Dilworth Projects (Kenilworth, Morehead, East)

[dubone]

While I know if they already own the land, it is pretty much going to happen at some point, but I must say that I don't agree with the hospital encroaching south. First of all, they seem to own enough land along Morehead that was cleared for their future use, that I don't understand why they would need to head so far south during this decade. Also, why not expand north across Morehead where there is a lot more acceptance of offices and is not otherwise very residential. Take a look at a map to see how far away the rest of the hospital is from East Blvd. They are basically going to level a whole section of residential to expand south.

The Dilworth Land Use plan was approved by the city last year. It noted this area as a land use issue area. The 1993 Dilworth plan called for residential to remain between the hospital and then commercial on East Blvd. The 2006 plan made no changes to that, beyond a couple of parcels.

http://ww.charmeck.org/Planning/Land%20Use...an(Adopted).pdf

For the hospital to just go full force toward East Blvd so soon after a plan called for keeping the residential buffer, is really not a good sign.

With as bent out of shape as Dilworth can get sometimes, I am shocked that it has been so quiet with this one.

[voyager12]

CMC has played their cards close to the vest. Aside from persistent rumors that the hospital has bought up almost all the houses on Fountain View, one hears very little official information. This silence does not help ameliorate their already predatory reputation in Dilworth. Their methods make sense to me though. If CMC is not prepared to move foward yet why fan the flames of nearby residents when they can just quietly assemble properties and wait until the right time to submit plans. I am warily encouraged by their apparent sensitivity to the Grill's situation. Perhaps this signals a willingness to work with and preserve East's commercial and pedestrian friendly nature. I hope so at any rate.

[dubone]

Who knows, maybe it is just a benign plan to use extra space in the existing buildings, similar to what they did along Scott Ave. But when I see that they are getting property near East, it makes me wonder if they are planning yet another megaproject like they did with the Morehead Medical Center, where they wipe out dozens of existing buildings and put up a massive ugly building with a big setback.

[Charlotte_native]

Who knows, maybe it is just a benign plan to use extra space in the existing buildings, similar to what they did along Scott Ave. But when I see that they are getting property near East, it makes me wonder if they are planning yet another megaproject like they did with the Morehead Medical Center, where they wipe out dozens of existing buildings and put up a massive ugly building with a big setback.

Those in Dilworth are beginning to take notice and I suspect the quiet now won't last long. CMC has long promised those in Dilworth as well as the Planning Dept that they would not further encroach into the neighborhood. These purchases definitely indicate that promise won't be kept. The question is: What are their plans? What I've heard so far is this will be office facilities and uses more in line with what you do find along Scott Ave. CMC already owns a few office buidings further up East, even past Harris Teeter. They are administrative or small medical treatment uses.

[Andyc545]

I still don't understand with all of the land they own and property already to their name, they don't just tear down the small buildings that they currently have and build some low-midrises in their place. They wouldn't have to purchase any additional land, which would be cost saving, they preserve the neighborhoods, and they help keep the CMC campus closely knit and increase manouverability through the campus. I don't know what they could possibly need this large stretch of land for that couldn't be accomplished on what they already own. Ughh...

I'm glad that EBG is at least being considered to stay where it is, but good to see they have backup plans to keep close.

[voyager12]

We have had a mini crime spree here in Dilworth recently. Yesterday the Circle K at East and Kenilworth was robbed not long after I had stopped by. That's comforting. The suspect got away on foot. On late Sunday night a robber engaged in a shootout with the owner of Dilworth Billiards on Tremont near South. The owner was shot in the stomach and leg but managed to shoot the robber in the foot. The business owner's injuries were non life threatening. The robber got away but showed up at the ER with a gunshot wound in the foot. I have heard the guys that run that members only pool hall place don't play around, I guess this proves it.

