Jump to content

SouthEnd High-Rise Projects


Blue_Devil

Recommended Posts


3 hours ago, KJHburg said:

No parking is not required to be buried in any major Texas city I can tell you that.  Or Atlanta, Or Nashville or any other city I can think of in the southeast. 

Just because it isn't required doesn't mean it shouldn't be (and just because other cities (in the south) aren't doesn't mean we shouldn't). We need BE BETTER and quit making it cheap to accommodate cars in cities. I would love for Charlotte to be the Portland, Or. of the south and we were on that path 15 years ago. We need to meaningfully invest in transit, realize the RoI might be measured in decades, not months. CATS isn't investing for decades, Charlotte isn't planning for decades and every new surface lot and parking structure is indicative of that. The bellyaching about parking in South End and Uptown from folks is the suburbs remains fascinating to me. South End is served by CATS 10, 16 and 19 and Lynx 501.

I was equally fascinated to meet my daughter's roommate's parents (from Carteret County) who were amazed that we lived and drove in Charlotte, "there's so much traffic." "Well, did you consider the light rail or buses"? "No, we couldn't possibly do that!"

  • Like 3
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, JeanClt said:


Not even just that because not every city has grown as such with that natural boundary. Cities in the south just had much smaller populations than those in northern cities. A big chunk of the growth in the south has been recent. While cities in the south were designed more rurally and as they grew, suburbs became popular and that is what grew in Charlotte over dense core development as we see today. The large growth has been due to migration from more expensive areas, particularly in the North. Leading Charlotte to shift into more population dense developments. Charlotte does have a lot of land, but I don’t think it should be all used up before we build denser. Reasonably dense development with the right amenities and necessities will build a more efficient and sustainably city. 10-minute neighborhoods are the goal right? We shouldn’t aspire to be New York, or Portland, or any other city for that matter. It is okay to learn and replicate from other cities, but what occurs naturally is what creates a culture and that comes with livability and walkability.

Amen and Preach it

i love NYC but NYC is not some paragon of what Charlotte should be 

NYC is a case study of what to do and what not to do 

Edited by RANYC
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, JeanClt said:


Not even just that because not every city has grown as such with that natural boundary. Cities in the south just had much smaller populations than those in northern cities. A big chunk of the growth in the south has been recent. While cities in the south were designed more rurally and as they grew, suburbs became popular and that is what grew in Charlotte over dense core development as we see today. The large growth has been due to migration from more expensive areas, particularly in the North. Leading Charlotte to shift into more population dense developments. Charlotte does have a lot of land, but I don’t think it should be all used up before we build denser. Reasonably dense development with the right amenities and necessities will build a more efficient and sustainably city. 10-minute neighborhoods are the goal right? We shouldn’t aspire to be New York, or Portland, or any other city for that matter. It is okay to learn and replicate from other cities, but what occurs naturally is what creates a culture and that comes with livability and walkability.

Portland has fewer people. It's true that it's been confined geographically, and not just because of the river. The  scenic areas are protected in the surrounding areas.  That's been my argument all along.... that Charlotte and environs need to protect more of the surrounding areas like KINGS MOUNTAIN.  Instead, everyone pushes for development. Just think if The Catawba River, Kings Mountain, and perhaps some open land near Mint Hill has all been protected.  Charlotte would be much more compact and urban.

Edited by Windsurfer
spelling
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Windsurfer said:

Portland has fewer people. It's true that it's been confined geographically, and not just because of the river. The  scenic areas are protected in the surrounding areas.  That's been my argument all along.... that Charlotte and environs need to protect more of the surrounding areas like KINGS MOUNTAIN.  Instead, everyone pushes for development. Just think if The Catawba River, Kings Mountain, and perhaps some open land near Mint Hill has all been protected.  Charlotte would be much more compact and urban.

Its even more than scenic area protection. The timber industry in Oregon saw the political wisdom of supporting an Urban Growth Boundary law in the state so all of Oregon’s cities have regulatory boundaries which restrict their sprawl. Tennessee also has a UGB law (of sorts) in place. 

