Elizabeth Projects (7th St, Elizabeth Ave, etc)

[NYtoCLT]

56 minutes ago, AltNative said:

Oh yea everyone will be clamoring for this interesting juxtaposition in just a few short decades!!

 

Whoever designed this should be embarrassed. These monstrosities are all over Belmont and they're ruining the the neighborhood. 

I support Elizabeth becoming a HD

 

 

lets play a game called "Fort Mill Tract Home or Historic Charlotte Neighborhood"

 

Round One:

any guesses??

Yes, I think people likely will like the juxtaposition.  I like it now and I think it will age well (frankly the house on the right looks like it could use a bit of a facelift).   You may not like the house on the left, but other people clearly do since it is currently occupied.  Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, I just personally don't feel that my opinion should be forced onto others.  You clearly do.

And there are definitely some new builds that leave something to be desired, but that is obviously true of some of the historic housing stock as well (some of which is dilapidated and crumbling).  No developer is in the market to lose money and if the new build isn't great, it is a safe bet that the previous home there was worse (since buying that house, plus demo, plus construction costs, would need to be worth more than the previous home for them to make money). 

[KJHburg]

Elizabeth on 7th the office retail building is getting some retail and office tenants.

""Local developer Crescent Communities has confirmed that a restaurant group backed by former NFL star Mike Ditka is bringing a new concept to Charlotte. CBJ's Jennifer Thomas reported on Ditka Restaurants' plans back in December.

The group's Catalina Kitchen + Bar expects to open this fall at Elizabeth on Seventh, a mixed-use development at 1942 E. Seventh St.

Patrons will find an upscale, full-service restaurant with a relaxed atmosphere, according to a press release. It will dish up American fare, specialty cocktails, local beer and wine.

Catalina joins Rosemont Market and Wine Bar in taking space there. It is expected to open this spring.

Several office leases have been signed as well, with newly inked tenants including Lodging Capital Partners, Hord Coplan Macht and LifeStance Health.

“We are excited by the leasing activity from retail, restaurant, and office users,” says Ned Austin, vice president of leasing for Crescent’s commercial business unit. “With state-of-the-art amenities, tenants at Elizabeth on Seventh will be met with a superior, modern office experience that’s unique to the Elizabeth neighborhood.”""

https://www.bizjournals.com/charlotte/news/2023/03/22/cbj-buzz-mike-ditka-restaurants-elizabeth-seventh.html

https://www.elizabethonseventh.com/

Edited March 23, 2023 by KJHburg

[Nathan2]

23 hours ago, NYtoCLT said:

I think this seems fine.  A lot of people (and families in particular) want larger homes. I left Elizabeth for Plaza-Belmont partially because I had a few kids and needed more space.

 

The larger house doesn't hurt the neighboring homes (even the house next door).  Contrasting styles/sizes makes an area interesting and I think it is likely that in 20 years people will love the juxtaposition.  

I personally doubt anyone will be clamoring for these in the future and I personally would be embarrassed to live in one. They never take into consideration the context of structures that surround it. They most definitely harm the area as the builder turns around and sells them for 3x the going rate for homes nearby. It demolishes relatively "natural" affordable (more so than what's replacing it) housing and replaces it with a massive home that a very small percentage of the population can afford. Large structures could be built to fit in with the context of the neighborhood and even allow for more density but these builders know they can maximize profits this way. 

[turbocraig]

33 minutes ago, Nathan2 said:

I personally doubt anyone will be clamoring for these in the future and I personally would be embarrassed to live in one. They never take into consideration the context of structures that surround it. They most definitely harm the area as the builder turns around and sells them for 3x the going rate for homes nearby. It demolishes relatively "natural" affordable (more so than what's replacing it) housing and replaces it with a massive home that a very small percentage of the population can afford. Large structures could be built to fit in with the context of the neighborhood and even allow for more density but these builders know they can maximize profits this way. 

They look like giant middle fingers to the neighborhood to me. 

