Charlotte Coliseum Massive Development - City Park

[monsoon]

^That isn't true, you can also exit out through Kenton Place and over to old Hwy 73/Catawba Ave. I've often used this way to get into BV. There are also two stoplight entrances on the Sam Furr Rd. side. Huntersville has not allowed single entrance subdivisions for a long time now.

[rockhilljames]

So... if some lame suburban-focused development was proposed for this site there would be a lot of complaining about developers (and Charlotte's) lack of commitment to density. Now a semi-urban project is proposed for the space and people are complaining about the lack of transit servicing the area. Some of you folks are hard to please.

Encouraging density along the light rail line is a great thing, and something I think the city is doing. I don't think that should preclude having density-focused projects build elsewhere. This location has great potential, and the proximity to Billy Graham, Tyvola, and I-77 means that traffic will get worse, but that the road system should be able to handle it. I like the fact that this development has a residential component and looks relatively pedistrian friendly within the development itself. My wife works across the street, and the office parks across the street have a lot of walking and jogging trails, some of which hook up with the nearby parks. Hopefully we'll be able to walk over and eat something for lunch...that would be a change.

[Andyc545]

So... if some lame suburban-focused development was proposed for this site there would be a lot of complaining about developers (and Charlotte's) lack of commitment to density. Now a semi-urban project is proposed for the space and people are complaining about the lack of transit servicing the area. Some of you folks are hard to please.

Encouraging density along the light rail line is a great thing, and something I think the city is doing. I don't think that should preclude having density-focused projects build elsewhere. This location has great potential, and the proximity to Billy Graham, Tyvola, and I-77 means that traffic will get worse, but that the road system should be able to handle it. I like the fact that this development has a residential component and looks relatively pedistrian friendly within the development itself. My wife works across the street, and the office parks across the street have a lot of walking and jogging trails, some of which hook up with the nearby parks. Hopefully we'll be able to walk over and eat something for lunch...that would be a change.

Well said. Fact of the matter is City Park is essentially acting as its own downtown. If one chooses to live here, it is for the most part self sustained, at least as much as uptown is for the most part. You'll have restaurants, offices, a green market, retail, and did I see a grocery store (?). It's the same deal with uptown, if you choose to live in uptown as you would choose to live in City Park, you are essentially taking a vehicle off the road for the most part (or at least it would be a vehicle that is used much less, taking the vehicle off the road maybe 4-6 days out of a week). This is looked a positive thing. This development is also very pedestrian oriented (so far it seems) so it looks like a logical location for someone to live if they work in any of the office park in the surrounding areas along Tyvola or within the City Park development itself. This would allow people to walk to work, or as said above, walk to a restaurant for a lunch break instead of driving. Again, that is taking off vehicles off the road during lunch time (BTW: I used to work out in one of these offices and you needed to drive to get lunch).

On the contrary, if you work out here and don't live nearby, yes- you are going to drive (or maybe take the bus). Will City Park add more traffic? It depends on how many people want to continue to drive vs. choosing to live near work. This is no different than uptown. Most people that work uptown drive- that is why there is such a huge demand for parking decks in uptown and more being created as we speak. However, uptown like City Park gives people the option to live in uptown so they are able to walk to work, or in the recent year, live along a light rail line to get to work, which still takes a vehicle off the road (or to the same ability as City Park).

I totally agree rockhilljames- we should be rewarding developments that are built will density, a good street grid, and a mixed-use plan that gives people OPTIONS instead of forcing them out in suburbia and forcing them to drive everytime they want to go shopping or get a bite to eat. More developments that follows City Parks lead will help to patch the endless sprawl that Charlotte has been known to be, and hopefully one day, transit will follow accordingly to support the largest developments. Maybe this site could be revisited along with South Park as creating a light rail line to the airport since it is a little more justifiable with a stop (City Park/Tyvola) having a much higher ridership now.

Edited July 8, 2008 by Andyc545

[monsoon]

^The traffic in Birkdale Village isn't from the people that live there. In fact it only has 1 single apartment complex in it. The traffic is from the people who will go there that don't live there. It's really no different than building a strip shopping mall office complex, the only difference is there is no roof over the walkways. I am not sure why people fail to understand this.

This development will have exactly the same issue.

Even Rockhilljames, who lives in Rock Hill, will presumably drives there to see his wife at lunch who also drives to work there.

[CharlotteDave]

Does anyone know if this project includes plans for a greenway? It seems like I might vaguely remember reading something about that in the past. I do know there is a very nice creek either part of or adjacent to the property.

Edited July 8, 2008 by CharlotteDave

[Raintree21]

Does anyone know if this project includes plans for a greenway? It seems like I might vaguely remember reading something about that in the past. I do know there is a very nice creek either part of or adjacent to the property.

