Jump to content

SREE Springhill Suites Hotel and Center City Green


uptownliving

Recommended Posts

All so it really doesn't matter if the city continues to allow the building of huge parking decks instead of responsible development. It really shoots a hole in the argument of building a TOD oriented city. Shoots a hole in the arguments of spending billions more to build more LRT. The city does not do what it likes to say it does.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Replies 582
  • Created
  • Last Reply

I don't mind parking decks either, but placing so much parking all around a high-use station is a middle-finger to transit and LYNX if you ask me. This was a prime piece of land that could have housed retail and offices up top, then the other pork-chop site could have housed more parking. That way when the BofA employees park, they have to walk past the retail to get to the office tower. At the same time, it would have made for convenient shopping and office space for light rail transit users. And that ped walkway is really just ridiculous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't mind parking decks either, but placing so much parking all surround a high-use station is a middle-finger to transit and LYNX if you ask me. This was a prime piece of land that could have housed retail and offices up top, then the other pork-chop site could have housed more parking. That way when the BofA employees park, they have to walk past the retail to get to the office tower. At the same time, it would have made for convenient shopping and office space for light rail transit users. And that ped walkway is really just ridiculous.

Keep in mind this parking deck is being built to support a future office tower, and will have 10-20k sq feet of retail (a green market and two restaurants), and at full build out 100 condos.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^Then why not build it in the future, or better yet, not build it at all? The city will never move to the next level as long as it keeps allowing businesses to build a parking space for every job and condo. This thing is going to be there for a long time. They could have at least forced some sort of ground level retail like they did at 7th street station.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There will be around 20k of retail. A 365 day a year indoor urban green market and 2 restaurants. Why force retail when its already planned? Not to mention in the spring time the plaza in front of it is planned as overflow space for the market. So Spring and Summertime there will be vendors and fruit and vegetable carts, hippies selling homemade apple & cherry wine, artists, and things like that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There will be around 20k of retail. A 365 day a year indoor urban green market and 2 restaurants. Why force retail when its already planned? Not to mention in the spring time the plaza in front of it is planned as overflow space for the market. So Spring and Summertime there will be vendors and fruit and vegetable carts, hippies selling homemade apple & cherry wine, artists, and things like that.

I'm not against the retail, and I'm certainly not against the green market. Wonderful additions to a center city, however I have a problem with, and find it very ironic that a green market that sells fresh food is being housed in a structure made to hold carbon filled vehicles. I could bow down and say "well at least we got something", but if that is said too much around here, we are going to end up with streets lined in parking garages instead of streets lined for the pedestrian. Without the condos and the office tower, this is nothing more than an ugly parking garage. Like I said, I would have preferred to see this a free standing midrise or at least lined with smaller spaces to house office and retail at the ground as well as th

e green market and left the parking deck at minimum one block off of LYNX (which would work better in the other porkchop site, and allow a better development in its current place).

What if Brevard surrendered itself to parking garages and bad design for the sake of getting something built instead of retail lined streets with an emphesis on pedestrians. It would take only one strucutre to end any hope of the street being built in the way we have been dreaming so dearly of. I sort of get this same hypothetical letdown with a parking deck being placed on a mass transit line.

This shouldn't have been approved to be built without the condos and/or the tower on top. It should have been all or nothing.

Edit: And one more note, I often drive to uptown and park, and no matter what time, I never have a problem finding parking. Why are we making it so convenient for people to park at max a block or two away? Shouldn't we encourage a little space so that people are utilizing the sidewalks which potentially leads to more ground businesses and more economic development? Maybe we would finally see some retail in uptown then. And I apologize in advance for such an angry rant. Must have been something I ate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's really simple....BofA's corporate real estate department has determined it needs X number of spaces per employees and this parking deck is built to accomodate that criteria.

