Hall House to be sold and demolished!

[Mobuchu]

Has anyone got a picture of the building?

I sifted through some of my pics, this is all I got so far.

[mallguy]

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.

I think the same thing pretty often but I'd think office/retail space along Tryon (and residential, less so) would afford much higher rents and sale prices than similar space far away on one of the undeveloped lots closer to I-277. Just as the Barringer was originally built to seek profit, so does any redevelopment of the building or site.

[Justadude]

Ok, so we've seen the economic reality. Now let's consider the moral reality of the situation: the city is displacing elderly, disabled, and impoverished residents out of their current Tryon St. address so that a private developer can buy a stately 60-year-old building just to demolish it with no specific plan to put anything there larger than a parking lot.

If hell is not raised about this situation, after all the kicking and screaming about the Coffee Cup, I might just give up on Charlotte as a city with a conscience. It's one thing to allow developers to call the shots in town; but selling the soul of your city again and again is just a disgusting practice. This is not how great cities are built

What's really going to bite us in our collective asses down the road is the total lack of aging real estate in uptown. Healthy cities need a diverse business climate, and that cannot exist in a place where the only commercial real estate is less than 30 years old. A building like Hall House could be a perfect host for a publishing company, nonprofit organization, or entertainment agency to set up shop... but instead those kinds of businesses continue to remain in cities which foster a sense of entrepreneurship in their central core (Manhattan springs to mind). So we end up with even greater dependence on the banking industry to float the city's economy for the long haul; I seem to recall a similar economic strategy in Detroit not so long ago.

I just don't know what to think about this city sometimes. We flat out refuse to learn from our own mistakes.

[atlrvr]

Well, the building WILL be sold. There is no guarantee that whoever buys it will knock it down, as MC stated, but I have a feeling that a really creative developer will have to come up with some big bucks.

Also, the city doesn't directly control the fate of the building. It's up to the quasi-governmental CHA. They're caught between a rock and a hard place. They can't afford the upkeep of their properties, and can't afford to expand because they don't get enough funding. Meanwhile the need for their apartments grows. No one has stepped up to bail them out, so this is really their only option. They are land rich and cash poor. They're in the business of providing homes to those in needs, not maintaining historic buildings, so they will make a deal with the devil if it means continuing their noble mission.

No one is to blame here except for the eventual buyer if they decide to level the place.

[dubone]

The moral component is a little foggy for me. The news is saying this can likely fetch ten million dollars. Ten million will can easily replace 200 units, possibly double that in other areas. Not to mention, they can leverage private development dollars in new projects by creating more sustainable mixed income developments that include these public units, where the units subsidize the public portion over time.

CHA is basically trying to do their own Hope VI program, and the seed money for this is the valuable property intown, where there is a large concentration of public units, most of which are borderline or dilapidated. So not only do the residents get better units, but they have a more sustainable funding mechanism to keep them maintained.

"Displaced" doesn't mean we're shipping these people to the morgue. They simply have to move to a better house. That doesn't sound like a moral issue to me.

However, I still like that building, and even though the Declaration of Independence wasn't signed there it is a building that has been in Charlotte since its population was 100k. It was built when the WWII generation was in elementary school. It may not be national history, but it is part of local history. Not to mention, in a time of expensive construction costs, we have a building with a structure that is already built, why not use it? With new windows, removal of the glass blocks, it would be a pretty nice building. Face it, we will never ever ever get another brick clad 12 story building, period. They just don't build like that anymore. Why not keep this one?

[queensguy06]

A building like Hall House could be a perfect host for a publishing company, nonprofit organization, or entertainment agency to set up shop... but instead those kinds of businesses continue to remain in cities which foster a sense of entrepreneurship in their central core (Manhattan springs to mind). So we end up with even greater dependence on the banking industry to float the city's economy for the long haul; I seem to recall a similar economic strategy in Detroit not so long ago.

I would love to see something along the lines of a publishing company buy this building and use it; not necessarily to save the building but rather to get that type of industry in Charlotte. However, that is not reality. Nor is a nonprofit organization in the center of the business district. And I see what you are trying to say and I absolutely agree in the sense of bringing new entrepreneurship to downtown. But your comparison to Manhattan is somewhat flawed. First of all you are comparing 4-6 square miles with over 30 square miles. You just can't compare Tryon St. with all of Manhattan. If you want a little more realistic comparison Tryon St. is like southern Manhattan in their business district, those two areas are very similar. But you also won't find any nonprofit organizations taking up real estate in southern Manhattan. Both areas command the highest prices for real estate, and that's the nature of the beast.

