Portman SouthEnd – Hawkins btw Ashton and Sycamore.

[kermit]

19 minutes ago, JeanClt said:

…Simply though that is where we are at right now and realistically there needs to be a whole lot more done to create that groundwork to allow for the economics of careless developments to be successful and in fact preferable.

While I don’t completely disagree with you, I think it’s important to ask, what exactly needs to be done in Charlotte to enable careless areas? Why isn’t the Council doing those things now? Why aren’t we advocating for those things to happen now?

I guess I kinda disagree with this sentiment after all. I (personally) don’t believe we can reduce auto dependence without causing some considerable pain for drivers. I think Southend is almost to the point where it is attractive enough to office users that office space (and certainly residential) can be built without catering to drivers. I am a ‘if not now, when?’ guy.

[JRCLT]

While I don’t completely disagree with you, I think it’s important to ask, what exactly needs to be done in Charlotte to enable careless areas? Why isn’t the Council doing those things now? Why aren’t we advocating for those things to happen now?
I guess I kinda disagree with this sentiment after all. I (personally) don’t believe we can reduce auto dependence without causing some considerable pain for drivers. I think Southend is almost to the point where it is attractive enough to office users that office space (and certainly residential) can be built without catering to drivers. I am a ‘if not now, when?’ guy.

Now ground work isn’t just commuting options it’s also making driving less convenient! So yes I agree with taking drivers out of their cars. It’s everything to make other forms more attractive by improving and expanding other options just as much restricting cars and making them less attractive. I could go into more detail about that but I was just stating the fact that developers are doing things mostly based on economics and practicality than any other aspect there is to consider for a development.

To summarize what I mean by groundwork: it is everything to make commuting options that are sustainable, clean, and efficient more convenient/practical while eliminating and creating less convenience for the other forms that generally aren’t. This may include expansions, policy, improvements, laws etc. We are just to lazy and self-centered to get out of our own way. The main point is also not everyone that works in south end, lives in south end. That is the major issue with carless developments, I would say.

[jthomas]

9 hours ago, RANYC said:

a glass box atop a car cage

I love this phrase - it perfectly sums up the architecture of 21st century urban development. Count me in the group that is tired of hearing the excuses about why the current market requires so much parking. How do we know, when that is the only choice being offered? I agree with @kermit's sentiment of "if not now, then when?" I'm glad to see that there are developers who are attempting residential projects with no parking. Now we need one with the balls to attempt a parking-free office project. Create the market for the product we want to see.

I will say again that I think that cities need to step up and take an active role in bridging the gap between the reality of the auto-oriented present and a car-lite future. In a growing neighborhood like South End, the city should be building standalone garages on the interior of blocks to provide for current parking needs, while implementing strict parking maximums on new developments. And it goes without saying, constantly improving transit access and pedestrian/bike infrastructure. Eventually, as the neighborhood transitions from being auto-oriented to people-oriented, the standalone garages can be demolished and redeveloped.

[kermit]

5 hours ago, JeanClt said:

…The main point is also not everyone that works in south end, lives in south end. That is the major issue with carless developments, I would say.

But this is an impossible condition. We are never going to have everyone living in the neighborhood they work in. I don’t see this as a realistic goal to strive for. Setting this as the bar sets us up to fail.

Suburbanites have had their lifestyle choice subsidized for 87 years. It might be time to remove that subsidy and require them to make some sacrifices (use a f’kn park and ride!) 

Edited April 29, 2022 by kermit

[RANYC]

Saw this on social media, but there's a school of thought that says a lot of Americans simply lack the fitness and physical stamina for walkability and mass-transit usage.  They're just barely fit enough to drive to and park right in the building where they work, or in the surface lot where they shop.  Mass transit usage does take a bit more physical rigor because you'll hardly ever have a transit line taking you right to the "front yard" of where you're trying to go.  I'd posit that this prospect exhausts a lot of Americans.  Don't think it's the only variable explaining a resistance to walkability and transit, but I do think it's an oft-overlooked one.