I recently took a new job located Uptown, and my boss this week made the offhand comment that if we end up relocating, he would desire to locate in South Park due to the ease of parking and felt that many employees shared this view. My wife works out at Univ. City and when she comments that she wishes she were downtown, her co-workers gripe how they would hate to have to pay to park.

At this point, I'm putting this deck in the "necessary evil" category, and suggest that it is better for downtown's long-term health to have continued development/job growth than to dig our feet in the sand and expect NYC or San Francisco style development to suddenly become realistic.

As the city expands transit, grows in density, and generally matures, well see parking ratios decrease, but I'm not holding my breath.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

monsoon, you know all too well that the charlotte metro is too big to be able to feasibly do it your way, the same reason so many of these condo towers and such seem pretty silly. at least until there's a large and efficient public transport model actually in place, people will have to drive.

now get us a nice high speed train network from atlanta to raleigh with localized spurs running anywhere and everywhere in between and i'm all about getting rid of parking. but despite this giant stimulus package we've seen, i haven't anywhere where building up such transport infrustructure is anywhere close to a priority. if we're still going strong with cars in our future in today's climate, i'm afraid it could be years and years before something happens.

It's really simple....BofA's corporate real estate department has determined it needs X number of spaces per employees and this parking deck is built to accomodate that criteria.

I recently took a new job located Uptown, and my boss this week made the offhand comment that if we end up relocating, he would desire to locate in South Park due to the ease of parking and felt that many employees shared this view. My wife works out at Univ. City and when she comments that she wishes she were downtown, her co-workers gripe how they would hate to have to pay to park.

At this point, I'm putting this deck in the "necessary evil" category, and suggest that it is better for downtown's long-term health to have continued development/job growth than to dig our feet in the sand and expect NYC or San Francisco style development to suddenly become realistic.

As the city expands transit, grows in density, and generally matures, well see parking ratios decrease, but I'm not holding my breath.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Where the last two posts have it wrong, is with the idea that trains cause density. They don't. Successful systems only work when cities adopt policies that pretty much require people to use transit over driving. Go look at a satellite image of downtown Charlotte. There are square miles of land that were leveled over the last 50 years that are nothing but parking lots and contribute to the dullness of downtown. If great trains were the reason that people ride them, then London should not have had to put in a congestion charge to keep the traffic out of central London. And car ownership is much more expensive there.

There is no excuse for a parking deck like this in a city that says it is trying to re-invent itself for the future of cities. Who cares what BofA wants? They have not shown they are exactly good corporate citizens to the public. That bank is responsible for most of the bad urban renewal that has taken place downtown. And who cares that the Charlotte metro (the 3500 sq miles surrounding Charlotte) isn't transit friendly. If we continue to accept the premise that downtown will not be successful without the automobile, then all you will get will be what we have now. i.e. and office park that empties out after business hours and place to get drunk. Downtown Charlotte has been a metaphor of bad sun belt city development and this parking deck is but yet another example.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your right, trains don't cause density, trains support density, and that was my point. Building out the city at 10,000 person/sq. mi. with the current transit system and no new garages is going to lead to much worse traffic, pollution, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^That is very true. I don't doubt it, but it has been proven, endlessly that you don't get out of auto-dependence by building more parking lots, roads and parking decks. We have a downtown that proves it.

Once traffic does get intolerable then you will get the political will and public support for the sacrifices that it will take to build a decent transit system. BTW, on the earlier comment about there being no transit, CATS gets a $130M/year to operate a transit system (mostly buses) in this county. That is a lot of transit if you ask me. So there should not be any issue in that regard to stopping the construction of more parking spaces.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My only gripe about this in my original post is the need to put yet another parking garage right in this two or three block area, and the irony of having mass transit split two of these parking garages. I understand that BoA needs more spaces for it's employees (which, I wonder how much space they really will need for more employees over the next year or so), but I'm with Andy on this one. Why not just a block or two past the arena in the sea of surface lots infront of Courtside? Employees walking 3 or 4 blocks from their car to their office building is not that far. And sure, this garage will have some street level presence. But I find it slightly trivialized for daily year round use when the motorists that park in the garage don't even have to walk past the store fronts to get to their office building because they conveniently added an overstreet bridge to another parking garage with NO street level retail.