And on another note, while I can't guarantee that what would be built in place of the Hall House would be spectacular, you also can't rule it out. What if BofA buys this plot that is adjacent to their own, and then builds a tower that is as iconic to Charlotte as the Sears Tower is to Chicago, or the Empire State Building is to New York? The point I am trying to make is that if you think the building should be preserved than okay, but that is a long way off from saying tearing the place down is morally unjust, that the city is selling its soul, and it is disgusting. It is an old building on prime real estate - that's all. The soul of a city is not made up in the buildings it has, the soul is found in the people that live there. And I am very optimistic about Charlotte finding its place among the other big cities of this country, with or without the Hall House.

[wheatie]

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.

The only low income people that the Poinsett was housing were the homeless. The building was condemned and vacant in the years before it was renovated. My friends and I would sneek in there when we were in high school and spit down from the roof. And no, we couldn't find anything better to do.

The building being discussed is not attractive, and it does not represent a recognizable classic style. If it is saved, it will only be because it is old. The boat has sailed and most of the beautiful old buildings have already been destroyed. Keeping a building with very little history or appeal won't do anything to correct the sins of the past. If we had more historic buildings still standing, this building would not even be talked about.

[tombarnes]

Actually, now that I know what this building actually is, the former Hotel Wm. Barringer, it does have architectural significance, however slight it may be to the eyes of the beholder. I would be interested to know if the late-deco elements over the entrance remain, or if they were obliterated in the renovation of the 1980s.

[mallguy]

A building like Hall House could be a perfect host for a publishing company, nonprofit organization, or entertainment agency to set up shop... but instead those kinds of businesses continue to remain in cities which foster a sense of entrepreneurship in their central core (Manhattan springs to mind). So we end up with even greater dependence on the banking industry to float the city's economy for the long haul; I seem to recall a similar economic strategy in Detroit not so long ago.

Midtown Manhattan is filled with high-rent office space, high-end stores and high-end restaurants; the Wall Street area less so, but still not an area for low-rent entrepreneurs. NY's low-rent small-business generation areas (outside of the financial world) are often in places like Brooklyn, where rents are more affordable, and NYC is also heavily dependent on the financial industry; it's lost a lot of everything else.

[dubone]

Well, buildings in Charlotte never have a chance to get historic, because one generation after the creators, who tend to not like the style of the preceding generation, tear them down. In 30 years, especially if adapted and reused, this building would very much be as historic as all the turn of the century buildings that people pine about now.

Again, we'll never have another 12-story all brick building. That alone makes it unique enough to me to save. Even if this is not historic, but there isn't anything historic in Charlotte, as Charlotte wasn't key to the country's history. One exception might have been during the Civil War, but all those buildings are gone now. At this point, the only way we will have architectural diversity is by saving at least a couple buildings from prior generations.

[rockhilljames]

Dubone made my point for me. Once this is gone, it's gone. Multi-story brick buildings are a thing of the past and add to the architectural diversity and urban fabric of downtown. Its loss would be huge in my opinion.

[MZT]

I wonder if the original owners had just held on for another decade if the story would have been different. By the late 1980s a developer might have converted it to apartments.

[revitalize]

Why couldn't you take something like this and add some pieces of exterior cladding or architectural details to it and make it into something more attractive? I always wonder about this - is it just super expensive or difficult to renovate the exterior of old buildings?

[rooster8]

Even with this building and a few other older structures, I get the feeling when I'm in Charlotte that the center city just recently rose up out of the ground. It's almost like going to Disney World. Everything is shiny and new and almost a little too perfect.

I think we're better off than places like Cleveland and Detroit that have too many older buildings with no potential reuse, but we still should hold on to some of the older buildings to retain some semblance of history.

Having said that, I'm not in favor of keeping this building vacant and decaying forever if no one steps up to put money into it and make it nice once again.

[wheatie]

Should we keep the monolithic concrete boxes of the 50's and 60's which can be found in many cities? They're old and unique, but they are ugly. They just don't build 'em like that anymore.

I'm sorry, but just b/c this building has brick doesn't make it beautiful. Often times, the reason certain building styles are unique, is b/c they are no longer thought to be attractive (was this building ever attractive?). Downtown Greenville has a couple unique and beautiful brick highrises which were definitely worth saving. Honestly, this building reminds me of some the older housing projects in a city like Chicago.

If they tear this building down, they should save the brick and reuse it on the new structure. They could create a classic look with classic materials, and then the brick could be beautiful.

[monsoon]

Should we keep the monolithic concrete boxes of the 50's and 60's which can be found in many cities? They're old and unique, but they are ugly. They just don't build 'em like that anymore.....