Edited April 29, 2022 by RANYC

[Blue_Devil]

53 minutes ago, RANYC said:

Saw this on social media, but there's a school of thought that says a lot of Americans simply lack the fitness and physical stamina for walkability and mass-transit usage.  They're just barely fit enough to drive to and park right in the building where they work, or in the surface lot where they shop.  Mass transit usage does take a bit more physical rigor because you'll hardly ever have a transit line taking you right to the "front yard" of where you're trying to go.  I'd posit that this prospect exhausts a lot of Americans.  Don't think it's the only variable explaining a resistance to walkability and transit, but I do think it's an oft-overlooked one.

I could see it. Americans are fat. But everything is really spread out here compared to Europe 

[RANYC]

10 minutes ago, Blue_Devil said:

I could see it. Americans are fat. But everything is really spread out here compared to Europe 

But we’ve urbanized and industrialized from our rural roots in a very different because of the above. 
By the way, the air quality appears especially bad here today.   This is becoming a real issue IMO.

[kermit]

2 hours ago, RANYC said:

Saw this on social media, but there's a school of thought that says a lot of Americans simply lack the fitness and physical stamina for walkability and mass-transit usage.  They're just barely fit enough to drive to and park right in the building where they work, or in the surface lot where they shop.  Mass transit usage does take a bit more physical rigor because you'll hardly ever have a transit line taking you right to the "front yard" of where you're trying to go.  I'd posit that this prospect exhausts a lot of Americans.  Don't think it's the only variable explaining a resistance to walkability and transit, but I do think it's an oft-overlooked one.

This is another circular argument. Americans are fat BECAUSE we have no walkability. There have been quite a few studies showing that fitness/obesity are both related to the walkability of the neighborhood you live in. Reduce auto dependence and obesity will decrease.

Edited April 29, 2022 by kermit

[RANYC]

29 minutes ago, kermit said:

This is another circular argument here. Americans are fat BECAUSE we have no walkability. There have been quite a few studies showing that fitness/obesity are both related to the walkability of the neighborhood you live in. Reduce auto dependence and obesity will decrease.

I’d call it a negative reinforcing feedback loop.  Cars (and crap food) made us fat and now we resist sustainable urbanization because it’s uncomfortable given our state of health.  Reality is we are dealing with lots of people too unfit for walkability and we need to take that head-on as we try to redesign communities.  We’ve got to reason with and persuade people to effect the changes we want.  Not just pull the rug from underneath and cattle-prod them into new lifestyles because we think we know better and they’re too stupid to keep up with our timelines.  This sort of condescension by the urban-liberal cognoscenti and literati isn’t going to end well.

Edited April 29, 2022 by RANYC

[JRCLT]

But this is an impossible condition. We are never going to have everyone living in the neighborhood they work in. I don’t see this as a realistic goal to strive for. Setting this as the bar sets us up to fail.
Suburbanites have had their lifestyle choice subsidized for 87 years. It might be time to remove that subsidy and require them to make some sacrifices (use a f’kn park and ride!) 

I never mentioned that as a goal. I’m just stating a possibility that most people may not live in south end but work there and a car may be the only means to get to their workplace. Do not try to extrapolate what I’m saying. Take it as it’s said.

[kermit]

10 hours ago, JeanClt said:

I never mentioned that as a goal. I’m just stating a possibility that most people may not live in south end but work there and a car may be the only means to get to their workplace. Do not try to extrapolate what I’m saying. Take it as it’s said.

Sorry, I did not intend to misinterpret. I thought I was directly addressing your quote. Apologies if I got the context wrong.

10 hours ago, RANYC said:

I’d call it a negative reinforcing feedback loop.  Cars (and crap food) made us fat and now we resist sustainable urbanization because it’s uncomfortable given our state of health.  Reality is we are dealing with lots of people too unfit for walkability and we need to take that head-on as we try to redesign communities.  We’ve got to reason with and persuade people to effect the changes we want.  Not just pull the rug from underneath and cattle-prod them into new lifestyles because we think we know better and they’re too stupid to keep up with our timelines.  This sort of condescension by the urban-liberal cognoscenti and literati isn’t going to end well.

