Vertical McMansions in Charlotte?

[orulz]

I think another parallel to draw is between uptown skyscrapers and "vertical gated communities."

Except rather than taking up hundreds of acres and being a barrier to street connectivity, you get a secured, isolated place to live, up in the air, right in the middle of everything, that doesn't get in anybody's way. People who don't have any business in your building still can't get in, but rather than being isolated from the world by a mile of roadway, stone walls, fences, and cars-only entrance gates, in a skyscraper the public and private are kept seperate by a short vertical distance and an elevator.

Works for me!

[Charlotte_native]

I think another parallel to draw is between uptown skyscrapers and "vertical gated communities."

Except rather than taking up hundreds of acres and being a barrier to street connectivity, you get a secured, isolated place to live, up in the air, right in the middle of everything, that doesn't get in anybody's way. People who don't have any business in your building still can't get in, but rather than being isolated from the world by a mile of roadway, stone walls, fences, and cars-only entrance gates, in a skyscraper the public and private are kept seperate by a short vertical distance and an elevator.

Works for me!

Add to that that most of these veritcle mcmansions have retail, restaurant, and other space that the public CAN use -- gated communities certainly don't share any of their space and don't allow you and I to use the clubhouse or grounds!

[crispin]

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.

Because affordability is generally defined on the basis of median family income, it does adjust with time -- and if an area is prospering, it will adjust upward.

It's true this system prevents owners from realizing the full economic benefits of ownership when property values are increasing because of rising demand.

On the flip side, allowing prices to rise with demand would mean that the next owner would be relatively more prosperous than the last owner. The point of these affordability programs, in part, is to preserve housing options for the same socioeconomic segment.

One other note: Most of these programs are relatively new; they replace older attempts to create or maintain affordable housing; so it will be a while before anyone can say if they're working.

[krazeeboi]

I was just reading this piece in the Washington Post and thought about this thread. It is specific to Washington, but it echoes many of the same things that have been stated here, except that it is coming from more of an architectural point of view.

Politically and economically [Massachussetts Avenue]is an urban success story. But look at the details of these buildings and they don't seem very urban at all. Yes, many of them have street-level retail -- and the chain stores are moving in. And yes, these buildings will bring thousands of new residents to a once-empty area. But they also have an inexorable thrust upward, to rooftop pools and running tracks and common areas that give their denizens a view of the city from a 100 feet up, rather than an immersion in it...

And so building fast has generally trumped building beautiful. Despite the oversight of various public commissions and other groups, there is little emphasis on the avenue as its own architectural and aesthetic entity. Individual architects, such as Eric Colbert (who designed the partially completed Sonata building), say they didn't coordinate plans with other architects working in the area. Architectural oversight has been patchwork and, not surprisingly, too many buildings, such as the Sonata, simply reiterate the cliches of the D.C. vernacular, centered on a big, round corner bay, with a meaningless facade that looks plucked from a generic office park.

[ncwebguy]

To me, McMansions differ from (no Mc) mansions in that they use generic, uninspired floor plans, are shoehorned as close as possible, and are usually laid out in a connectivity-unfriendly system of cul-de-sacs. With this definition, luxury towers are not McMansion-ish in and of themselves, but they do not come without their own issues.

Not only do they not provide affordable units, but the ground floor uses of such buildings usually caters to the wealthy residents above more than the average person on the street. This creates an implied "you don't belong here" wall for the lower 80%ers. Cafes could take away formerly public space on sidewalks. They *may* be anti-community to the surrounding blocks if the building owner and/or tenants fight the opening of a "too noisy" music/dance club across the street, an affordable retail destination, or a restaurant with an "undesirable" ethnic clientele.

As long as a city is not *only* luxury towers, they can provide economic diversity. If the towers' residents don't mingle with the "others", the buildings they occupy create dead space that breaks up the fabric of a city.

[Charlotte_native]

To me, McMansions differ from (no Mc) mansions in that they use generic, uninspired floor plans, are shoehorned as close as possible, and are usually laid out in a connectivity-unfriendly system of cul-de-sacs. With this definition, luxury towers are not McMansion-ish in and of themselves, but they do not come without their own issues.

I can't say I know the exact definition of "McMansion" but I've always thought they were more defined as above PLUS being simply as big as possible without much style. Size queens if you will. So far I don't think our luxury condos qualify for that -- yes they are expensive, and they might be a bit snooty and exclusive, but that is more describing country club living or gated communities. Most, not all, of the luxury condos uptown aren't much over or under 2000 SF. That isn't huge by most people's standards.

I've been in a lot of gated communities that I don't think had McMansions and McMansions don't really have to be gated. Take a drive around Freedom Park, Maryland and Sterling Avenues...McMansionville with no gates.

I think the other definition or impression many of us get about McMansions which sound more like the cul-de-sac culprits mentioned above are the tract built homes that try to fool buyers into thinking they have a mansion by making them huge and adding some stone and stucco to the front. Maybe even an arched entrance.

[Miesian Corners]

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...

I lived in Parkside at First Ward. Saussy Burbank built the first 17 single family homes between 7th and 8th streets in 1997. Mine was the last house to close in December 97. This is the way the home purchase program worked. There were nine market rate and eight "First Ward Family" (they had passed a program on self-sufficiency when living in Earle Village and earned the right to buy one of these houses). A First Ward Family home was sandwiched between a market rate home. I think this was supposed to help us all get to know one another and make sure that all the former public housing residents weren't all lumped together. Anyway, as a First Ward Family owner, you got a nice house and a low interest rate (5.25% 30-year fixed from BofA), BUT you had to stay in the house for at least five years. You couldn't simply sell out and take any profits. If you did, the gain went back into the program, not in your pocket.

For the record, only one of the First Ward Family has cashed out.

[uptownliving]

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...

I didn't know that Habitat for Humanity built homes in the Garden District...where are they located exactly?

[dubone]

I think he is referring to Parkside Terrace. Otherwise, there are no SFHs for low income people in First Ward. Unless, that is, First Ward has annexed Optimist Park.

[Charlotte_native]

I didn't know that Habitat for Humanity built homes in the Garden District...where are they located exactly?

They didn't build there. I was just referring to the issue Habitat had with dealing with homes sold far below market value. They sell homes, or they did when I was involved, at around $50,000 and depending on the neighborhood they might have been worth $80,000 or slightly more. This was not in First Ward.

The First Ward properties I was talking about weren't the 'first family' homes, but the market rate homes. The city donated a lot of land to the private developers the built there and in return required that the properties be sold at 'affordable' pricing, not direct market pricing. Same was the case with Wilmore Walk where the city donated land. Not all the projects in First Ward were part of this, just the ones that got the breaks from the city.

[C_C_Planner]

I didn't know that Habitat for Humanity built homes in the Garden District...where are they located exactly?

I am familiar with the buy-low, sell-high restrictions on Hope VI homes; maybe these were similar. Buyers of Hope VI affordable homes usually have title restrictions that prevent them from reselling in less than 5 years.

[ElricSeven]

I am familiar with the buy-low, sell-high restrictions on Hope VI homes; maybe these were similar. Buyers of Hope VI affordable homes usually have title restrictions that prevent them from reselling in less than 5 years.

That still equals a windfall when there are a lot of other needy people out there. I think that the gain should be proportionate to the capital risked so that some of the gain is paid back to fund other houses for other needy folks. Regardless of when they sell, the windfall is still there.