It really depends upon the building as there is good and bad from all times. I am of the opinion the current generation of any generation are really bad judges of this issue. There is always tempation is there to tear down or reclad what currently seems oldfashioned and out of date and then all of a sudden everything looks like everything else. i.e. present day Charlotte, NC.

This building comes from the days when hotels were seen as the place to be in downtown and they should attempt to save it for that aspect alone. Just because people are unfamiliar with the past history of the Barringer hotel doesn't mean they can't learn. Do we really want another colored concrete block and efis structure in downtown?

A completely different situation is the running of the elderly out of the center city. I think as they continue to sterilize downtown so that it ends up being just one demographic, you end up with nothing but the suburb mentality in the city. Is this what people want?

[atlrvr]

I'm not necessarily for the idea running the poor/elderly out of Uptown, but if these people can be provided with "nicer" accomodations, and the CHA can increase the number of units in their inventory, then I would say that is a more important mission, rather than maintaining an outdated building for the purposes of socially engineering.

[dubone]

With all the developers now pushing for the Spirit Square land a block away, maybe some of them can turn their attentions to the Hall House land, to try to incorporate the old building into a larger project. Maybe a boutique hotel (especially if Concourse falls through with that hotel space) in the lower floors, two story penthouses in the upper floors, and then a taller condo tower over a parking deck on land freed up by tearing down the addition.

The land is 2.2 acres, but the original building only takes up .2 acres. That is 2 entire downtown acres to build all sorts of buildings on. In fact, this building would be SO EASY to save and build around. In fact, Furman could flip all his energies from Concourse over to this lot, put the hotel part into renovations for hall house, and save on all that structure, and then have twice the land to play with for a plaza, a tower, and even a parking deck that isn't underneath the residential tower.

Or, Furman or another developer could buy the land, and donate the building itself to UNCC for an uptown dormitory for their new uptown classroom building. This is only one block away from that new building. These old hotel rooms would be great for college students, and we could get a demographic other than the typical uptown condo dweller, but keep most of the interior walls. They could offset their taxes, and still have 2 acres of land for only about ten million dollars (what I've heard lately as the expected price)!

You guys who hate the look of the building need to see it up close. The brick needs cleaning, which will help, and the whole building, and ground level need new glassy windows. But beyond that, it is a nice simple art deco brick tower settle on the very corner of the block. It could be a very interesting little building, especially with nice new buildings all around it.

[Justadude]

But your comparison to Manhattan is somewhat flawed. First of all you are comparing 4-6 square miles with over 30 square miles. You just can't compare Tryon St. with all of Manhattan.

Of course any comparison between Manhattan and Charlotte will be flawed, but the point isn't to make a direct comparison. The point is that much of New York's business diversity flows from the huge stock of older highrises (many of which are about the same age and quality as Hall House) which have been inhabited by businesses which cannot afford a brand-new tower suite. If you don't like the Manhattan comparison, choose any growing city with a well-preserved downtown; chances are that the older buildings are full of local businesses which provide variety and vibrance to the economy. This simply cannot happen in Uptown, because of the continuous destruction of older buildings in favor of high-rent replacements.

Even beyond Tryon St., there are very few blocks of older commercial buildings in Charlotte; the few that exist are in the inner-ring suburbs where they have begun to convert into thriving retail centers (Davidson St., Thomas St., Bland St., etc.) as a result of small-scale entrepreneurship. Uptown -- the district that is constantly touted as the key to the city's future -- is totally devoid of these kinds of blocks (except Latta Arcade), which is going to have repercussions long into the future. Here we are with an opportunity to sell to a developer who can add 12 stories of (relatively) cheap commercial space to the core of the city... why on earth would be make the SAME OLD MISTAKE of wiping out the building and replacing it with a new development???

I realize that there's economic pressure on CHA to sell this place for the highest dollar possible, but at the end of the day CHA's mission is to make this a city which cares for all its residents equally. Wiping all semblances of low- or middle-class culture from uptown is not reflective of that goal, and I will be severely disappointed in CHA if they blindly auction the property to the highest bidder.

The point I am trying to make is that if you think the building should be preserved than okay, but that is a long way off from saying tearing the place down is morally unjust, that the city is selling its soul, and it is disgusting.

The point is that the city HAS consistently sold its soul in a disgusting manner, and this is a particularly egregious example of the process in action. Taken in isolation, this situation is unremarkable; taken in context, it is highly revealing of how little we have learned from our own past (and how little we value our past to begin with).

[cinco]

^ i'm with ya. hall house adds enough to charlotte's diversity pedigree - that she is well worth saving. EFIS be damned.