They are supposed to build a 3 mile long loop trail around the property that has a connection to Renaissance Park and part of it does run next to the creek.

[rockhilljames]

^The traffic in Birkdale Village isn't from the people that live there. In fact it only has 1 single apartment complex in it. The traffic is from the people who will go there that don't live there. It's really no different than building a strip shopping mall office complex, the only difference is there is no roof over the walkways. I am not sure why people fail to understand this.

This development will have exactly the same issue.

Even Rockhilljames, who lives in Rock Hill, will presumably drives there to see his wife at lunch who also drives to work there.

Since you seem to truly dislike the proposal, I'm curious to hear what type of development you think would be better. I do live in Rock Hill. My wife and I both work within about two miles of each other and we carpool to work. Regardless of my living situation this development will encourage more pedistrian activity in an area of town that has none outside of walking trails within office parks and connectors to city parks.

Tell me again how that is bad?

[InSouthPark]

^The traffic in Birkdale Village isn't from the people that live there. In fact it only has 1 single apartment complex in it. The traffic is from the people who will go there that don't live there. It's really no different than building a strip shopping mall office complex, the only difference is there is no roof over the walkways. I am not sure why people fail to understand this.

But isn't it true that building anything on this location would increase traffic in that area? If you build offices, people will drive there. If you build houses, people will drive there. If you build shopping, people will drive there. If you build anything worth while, people will drive there. Even in downtown, our "urban center", almost everything we build increase traffic uptown.

[monsoon]

^This was the whole point of the Transit and Corridors plan put forth by the city and county a decade ago. That is limit development to just those areas where there is a transit corridor, and actively turn down development that isn't in these zones. ah la Portland. This was the basis for the argument for the transit tax in the late 1990s which got it passed. Everyone realized the Mecklenburg county was going to choke in traffic and this seemed to be a reasonable way to deal with the issue.

Guess what, we got the tax, but not the zoning that was promised to go with it. So in the subsequent years we have had development after development approved that goes counter to the above. Everything from Northlake Mall, Mid Town, the ugly Ikea/Walmart development, etc, and now this.

To answer your question BV should not have been built and they should not have approved this development either. It's just going to make the car dependency problem worse in this city. Many here like to feel Charlotte is "progressive" on these matters, but it is just as bad as it has ever been.

[Andyc545]

It's really no different than building a strip shopping mall office complex, the only difference is there is no roof over the walkways. I am not sure why people fail to understand this.

So by you saying this, you are essentially saying that our uptown center is not urban but just a strip shopping mall office complex but with taller buildings and a large scale...

Again- this is self-sustained community, just like uptown is. Many that live here will hopefully choose to live here to its proximity to their work, their shopping, etc. That's why people move to uptown typically. It's a lifestyle choice. Surely- this is going to attract people visiting by vehicle , just like Birkdale Village, just like uptown. I'll say this again, this is similar to it's own downtown just on a smaller scale. All of those traffic jams on 485, 77, and 85 are people driving into uptown, are they not? If you don't want to sit in the traffic, then you live where it is convenient. This property is no different.... If so, please explain the differences.

Edit:

^This was the whole point of the Transit and Corridors plan put forth by the city and county a decade ago. That is limit development to just those areas where there is a transit corridor, and actively turn down development that isn't in these zones. ah la Portland. This was the basis for the argument for the transit tax in the late 1990s which got it passed. Everyone realized the Mecklenburg county was going to choke in traffic and this seemed to be a reasonable way to deal with the issue.

And you are referencing the transit corridor plan... weren't you the one that was against the building of the South Corridor Blue Line? Since transit is being brought up, at least this property is a beneficiary to having a bus route already at its footsteps.

Edited July 8, 2008 by Andyc545

[palmetto75]

Did I see Standard Pacific on the banner around the fence? If you think Ryan is bad... These guys have built some great stuff out west, but have built some THs around here that makes Beazer look classy. Besides the fact that they are one of the closest builders to Chapter 11.

Other than I think this will be a much needed addition to this part of town and will help tie the South Tryon corridor together.

[rockhilljames]

I am certainly all for the concept of live/work/shop/play that places like City Park offer. Were our offices in one of these areas, I would strongly consider living there.

However, after traveling to Houston a good bit, where this type of development is quite common (and usually on a larger scale), I would say that we need to be very careful in how we structure connectivity to these enclaves. In Houston, the Woodlands is so far out of town, and so unconnected that people that live there very rarely see downtown Houston, or even care that it's there.

