Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Miesian Corners

Stratford Apartments on Park Rd

Recommended Posts

Little bird told me that the Stratford Apartments on Park Rd (between Selwyn Ave and Seneca Pl) will bite the dust in the first quarter of 2006. A large mixed-use project will take it's place along with new parkland deeded by the developer to the Sugar Creek Greenway. The development will contain a small amount of retail and a couple hundred condominiums.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Little bird told me that the Stratford Apartments on Park Rd (between Selwyn Ave and Seneca Pl) will bite the dust in the first quarter of 2006. A large mixed-use project will take it's place along with new parkland deeded by the developer to the Sugar Creek Greenway. The development will contain a small amount of retail and a couple hundred condominiums.

Living in Magnolia Park Townhomes, I couldn't be more excited to hear this news! I've been waiting and waiting for this to happen.

I don't even need a rendering, I'm just excited it could be a cow pasture rather than those apartments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Living in Magnolia Park Townhomes, I couldn't be more excited to hear this news! I've been waiting and waiting for this to happen.

I don't even need a rendering, I'm just excited it could be a cow pasture rather than those apartments.

Amen to that cooperdawg !I live right around the corner from you and I was just mentioning to my girlfriend how hideous that whole complex is.

BTW, awesome game last week with VATech. I know you are a happy camper after the GATech game. :)

A2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Little bird told me that the Stratford Apartments on Park Rd (between Selwyn Ave and Seneca Pl) will bite the dust in the first quarter of 2006. A large mixed-use project will take it's place along with new parkland deeded by the developer to the Sugar Creek Greenway. The development will contain a small amount of retail and a couple hundred condominiums.

Hopefully they will put some nice wide sidewalks on that side of the street and maybe a couple crosswalks to Park Selwyn. That Seneca commons project just up the street has finally started construction. Would be nice if the sidewalk near Mockingbird extended all the way down Park to Selwyn. I live off Seneca near Park and often times make the trip down to Fairview Grill and then up to Montford. Its scary (especially at night) walking near that blind turn in Park Rd where people just fly through.

More retail will be nice too, im starting to not need my car...

Keep us informed MC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When I read this I assumed it was Park Place or Colonial Park you are talking about. (The blank red brick apartments). Stratford, the light brick ones across from Harris Teeter? At least they have some nicer detail like the window arches. I don't think they're so bad.

I'd rather see the bulldozers get directed toward South Boulevard, and tear down Grand Oaks. (The people in my neighborhood refer to it as: "Grand Theft Oaks".)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When I read this I assumed it was Park Place or Colonial Park you are talking about. (The blank red brick apartments). Stratford, the light brick ones across from Harris Teeter? At least they have some nicer detail like the window arches. I don't think they're so bad.

I'd rather see the bulldozers get directed toward South Boulevard, and tear down Grand Oaks. (The people in my neighborhood refer to it as: "Grand Theft Oaks".)

If and when they rip out the Stratford, those brick catastrophies will be next. They'll be developing on both sides of them with newer and better stuff. The old squeeze play.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just read Mobuchu's comment. LOL. How long has that sign been up there and who the hell were they trying to fool?

I think this is a great thing. It clears out some--I hate using this word--blight, will add street trees and sidewalks to Park Road, give us another section of the Greenway, and be a better use of the six acre site. And as Cooperdawg alludes to, a rising tide float all boats. The other two properties' redevelopment couldn't be far behind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I stopped by the Citadin sales office today and got on the topic of the Stratford Apartments. They're buing that land and will be buying the brick apartments next store as well to build a plush mixed use project with high end condos. Sounds like a nice upfit for Park Road between Woodlawn and Tyvola. No other details at this time as they are still in land acquisition.

Oh, and the Citadin project looks awesome!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think there is anything wrong with not every apartment complex looking like a shiny new clone of the others. That is what is annoying to me. "Ugly" to some is safe, affordable, and quirky to others. Not everyone can afford all of these new places with all of their 'amenities' and what not and they don't want to have to be shoved into the ghetto because of that fact.

When I was apartment hunting, I fell in love with a place in a safe neighborhood that looks like it discoed right out of the 70's. I loved it because it was different and interesting. The white walls, kitchen dividers, and beige carpet of every other apartment I have been to in this city is a serious turn off for me. I don't want to be like every body else and that includes where I chose to live.

