Jump to content

Vertical McMansions in Charlotte?


monsoon

Vertical McMansions in Charlotte?  

47 members have voted

  1. 1. Is Charlotte building Vertical McMansions?

    • No - are you crazy
      30
    • Yes - finally someone said it
      14
    • I'm not sure
      3


Recommended Posts

So people don't resent others in their neighborhood with more money and a bigger house? Man, what planet do you live on.

It's called the planet serenity. I really don't covet the material possesions that my neighbors, friends and relatives have.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Replies 61
  • Created
  • Last Reply

It's called the planet serenity. I really don't covet the material possesions that my neighbors, friends and relatives have.

I've seen it in folks with more "life experience." Material things do seem to mean less to me with each passing year, but I do covet the occasional sports car.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This was a really interesting discussion before it became a discussion about class envy. Metro.M asked what was for me an original question, and I particularly appreciated the remarks about Seattle vs. Vancouver, and the description of those cities.

McMansions, to me, are isolated castles that relate poorly to their surroundings. In that vein, I think the crucial question with any skyscraper is how it relates to the street. I agree that setbacks (and "towers in gardens") are bad, and that ground-floor retail is good. And at least so far, most Charlotte high-rises (business and residential) have zero lot lines, more or less, and ground floor retail, less or more.

As for exclusivity, I'd certainly like to see uptown housing available at diverse price points. You could, for example, require a certain share of "affordable" units in each building. That said, our current crop of buildings still offer a good range of price points. The cheapest are still really cheap compared with similar options in other cities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I could be wrong, but it'd seem to me that the only way to legitimately require a percentage of "affordable/discounted" units in any project would be if said project utilized some gov't/public subsidy or tax credit. Otherwise, wouldn't any developer be allowed to charge whatever the market will bear? I know that was the case with BofA's redevelopment of First Ward, but these towers are a different animal altogether.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Though I'm not from Charlotte, I saw this thread pop up on the Board index, and I thought the discussion was relavant to other parts of the country.

I think if you believe in the theory of "McMansions" (ie symbols of austerity, overindulgence, greed) then yes, highrise condominium developments are the epitome of this. Especially with construction costs of highrises breaking the $250 - $300/sf range minimum, and most of them coming equipped with doormen, club levels, theater rooms, etc., they are hardly available to even the Middle Class (and those who "save up" to buy one, as someone suggested, are few and far between).

They are essentially a vertical gated community.

However, if you believe there is nothing wrong with gated communities or 3-4 story 16,000 square foot mansions on 1/2 acre lots, then defining high-rise condos as vertical "McMansions" shouldn't bother you.

I guess it depends on the definition of McMansion. They do add to the density, and hopefully the vibrancy, of an urban area.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Though I'm not from Charlotte, I saw this thread pop up on the Board index, and I thought the discussion was relavant to other parts of the country.

I think if you believe in the theory of "McMansions" (ie symbols of austerity, overindulgence, greed) then yes, highrise condominium developments are the epitome of this. Especially with construction costs of highrises breaking the $250 - $300/sf range minimum, and most of them coming equipped with doormen, club levels, theater rooms, etc., they are hardly available to even the Middle Class (and those who "save up" to buy one, as someone suggested, are few and far between).

They are essentially a vertical gated community.

However, if you believe there is nothing wrong with gated communities or 3-4 story 16,000 square foot mansions on 1/2 acre lots, then defining high-rise condos as vertical "McMansions" shouldn't bother you.

I guess it depends on the definition of McMansion. They do add to the density, and hopefully the vibrancy, of an urban area.

If that's the case, we're basically saying that ANY expensive home is a McMansion. In my opinion, that's just not the case. McMansions are symbolic of poor taste, a lack of consideration for your neighbors, the environment and the neighborhood.