[voyager12]

I just received a DCDA Crime Alert email that mentioned the above incidents with more detail and added another. Dilworth Billiard's victim is recovering from extensive surgery and the robber is reportedly paralyzed from the shot fired in self defense. Also disturbingly, last Sunday a couple was robbed by two armed men in Lattta Park . One was wielding a large knife and another had a gun. This incident occurred at 3:16 pm. The suspects got away. While these are isolated incidents and not the norm in Dilworth it's definitely unsettling and makes one more wary of their surroundings regardless of the time of day which is a good thing.

[atlrvr]

The site plan for the rezoning of McEwen's Funeral Home to allow a 13-story office tower on Morehead is now online.

Site Plan

I was originally excited about a 13-story office building at that location, but after looking at the site plan, I've changed my mind unless they make some serious revisions.

#1. There is no need for the curb cut on Morehead. Yes, the funeral home has one, but it is really only used for processions. A 180,000 sq. ft. building would generate about 650 employees, which would add a good bit of traffic to a part of Morehead that is already difficult (and dangerous) to make turns across traffic. It's also dangerous to turn out onto Morehead due to the very wide trunked trees lining the street. Even pulling out of Royal Ct. isn't the safest. A stop light at Royal Ct. should be required as well.

#2. The building makes Royal Ct. it's b*tch with a 4 story parking deck pressed up against the road (a la Met Midtown against Kings). Royal Court Condos does a decent job in providing an urban streetscape to the street, and this would ruin that effort (as well as the views for the people living on the south side of RC).

#3. There is a real need for some retail in this location. I would be nice if there was a token sandwich shop of something. There is a good bit of office in this area, which means there is a lot of midday traffic of people driving to lunch because there are no option (1 less now that Longhorn is gone). Looking at the site plan, it seems easy enough to turn that ground level office space into 1 or 2 retail spots.

#4. They want to maintain the current sidewalks along Morehead, which are woefully inadequate (5 ft. I think, 6 ft. max.) They should be a minimum of 8 feet, but 10 makes more sense for such a major corridor. I used to walk home this way, and between the people jogging down the sidewalks, and high-speed traffic close by, it feels horribly claustraphobic to walk there.

Dilworth (DCDA) has been timid about concerning themselves with the other side of Morehead, but here is an instance they should work for something better, rather than spewing the same old anit-condo rhetoric for parcels near the transit stations. I believe E Morehead is supposed to get a streetscape plan at some point. Hopefully city planning staff has enough foresight to see that this will conform to the likely urban vision for the corridor.

[Mobuchu]

#2. The building makes Royal Ct. it's b*tch with a 4 story parking deck pressed up against the road (a la Met Midtown against Kings). Royal Court Condos does a decent job in providing an urban streetscape to the street, and this would ruin that effort (as well as the views for the people living on the south side of RC).

Ouch for those purchasing a lower unit at RC facing the street. I'm counting 6 stories of parking deck, 7 if you include the partial sub grade level.

Agreed that the curb cut is not needed on Morehead. Its not that large of a parking deck, there is no need for more then one entrance, one exit.

[49er]

The planning commission should push for the deletion of the Morehead curb cut and off site improvements in the form of a street connection or driveway down to Baxter St/S. McDowell. This would allow access to a traffic light. Looking at aerials there could be a possible yet strange driveway built down by the substation to the dead end of baxter. I dont know the topo there but it doesnt seem unreasonable.

I really hate to see this piece of old charlotte go away but hey its progress I guess.

[voyager12]

I noticed recently that the space next to Just Fresh on East is under renovation. Has anyone heard what is moving in? I am glad one vacancy in Kenilworth Commons is filling up. Surprising though, since the management company for the center has such a horrible reputation for abusing and evicting tenants.

[atlrvr]

There is a new BofA branch planned for the shopping center....is this it?

[voyager12]

Hmmm, I had not heard of that. It would be a convenience for me since I go over to Kings now. Still, I would prefer retail in the form of another cafe or small local shop. I will ask around next time I am at Just Fresh. Down the block, 131 Main has dismantled the outside seating that Patou and Red Star used in the past. Maybe it will be reintroduced in the Spring. I hope so since outdoor dining is popular around here.

