210 Trade | EpiCentre

[New Name]

How bout a baseball stadium!!!!!!!

[Windsurfer]

How bout a baseball stadium!!!!!!!

It's funny you should mention this. I actually wrote a letter to The Editor of the Charlotte Observer about 8 years ago that suggested just that. Back then a discussion had just come up regarding trying to get the baseball team uptown. At the same time the city was complaining about no freed up blocks of land, the Civic Center was put up for sale.

Oh well, the only reservations I have for that would be that the stadium would be too close to uptown. Such a valuable piece of property, etc.

[Eastman]

It's funny you should mention this. I actually wrote a letter to The Editor of the Charlotte Observer about 8 years ago that suggested just that. Back then a discussion had just come up regarding trying to get the baseball team uptown. At the same time the city was complaining about no freed up blocks of land, the Civic Center was put up for sale.

Oh well, the only reservations I have for that would be that the stadium would be too close to uptown. Such a valuable piece of property, etc.

Uh, yea. A baseball stadium with no outfield. I can see all the broken windows around the block and people coming to work in the morning with baseballs on their desk. No problem.

[dubone]

Don't forget that easy credit and cheap gas in the US has caused the ubiquity of suburban housing stock and sprawl. That is why the US is fairly unique in having cities designed in this way. This is the impact on our society from Fannie and Freddie promoting that class of housing for generations. That is an oversimplification, but whatever.

No doubt it is much more sustainable to have cities built with landscraper midrise developments versus very tall buildings, but you can't disparage denser mixed use projects as a class simply because too many were built during a bull market. Well, you can, but you shouldn't.

Even with excessively fast growth of urban housing developments, as catalogued very specifically on Urban Planet, the number of housing units is tiny compared the vast numbers of houses of equal or higher pricing on the edges of this county and beyond.

Bubbles refer to when something is priced far beyond its value, which is unsustainable (like a real life bubble). Urban residential units have more value than distant sprawl because of location, a key determinant in the value of real estate, and demographic shifts. The demographic shifts are sustaining themselves in our society, like more divorcees, gays, and young people delaying marriage, etc., and other groups that don't have children. Furthermore, we are seeing far more people interested in avoiding commutes. Also, specifically in uptown Charlotte, the location is becoming more valuable with significantly more retail going in.

Of course, if the jobs don't stay, then the entire real estate market in a city becomes a bubble.

Realistically, though, the buildings WERE being proposed too fast to be sustainable, but that has already corrected itself. Now, what I am referring to, would be a slower pipeline of projects to continue to provide housing units for people needing smaller urban homes close to their jobs and without a driving commute. The market for families that like to drive far to get anywhere is vastly overserved in our city and now is not the time to go back to that.

[atlrvr]

Not to drag this off topic, but I'm currently reading possibly the most boring book ever to about 99.8% of the population, but it is a macro and micro level of real estate investment economics.

In applying the theories in the book to Charlotte development, the predicted pattern will be hyper dense at the core with high-rises and very low-density growth along the urban fringe. Of course this sounds really obvious, but the conclusions I've made from the theories is that economic slowdown won't prevent the long-term prospects of high-rises condos, rather the biggest contributer to a more "medium" density city would be the expansion of LYNX/transit.

In short development is dictated by land value, which is driven up by growth rate, volatility, and high transportation costs.

[dubone]

That is pretty much how the planners want this city to be anyway. Highly dense in the core of the core, moderately dense in the fringe of core and along the transit corridors and in a few other zones, and then low density in between. I'm sure there is an entire urban design theory on this, as many cities are this way in this country.

To be back on topic, I stand firm that IF economically viable, I would want 210 Trade to be built eventually as residential, as I believe the only hope for the long term success of our city is to counteract the centrifugal forces of sprawl.

I personally don't care if it is 20 stories or 50 stories, and agree that more than around 30 stories is more or less just vanity at this point in our city's development. But if the economics can allow it to be built, then I am very much for it, as it means more housing units, which means fewer people driving for their commute (on average), and more people walking around and supporting businesses and venues.