Maybe I am wrong about this, though. I am headed downtown this evening for dinner at Bentley's and I plan to get off at 7th street to get a feel for how this area feels now that the garage is nearly half built.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your right, trains don't cause density, trains support density, and that was my point. Building out the city at 10,000 person/sq. mi. with the current transit system and no new garages is going to lead to much worse traffic, pollution, etc.

charlotte is huge geographically. eliminating cars will not help your cause if the goal is to drive people into the city center, at least not without a viable alternative. as was mentioned before, if there are enough inconveniences involved, the choice will be made to go elsewhere where there is less hassle.

trains both support and encourage density. build a line and put a stop and watch what happens. this is assuming that the train actually goes somewhere, but once it is there, villages erupt. it isn't unlike our interstate highway system. look at all the crap at almost every exit along the way. you've got huge shopping centers, restaurants, and if you're lucky some apartments and office type space. ease of travel is important in every sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^That is very true. I don't doubt it, but it has been proven, endlessly that you don't get out of auto-dependence by building more parking lots, roads and parking decks. We have a downtown that proves it.

Once traffic does get intolerable then you will get the political will and public support for the sacrifices that it will take to build a decent transit system. BTW, on the earlier comment about there being no transit, CATS gets a $130M/year to operate a transit system (mostly buses) in this county. That is a lot of transit if you ask me. So there should not be any issue in that regard to stopping the construction of more parking spaces.

Nobody wants to ride the bus! If for no other reason, they can take forever riding along in traffic with the rest of the driving world. If you try to prevent more cars from coming in the city, you're going to see people choosing other options. Will the average guy go to the restaurant where they can drive easily off exit 32 or hop on a bus and ride who knows where and with who knows who which could take god knows how long? Consider that he probably has to drive to the bus to begin with. If you're going to tell a local business no parking, they may very well move out to an office park. Charlotte isn't New York or London and as you continue to remind us, it is huge in area. It is an ugly solution bringing more cars in the city, but as you attempt to entice people in, you have to give them options else they choose something easier. Of course you could probably buy these guys into the city center, but that price would get higher and higher with the taxpayer money while that money could be used in other ways that could promote the same thing.

I believe you need viable alternatives in place if you want to go the no car route, which obviously would be preferable. Unfortunately, sprawling southern and western cities, counties, and states just don't have the will or the resources for the huge investment that would be needed, not to mention what the federal government did during the Bush Administration to crush these plans locally.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nobody wants to ride the bus! ...
OK then lets cut CATS budget and get rid of the transit tax. That is what it is being used for, to run the bus system. It would seem to be a dubious plan at best if nobody wants to ride the bus. However I think that if you stop building parking lots, then bus travel becomes more attractive and there won't be the traffic for buses to get stuck in.

I can tell you now that if the plan is to continue to develop Charlotte as has been done since WWII, it's not likely that we will see another transit line built over the next decade. There won't be the usage to warrant the costs these things cost. The South LRT was approved by loophole and politics. Neither exist now and it would fail qualification under the current rules that are not likely to change.

This argument amuses me as it exposes the hyprocracy behind the people who say they want transit, but wouldn't consider getting on a bus and/or giving up their car.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This argument amuses me as it exposes the hyprocracy behind the people who say they want transit, but wouldn't consider getting on a bus and/or giving up their car.