So...the question becomes, how do we prevent in 20 years or so Ballentyne, Arsley, City Park, Baxter Village, Birkdale, and other such developments from being unconnected to the whole. How do you connect urban fabric when developments like this butt up against non-urban areas? Stringing developments along the transit corridors is a great idea, and one that will create a markedly different feel in these types of developments along South Blvd. I'd like to see a network of bike lanes and greenway connections into other neighborhoods.

I'd also like to see the mentality of just a few feeder roads abolished. It looks like there is no access into the Farmer's Market directly from City Park. That means that someone that lives there would have to get in their car, turn onto Yorkmount and then park at the Farmer's Market, instead of just walking 200 yards or so.

Here in Rock Hill, we had an opportunity with a development called Millwood Plantation to reconnect a shattered street grid and build a new "downtown" for the India Hook part of town. The abutting neighborhoods went ballistic and as a result there is only one way in and one way out of the development. What's worse, to shield residents from the commercial traffic, landscaped berms were placed between the residential and commercial sections. The two are connected in no real way.

So to me, that's the real challenge with this type of development...how do you make it feel connected and make it functional?

[Raintree21]

I'd also like to see the mentality of just a few feeder roads abolished. It looks like there is no access into the Farmer's Market directly from City Park. That means that someone that lives there would have to get in their car, turn onto Yorkmount and then park at the Farmer's Market, instead of just walking 200 yards or so.

Unless they keep a fence up around the market, nothing is going to stop people from walking through the trees to get to it. Also, the trail loops goes into the market as well and on their website they list "pedestrian access to farmer's market."

[monsoon]

........how do you make it feel connected and make it functional?

I suggest a read of this article of an analysis of the problem and solutions in a much more depressed example. However the remedy's that he suggest apply just as well to Charlotte which in many ways has exactly the same issues with development (as in the wrong kind) as that in STL. I can assume that some people here will simply dismiss it, but if you really want to build a city correctly, the past is where to look instead of trying to reinvent the office park/shopping mall.

[Spartan]

And a dairy production center is a developed area too. I don't see the difference. In fact I don't understand how you can say there are "key differences" between this development and Birkdale village. To me they are exactly the same item, created in the same kind of area, with the same type of issues.

Simple. Its this (pre birkdale):

versus this (coliseum):

Both are from about 1997. Cow pasture versus very large parking lot. Its new suburban versus rebuilding surburbia. I don't think the pictures are at the exact same scale- but I've highlighted the approximate boundaries of the projects in question here, so everyone can see what I'm comparing.

With Birkdale Village though, all traffic must exit and enter via Sam Furr Road. In fact, almost all residents of Birkdale Village are funnelled out the Birkdale Commons Parkway exit. With City Park, you'll have multiple means of ingress/egress to access the site via the realigned Yorkmont Road in both directions, a connection to Billy Graham Parkway, and Tyvola Road with multiple access points. That's five or six connections to major thoroughfares versus funnelling the entire development out one exit.

I tend to agree. It will be less of an issue- but monsoon does have a point that there will still be a lot of traffic generated by this development (though I don't think anyone has argued that this will not be the case. You also forget that this site will be served by transit. With gas prices continuing to rise, I expect this mode will be used more frequently than we think it will. I still maintain that Tyvola can handle the traffic as it is since it was designed to handle Coliseum volumes. I suspect that significant investments had to be made on Sam Furr Rd to accommodate Birkdale.

[monsoon]

.....

Both are from about 1997. Cow pasture versus very large parking lot. Its new suburban versus rebuilding surburbia. I don't think the pictures are at the exact same scale- but I've highlighted the approximate boundaries of the projects in question here, so everyone can see what I'm comparing. ...

Are you kidding? You are beating a dead horse in somehow justifying the construction of this project as being something good. It isn't. It's the same as Birkdale. It's gonna have the same problems.

[Spartan]

Since when is infill not good? This city is already filled with crappy development, and this site would otherwise be a useless slab of concrete with an out-dated and decaying arena on it. Since development in this city is going to happen whether we like it or not, I prefer to see it in the form of dense redevelopment. They are improving the use of this site. Nobody is arguing that there won't be traffic impacts on Tyvola Rd.

[AuLukey]

Are you kidding? You are beating a dead horse in somehow justifying the construction of this project as being something good. It isn't. It's the same as Birkdale. It's gonna have the same problems.

I agree with Spartan, CityPark is better for the environment by comparison to Birkdale because it is replacing a sea of asphalt compared to pastures. Sure, farms do produce waste and have their own drawbacks, but their footprint on urban heating is much lower by comparison.

Having the infrastructure around this site doesn't really make its placement better, but will not have as much of an impact were it developed on a single road in suburbia, clogging traffic for miles.