[AltNative]

16 minutes ago, turbocraig said:

They look like giant middle fingers to the neighborhood to me. 

"Scootch over poor minorities! Rich whites moving in and we're building BIG--nevermind the scale of your tiny little poor people house!"

 

now how do i make the font blue?

[CLTProductions]

On 3/22/2023 at 8:26 PM, KJHburg said:

Elizabeth on 7th the office retail building is getting some retail and office tenants.

""Local developer Crescent Communities has confirmed that a restaurant group backed by former NFL star Mike Ditka is bringing a new concept to Charlotte. CBJ's Jennifer Thomas reported on Ditka Restaurants' plans back in December.

The group's Catalina Kitchen + Bar expects to open this fall at Elizabeth on Seventh, a mixed-use development at 1942 E. Seventh St.

Patrons will find an upscale, full-service restaurant with a relaxed atmosphere, according to a press release. It will dish up American fare, specialty cocktails, local beer and wine.

Catalina joins Rosemont Market and Wine Bar in taking space there. It is expected to open this spring.

Several office leases have been signed as well, with newly inked tenants including Lodging Capital Partners, Hord Coplan Macht and LifeStance Health.

“We are excited by the leasing activity from retail, restaurant, and office users,” says Ned Austin, vice president of leasing for Crescent’s commercial business unit. “With state-of-the-art amenities, tenants at Elizabeth on Seventh will be met with a superior, modern office experience that’s unique to the Elizabeth neighborhood.”""

https://www.bizjournals.com/charlotte/news/2023/03/22/cbj-buzz-mike-ditka-restaurants-elizabeth-seventh.html

https://www.elizabethonseventh.com/

This was first announced back in December by Jason Thomas

[NYtoCLT]

On 3/23/2023 at 4:13 PM, Nathan2 said:

I personally doubt anyone will be clamoring for these in the future and I personally would be embarrassed to live in one. They never take into consideration the context of structures that surround it. They most definitely harm the area as the builder turns around and sells them for 3x the going rate for homes nearby. It demolishes relatively "natural" affordable (more so than what's replacing it) housing and replaces it with a massive home that a very small percentage of the population can afford. Large structures could be built to fit in with the context of the neighborhood and even allow for more density but these builders know they can maximize profits this way. 

So (1) no one will want (be clamoring for) these houses and yet (2) they are going for 3x the going rate for homes nearby.  You do realize that these statements are in direct conflict, right?  This seems like pretty basic supply and demand.  

As far as demolishing NOAH, most of the homes that are being demoed are well beyond their useful life.   These were not top quality houses when built, let alone after 60 years.  Maybe you think they should only be replaced with homes of similar square footage to keep prices low, but again, that is what YOU think should happen, not what the market wants.  It is so arrogant to think you should be able to impose your views/values on everyone.  Clearly people are willing to buy these houses. The market is there for a reason.  I will never understand why people think they should be able to control what their neighbors do with their property.  I may not like it, but it isn't my property.

Also, this is a development blog.  I hope you realize that these attitudes/ideas are the exact reasoning for most of the opposition to all development (not just large single family homes).  Is building townhomes against the historic character of the neighborhood?  Apartments?  Let's just keep the neighborhood etched in stone exactly as it currently is.  

[Nathan2]

On 3/24/2023 at 4:36 PM, NYtoCLT said:

So (1) no one will want (be clamoring for) these houses and yet (2) they are going for 3x the going rate for homes nearby.  You do realize that these statements are in direct conflict, right?  This seems like pretty basic supply and demand.  

As far as demolishing NOAH, most of the homes that are being demoed are well beyond their useful life.   These were not top quality houses when built, let alone after 60 years.  Maybe you think they should only be replaced with homes of similar square footage to keep prices low, but again, that is what YOU think should happen, not what the market wants.  It is so arrogant to think you should be able to impose your views/values on everyone.  Clearly people are willing to buy these houses. The market is there for a reason.  I will never understand why people think they should be able to control what their neighbors do with their property.  I may not like it, but it isn't my property.

