Hall House to be sold and demolished!

[TONYCLT]

Hall House in uptown is to be sold and demolished.

[Charlotte_native]

Hall House in uptown is to be sold and demolished.

Of course. Why should be expenct anything less from a city that likes to store its history in the landfill.

[MZT]

Will be interesting to see if this building has many defnders... for the "grit factor".

I have to admit though, it looks quite tired and in need of upkeep.

[Charlotte_native]

Will be interesting to see if this building has many defnders... for the "grit factor".

I have to admit though, it looks quite tired and in need of upkeep.

It still could be preserved, reused...

[peaceloveunderstanding]

The building isn't historic. It is just old and looks somewhat interesting.

Personally, I'm unconcerned with preserving old buildings IF the replacement it is well designed. It would be unfortunate, however, if we just get a parking lot.

[orulz]

Why tear down an existing building and rebuild, when uptown still has acres piled upon acres of parking lots just begging to be developed? Though this building may be worse for wear, it's a distinguished structure nonetheless. It's one of precious few older buildings of substantial size in the city. According to Emporis, this is the 2nd tallest pre-WW2 building in the city, and if demolished, this would be the second-largest building ever to be demolished in the city.

This building wouldn't be particularly significant in a city like NYC or Chicago, but I have a feeling preservationists would still fight to keep it. Then, in Charlotte, this is almost the only representative of an era, and to lose it because "Oh well, it's easier to tear down and rebuild than to refurbish or find another lot for my project" would be a travesty.

[NCN8ive]

I'd love to see this building rehabed and reused. I think it has character. I love Charlotte's new buildings...but everything doesn't have to be new! This could be a great re-use project.

[atlrvr]

It will be sold to a developer most likely because it is cheaper to buy his for $10M and demolish it rather than pay the price for the remaining surface lots on Tryon.

I do wish it would stay, but I remember working with the CHA briefly on this last year, and their sentiment all along was that it would be demolished. I can say with almost certainty that the buyer will be BofA, or some agent of theirs. If I were a betting man, I see this becoming a surface lot for the next 12 years before they build another tower....call me a pessimist.

I did like the suggestion of returning it to a hotel. I think the biggest issue with reuse would be the lack of parking and the low ceiling heights. A high-end boutique hotel would make sense with off-site valet-only parking, but I believe the ceilings are just too low to be competitive in the luxury market.

[Miesian Corners]

The article doesn't say that the building WILL be demolished, it says it MIGHT. Although CHA has put the building on the market, it has not been sold.

[tombarnes]

Has anyone got a picture of the building?

[rockhilljames]

You might be right, but it wouldn't be the first time a higher-end chain or boutique refurbed an older structure. I mentioned the Westin Columbus as an example. It has smaller rooms that most Westin's I've been in, but I loved the old building that it's in and the historic feel. The Dunhill is living proof it can work.

I'd also love to see an apartment specialist refurb it into apartments. I understand lack of parking is an issue but I can dream. I would hate to see this go. From what I understand, the interior is pretty run down.

[monsoon]

Bleh. Evict and move a bunch of elderly people out of downtown and destroy another historic building so we can have, oh joy, another luxury condo complex put up by private developers. I wonder how much behind the scenes lobbying was behind that one?

I guess it was a matter of time before they pried that piece of property out the public's hands. Charlotte is going to be known as having a world class dull downtown.

The city ought to be looking at how to rehab the place so they can keep this very valuable contingent of people in the downtown area instead of relegating them to University city.

[atlrvr]

It's simple, the city needs to increase it's subsidy to the CHA. That said, its something they've shown no interest in doing.

Something that caught my attention in the article is that is said they would be selling the LAND around Edwin Towers for development. I wonder if this is a shift from selling the entire site, building included. Hall House is certainly more attractive on the outside than Edwin towers, but I've never been inside Edwin to compare interiors. The only redeeming thing about Edwin is they have a nice community garden where residents can grow flowers and vegetables. I always enjoy seeing them out there tending their tiny plots. It will be sad if that goes.

Not to take this too far off topic, but the little piece of city (or maybe county) owned land on 9th between Pine and Graham was supposed to get a playground donated, but the offer was withdrawn. Perhaps that would be a good spot for a communal garden.

[CSP]

Hall House in uptown is to be sold and demolished.

This is the kind of thing that pisses me off..

[voyager12]

From what the article stated the structure is somewhat dilapidated but not beyond salvage. And it does add some historical context to the street. I would like it to be renovated and house a mix of income levels but this being Charlotte it will most likely become a surface lot adding to Uptown's dead zone feel because we don't have enough of those already

[dubone]

I always really liked the Hall House. I felt like it could be affordable condos or apartments when and if CHA sold the building/land.

It isnt really that historic, as it from the 1940s, but still pre-war buildings are so rare in this city, it is practically historic for us. Charlotte was the size in the 1940s as Boston was in the early 1980s, so for us, that time period has value in being remembered.