[atlrvr]

Not to mention, over half the dwellings in the existing apartment building are currently uninhabitable. Furman made concessions to keep the structures intact of two of the four existing parcels AND renovate them, among other things. It's painful to watch progress being halted...

Well, it looks like Furman's latest iteration for the corner of Euclid and Tremont will move forward, as city council voted 6-5 last night to approve the rezoning.

A couple of points.

I really like it that DCDA had it stuck to them again. They have an amazing reluctance to compromise. This ruling by council emasculates them yet AGAIN, following thier most painful loss, Lowe's.

The original plan from Furman was far superior to the project that got approved, but the process for getting that approved was too difficult. Now, in order to placate the neighborhood, they ended up getting a "blander" project.

When I served on DCDA several years ago, I said at our annual meeting, be careful what you wish for, or you might just get it. This project is another example of that, as they flatly rejected everything presented to them, until they were left with the most inferior project, which ended up on council's plate.

They can idealize all day, but until they understand the economics and reality of development, and be willing to compromise/prioritize their requests, they will continue to be effectively obsolescent.

They have another chance with the McEwen site, hopefully they go about this the right way, as it will have a far bigger impact in my opinion.

[Charlotte_native]

Well, it looks like Furman's latest iteration for the corner of Euclid and Tremont will move forward, as city council voted 6-5 last night to approve the rezoning.

A couple of points.

I really like it that DCDA had it stuck to them again. They have an amazing reluctance to compromise. This ruling by council emasculates them yet AGAIN, following thier most painful loss, Lowe's.

The original plan from Furman was far superior to the project that got approved, but the process for getting that approved was too difficult. Now, in order to placate the neighborhood, they ended up getting a "blander" project.

When I served on DCDA several years ago, I said at our annual meeting, be careful what you wish for, or you might just get it. This project is another example of that, as they flatly rejected everything presented to them, until they were left with the most inferior project, which ended up on council's plate.

They can idealize all day, but until they understand the economics and reality of development, and be willing to compromise/prioritize their requests, they will continue to be effectively obsolescent.

They have another chance with the McEwen site, hopefully they go about this the right way, as it will have a far bigger impact in my opinion.

Sadly I have to agree with everything above. I lived in Dilworth for 10 years and grew up visiting family there. It is unfortunate that the current DCDA (note many of these folks are relatively new to the area) has decided to simply oppose EVERYTHING instead of picking battles that make sense and are necessary to truly maintain the flavor of this amazing and wonderful neighborhood.

I feel many of the members waste far too much energy on fighting any and all proposed projects or changes. Most notably any project proposed between Scott Ave and Kenilworth, the Arlington (Pink Building) which really isn't in Dilworth anyway, anything along South Blvd, and this current project by Furman. My view is 100% different when you get off of these main thoroughfares or when you are talking about blocks which really have no historic character anyway. My views were always to work hard to insure preservation of the homes and multi-family dwellings inside the neighborhood, but allow some redevelopment in particular places where density is a must. Add to that last years opposition to the Southaus site on Ideal and South -- they tore down a transmission shop, a junk yard, a building that housed a tow-truck yard, and the site ISN'T in REAL Dilworth -- just near it.

Simply being realistic and not idealistic -- this neighborhood is no longer the suburban enclave it was when created. It is now considered, and realistically is, inside an urban core. Traffic is heavy, the population has grown at its edges, and the need for more housing, shopping, and recreation is real.

I personally feel, and you have stated above, that fighting everything has now shown us the results of constantly crying *wolf*. Not many listen to the DCDA any longer. While I wish the apartments that Furman wants to tear down would survive, they won't. By fighting good and smart redevelopment we are now presented with what was easier to get passed, not what was better. I'd really like to see the core parts of the neighborhood survive as they are, but also see denser developments along the edges and along the busy roads that cross through the area. In so many large cities I've been to you can see where just this same scenario has played out -- some with good and pleasing results, others with crap that was thrown up in the middle.