This development will hopefully spur increased mass transit to this area as well as promote people living near their jobs. Yes, it will produce traffic. Yes, it will produce a destination just like every other development in the entire city. People drive to visit Epicentre. People will drive to work at the new WB building. People will drive to the new cultural facilities.

While mass transit serves a lot of people along the corridors, it also runs between them, interlinking them. This is just another development along one of those links. It can and will be served by public transport better than projects like Northlake and Birkdale because it is closer to center city and to the airport.

[New Name]

We could dream that a large project like this could start to revitalize enough of Tyvola, that in many years (when our mass transit system is much more built out) we could see a line run from South Park out to the Airport.... one can dream. This could be the start. Maybe.

[monsoon]

I agree with Spartan, CityPark is better for the environment by comparison to Birkdale because it is replacing a sea of asphalt compared to pastures. Sure, farms do produce waste and have their own drawbacks, but their footprint on urban heating is much lower by comparison. ...

Then why not just bulldoze it down and plant grass there? Your logic makes no sense. The farm was defunct just as is the empty Coliseum.

[ohioaninSC]

Since when is infill not good? This city is already filled with crappy development, and this site would otherwise be a useless slab of concrete with an out-dated and decaying arena on it. Since development in this city is going to happen whether we like it or not, I prefer to see it in the form of dense redevelopment. They are improving the use of this site. Nobody is arguing that there won't be traffic impacts on Tyvola Rd.

I completely agree w/ you on this. Tyvola handled coliseum even traffic, and I would assume this won't generate that much.

[AuLukey]

Then why not just bulldoze it down and plant grass there? Your logic makes no sense. The farm was defunct just as is the empty Coliseum.

My logic makes no sense? Well, I'm comparing replacing an organic area (farm) to replacing asphalt (parking lots.) If given the choice between having to replace one or the other, I'd much rather see the parking lots go. That's all, the actual end result of the two complexes is relatively the same based on the impact on the environment, but CityPark compared to BV is less harmful to the environment as the harm has already been done to the lot to begin with whereas BV was replacing a relatively blank slate, organically speaking. So yes, environmentally, it would be better for there to be a grass field in this place; but that wasn't the point.

But in all reality this debate means nothing so let us leave it be.

Edited July 9, 2008 by aussie luke

[gman430]

I've actually been to this arena several times before. I never realized the parking lot was that big until I saw the aerial. I can see both sides of the debate here. Why not tear down everything and put a forest in its place? Well, if you do that then you could actually cause more sprawl due to urban infill not happening where it should. People have got to live somewhere. Oops. Seeing how that doesn't work then why not tear down everything and put a mixed-use development in its place? Well, if you do that then you will cause more traffic headaches than what already exists. It doesn't matter how dense or how much transit goes to and from this development. People will still drive to and from it. That equals more gas usage, more pollution, etc. Oops again. Pick your poison.

Edited July 9, 2008 by citylife

[ChiefJoJo]

I think folks might be arguing slightly different points. Certainly, most would say that a mixed use development built on the former arena site is better than greenfield development. But metro's larger point is a good one: does this development fit within the decade-plus long, city-wide strategy based on placing the most intense development along transit and highway corridors that can handle the increased traffic?

Part of the problem, in my view is this: the parcel-level Centers, Corridors, and Wedges Framework. What you see took the basic framework of the 2025 Transit/LU vision (from '97), and developed it on a parcel level. Look at the area where the arena, and now City Park, was located. This area was identified as a "center" as shown in blue. Arguably, when you look at the other centers located outside of Uptown: Eastland, South Park, Ballantyne, etc, the old arena site could have easily been left out of the new framework and returned to it's pre-arena "wedge" state. Once the new arena was built Uptown, why was their a need to keep this area as a center? Again, it's arguable. I think the reason it was included as a center was to allow a new development (City Park) to come in and help the city recoup some of its real and perceived losses from the controversy of the arena situation.

Centers and Corridors as a concept makes perfect sense, but as with all things, the devil is in the details. Here, as with some other areas of the city, the execution may have been influenced by politics or development interests. Just my two cents.

As an aside, I wonder whether the "Centers and Corridors" framework has been adopted, and if so, who is evaluating and measuring whether it is being followed?

[southslider]

I don't know of a better location in Charlotte to create a new "edge city" and not worry too much about traffic impact. Billy Graham, Tyvola (west of I-77), and I-485 (again, west of I-77) all seem to be moving much better than anything in the University or Ballantyne areas.

While very auto accessible, transit does seem weak currently. Still, while City Park is not directly on any radial transit corridor, the area is easily serviced by feeder connections to the Blue Line, and who knows, maybe someday such density could help support an Airport-South Park crosstown rapid transit line mostly following Tyvola-Fairview.