[MZT]

Removing Hall house wouldn't be so bad, if we had preserved some of the nicer architecture that once existed on Tryon.

I do like the suggestion of making it a dormitory for college students. It's not that far from CPCC or the future UNCC satellite, and students would be more accepting of the low ceilings and small rooms than condo buyers ever would.

Another good adaptive re-use ,would be to make a floor or two of it a hostel for international travellers.

[mallguy]

The point is that much of New York's business diversity flows from the huge stock of older highrises (many of which are about the same age and quality as Hall House) which have been inhabited by businesses which cannot afford a brand-new tower suite.

Up-and-coming businesses in NYC aren't in Midtown or, to a lesser extent, the Wall Street area, regardless of the type of building. Rents are so high in those areas that along Fifth Avenue and a few blocks east and west in Midtown, regardless of the type of building, hedge funds and A-grade companies fill the office space.

Up-and-coming businesses and nonprofits are mainly in slummy areas north of Wall Street and in places like Brooklyn and Queens.

It's not as much about the type of building as it is about the building's location. Office space in prime areas of Manhattan is scarce and even if the building is old, A-grade companies will locate in a building. I worked in run-down buildings near Wall Street for a few years for two blue-chip companies (both in the top 10 in terms of profits per employee for my field).

London is the same, with hedge funds and the like paying top dollar to be even in old buildings in the West End and the City.

So Charlotte should focus on maintaining commercial buildings in less-desirable areas rather than redeveloping them; perhaps making Eastland Mall into cheap office space would be one example of what to do.

[A2]

With all the developers now pushing for the Spirit Square land a block away, maybe some of them can turn their attentions to the Hall House land, to try to incorporate the old building into a larger project. Maybe a boutique hotel (especially if Concourse falls through with that hotel space) in the lower floors, two story penthouses in the upper floors, and then a taller condo tower over a parking deck on land freed up by tearing down the addition.

The land is 2.2 acres, but the original building only takes up .2 acres. That is 2 entire downtown acres to build all sorts of buildings on. In fact, this building would be SO EASY to save and build around. In fact, Furman could flip all his energies from Concourse over to this lot, put the hotel part into renovations for hall house, and save on all that structure, and then have twice the land to play with for a plaza, a tower, and even a parking deck that isn't underneath the residential tower.

Or, Furman or another developer could buy the land, and donate the building itself to UNCC for an uptown dormitory for their new uptown classroom building. This is only one block away from that new building. These old hotel rooms would be great for college students, and we could get a demographic other than the typical uptown condo dweller, but keep most of the interior walls. They could offset their taxes, and still have 2 acres of land for only about ten million dollars (what I've heard lately as the expected price)!

You guys who hate the look of the building need to see it up close. The brick needs cleaning, which will help, and the whole building, and ground level need new glassy windows. But beyond that, it is a nice simple art deco brick tower settle on the very corner of the block. It could be a very interesting little building, especially with nice new buildings all around it.

I like the way you think D! This is exactly the kind of out-of-the-box thinking we need in this city.

A2

[Justadude]

Up-and-coming businesses in NYC aren't in Midtown or, to a lesser extent, the Wall Street area, regardless of the type of building. Rents are so high in those areas that along Fifth Avenue and a few blocks east and west in Midtown, regardless of the type of building, hedge funds and A-grade companies fill the office space.

Again, I'm not seeking a direct comparison to Manhattan. Obviously Uptown NYC is more desirable than Uptown Charlotte, so the quality of businesses there will be different (to the point of excluding small-time companies). Uptown Charlotte is not THAT developed, so such an exclusion should not be happening here.

The point is that older buildings usually command lower rent rates. Manhattan (the whole island, not one district) has an exceedingly diverse business community in part because of its abundance of older highrises; if we tore all of them down and replaced them with brand-new skyscrapers, even blue-chip companies would not be able to afford rent there. Taking Charlotte as a tiny tiny example of this process in action, we cannot expect diversification in Uptown as long as we continue to rip down everything over 30 years old and replace it with brand-new developments.

This process isn't limited to commercial ventures, either. It irks me that so many people are eager to see older housing projects -- such as Springfield Square and the Salvation Army housing in 4th Ward -- demolished on the basis of aesthetics, when the reality is that those projects support the vibrance and diversity of the Uptown area. Charlotte already has SouthPark; we don't need SouthPark Deluxe popping up in the middle of the city.

[hueion39]

As soon as I read this thread, I thought of a building I just saw in Boston.... I can imagine BofA doing something similar. The new tower rises out of the circa-1896 12-story Boston Stock Exchange Building.