Without any redevelopment over time residents in Dilworth would be driving to grocers of any real size, visiting restaurants outside the neighborhood with only small cafe spots in original buildings, and criss-crossing through neighborhood streets and single lanes for travel. Am I happy with what has disappeared -- absolutely not -- but many of the changes have made life better in Dilworth. Without them no Caribou Coffee, no Starbucks, no Dilworth Coffee, no Kabab Grill, no Harris Teeter, no Zen, no Atherton Heights.

I also believe the denser developments between Scott and Kenilworth were a perfect fit for that area -- the homes there had been neglected for years because no one wanted to invest and renovate a home under huge power lines and along a street with very heavy traffic. What did we get instead? Apartments (rentals are lacking in the area), denser condos, and a bit of new restaurant and shopping space. Did many of the DCDA members want this? Nope. I guess the run down homes in disrepair would be a better gateway to the neighborhood.

I feel you have to balance the needs of this neighborhood with a realistic view of what is needed for smart growth in the urban core of a city. Simply fighting everything won't work and could possibly lead to exactly what the DCDA is trying to prevent. I think the DCDA has lost it's way a bit and I really hope they realign their mission with working to preserve the neigbhorhood while maintaining a realistic picture of where this area is located in the city and how it will be forced to fit in.

Edited December 18, 2007 by atlrvr

[voyager12]

The building slated to go down for this Furman project was not a neighborhood jewel but did represent rare affordable rental options in Dilworth. I wish there was more concern about preserving the older apt houses and plexes that currently exist and blend into historical Dilworth along Tremont, Park, Worthington, etc . They provide rental homes to an interesting mix of people that otherwise could never afford to rent at Camden Dilworth for example, where studios start at 1k a month. The historical district "protections" are relatively toothless and ignored. The older multi-family buildings, some with considerable charm should not all be demolished or turned into high end condos.

[Charlotte_native]

The building slated to go down for this Furman project was not a neighborhood jewel but did represent rare affordable rental options in Dilworth. I wish there was more concern about preserving the older apt houses and plexes that currently exist and blend into historical Dilworth along Tremont, Park, Worthington, etc . They provide rental homes to an interesting mix of people that otherwise could never afford to rent at Camden Dilworth for example, where studios start at 1k a month. The historical district "protections" are relatively toothless and ignored. The older multi-family buildings, some with considerable charm should not all be demolished or turned into high end condos.

The hard part about this is the Historic Commission (and district designation) can't STOP anyone from tearing something down, only slow it down. They can't control exactly what is built in its place either (i.e. affordable housing) but control only the design elements of what is proposed. Who can control this? Zoning and city council. They haven't really done much to date like vote down rezonings which would accomplish some of this.

Again, I feel part of the problem -- other than developers rarely getting turned down -- is the fact that DCDA these days opposes EVERYTHING, therefore no particular project that they oppose stands out. If they would try and agree with some while lambasting those that don't belong, I suspect they'd get more traction with some of them.

I also wish this apartment complex would survive on a personal note.

[voyager12]

I have talked to different officials about inclusive zoning or "workforce housing" like Davidson has. Unfortunately I don't think that will ever fly as a general rule in this business town. Some of the mixed use developements like Seigle Point have it but it will never be officially codified. Sounds too much like social engineering and only seems to be work well in college towns that have different political bents. With the market somewhat slower I don't think a tidal wave of condos is going to engulf Dilworth proper. Some projects are very laudable in style such as Ordermore 8. I may not agree with DCDA on everything but it's a credit to their inclusiveness that they are willing to fight for older apt buildings along with defending the more affluent sections of the neighborhood.

Edited December 19, 2007 by voyager12

[Charlotte_native]

I may not agree with DCDA on everything but it's a credit to their inclusiveness that they are willing to fight for older apt buildings along with defending the more affluent sections of the neighborhood.