[atlrvr]

The economic theory is that transit will actually decrease the residential density of the core while increasing the relatively low density along transit lines , I guess I didn't quite state it right.

My point being though, that there is established economic theory that accurately explains why Charlotte developed a large number of high-rises for a city its size relatively to other similar sized cities, and why its unlikely for this trend to reverse over the long term unless a) Charlotte's growth rate slows, b) some such as a downzoning or high property tax is applied to land bankers, c) the transit system gains wider coverage.

In the absence of these changes, I predict we will see 50 story proposals appear again once the "credit crunch" returns to its historically average levels.

[monsoon]

^Maybe going off subject is ok here as there isn't much to talk about otherwise.

The above assumes of course that people need to go to these center cities in order to hold a job. In 21st century America I am not sure that is the case and I am not sure why a business would want or need to do that. Charlotte has been somewhat of a special case, because it is the banking industry that still holds onto the 19th century notion of having a vanity building(s) as part of their corporate identity. If you were to take BofA and Wachovia away from downtown, there would not be much left. Outside of NYC, Chicago and LA, most of the skyscrapers that ones finds in cities were built by the banks. In contrast, look where the new technology companies are located such as Google, Microsoft, etc.

So that means that most people will not be working in these center cities or they will hold a job, such as the one like I have, where improvements in technology has made location irrelevant. For the first set, there would be the reverse situation where the person has to travel to go to the job. Eventually they will move out of the city and that is what people have been doing since WWII, when industry moved out of the cities. In the second case people can live anywhere, and the urban environment will appeal to some, but it will have to compete with with other types of living. The point is this second bunch will only choose to live in very dense situations and there really isn't any evidence this is what most people want.

Now it was mentioned above that America is unique in that it has sprawling suburbs in low density areas and I won't argue with that. It is true. But I will also argue the concept that we will have hyper dense cores with skyscrapers is also uniquely American. (I will not count certain Asian and ME cities that are attempting to emulate American prosperity) I will give you two examples of very old very desirable cities that don't do this. London and Tokyo. Both cities are highly populated, but they simply don't have the concept of a hyper dense core with ever lessening densities radiating out from the core. Instead throughout both these cities there is a fairly consistent density with no definable core. There is the argument these are very old cities and thus developed that way, but Tokyo was burned completely to the ground during WWII so almost all of it is post war growth.

The point of off of this in terms of real estate investing is that if you accept the notion that suburbs are doomed from the stand point they were built as a uniquely American concept, then you also have to be willing to accept the same may be true for the idea of a hyperdense city core. Neither is where things are headed in the long term. I have always contended that skyscrapers are enormously expensive in terms of resources, costs, sustainability and there is an exponential rise in these costs as floors are added. They are only justified in very high population land short areas and that is why you don't see them anywhere else except in cases of vanity which I would say would cover almost 100% of Charlotte's highrises. So any gamble on the future value of these kinds of buildings in places like Charlotte is really a bet on this vanity.

There is a lot more about this that can be said even concerning the use of mass (rail) transit and how we even get that wrong in places such as Charlotte. The bottom line is that the notion that cities will be built in the 21st century using 19th & early 20th century expectations doesn't seem real interesting.

[dubone]

Atlrvr, I get what you mean now. Frankly, I LIKE that, as it basically means that until an equilibrium is found, that urban living can be found outside of the core through the use of transit, but at a lower cost. Hopefully, this will help REDUCE the value of developable land uptown so that we can get to less intense development that relies on serious investment.

Let's say that the economic shifts cause no new towers to be built in Charlotte beyond what is already under construction, but the remainder of the underdeveloped land (mostly the vacant and parking parcels) uptown become 10-25 storey buildings. You will not hear me complain even once. I'm not a tower junkie that wants height above all else.