The majority of the condos in Charlotte don't even have a second bathroom. People who live in all but the penthouses are living in about 70% less space than a comparable place in the 'burbs. Average unit size is probably on the order of 800 to 900 square feet. As far as land space goes, Courtside (as an example) has about 200 people living in one-half acre. Most are walking to work, saving on fuel. They don't use water and poisons to keep their yard looking like the neighbors. They have much less in the way of furniture, conserving trees. They use a lot less energy to heat and cool. Any amenities you do have you share with many others. As far as being a "gated" community, you'd be crazy to just leave the doors open in an urban area. Oh, and only one of the many buildings has a door man. That's for security, he's not a butler or anything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think we had this conversation before, but it is hard for me to believe that someone who is willing to spend a 1/2 million and more for a condo in a highrise is that concerned with saving the environment. The energy footprint and greenhouse emissions being produced by these individuals are just as great if not higher than the McMansion in the suburbs. Skyscrapers, as the type built in Charlotte, are huge users of energy and unlike the people living in detached homes, the individual can't make any changes to the sturcture to make it better. I also don't think that any of these individuals are giving up their expensive vehicles.

If someone really wanted to make a difference in this city from an environmental standpoint, they would rehab a house near a bus stop or future train stop, do it out of sustainable materials, and ride public transit to work. Put in a geothermal heating unit, some solar power, and do things such as hanging clothes out to dry and you have eliminated a huge amount of energy usage. But of course this does not appeal to the vanity of living in a highrise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree. McMansion's definition includes elements of poor quality, tacky, poor taste, but mostly poor quality. Otherwise, there is already a word to describe large housing for the wealthy: "Mansion".

But even still, most of the high rises have significant percentage of units between 200k and 400k. That is solidly the middle class. Even though the traditional middle class (the 2.5 kids, dual-income, etc.) wouldn't live there because of the small size. But the new middle class, (divorced, no kids, 6-figure net worth, etc.) is growing and urbanizing, and 300k for a 1ksf unit doesn't really fit the definition of McMansion.

Besides, the higher prices reflect the higher cost and higher quality, while at the same time are more affordable within an urban lifestyle that does not require driving a car.

Also, many of the highrises, notably the Furman projects, do not have a doorman. The gated community is a loose metaphor, anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If someone really wanted to make a difference in this city from an environmental standpoint, they would rehab a house near a bus stop or future train stop, do it out of sustainable materials, and ride public transit to work. Put in a geothermal heating unit, some solar power, and do things such as hanging clothes out to dry and you have eliminated a huge amount of energy usage. But of course this does not appeal to the vanity of living in a highrise.

This holds true for everyone living in every single home and community in this city, or in the world for that matter. It's not the sole responsibility of people living in homes/highrises costing more than X amount of dollars to lead the charge in saving the world. Take a ride to the suburbs or more modest inner-ring neighborhoods. You probably won't find one solar panel or a geothermal heating unit in any modestly priced or sized home there either. But, because people have some money and choose to make their home 550ft in the air, then they're the problem. I'm just not buying that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Riding the bus uses much more gas than walking to work, and it also causes the public sector to pick up the tab.

No doubt. However as we have also said before, its unlikely that many of these people are walking anywhere. I believe we have already had one highrise dweller here say they still drive to work because they don't want to be sweaty in their office. The point however, is that peope living in these things are not moving there to save energy. The Public sector argument is really a red herring. Maybe we should listen to the John Locke foundation and stop spending any money on public transit. :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The point however, is that peope living in these things are not moving there to save energy.

Depends - maybe not in an 'I'm going to save the world through my frugality and sacrifice' type of way, but it still counts even if the motivation is personal economics. Part of living uptown for me is walking to work ($180 a month saved right there) and lower heating and cooling bills compared to a similarly priced house in the burbs with much more square footage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure why my public sector comment was either a red herring or a call to listen to the John Locke foundation. I didn't put value judgements on it, but it is a fact that new ridership causes CATS to have to budget more for gas, as the fare doesn't cover the extra cost. (At least according to Ron Tober).

Order of environmental and civic stewardship:

- Walk

- Bike

- Ride bus

- Carpool

- Drive high mpg car

- Drive

If a buyer in 210 Trade works at Bank of America Corporate Center, I don't care how rich or selfish they are, they are not going to drive to work.

Also, I'm not quite clear on this, are highrise buyers held to a higher standard of environmental stewardship? Are all houses that are attached to the grid or lack solar panels considered McMansions?