Also, this is a development blog.  I hope you realize that these attitudes/ideas are the exact reasoning for most of the opposition to all development (not just large single-family homes).  Is building townhomes against the historic character of the neighborhood?  Apartments?  Let's just keep the neighborhood etched in stone exactly as it currently is.  

Key word..." in the future". 

Most of these houses are not beyond their useful life, for the cost the developer is paying, the home could be modestly rehabilitated if needed to fit into the modern era. 

The uproar over the house is not in opposition to development. If you go look at my previous comments you would see that the main argument here is that these large homes are just accelerators of gentrification. I would not have a problem if this was a multi-unit structure that would provide relatively cheaper housing for a walkable neighborhood that desperately needs the density. I would also not have as much problem with a larger structure if the architect took one minute to work on the massing and design to better reflect the neighborhood. Townhomes and apartments can fit perfectly into predominately single-family neighborhoods and they already do in Elizabeth, and none of them stick out like a giant thumb like the new home on the corner. 

All of the below homes are within a half mile of the new home and some are much larger but fit perfectly into the neighborhood because the designers took the time to fit the structures into the neighborhood without being imposing.:

Condos:

Duplex:

Townhomes and apartments:

Quadraplex:

Apartments:

older single-family home that added a second floor without demolishing:

large single-family home that is much taller than its neighbors but does not feel imposing or out of place: 

 

[KJHburg]

Elizabeth there maybe a solution to a Historical Neighborhood designation from the city that was the first word spoken from the Moon.:  Houston.

Houston just passed conservation districts which are a step below historical preservation neighborhoods and this could work in Charlotte and probably in Elizabeth too. 

Article from the Houston Business Journal:

""The city of Houston officially has a new tool for communities to use to preserve their neighborhoods: conservation districts.

The initial ordinance to establish criteria to create this type of district was approved by Houston City Council on April 5 in a 13-4 vote. At large Council Member Mike Knox, District A Council Member Amy Peck, District E Council Member Dave Martin and District G Council Member Mary Nan Huffman voted against the item.

The conservation districts, which will be completely community-driven, will allow community members to come together to protect remaining historic resources and characteristics of their neighborhoods.

In a previous interview with the Houston Business Journal, Margaret Wallace Brown, director for the city’s planning and development department, said the conservation district program is intended to bridge the gap between the city's historic preservation program and its landmark program.

The process for creating a conservation district involves approval from a majority of owners in the proposed area as well as the Houston Archaeological and Historical Commission and City Council.

Within a conservation district, development does not stop, but it can be regulated with requirements established by the community to maintain the character of the neighborhood, Roman McAllen, historic preservation officer for the city of Houston, previously told the HBJ. An eligible community that wants to establish a conservation district can choose from 19 potential requirements, such as certain building heights, building sizes or architectural styles.

However, the permitting process for new construction or additions in a conservation district would be much easier than the process in a historic district, Wallace Brown said. Unlike historic districts, conservation districts will not require that projects receive a certificate of appropriateness, she said.

Since each conservation district is community-driven and will be different for each community, there's no set timeline for when the six initial districts will officially go to council for a vote. Once created, if a conservation district decides to change something, then the neighborhood will have to follow the same process that it did to create the district.

Gallegos said conservation districts are needed for areas that have no deed restrictions because those areas are losing the character of the neighborhoods. The fear that conservation districts will take over deed restrictions is not needed due to the difficult amendment process for the latter, he said.

District C Council Member Abbie Kamin said conservation districts will help areas of her district like Freedmen’s Town. Despite having federal protections, this neighborhood has succumbed to demolitions, losing its history, she said.""

this is worth looking at to see if can be done in NC and if not maybe it should be talked about on the state level.  There are plenty of neighborhoods in Raleigh, Durham all over the state going through rapid changes and many more in Charlotte as well.  These are not as restrictive as a historical district but protect neighborhoods in a different way and might be much easier to pass neighborhood approval.  Just an idea and I have no dog in this fight but this sounds like it could work for Elizabeth and other neighborhoods.  