However, the central core and the transit corridors of cities like Charlotte are the best chance for cities that developed most during the second half of the 20th Century to find a post-suburban existance. The auto-centric city models are not sustainable in the 21st Century, regardless of whether Microsoft and Google decided to support that type of development.

In my mind, high density and medium density have equilavent virtue for supporting pedestrian lifestyles, and other related social benefits of urban societies. Cities like DC and most European cities with medium density cores can support that just as much as cities with highly dense cores.

Suburban sprawl, however, is extremely difficult to serve for transit, and is almost impossible to build a pedestrian lifestyle in.

[atlrvr]

It appears aLoft has an, ummm, interesting, lightening scheme going on 4th St. facade.

[Guest]

It appears aLoft has an, ummm, interesting, lightening scheme going on 4th St. facade.

See I thought the 80s Revival stuff had started to fade away by now. I guess not, so should I go ahead and buy some flat sunglasses, parachute pants, and a sweater with pastel geometric shapes? I'm just suprised to see these lights up before they have finished the fa

[Andyc545]

How random... however I sort of like it.

[AuLukey]

There has got to be more to this lighting. It doesn't have the right feel to it. Maybe if they added a little more variety of colors than yellow and blue, it may not look so awkward. Aloft is still a very perplexing design to me, so I'm going to hold further judgment on it until it is finally finished.

[UrbanFuture]

anyone snap a picture of it?

[Guest]

anyone snap a picture of it?

Just check out the twoten webcam. http://oxblue.com/client/flahertycollins/twotentrade/

[CLTfanatic]

This is basically how they are all lit. I live in the DFW area, and the Aloft hotel in Plano, TX has nearly the exact same lighting scheme.

[Neo]

All posts regarding the economy and its effects on Charlotte have been moved here:

http://www.urbanplanet.org/forums/economy-...arl-t48284.html

[Mobuchu]

Here's 2 from earlier today.

12-8-08

First, of the main interior courtyard where the new CVS is going.

And whats everyones thoughts on the alleyway?

[Spartan]

Mo, the alleyway thing looks cool during the day. I've decided that its my favorite part of Epicenter. I think that with a little age and some shops with some clutter on the street, this thing will look even better. The whole place looks like crap at night though. The overhead lighting is just unnatural for something that is supposed to emulate a European street. The other side looks even worse at night with all of the overhead walkways.

[uptownliving]

It does look a LOT better now that they removed the scaffolding. I have always liked the design of this alleyway and think just how much better it could have been with better matierals on the walls. This is turning out to be a little better than what I was expecting...even with the EFIS.

[rockhilljames]

They need to string lights overhead in the alleyway. It'll give it more of a European vibe.

[uptownliving]

They need to string lights overhead in the alleyway. It'll give it more of a European vibe.

If Ghazi's other developments in town are any indication then stringed lights will probably be put up sometime soon.

[HopHead]

This may be a dumb question, or maybe not, but what's the significance of the yellow and blue beside some of the windows of the aLoft hotel? Is this some signature thing behind the brand? It looks like they may be done on the exterior of the hotel now and will be just doing some cleanup down below. Check out the web cam to see what I'm referrring to.

[Eastman]

This may be a dumb question, or maybe not, but what's the significance of the yellow and blue beside some of the windows of the aLoft hotel? Is this some signature thing behind the brand? It looks like they may be done on the exterior of the hotel now and will be just doing some cleanup down below. Check out the web cam to see what I'm referrring to.

Not a dumb question at all. it is a desperate attempt by the designer to make a cheap boring facade look lively. Much like the colored lights that are on it at night and the project itself, it is a fad.

[cltheel.sdl]

Not a dumb question at all. it is a desperate attempt by the designer to make a cheap boring facade look lively. Much like the colored lights that are on it at night and the project itself, it is a fad.

What are they thinking?! This is going to look terrible in 5 years (if not already). I agree that they need to do something to liven the facade up, but this is definitely not the way to do it.