I think the point is that dense urban living, even though the overall project might cost more in resources, is generally more efficient in a net sense as people either walk or only drive within a few miles.

Even though someone uptown might drive to their space 5 blocks away, that is still only 10 blocks or a mile round trip. That is not much gas usage, especially compared to people who commute on congested freeways.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I could be wrong, but it'd seem to me that the only way to legitimately require a percentage of "affordable/discounted" units in any project would be if said project utilized some gov't/public subsidy or tax credit. Otherwise, wouldn't any developer be allowed to charge whatever the market will bear? I know that was the case with BofA's redevelopment of First Ward, but these towers are a different animal altogether.

I don't know whether everyone would regard it as legitimate but many cities -- New York has been the foremost -- require this as part of the laws that govern development. Wanna build? Gotta include affordable units.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, there are "affordable" units in Trump Tower? Or the redevelopment of The Plaza to condos? Maybe Trump was developed prior this ordinance, but I'd be curious to see some examples. Not saying it's not true at all, just want to see some figures as to what's "affordable" these days in a luxury Manhattan highrise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, there are "affordable" units in Trump Tower? Or the redevelopment of The Plaza to condos? Maybe Trump was developed prior this ordinance, but I'd be curious to see some examples. Not saying it's not true at all, just want to see some figures as to what's "affordable" these days in a luxury Manhattan highrise.

I'm wrong about New York. I incorrectly recalled something I read. Apparently, the city is merely considering the policy, which is known as "inclusionary zoning." Here are some examples, however, of the laws in cities that have adopted such policies:

Boston: In developments of 10 units or more, 10 percent of the units must be priced affordable. Half of those must be affordable to families making less than 80 percent of the median family income. The other half must be affordable to families making up to 120 percent of the median. Developers can also build the equivalent of 15 percent of the total units at another location, or make a payment for the cost of such construction.

Denver: In developments of 30 units or more, 10 percent of the units must be priced affordable for families making less than 80 percent of the median family income. Developers receive a 10 percent density bonus, meaning they can basicallly build the units as additional to the original, otherwise possible, project scale.

San Francisco: In developments of 10 units or more, 10 percent of the units must be priced affordable for families making less than 120 percent of the median family income. As in Boston, the developer can also build the equivalent of 15 percent of the units at another location, or make a payment in that amount.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah, I see. Thanks. It's curious to see that if you earn as much as 20% more than the median income, you qualify for affordable housing.

Yeah, it is a little weird. The community reinvestment act uses the same definitions. 100 percent to 120 percent of the median is classified as "moderate" income.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm wrong about New York. I incorrectly recalled something I read. Apparently, the city is merely considering the policy, which is known as "inclusionary zoning." Here are some examples, however, of the laws in cities that have adopted such policies:

Boston: In developments of 10 units or more, 10 percent of the units must be priced affordable. Half of those must be affordable to families making less than 80 percent of the median family income. The other half must be affordable to families making up to 120 percent of the median. Developers can also build the equivalent of 15 percent of the total units at another location, or make a payment for the cost of such construction.

Denver: In developments of 30 units or more, 10 percent of the units must be priced affordable for families making less than 80 percent of the median family income. Developers receive a 10 percent density bonus, meaning they can basicallly build the units as additional to the original, otherwise possible, project scale.

San Francisco: In developments of 10 units or more, 10 percent of the units must be priced affordable for families making less than 120 percent of the median family income. As in Boston, the developer can also build the equivalent of 15 percent of the units at another location, or make a payment in that amount.

How do they prevent people from buying the properties at "affordable" prices and then reselling at market price? That is a problem Habitat for Humanity had here as well as the "affordable" units in The Garden District -- people bought them, found they had large equity, and either sold or refinanced to get cash...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How do they prevent people from buying the properties at "affordable" prices and then reselling at market price? That is a problem Habitat for Humanity had here as well as the "affordable" units in The Garden District -- people bought them, found they had large equity, and either sold or refinanced to get cash...

That's the thing, I think anything less than letting them keep their gains is not really ownership. I guess some of those gains - perhaps whatever amount it was discounted in price - should be paid into the fund for buying or promoting housing for others.