Here is some more information from Houston https://www.letstalkhouston.org/conservationdistrict

[sakami]

Now that  Burn Boot Camp has moved over to their new Plaza Midwood spot will work begin in earnest on this shopping center? 

[Bat'leth]

Looks like Axios has picked up on the Historic District situation in Elizabeth.

https://charlotte.axios.com/328519/charlotte-elizabeth-historic-designation-development/

I'm surprised that the President of the Elizabeth Community Association trashed Dilworth for the article:

Quote from article:

But West Bryant, president of the ECA, sees Dilworth as “a little kingdom of very wealthy people surrounded by a legal moat.”

 

 

[kermit]

^ is he really suggesting that Elizabeth and Dilworth will magically become bastions of affordability without historic district status?  (Or that Elizabeth is somehow different than Dilworth in anyway other than historic district status?)

Edited May 13, 2023 by kermit

[NYtoCLT]

On 5/13/2023 at 11:29 AM, kermit said:

^ is he really suggesting that Elizabeth and Dilworth will magically become bastions of affordability without historic district status?  (Or that Elizabeth is somehow different than Dilworth in anyway other than historic district status?)

Elizabeth has gotten a lot more expensive recently, but it is still consistently ~$200K less for the same house compared to Dilworth.  Historic District designation restricts supply which definitely impacts prices but my guess is more in the aggregate and less per neighborhood.  Dilworth isn't getting materially less expensive even if it revoked historic status.

[kermit]

2 hours ago, NYtoCLT said:

Elizabeth has gotten a lot more expensive recently, but it is still consistently ~$200K less for the same house compared to Dilworth.  Historic District designation restricts supply which definitely impacts prices but my guess is more in the aggregate and less per neighborhood.  Dilworth isn't getting materially less expensive even if it revoked historic status.

Honest question, how does historic district status restrict the supply of housing? I know the one year demo moratorium can delay tear-downs and rebuilds, but I did not think there were any substantial restrictions on building an ADU. Are there historic district restrictions on design for rebuilds? (I had thought the NCGA had done away with those.) What am I missing?

Edited May 14, 2023 by kermit

[RANYC]

3 hours ago, kermit said:

Honest question, how does historic district status restrict the supply of housing? I know the one year demo moratorium can delay tear-downs and rebuilds, but I did not think there were any substantial restrictions on building an ADU. Are there historic district restrictions on design for rebuilds? (I had thought the NCGA had done away with those.) What am I missing?

Without relevant data to substantiate an answer to your question, I’ll venture a guess that the general pool of housing suppliers see historic district designations as a hurdle to delivering, and if they don’t see relatively extraordinary potential returns on invested capital, they go elsewhere.  The net result is a decrease in the potential delivery of housing product had the historic district designation been avoided.  The UDO takes effect in mere weeks, which allows triplexes by right in all residential zones.  I imagine historic district designations will be an attempt to thwart such residential allowances.

 

[KJHburg]

1 hour ago, RANYC said:

Without relevant data to substantiate an answer to your question, I’ll venture a guess that the general pool of housing suppliers see historic district designations as a hurdle to delivering, and if they don’t see relatively extraordinary potential returns on invested capital, they go elsewhere.  The net result is a decrease in the potential delivery of housing product had the historic district designation been avoided.  The UDO takes effect in mere weeks, which allows triplexes by right in all residential zones.  I imagine historic district designations will be an attempt to thwart such residential allowances.

 

I would say that is an accurate assessment and since there are so many areas to go into why bother with a historical district unless it is customer driven.  Just easier to go elsewhere. 

[kermit]

^ ok, I get that. But relative to a run of the mill HOA the PITA factor of historic districts seems relatively trivial.  I am guessing that 70% of SFH in Charlotte are in an HOA, why are we picking on historic districts while ignoring the problematic nature of HOAs. At least historic districts strive to maintain actual neighborhood character rather than some vague 1990s low-cost, auto- centric, aesthetic. 