I think its a strawman to suggest all new development needs to accommodate the unfit. Nobody is suggesting we wipe sprawl off the map, just that we should stop building more of it. Sustainability dictates that new development be as walkable as possible, which requires that driving be discouraged. If the unfit choose to avoid walkable areas because its hard to drive and park there then that is their choice, developers are under no obligation to create environments that are attractive to all people. IMO its totally fine for it to be a pain in the ass for suburbanites to travel to walkable areas, I think that is quite different than cattle-proding them.

Suburban development was (in past decades) attractive to certain groups because car dependance excluded certain people by design. I think its totally fine to build new urban communities that exclude the car dependent. No one is obligated to make it easy for drivers to get somewhere, they can always take an uber/bus/train if they really want to go. The experience of Southend suggests that a lack of car accommodation can be profitable for developers -- many of those businesses do really well because the area is thought to be “cool” thanks to the lack of cars there. 

Edited April 30, 2022 by kermit

[CLT2014]

I honestly think a lot of people would be happy to take mass transit... even people that love cars rave about how easy it is to ride the train in Japan, take the London Underground, et... the reality is is just isn't comprehensive enough, reliable enough, or well funded enough in most areas of the country and Charlotte has been working for years to get our limited routes built. I mean...  a person that lives in Plaza Midwood and works at "The Line".... they are going to drive. Plaza Midwood residents aren't stereotypical suburbanites like Ballantyne, but taking a streetcar with 20 minute headways to connect to the Blue Line is going to lose to a 15 minute drive in the car most of the time. We don't have a "system." We have buses that operate on 30 minute or hour long headways.... yet we are blaming the ordinary public for owning a car.... OF COURSE they do. 99% of us on here own a car as well and we are literally enthusiasts. NOT having a car in Charlotte means you get to experience one little sliver of the metro area within .75 miles of the Blue Line. The vast majority of the metro doesn't live in that little sliver. 

We need to not take FOREVER to build mass transit in this country and the levels of bureaucracy are staggering. We spend a gazillion dollars on studies OVER and OVER and OVER again without actually putting a shovel in the ground, while consultants line their pockets, construction costs soar, and then the whole budget that was planned is completely wrong because the world changed during 10 years of studies. The entire planning process has become extremely slow (not just in Charlotte). 

The construction timeline for the Silver Line is insane..... imagine if the New York subway system could only construct 10 miles of rail every decade like the pace we do things today....  at 248 miles of track the New York subway system would have taken 248 years!!! Longer than we have been a country! This isn't just a Charlotte problem either.... California (maybe the most progressive state) got approved to start building High Speed Rail in 2008 and is decades behind on delivering a highly compromised route between two secondary cities. Meanwhile, other countries are tossing high speed rail up. New York is way behind and way over budget on delivering the Second Avenue subway and they are the most experienced transit agency in this country. 

We need to hurry things up ASAP and get moving on transit. 2040 is going to be way too late. 10 miles of track per decade is unacceptable. At this rate, it is more likely we have nuclear war and all die before we have a system where most people in the metro don't need to drive to get to where they are going. I DO think the public wants to see things move... but then sees dates published like the Silver Line coming in 15 years and people lose interest and start thinking of public transit as big on promises and low on delivery... I say that as an ex-Californian who genuinely thought I would have been riding between Los Angeles and San Francisco at 250 mph for years by now to see my friends when I voted for HSR. How wrong I turned out to be.

Rant over... 

Edited April 29, 2022 by CLT2014

[KJHburg]

walk bys today.  Noticed they did not paint the side of the garage facing the little studio building.  Not sure if they are not done or they are not going to do it.  Like the upper patio of new Sycamore Brewery.    Basically I think this building is now almost 3/4 leased if not more with the unannounced Silicon Valley Bank lease along with Northeastern Univ. several smaller leases .