The kicker is that I know at least one person who's benefitted from such a windfall and she doesn't seem the least bit grateful for the good fortune. Just critical of those "rich folks" ruining the neighborhood. Ruined to the tune of $300K worth of equity in her house.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah.....nationwide there aren't many subsidized home-ownership policies that work. We have House Charlotte here which is an interest/payment free loan that is forgivable based on length of tenure.

In some markets, certain units are permantly designated at moderate income units, and can only be resold to people at a certain % of the AMI. This can't limit the price, but it does make it difficult to resell the units if there is no way for a person in that income range to qualify for a mortgage.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah.....nationwide there aren't many subsidized home-ownership policies that work. We have House Charlotte here which is an interest/payment free loan that is forgivable based on length of tenure.......

Actually Boulder Colorado has managed to do something about it. I saw a program called "Designing a Great Neighborhood" on the new Lime Channel where they discuss this new enviornmentally friendly neighborhood there called Wild Sage.

Essentially they designated about 40% of the units in this neighborhood "Permanently Affordable" which means they will always sell for the same price through deed restrictions. The rest of the units were designated "Market Rate" in which they sell at whatever the market will bear. The development is remarkably popular and the city has plans for more of these places.

You can read more about it at Wild Sage Website.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually Boulder Colorado has managed to do something about it. I saw a program called "Designing a Great Neighborhood" on the new Lime Channel where they discuss this new enviornmentally friendly neighborhood there called Wild Sage.

Essentially they designated about 40% of the units in this neighborhood "Permanently Affordable" which means they will always sell for the same price through deed restrictions. The rest of the units were designated "Market Rate" in which they sell at whatever the market will bear. The development is remarkably popular and the city has plans for more of these places.

You can read more about it at Wild Sage Website.

Seems like a step in the right direction, although you think they'd increase the housing prices proportionate with the others so that it is always the same percentage discount on current value. That way the owners would enjoy some of the benefit of price appreciation that others in the neighborhood do.

Of course there's always the flip side of the coin as to how to determine need. I've seen such things as rent controlled apartments and whatnot abused to no end by schemes for hiding assets and income. I recall the subsidized housing where I used to live when I was growing up. Every third space had a fancy (some of them corvettes, mercedes, etc.) new car in it. Turns out that the places were being rented by single moms but they had a perpetual guest in the form of their "boyfriend." Normally they'd be married, but they'd be fools to do so because they'd be tossed out of the really cheap housing.

Perphaps this would be solved in the case of a purchase because they could get married later after closing. Of course, are these persons then really in a situation of need? Not everyone of course abused the system, but with waiting lists to get into these places someone truly in need was getting stiffed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Providing affordable housing is a shared responsibility of those receiving and those giving the aid. Once one of the parties decides to abuse the system for their own personal gain, then the system for helping unfortunately falls apart. This is becoming much more common in our society that is becoming more polarized everyday along economic lines and the dog eat dog mentality that invades much of the economic situation here now.

However I would argue that it is worth trying to better integrate all segments of society into a community as they attempted to do in Boulder as the alternatives are not that nice in the long run. Is there really that much difference between those who inhabit the gated McMansion communities with their private pools, tennis courts, etc. or highrises with guards at the doors while those inhabitants dine on wine and cheese in their roof top gardens?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Providing affordable housing is a shared responsibility of those receiving and those giving the aid. Once one of the parties decides to abuse the system for their own personal gain, then the system for helping unfortunately falls apart. This is becoming much more common in our society that is becoming more polarized everyday along economic lines and the dog eat dog mentality that invades much of the economic situation here now.

However I would argue that it is worth trying to better integrate all segments of society into a community as they attempted to do in Boulder as the alternatives are not that nice in the long run. Is there really that much difference between those who inhabit the gated McMansion communities with their private pools, tennis courts, etc. or highrises with guards at the doors while those inhabitants dine on wine and cheese in their roof top gardens?

I agree that we need to try to provide affordable housing despite the threat of abuse, but there are always going to be communities that profit from a sense of security and prestige. This doesn't really bother me, I just think of it as their loss because they only meet similar-minded people who tend to be a lot less interesting. One thing I've learned at this point is that you can't change the way people feel about such things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

  • 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.