If we decide to ignore the creation and continued maintenance of HOAs in the city, why do we feel like its fine to call out historic districts as problematic for supply restrictions? Seems like another suburban-privilege double standard.

Edited May 15, 2023 by kermit

[RANYC]

9 hours ago, kermit said:

^ ok, I get that. But relative to a run the mill HOA the PITA factor of historic districts seems relatively trivial.  I am guessing that 70% of SFH in Charlotte are in an HOA, why are we picking on historic districts while ignoring the problematic nature of HOAs. At least historic districts strive to maintain actual neighborhood character rather than some vague 1990s low-cost, auto- centric, aesthetic. 

If we decide to ignore the creation and continued maintenance of HOAs in the city, why do we feel like its fine to call out historic districts as problematic for supply restrictions? Seems like another suburban-privilege double standard.

NYU Furman Center paper on the impact of designations on prices and construction activity is below.  Study focused on NYC real estate.  As one might expect, impacts vary depending on the neighborhood and the interrelationships of designations on underlying zoning leniency, allowable heights, natural demand for the neighborhood and what's close to it, architectural features being preserved and how much they're widely valued, etc. 

One point that was made was the value of the option to redevelop properties into higher density uses as a factor in housing prices.  When historic district designation eliminates or reduces that option, then you see a drop in prices because market expectations of such an option are baked in to prices, especially in desirable communities near regional gathering spots like a CBD or Cultural District.  According to the paper, historic designation might induce a drop in prices, while surrounding areas just outside the district see prices surge.  The UDO likely created a redevelopment option in many non-designated/non-restricted residential areas around Charlotte, and it is reasonable to assume that some of the price action since UDO passage is not just the usual demand for housing, but the newly-embedded option to redevelop lots into higher-density uses.  To the extent Elizabeth is one of those communities with an especially valuable redevelopment option, and it now enters into designation to eliminate that option, I suppose you could see a drop-off in prices.

https://furmancenter.org/files/NYUFurmanCenter_HistoricDistricts_2014.pdf

In brief, we find that designation raises property values within historic districts, but only for the boroughs outside Manhattan. More generally, we find that designation decreases the value of properties in districts where the foregone option to redevelop is higher. Consistent with theory, we also find that properties just outside the boundaries of districts increase in value after designation. Finally, we find modest evidence of reduced construction activity in districts after designation.

btw, i did NOT post the confused emoji on your post.

Edited May 15, 2023 by RANYC

[kermit]

^ Its an interesting study, thanks for sharing it. I do wonder if the NYC focus distorts this situation in other places however. In Charlotte, multifamily was not possible in our historic districts under the (just about) previous zoning. The UDO does change that, indicating that historic district designation should have the effect of lowering housing costs (I don't really believe that will happen in Charlotte). The study's findings also begs the question, what does the UDO and state legislation preventing cities from regulating aesthetics say about historic district regulatory power. I know the UDO has no effect on HOA regulations, and from that I assume the same may apply to historic districts but I am not sure.

I am kinda ambivalent about historic districts, but I am not sure there is anything about them that is worse for housing supply than a typical HOA.

Edited May 22, 2023 by kermit

[KJHburg]

In most larger HOA communities already have a variety of price points and housing styles maybe not all mixed in together next to each other but in the entire community.  From Raintree, Piper Glen and Ballantyne in the south (all have mixtures of apartments, multifamily units for sale and or SF homes) to Berewick, The Crossings and Palisades in southwest Charlotte to Davis Lake and Highland Creek in NE Charlotte all have  mixtures of housing styles and price points.  All these neighborhoods have HOAs but all have variety of price points and types of housing.  

I don't think a historical designation of Elizabeth will cause prices to drop (unless the overall market does as well) but real infill will go to other areas as not to have deal with a historical board of the community.  There are plenty of NIMBYs in the in town neighborhoods as in the suburbs.   I really like that idea from Houston on the conservation districts will put some protections in place but are not as restrictive as historical district commission.  This is one reason Myers Park has turned this down again and again.  But we will see what happens with the Elizabeth community.  