I personally like seeing blips in the landscape. They tell a story and add personality that all of this tiringly similar new structures cannot tell. I don't mind small changes here and there but even "eyesores" can add something interesting, even if it's not interesting to you.

:(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I rented a 1960s apartment once-- it had no dishwasher, and the furnace only heated the living room. The hot water came from a boiler shared with the other tenants... might not get any if you woke up late! :P But it was cheap and quirky, with a nice wide balcony and windows on both sides of the unit. It was nice to open them up, and let the breeze blow straight through... Not everyone needs a bunch of frills.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think there is anything wrong with not every apartment complex looking like a shiny new clone of the others. That is what is annoying to me. "Ugly" to some is safe, affordable, and quirky to others. Not everyone can afford all of these new places with all of their 'amenities' and what not and they don't want to have to be shoved into the ghetto because of that fact.

When I was apartment hunting, I fell in love with a place in a safe neighborhood that looks like it discoed right out of the 70's. I loved it because it was different and interesting. The white walls, kitchen dividers, and beige carpet of every other apartment I have been to in this city is a serious turn off for me. I don't want to be like every body else and that includes where I chose to live.

I personally like seeing blips in the landscape. They tell a story and add personality that all of this tiringly similar new structures cannot tell. I don't mind small changes here and there but even "eyesores" can add something interesting, even if it's not interesting to you.

:(

Those apartments no longer fit the context of the area surrounding them. There are plenty of other apartments in this area of the city. I'm glad to see these two group go, and place nice new construction that will front onto Little Sugar Creek that will encourage pedestrian activity. I see no value in keeping either of these eyesores.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The apartment redevelopment makes more sense than building a new storage facility :huh: just north of there. You'd think these land values would be too high to use it just for keeping people's stuff dry. A storage yard is about the most pedestrian unfriendly thing imaginable... Even parking decks are better...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Those apartments no longer fit the context of the area surrounding them. There are plenty of other apartments in this area of the city. I'm glad to see these two group go, and place nice new construction that will front onto Little Sugar Creek that will encourage pedestrian activity. I see no value in keeping either of these eyesores.

As I said before, one person's eyesores are another person's interesting treasures. Your "context of the area" is your own personal view (as well as the view of those who hold similar opinions) based on your own personal values. Yes, there are plenty of other apartments in the area and those are the white-walled clones of each other that I spoke of before. I am highly in favor of character and distinction over constant, chronic uniformity - which I view as a sad, boring thing.

Wouldn't it have been nice if the builders in the past hadn't thought to get rid of those "eyesores" from times before them?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Those apartments no longer fit the context of the area surrounding them. There are plenty of other apartments in this area of the city. I'm glad to see these two group go, and place nice new construction that will front onto Little Sugar Creek that will encourage pedestrian activity. I see no value in keeping either of these eyesores.

I have to agree with HighRiseHillbilly on this. While "context" is an important factor, I'd argue that neighbrhood texture is even more important, especially in urban infill locations. There's nothing much blander than an urban area where everything is brand new or constructed at exactly the same time; it's buildings of varied ages and types which make urban areas interesting and, well, urban.

Many of the structures everyone loves so much in Dilworth or Elizabeth were once considered "eyesores" as well. Unfortunately, too many of them are still being bulldozed simply because they aren't "picturesque" enough to fit some vague new urbanist notion of what a city is supposed to look like. In the end, we wind up with some Disneyland caricature of a city rather than an actual city; we tear down anything that's really organically urban and replace it with a pre-planned, pre-digested "urbanized" version of suburbia.

And unfortunately, an innocent statement like "Those apartments no longer fit the context of the area surrounding them" opens the door to less innocent statements like "The residents of those apartments no longer fit the context of the area surrounding them," although I'm sure this was not what cooperdawg was suggesting. Alll the same, both processes were well underway in my neighborhood in San Francisco before I moved back to Charlotte this year.

These particular apartments may be of little consequence, but I wouldn't be so anxious to see all little pockets of "non-conforming" use go away...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with HBH and otherstream that simply eradicating every structure that no longer is considered attractive does in fact hinder the cities visual evolution, BUT, I would argue that many apartment communities built in the 1960's prevent the city from becoming organically urban because they were suburban by nature when they were built.