I guess I still have to contend, though, that they aren't fighting to save these apartment buildings for any other reason than they will fight to save anything. See comments above about the junk yard and transmission shop they fought to save on the corner of Ideal Way and South Blvd!

[atlrvr]

I have talked to different officials about inclusive zoning or "workforce housing" like Davidson has. Unfortunately I don't think that will ever fly as a general rule in this business town. ... and only seems to be work well in college towns that have different political bents.

...

I may not agree with DCDA on everything but it's a credit to their inclusiveness that they are willing to fight for older apt buildings along with defending the more affluent sections of the neighborhood.

Boston has inclusive zoning, so it can fly in a larger city, though I agree that the political bend here is slightly different On the flip side, inclusive zoning drives up the cost to developers, so it makes the market rate condos even more expensive (all new construction is at least $550 per square foot in any desirable neighborhood, with luxury buildings starting at $800 per square foot). With this means is the people who live in the city are either well off, or poor. The middle class can't afford it, but don't qualify for affordable housing. In this regard, Charlotte is superior, as there is housing affordable to every income level across the city, its just not available in every desirable neighborhood.

As far as DCDA fighting to keep the apartment building, I'm not sure that was the case. Furman's original plan kept that building, but the neighborhood said they wouldn't support it. He was then caught between the neighborhood and the HDC, trying to see which both would support until it became unproductive. Only when he planned to demo the building did DCDA decide they wanted it saved. If they had been proactive from the beginning in working with Furman, the building would have been saved, but the truth is, the didn't give a sh*t, and their rallying around that building was just a ruse to try to gain favor with staff and council to have the petition denied. I shed no tears for them, though I do for that building, as it has great urban street presence, and it would have been marginally affordable.

[voyager12]

I would have to agree looking back that DCDA's primary motivation most likely was not to save the building because of it's affordability and rental status. Dilworth may have a more inclusive vibe than adjacent Myers Park but many residents can be almost as snobby and nimbyish. It would just be nice to keep the decent mix we have now. (I have a personal bias,my old apt house has been For Sale forever but nearby developments make me nervous )

Edited December 20, 2007 by voyager12

[Myrtle]

There is a new BofA branch planned for the shopping center....is this it?

Sorry--I have been away from UP for several months. Yes, BofA is going next to the Just Fresh in Kenilworth Commons. I have seen electrical and engineering plans for the upfit. Great location. I had thought that Just Fresh was going to expand. Is that Harris Teeter ever going to take over its whole building's footprint?

[voyager12]

The reaction of the outgoing DCDA president regarding the rezoning at Tremont and Euclid is a little immature in my opinion. The CBJ asked for his reaction to City Council's approval and what he was going to do, he said he was going to move out of the neighborhood

Edited December 27, 2007 by voyager12

[atlrvr]

I received a letter from another board member that was sent out to a large group of people.....it gave a very detailed (if one-sided) view of what happened. Apparantly Burgess was the swing vote, which is somewhat interesting since she lives in Dilworth. The implication of the letter was that Furman paid her off for the vote.....for full transparency, the writer lives about 1 block from the site, and the outgoing president lives almost directly across the street, though he is already directly across from two new construction condo projects, so it seems a tad dramatic to me.

[Charlotte_native]

I received a letter from another board member that was sent out to a large group of people.....it gave a very detailed (if one-sided) view of what happened. Apparantly Burgess was the swing vote, which is somewhat interesting since she lives in Dilworth. The implication of the letter was that Furman paid her off for the vote.....for full transparency, the writer lives about 1 block from the site, and the outgoing president lives almost directly across the street, though he is already directly across from two new construction condo projects, so it seems a tad dramatic to me.

I received something as well, email letter, that was pretty snide and IMO unprofessional. It was somewhat childish. I won't say it was overboard, but it didn't present their case very well and certainly didn't make me want to be involved with any of these folks.