UGB’s get some heat for increasing housing costs, although I think that is mostly developer BS (Oregon is still the cheapest housing market on the West Coast and zoning is a far bigger deal than land supply). As climate concerns get plainer (hard to believe we are still waiting on that), I suspect UGBs will get more traction. Unfortunately the rural economy in NC is (ironically) focused on attracting spillovers from cities rather than agriculture or forestry, so we will have a long wait for UGBs here.

Edited by kermit
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Windsurfer said:

Portland has fewer people. It's true that it's been confined geographically, and not just because of the river. The  scenic areas are protected in the surrounding areas.  That's been my argument all along.... that Charlotte and environs need to protect more of the surrounding areas like KINGS MOUNTAIN.  Instead, everyone pushes for development. Just think if The Catawba River, Kings Mountain, and perhaps some open land near Mint Hill has all been protected.  Charlotte would be much more compact and urban.

True, and housing would be significantly more expensive. There are positive and negative implications for the policy you advocate. San Diego has a ton of space that is protected from development and that contributes to the expensive housing (which disproportionately impacts the poor). It also leads to zero lot lines in suburban neighborhoods (which, let me tell you, ain't great).

I agree with protecting nature though and abhor the new casino project in Kings Mountain. 

Edited by JBS
Link to comment
Share on other sites

^ IMO constrained land supplies get scapegoated as a cause of expensive housing instead of putting the blame where it belongs, zoning. Coastal California cities are only expensive because of their continued insistence on exclusionary zoning. We can see examples of increasing permitable density trumping limited land supply in places like Portland (the cheapest big market on the West Coast) and Montreal (the cheapest big market in Canada despite land constraints created by ‘the Island’). Tokyo might be the best example as their housing costs are on a par with Charlotte despite having similar land constraints as any California coastal city. https://resources.realestate.co.jp/rent/what-is-the-average-rent-in-tokyo-2020-ranking-by-ward-and-layout/

 

Edited by kermit
  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Blue_Devil said:

Construction fencing up for 110 East

2aace64b805cdefd45df1d8bf25de631.jpg


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Are they able to chop down those mature street trees along west blvd?  Or can we expect that because they’re outside of the fence, they’ll be protected?

Edited by RANYC
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great.   We are in a severe drought, when trees are feeling tons of stress, and we are chopping down resilient mature, carbon-ingesting trees to replace with saplings in a drought, many of which will need to get replaced and then we can wait a generation for what drew many of us to the city in the first place.  Our trees are gems.  Some high-rise atop a big box garage is not progress.  

4 hours ago, atlrvr said:

So those trees will be removed.  New trees within tree-wells will replace them.  4 trees along East all get replaced.  Of the 5 trees along South, 4 get replaced, and 1 gets saved. 

There will be concrete pavers all the way to the back of curb (instead of grass planting strip)

See the demo plan and the new paving/planting plan.  I don't know the types of trees being planted.  They are required to be off the city approved list for trees in tree wells.

Edit:  i zoomed in a bit far on the new planting plan.  The 4th East Blvd tree will be on the other side of the parking deck entrance you can see at the bottom of my pic.

EastDemoPlan.GIF

EastHardscapePlan.GIF

I appreciate the info although disappointed to lose mature trees in the name of misguided progress.  Anyone have a developer’s perspective on why mature street trees must go down?  Is it strictly aesthetics, to have a concrete look all the way to the street?

Edited by RANYC
  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, RANYC said:

Great.   We are in a severe drought, when trees are feeling tons of stress, and we are chopping down resilient mature, carbon-ingesting trees to replace with saplings in a drought, many of which will need to get replaced and then we can wait a generation for what drew many of us to the city in the first place.  Our trees are gems.  Some high-rise atop a big box garage is not progress.  

I appreciate the info although disappointed to lose mature trees in the name of misguided progress.  Anyone have a developer’s perspective on why mature street trees must go down?  Is it strictly aesthetics, so have a concrete look all the way to the street?

Looking at the plans, with the tree grates and everything, the city likely does not want those root systems right next to the road. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Blue_Devil said:

Looking at the plans, with the tree grates and everything, the city likely does not want those root systems right next to the road. 

Is that really it?  Are canopy-providing trees a threat to transportation because of the roots?  Is that how we should start thinking about street-lined canopies all around town?

  • Like 1
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.