[Nathan2]

15 hours ago, kermit said:

^ ok, I get that. But relative to a run the mill HOA the PITA factor of historic districts seems relatively trivial.  I am guessing that 70% of SFH in Charlotte are in an HOA, why are we picking on historic districts while ignoring the problematic nature of HOAs. At least historic districts strive to maintain actual neighborhood character rather than some vague 1990s low-cost, auto- centric, aesthetic. 

If we decide to ignore the creation and continued maintenance of HOAs in the city, why do we feel like its fine to call out historic districts as problematic for supply restrictions? Seems like another suburban-privilege double standard.

Because we shouldn't be further restricting the few inner-city neighborhoods that have good bones and proximity to walkable and transit-friendly amenities.  These are the neighborhoods that stand to benefit the most from the implementation of the UDO. Further restricting these neighborhoods just further mitigate the UDO. The UDO will not make these neighborhoods affordable but will slowly allow desperately needed housing units. 

[NYtoCLT]

15 hours ago, kermit said:

^ ok, I get that. But relative to a run the mill HOA the PITA factor of historic districts seems relatively trivial.  I am guessing that 70% of SFH in Charlotte are in an HOA, why are we picking on historic districts while ignoring the problematic nature of HOAs. At least historic districts strive to maintain actual neighborhood character rather than some vague 1990s low-cost, auto- centric, aesthetic. 

If we decide to ignore the creation and continued maintenance of HOAs in the city, why do we feel like its fine to call out historic districts as problematic for supply restrictions? Seems like another suburban-privilege double standard.

As far as HOAs, I actually could see this discussion broadened to encompass HOAs in ~10-15 years, but the most close in neighborhoods generally do not have HOAs and those are the areas where the push for way more dense, walkable housing is being pushed for most aggressively.  It would not surprise me if eventually people want to put a couple of townhomes in a random suburban HOA though if prices continue to rise.   

As far as restricting supply, the Dilworth historic district basically took effect because people were mad about ugly townhomes in their neighborhood and it has done a pretty good job of preventing more of the same or similar.   If you were going to try to turn 2 home lots into 5 townhomes (or whatever), historic district designation makes it so you will almost certainly look elsewhere because your money has to sit patiently while it could be getting returns elsewhere.  Historic districts cut against the (I think laudable) goals of the UDO.  

[kermit]

Not sure I am comfortable giving HOAs a pass here just because they are not in the center. There are a ton of HOA SF exclusive neighborhoods along the planned Silver Line route (particularly around Matthews), and even a few around Rocky River / McCullough. Seems incredibly foolish to build rail where density is currently impossible to achieve.

I am also not yet convinced that historic districts are as exclusionary as we make them out to be (but yes, the land is generally super expensive which results in some exclusion). Both Dilworth and Elizabeth were characterized by a wide range of original housing (Dilworth still has a significant number of 4-8 unit apartment buildings which were original -- isn't the historic district obligated to allow for the reconstruction of similar dwellings?

Edited May 22, 2023 by kermit

[videtur quam contuor]

If someone were to build an accessory dwelling unit in Dilworth must it meet historic design conditions?  A new structure behind an existing protected home. Is that allowed?

[kermit]

6 minutes ago, tarhoosier said:

If someone were to build an accessory dwelling unit in Dilworth must it meet historic design conditions?  A new structure behind an existing protected home. Is that allowed?

I don't know the letter of the policy but I know that quite a few garages with garage apartments / offices have been recently built in the historic district.

From observations HD policy seems to be largely focused on the front facade, based on the massive additions and modifications I have seen there is a huge amount of leeway for what happens behind the front wall. This policy seems to be much more flexible than the restrictions on additions to homes in HOA neighborhoods that I have heard about (warning: this is anecdote posing as data)