Somthing like these inside of an existing neighborhood would make more sense than along a thoroughfare that is served by transit and is within walking distance to retail services.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is this just a matter of principle, or do you guys see value in Stratford Apartments apart from their age? Wouldn't increased density and integration with the greenway add to the community's character?

I mean, yeah, I agree that trading an old, inconveniently placed single-use apartment complex for a new, inconveniently placed single-use apartment complex is stupid, but is that what's happening here?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is this just a matter of principle, or do you guys see value in Stratford Apartments apart from their age? Wouldn't increased density and integration with the greenway add to the community's character?

I mean, yeah, I agree that trading an old, inconveniently placed single-use apartment complex for a new, inconveniently placed single-use apartment complex is stupid, but is that what's happening here?

Again, these particular apartments may well be completely disposable, and I don't mourn their passing, per se. I just take issue with the idea that anything which isn't of a currently fashionable architectural vintage should by definition be bulldozed and replaced with something more trendy. Imagine the vitality which could be present adjacent to downtown had we not bulldozed en masse some of those "unsightly" low density streetcar strips along Third Street, Fourth Street, and even South Boulevard several decades back. These are just the types of areas which are thriving in other cities today.

Cities grow and change, and old buildings often have to go, but the idea that they should be removed simply because we don't like their particular style this week gives me pause, and reeks of the very urban renewal mentality which destroyed so much of Charlotte's inner city in the 1960s and 1970s. Tear down what needs to be torn down, for sure, but don't make the specific era or building type the primary criterion of what needs to be removed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I mean, yeah, I agree that trading an old, inconveniently placed single-use apartment complex for a new, inconveniently placed single-use apartment complex is stupid, but is that what's happening here?

The new development is mixed-use (will have some retail) and is higher density. It will also be for-sale product. The real pluses are the expanded Sugar Creek Greenway and new curb, gutter and sidewalks on the east side of Park. Currently, there are no sidewalks there.

Again, these particular apartments may well be completely disposable, and I don't mourn their passing, per se. I just take issue with the idea that anything which isn't of a currently fashionable architectural vintage should by definition be bulldozed and replaced with something more trendy. Imagine the vitality which could be present adjacent to downtown had we not bulldozed en masse some of those "unsightly" low density streetcar strips along Third Street, Fourth Street, and even South Boulevard several decades back. These are just the types of areas which are thriving in other cities today.

Cities grow and change, and old buildings often have to go, but the idea that they should be removed simply because we don't like their particular style this week gives me pause, and reeks of the very urban renewal mentality which destroyed so much of Charlotte's inner city in the 1960s and 1970s. Tear down what needs to be torn down, for sure, but don't make the specific era or building type the primary criterion of what needs to be removed.

Agreed. Off topic, love your avitar, otherstream. WRET (Robert Edward Turner a/k/a Ted) Channel 36. Ah the memories of my childhood...with shows like Utra Man, Space Giants and Dead Ernest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed. Off topic, love your avitar, otherstream. WRET (Robert Edward Turner a/k/a Ted) Channel 36. Ah the memories of my childhood...with shows like Utra Man, Space Giants and Dead Ernest.

Yes! I remember watching Dead Ernest on channel 36 and WRET. For those of you not in the know Channel 36 is NBC6 now and is still transmitting on channel 36. The channel 6 thing only occurs on cable where the lower channel # is preferable.

Oh, Ultraman is still alive and well in Japan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes! I remember watching Dead Ernest on channel 36 and WRET. For those of you not in the know Channel 36 is NBC6 now and is still transmitting on channel 36. The channel 6 thing only occurs on cable where the lower channel # is preferable.

Oh, Ultraman is still alive and well in Japan.

Still off topic, sorry...do you remember Larry Sprinkle's character that was the host of Ultra Man and Space Giants? Forget what he called himself, but the character was from outerspace and introduced area children to his "native" language. The only thing I can remember is "Oban, poxies!" (translated: "Welcome kids!"). How is it I can't remember where I parked my car some days, but crap like this lingers in my mind for decades?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.