Jump to content

The Dash Downtown Ballpark

cityboi

By cityboi
in The NC Triad

Recommended Posts


  • Replies 413
  • Created
  • Last Reply
ncbrian Whistle-Stop

ncbrian

Posted
Posted

Fantastic!!! I hope the 5,500 capcity will be expandable. There are no negatives to this, but the "four story buildings" adjacent should revert hopefully back to the 12 story one building originally discussed.

Why go to a 12 story building? I do not see any particular advantages in it especially in that part of the city as it will be the only tower in the neighbourhood. The four story buildings promote infill development and in this sort of development gives you far more street level retail space which will be essential for developing an entertainment complex of bars and restaurants around the ballpark. What would be preferable, walking past a frontage of 100 ft for a tower along with the parking lots surrounding it or perhaps 500-600ft of various retail shops, bars and so forth with parking tuck away behind?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
otherstream Whistle-Stop

otherstream

Posted
Posted

What would be preferable, walking past a frontage of 100 ft for a tower along with the parking lots surrounding it or perhaps 500-600ft of various retail shops, bars and so forth with parking tuck away behind?

Agreed. I think a bunch of smaller buildings is vastly superior, particularly if they're distinctly separate buildings and aren't all exactly the same style and scale.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
AnEverydayJo Unincorporated Area

AnEverydayJo

Posted
Posted

one thing is for certain, the ridiculous off-ramp onto Peters Creek Parkway traveling from WFUBMC will be upgraded. I almost get an accident each time I use that interchange.

But....come to think of it, I only use that exit when I go out drinking with friends, so maybe it's the driver? LOL, j/k :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
suburban george3 Town

suburban george3

Posted
Posted

Most of the residences in the area where the stadium is to be built are rental and in various states of

(dis)repair. I drove thru there today, and can tell you that this will be a huge improvement...

PC290014.jpg

Looking into neighborhood from just off Peter's Creek/Bus. 40.

PC290015.jpg

Small church..

PC290016.jpg

Beer/liquor bottles fill the area, it's pretty trashed up over all...

PC290017.jpg

Boarded up house.

PC290019.jpg

These little tiny houses had a sign up about putting AMVETS to work....

PC290020.jpg

More houses in states of (dis)repair...

PC290021.jpg

Super concerned with security, bars around the porch and a keyed entry lock, don't know if this is residential or some other type use...

Can't wait to see this blighted area replaced by the ball park... hope you enjoyed the tour..

Link to comment
Share on other sites
wagwa2001l Unincorporated Area

wagwa2001l

Posted
Posted

Aside from just the buildings the plasce is very bad for downtown Winston... I live in downtown... I have lived here for 4 years... I have seen the drug traffic and prostitution sharply decline... but until this city gets rid of that area downtown will never be "safe"

Th ballpark area is the new hub... it use to be Holly Ave... but it has been forced out to Green St. there are still some problem properties throughout downtown.. but those ew places are not enough in and of themselves to create a problem... however, when you ahve a crack head walking from their downtown building plast all the nice cars and stuff and people that are new additions to get to the Green St. area is where the problesm is..

without Green St... the petty crime in downtown will fall off dramatically.

Even if you oppose use of public money for projects like this... the need to bulldoze a blighted area is apparent if you just drive through at night sometime. This is not an area that can be redone.. the houses are in too bad a shape.. they are too small... they are too sparse... the only thing that can be done to fix this is a fresh start.

Go to the Public comment tonight and speak in favor of the project...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
otherstream Whistle-Stop

otherstream

Posted
Posted

Even if you oppose use of public money for projects like this... the need to bulldoze a blighted area is apparent if you just drive through at night sometime. This is not an area that can be redone.. the houses are in too bad a shape.. they are too small... they are too sparse... the only thing that can be done to fix this is a fresh start.

Couldn't disagree more.

Granted, this is not the most attractive neighborhood in Winston-Salem, but I've never seen a case where bulldozing and replacing an entire neighborhood was the best option, whether the replacement was a low-income housing project, a "live/work" development for the "creative class", or a stadium. "Blight" is a pretty subjective term which is too often used as a synonym for "these houses aren't cute enough to fit our grand vision" or "there are black (poor, etc.) people living in them". Funny thing: when you bulldoze a "blighted" area, the neighborhood next door to it has a strange tendency to suddenly take on the characteristics of the neighborhood that was torn down or "cleaned up". The people who live there don't just mysteriously vanish into thin air, nor do their problems.

This whole thing reeks of the worst kind of 1960s "urban renewal" where cities were given carte blanche (and lots of money) to clear entire areas as long as they could find some excuse to call them "blighted" -- and as long as the people living there didn't have the ability to fight back. If the developer wants to go forward with this scheme using his own money, that's one thing. If he owns the land, it's his right. But the city has absolutely no business subsidizing an endeavor that will more or less level a neighborhood (even a "blighted" one) and deprive several hundred people of their homes. I thought we got over that nonsense thirty or forty years ago, back when West End was the "blighted" area in question.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
twincity Burg

twincity

Posted
Posted

this place is barely a neighborhood. the houses are spaced far apart and about 70% of the site is covered in kudzu and weeds. many of the homes are vacant or used for crack/whore houses. this is without a doubt a blighted area with only 30 families, not 100's. some of the residents dont mind moving according to a news video. I bet the newspaper would never report that! the newspaper is only focusing on the people who dont want to move.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
wagwa2001l Unincorporated Area

wagwa2001l

Posted
Posted

Have you seen Happy Hill... Bulldozed... much better thing going up there. I must insit that you drive through the area at night before suggesting the area is not blighted. estimating 1/4 of the houses are condemed... about 1/4 are well on their way... the crime is completely out of control... stop a downtown police officer and ask him... something has to be done... give the residents $ to find housing elsewhere and help move and then get rid of it. There is really nothing else that van be doen and this area must be fixed.