[KJHburg]

today and as Sycamore opens look for demo of its site for their new apartment tower next door. 

[Blue_Devil]

19 minutes ago, KJHburg said:

today and as Sycamore opens look for demo of its site for their new apartment tower next door. 

Any expectation on when that will start KJ? Have permits been pulled or any approvals?

[KJHburg]

6 minutes ago, Blue_Devil said:

Any expectation on when that will start KJ? Have permits been pulled or any approvals?

not yet I know of but I think the clue is right when the new Sycamore location opens in the tower and then I think things will move fast on the apartment tower. 

[CLT Development]

22 minutes ago, KJHburg said:

not yet I know of but I think the clue is right when the new Sycamore location opens in the tower and then I think things will move fast on the apartment tower. 

actually no, its very possible Sycamore closes down for construction before their new space is open. Its moving along much quicker than the space buildout.

[Madison Parkitect]

I know some people don't like it, but I think the dark colors of this building combined with the glass and the bare concrete actually looks pretty sharp.

[jthomas]

43 minutes ago, Madison Parkitect said:

I know some people don't like it, but I think the dark colors of this building combined with the glass and the bare concrete actually looks pretty sharp.

I do agree that the detailing on the "people" parts of the building is nice. The thing I dislike about this building (other than the ungodly amount of parking) is the massing. I'm not a fan of the current architectural fad of cantilevering everything just because. The glass box cantilever just draws more attention to the parking podium. Which, surely, there's more screening to be installed, right? It still looks horrible, even with the new paint.

[ertley]

53 minutes ago, jthomas said:

I do agree that the detailing on the "people" parts of the building is nice. The thing I dislike about this building (other than the ungodly amount of parking) is the massing. I'm not a fan of the current architectural fad of cantilevering everything just because. The glass box cantilever just draws more attention to the parking podium. Which, surely, there's more screening to be installed, right? It still looks horrible, even with the new paint.

Somebody on this thread several weeks ago--Sorry that I can't remember who--had the best suggestion for improving the look of this garage, and it's relatively simple and low cost: Paint all the columns and anything else concrete behind the screening black. It would really help 'harmonize' the building and make the screening more effective. 

[CLT Development]

I actually designed the environmental graphics for this building and you can expect the columns along the bottom on both Hawkins and the Rail trail to get a lot of color added in, along with the parking deck entrance and more. Originally they wanted to have screened art but the city wouldn't permit it. I think it must be architectural in nature, which is why Novel Stonewall station ended up with such a small but VERY expensive treatment with wanderwall.

Edited May 12, 2022 by CLT Development

[Norm2]

27 minutes ago, CLT Development said:

I actually designed the environmental graphics for this building and you can expect the columns along the bottom on both Hawkins and the Rail trail to get a lot of color added in, along with the parking deck entrance and more. Originally they wanted to have screened art but the city wouldn't permit it. I think it must be architectural in nature, which is why Novel Stonewall station ended up with such a small but VERY expensive treatment with wanderwall.

The city puts the kabosh on some of the coolest stuff it seems.

[KJHburg]

4 hours ago, CLT Development said:

actually no, its very possible Sycamore closes down for construction before their new space is open. Its moving along much quicker than the space buildout.

Good and I love to be proven wrong if a tower speeds up construction. 

[j-man]

Saw these on Instagram and instantly thought of this project. 

[J-Rob]

I think the proportions on that building are slightly better.  I like the office portion of The Line, but the overall proportions of the building are whacky at best. I think it would look better if the office tower was taller.  Right now it looks like a stumpy office thrown on top of a big deck.  Just my opinion though.

 

I should add, I am more accepting of parking than most on this forum.  It adds height to the skyline, and the ground level can still be activated.  Plus, we just don't have sufficient transit to get rid of parking. You can't expect these companies will hire only 20 year olds that live in apartments along the Blue Line.  My problem with The Line is just the proportions don't seem natural to me. 

Edited May 13, 2022 by J-Rob