge over I-485 being torn down and re-built? It is currently just one lane in each direction which seems like it won't be able to handle the growth. Johnston Road in Ballantyne gets to 5 lanes over I-485.

This may already all be solved... I just largely have read about infrastructure plans directly in the River District itself like extending West Blvd and widening Garrison Rd... but nothing for the surrounding roads that feed into. The Master Plan doesn't really show a change to the I-485 West Blvd off ramp.... going to be lots of light cycles waiting on left turns with a line if so. 

Edited June 30 by CLT2014

[JeanClt]

Not a developer or development engineer, but I suspect that a planned community with this much tree-save and proximity to an ecologically sensitive area like a riverbank probably couldn't just conform the landscape to a strict urban street grid without far more extraordinary clear-cutting and much wider-spread site-grading.  It is relatively dense for not being along a mass-transit line, it's mixed-use, it's mixed-income.  The surface lots are relegated to the interior of the blocks from what I can tell, with structures sited along streetscapes and sidewalks to give pedestrian accessibility and alt-mobility choice.  If the retail spaces were going to be commercially viable, I think they had to strike a compromise in design by creating some accommodation for cars.  River District retail and office surely aren't going to be for just those living within walking distance, but will draw folks from a great deal of surrounding subdivisions.  
I've heard there's a conflict between a strict urban grid for new developments, and creating a woodsy, arborous, embedded-in-nature feel for new developments.  Not sure how much tree-save was happening when Dilworth was created, but I recall reading that Dilworth was mostly tree-less farm area and the treed feel its residents enjoy today was generations in the making.  

Urban grid… I didn’t mean as in slap a grid on it and call it a day. I was referring to something more intentional. See certain sections look ~OK~ but those cul-da-sacs would be more helpful if connected to an actual street? What is the need for those?



Suburban street grids makes getting around on foot a pain depending on where you live. Especially when there aren’t decent pedestrian infrastructure. The town center looks okay. It’s dense. Somewhat grid-like. I’m not totally against the design or the development, but that post-war suburban design is really tiresome to see. Most of Charlotte is just that.

Here’s a few quick marks I made to things I see. Red is something I see in design that looks off or could pose some difficulties for walkability. Green generally is okay. (I would see most people who want that small community/town feel and walkability wanting to live here. I did see they want to have trails and maybe they’ll have greenways and if they can connect places in ways roads can’t that would make things better.



CMS being to the side like that in this designed master plan can usually mean one of two things…

1. It’s an afterthought
2. It was late and added in the most convenient spot.

My last peace: It’s decent project and isn’t all bad. I just hope that it doesn’t turn out like Ballantyne before reimagined. A focus on walkability would help its suburban look and increased access to basic amenities that would agree with 2040-plan of 10-minute neighborhoods where you don’t necessarily have to drive because you NEED to. I think it could be a cool place.

[ertley]

18 hours ago, CLT2014 said:

Anybody have details on infrastructure improvements planned for the broader area? 

Also, is the West Blvd bridge over I-485 being torn down and re-built? It is currently just one lane in each direction which seems like it won't be able to handle the growth. Johnston Road in Ballantyne gets to 5 lanes over I-485.

The plans that I have seen--and of course they are likely to change--include the building of a second bridge south of the current West Boulevard bridge, which will be close enough that they share 485 ingress and egress points--there will be a connecting service road of sorts between the two roads/bridges. 

The plans for West Boulevard have historically (within recent history) focused on shifting it completely south, specifically converting Douglas Drive, which is now residential with significant setbacks for the houses, to the rerouted West Boulevard, and then connecting it to Douglas, (They're two roads that de jure are/should be joined but just never were.) It would seem to me that the logical continuation of that to the east is converting West Tyvola to West Boulevard, which I think would be smart. Then the west vestige of West Boulevard will make a nice, functional road for airport infrastructure and traffic. 

So, I *think* the new, more southerly bridge may be for continuing the new route of West Blvd. 

I will also say, AGAIN, that if the city and county haven't strongly encouraged or even forced River District planners to incorporate a future right of way for a potential Silver Line spur, they aren't earning their salaries. To me, it's a no-brainer. I posted more at length before about how easy, under *present* conditions, it would be to reserve right of way for such a spur from the River District along the current (future old) West Boulevard and then over to Wilkinson.  

[NCMike1990]

Work has already started on the River District. You can see the clearing going on from the most recent satellite imagery.

 

[Reverie39]

Admittedly that is a massive amount of untouched forest sitting there considering how close it is to the core of a major city. I would have been cool with it getting designated as a huge park with trails and activities (maybe even a small wildlife preserve or something), but something was definitely going to happen to it. Turned out to be development - I'm not upset but would love that Silver Line spur people are mentioning.

 

Edit: btw, where do you get this recent satellite imagery? Google Earth/Maps isn't quite this up to date right now.

Edited July 4 by Reverie39

[NCMike1990]

10 minutes ago, Reverie39 said:

Admittedly that is a massive amount of untouched forest sitting there considering how close it is to the core of a major city. I would have been cool with it getting designated as a huge park with trails and activities (maybe even a small wildlife preserve or something), but something was definitely going to happen to it. Turned out to be development - I'm not upset but would love that Silver Line spur people are mentioning.

 

Edit: btw, where do you get this recent satellite imagery? Google Earth/Maps isn't quite this up to date right now.

A site called "EOS.com/landviewer". EOS stands for "Earth Observing Satellite". It's not a very user friendly site but they have updated satellite imagery posted every week.

Just do a search for "Charlotte Metropolitan Area" and select "Scene Search" from the right panel. Move the slider to "mosaic" and chose from the images.

 

[turbocraig]

On 6/28/2022 at 10:18 PM, KJHburg said:

This is the first detailed plan I have seen of the first part of the River District.  I think they call it Westrow. some of these renderings I have not seen before. 

On the home page 

https://www.theriverdistrict.com/

this is the next big thing for Charlotte especially in the suburbs. 

 

Feels like they're going after a NoCal vibe.   With farmland even.   The windmill's a bit much to me.