It would be a great idea for CHA to sell the land around Edwin Towers, that way no one is displaced, the CHA gets the money to build sustainable mixed income neighborhoods elsewhere, and prime uptown land gets densified.

However, it is horrible that the surface lot owners (the parking company f'rs) are charging so much for their land that tearing down an old building would be cheaper than buying that land. The city should pass some significant taxes on those surface parking providers. I was really hoping the arts package would be funded by a tax on them.

[A2]

Hall House in uptown is to be sold and demolished.

Sometimes Charlotte pisses me off! I guess we will get another freggin Parking Lot. What a joke!!!

There is absolutely NOTHING left in Uptown that has historic charm. FWIW, why can't they make it into a boutique Hotel like the Dunhill. That bldg has low ceilings and people spend a mint just to stay there. If I had the money I would save this bldg and focus on converting it, before I tore it down.

A2

[queensguy06]

I know I am fairly alone on this, but I say demolish it. I am all for the preservation of buildings if there is some sort of historical signifacance attached to the building, or it is of an architectural style that compliments the surrounding area. This building, in my opinion, is neither, and to try and 'preserve' a building solely because it is over 50 years old (which really isn't that old) I think is pointless. It is a square building with red bricks. I would take any one of the proposed towers over twenty stories in place of this building.

[atlrvr]

Just a little history.

http://www.cmhpf.org/uptownsurveyhistorybarringer.htm

[orulz]

It's 67 years old. So yeah, we'd better tear it down before it has a chance to get any older.

Does the 1940 part of the building that's actually along N. Tryon still look like it did back in the day? (see image here) The addition, away from Tryon, is 55 years old. The addition really is a brick box, with tiny windows and basically no features of note. If the 1940 part could be preserved, and the 1952 part demolished, I'd be all for it, but it's probably not possible.

There are plenty of parking lots even on the same block as this building. Why tear something down, when there are so many places where it would be easy to build, without having to tear something down first? It's completely beyond me.

[orulz]

Here is a historical essay and architectural essay about the building.

[queensguy06]

It's 67 years old. So yeah, we'd better tear it down before it has a chance to get any older.

The addition really is a brick box, with tiny windows and basically no features of note. If the 1940 part could be preserved, and the 1952 part demolished, I'd be all for it, but it's probably not possible.

There's an old cinder block hut with no windows and a tin roof right down the street from my house that's about sixty years old. Should we preserve that too? You even said it yourself that the addition (which is a significant portion of this building) has no appeal. My point is, instead of trying to preserve something that is mediocre at best, let's build something even better in its place so that 67 years from now people will say, "Now that is something to look at."

[mallguy]

I would be OK with keeping the building if its exterior could be upgraded, but I don't think it's worth much architecturally. The Poinsett Hotel in Greenville, SC was also low-income housing but it was a very nice building, both inside and out, and so it was worth keeping and transforming back into a hotel.

Can the building be visited inside, or can only people with business there look around?

[orulz]

There's an old cinder block hut with no windows and a tin roof right down the street from my house that's about sixty years old. Should we preserve that too? You even said it yourself that the addition (which is a significant portion of this building) has no appeal. My point is, instead of trying to preserve something that is mediocre at best, let's build something even better in its place so that 67 years from now people will say, "Now that is something to look at."

In my opinion, this building is far more than mediocre. Can you honestly say that when you see this 12-story, solidly constructed, conservative yet dignified high-rise, you immediately compare it to a 67-year old cinder block hut.

I'm not saying "this building is old, so let's preserve it." This building is one of the very few left in Charlotte that represents an era. As the architectural essay I linked to above states, this is Charlotte's (conservative) take on early-40s art deco. This building has a distinguished past. It's a part of the city. And you'd just as soon wipe it out? And while I think it's unfortunate that the quality of the construction dropped off so much for the addition, far be it from me to say "Well, they F'ed it up in 1952, so we might as well knock the sucker down and start from scratch."

If you fill in the parking lot south of this building, the only place where you could even see the somewhat unsightly addition would be along 8th street, which is far from a major street by anyone's standards.

What I really don't agree with, however, is that you present this as a choice between the old Barringer building and some hypothetical, better, future project that will take its place. First of all, no such project has been proposed yet. Second, Why does it have to be "Or"? Why can't it be "And"? Why can't the same, hypothetical, future project go somewhere else where all that is lost is a couple dozen parking spaces? There are a hundred empty lots in Charlotte that should be developed before we even think about tearing this one down. For example, the Levine land, or even the other parking lots facing Tryon on the very same block.

[atlrvr]

Again, the realities are that it is cheaper to knock this down and clear the land than to buy any surface lot on Tryon....and for the record, BofA is holding on to the adjacent surface lot on the same block for a future office tower, so they ain't sellin'.

I'm not saying that justifies tearing down a building, but thats the economic reality of the situation.