People said the same thing about downtown revitalization and crime... they were wrong. I have lived downtown for the last 4 years. There was barely any revitalization when I moved here. I watched Holly Ave. projects slowly turn the crime away and the prostitution slowly go away. The area where I live is a completely diffrent place then it was 4 years ago... 5 years ago this spring st area was just as bad as Green Street and now its fine.

Green Street is the problem now. The crime from greenstreet walks through the streets of downtown. I watch it everyway (my house and office being bewteen Green St. and 4th)... getting rid of that area will get rid of an incredible amount of street crime.

Green St. is a problem though.. there is nothng worth redoing. If you guild one project there is a lot of crap to drag it down. The only thing that can be done is to start over.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
otherstream Whistle-Stop

otherstream

Posted
Posted

First, I'm not saying the project definitely shouldn't be built. I'm saying that the city has no business using some vague definition of "blight" as an excuse to subsidize a private developer in his quest for profit. While the city shouldn't stop him from making money off his land, it also shouldn't donate to the cause. Sports team owners and real estate developers are not charity cases, no matter what they claim. I'd feel the same way about this issue if the neighborhood were occupied by a trailer park or by million dollar homes.

I'm also suggesting that a ballpark with smaller scale infill development might be a better choice than some grand new project that looks like every other big, generic "mixed use" project proposed for every mid-sized downtown in America. The fact that there are vacant lots between many of the houses and that a lot of land is available is an opportunity rather than a problem. It means that a lot of new structures can be built without full-scale clearance.

Lastly, while I'm quite sure that the crime problem did leave your area when it was redeveloped, I'm just as sure that it also migrated to someone else's area at precisely the same moment, and that it didn't magically disappear altogther just because some buildings were torn down.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
wagwa2001l Unincorporated Area

wagwa2001l

Posted
Posted

As far as the crime it is true it does move elsewhere... however, the idea is to make Winston better by makeing downtowne attractive to young people. As long as that is the goal the movement of crime from downtowne to elsewhere is just one cost associated with the greater good. The big thing that is going on at Green Street and in public housing all accross america is that all the crime is lumped together... crime beget crime begets crime. That lumping of crime is one of the things that needs to be stopped. For instance.. if you look a few months back the journal in an interview with Chief Noris reported that ... in chort prostitutes are victims of drugs... and then our Chief of police went on to say... and there is a known long standing drug operation just blocks from here (it is the article about the John program)... if the drugs are creating the prostitution why is the city allowing a known drug operation to flurish for years... the answer... it was a neighborhood thing... just an expected thing there and the women selling their bodies to buy it and the kids and families affected... I guess they were expendable. That is what I will fight against... neighborhood like these need to be taken down and replaced... i want the residentr helped with the move... but these Green Street area are bad for the city, the surrounding area and expeciall the people that live in them.

As far as taking.. this project is not a taking.. it is all private owners selling to private buyers... not one bit of the land is up top be seized at all. I am simply saying that this is the opportunity to do it provately... but if that can't be accomplished then I think a blighted area taking should take place. Put a park there if nothing else.

The Open lots are uselsss as long as there is as much crime in that area as there is... building something there as the neighborhood is would be finnacial suicide. If the developer wants to make it a big development why should peoiple try to stop him? if its big it will connect west salem with West End Village and Holly Avenue Neighborhood. It will create a seemless and respectable entry into downtown... it will also go a long way to creating a seemless tranistion to the Gateway projects... the project is in the right place..

The only charity involved is really the city building a new ballpark and possibly eventually parking. The city will own the stadium... a huge downtown venue mind you. Ernie shore is in not great and Wake Forest is going to buy it. This is not an opportunity to be squandered.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
otherstream Whistle-Stop

otherstream

Posted
Posted

I don't think anyone has suggested that this is a "taking". In fact, I specifically stated in my earlier post that the developer has the absolute right to develop the land he owns. I have no moral problem with him doing so in pretty much any manner he chooses, although I have my own opinions about alternative plans I might personally prefer -- and which seem to me distinctly more "urban" in character than one involving total clearance, which is the antithesis of urbanity.

I do, however, have a major problem is with the city's use of tax dollars to help him develop his land. Aside from being an improper use of tax dollars, it puts an official "stamp of approval" on a plan that might not be in the best interest of all the city's residents and taxpayers. I don't agree that "the movement of crime from downtowne (sic) to elsewhere is just one cost associated with the greater good". With all due respect, it sounds as if you think the people who live in the areas that crime will migrate to are as "expendable" as the prostitutes you mention.

If downtown can only flourish at the expense of other areas, there's something wrong with Winston-Salem that no ballpark will ever fix. But I guess if we "take down" every neighborhood that has some problems, we'll end up with the loveliest and most "respectable" 100 square mile suburban apartment complex our tax money can sanitize. It'll no doubt have lots of grand promenades and upscale bistros, but I bet it won't be crime-free.

Let the guy build whatever the heck he wants, but the city shouldn't invest one thin dime in it.

OK. I've had my say now...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.