Personally, I'm not going to go out of my way and sacrifice convenience to ride transit just because I'm an urban geek. Really, why would I take the bus to, say, a destination on the east side of town when I'm on the south side and it will probably take at least an hour to get there? Give me a place like DC and I'll take the train all the time as its rail network is quite extensive. Light-rail, right now, doesn't go everywhere I need it to go as I don't work uptown.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK then lets cut CATS budget and get rid of the transit tax. That is what it is being used for, to run the bus system. It would seem to be a dubious plan at best if nobody wants to ride the bus. However I think that if you stop building parking lots, then bus travel becomes more attractive and there won't be the traffic for buses to get stuck in.

I can tell you now that if the plan is to continue to develop Charlotte as has been done since WWII, it's not likely that we will see another transit line built over the next decade. There won't be the usage to warrant the costs these things cost. The South LRT was approved by loophole and politics. Neither exist now and it would fail qualification under the current rules that are not likely to change.

This argument amuses me as it exposes the hyprocracy behind the people who say they want transit, but wouldn't consider getting on a bus and/or giving up their car.

you speak of hypocrisy, but you fail to understand that the people affected by these choices couldn't care less about transit options and whatnot. this isn't about your or me riding the bus, this is about everybody else. see krazeeboi's post as example number one.

it is definitely a catch 22 situation. do you allow cars which will probably prevent other transit options from moving forward or do you prevent cars with will result in keeping people away? like i said before, the only real good option is a third choice. allow both for the time being, but that's going to take a huge investment in a transport infrastructure that doesn't seem anywhere close to happening. so without that, i think you just have to pick what's most important to you while allowing concessions that are obviously counterproductive in many ways. that's the dilemma cities of this geographic size face.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

, but you fail to understand ....
You fail to miss the point of my comments in that the city continues to push for light rail funding, then fails to follow through on it's own stated goals for urban development. Goals that are not policy or set in any regulations, unfortunately. Allowing this project to continue after they canceled the condo portion almost sounds like a bait and switch tactic by BofA to get a new parking deck. I don't know if you live in CLT or not, but the city has canyons created by these things.

Oh and BTW, please be courteous to the rest of us here and make the effort to use the shift key.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Until there are transit lines to all parts of the city, like mentioned above, there is a need for parking decks downtown.

Parking decks are needed, but not adjacent to rail transit.

Sorry to back track on the subject. The building to coming along nicely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^That is very true. I don't doubt it, but it has been proven, endlessly that you don't get out of auto-dependence by building more parking lots, roads and parking decks. We have a downtown that proves it.

Once traffic does get intolerable then you will get the political will and public support for the sacrifices that it will take to build a decent transit system. .....

As further proof that CLT should end the practice of building parking decks in downtown, or adding anymore parking, we have this extreme example of commuting. This poor fellow would rather use this transit line over driving. (he apparently has a car) He doesn't drive because it is too difficult.

" This is what I go through everyday just to travel to my office that is 20 minutes away.. CAR is not an option.. Traffic snarls.. God please do something..."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Parking decks are needed, but not adjacent to rail transit.

Sorry to back track on the subject. The building to coming along nicely.

First let me say I'm extremely anti-car centric develop. Yeah, I hate it's along transit, but it also adjacent to the arena. I like to look on the bright side and think "now with this deck we have enough parking we can do away with all the 1st Ward surface lots. Decks > surface lots.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First let me say I'm extremely anti-car centric develop. Yeah, I hate it's along transit, but it also adjacent to the arena. I like to look on the bright side and think "now with this deck we have enough parking we can do away with all the 1st Ward surface lots.

That still doesn't justify why it is where it is. Why not move this a block or two away from the rail line? Why not put it in the other pork-chop site so it still supports the arena but allows for better development along the light rail? Why not put it a block or two off in one of the many surface lots? Why not place it elsewhere?

Decks > surface lots.

Absolutely agree. If this does its job, then we should see what, 4 or 5 surface lots be no longer needed. Unfortunately, that's unlikely to happen. Again, this parking deck should have taken up one of the surface lots 2 blocks off of the future NE Line extension. I of course don't acknowledge the fact that many of these properties are private, but I'm thinking in ideal terms.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

  • 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.