Jump to content

Misc. Uptown Projects/News


atlrvr

Post only miscellaneous topics here  

117 members have voted

  1. 1. Please verify that no applicable topic thread exists before you post.

    • Ok
      78
    • No, I don't know how to internet.
      39


Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, Popsickle said:

Google (and I'm sure apple) already do this with your smart phone. But something tells me they wouldn't share this data. 

Good idea. I doubt Apple but Google might anonymize it for a municipality. Seems right up the alley of all these "smarter city" style initiatives.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


16 hours ago, Windsurfer said:

I'd like to present a counter to your counter (at the risk of getting beaten up).... like it or not, we're still car-centric (see the other post with the stats regarding Charlotte placing #1 in suburban sprawl) .  I submit, that, since we have no geographical boundaries, continually creating "road diets" and pedestrian crossings in the middle of blocks will just force more businesses to appease their customers and employees by moving to the burbs where they can drive all they want.  And, before you think I'm anti-pedestrian, biker, etc., I'm not. I'm just having flashbacks to the 70's when Harvey Gantt and his crowd put the squeeze on downtown traffic.  I make it a point to go downtown every chance I get. I eat down there; I have a condo down there. I love it, but when I take people down there to eat and visit, I often hear comments like, "How do you drive down here!" 

Okay, let the beatings begin.

No beatings. You have identified the great balancing act of urbanism. Too many cars means a place is completely hostile to pedestrians, too few cars means the place may be inaccessible to the bulk of residents (which is what happened in the 70s). The trick is finding a compromise where pedestrians flourish but they don't create a mote that keeps the car-dependent out. Fortunately we have a bit more transit now than we did in the 70s, so there is now a bridge over the mote that separates the burbs and the city.  

Ultimately we all want a place where its pleasant to stroll. People will drive (and pay to park) to get to these places, NYC, Chicago, San Francisco, Toronto, Montreal,  London, Barcelona, Madrid, Paris, Glasgow, Berlin, etc. all verify this. Greenville SC might be the best Southern example of how to balance peds and cars effectively -- nobody there beotches about difficulties parking or having to drive slow to get someplace as long as it is a worthwhile destination (meaning there is more than just a parking lot).

The only two data points we really have so far (in Charlotte) is that completely surrendering to cars doesn't work, nor does making a place completely pedestrianized. Given our past experience it appears the answer must be somewhere in the middle. Nobody loves a place just because it has great parking -- if they did all of Charlotte would hang out at the Speedway on Monday nights. 

Edited by kermit
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, kermit said:

No beatings. You have identified the great balancing act of urbanism. Too many cars means a place is completely hostile to pedestrians, too few cars means the place may be inaccessible to the bulk of residents (which is what happened in the 70s). The trick is finding a compromise where pedestrians flourish but they don't create a mote that keeps the car-dependent out. Fortunately we have a bit more transit now than we did in the 70s, so there is now a bridge over the mote that separates the burbs and the city.  

Ultimately we all want a place where its pleasant to stroll. People will drive (and pay to park) to get to these places, NYC, Chicago, San Francisco, Toronto, Montreal,  London, Barcelona, Madrid, Paris, Glasgow, Berlin, etc. all verify this. Greenville SC might be the best Southern example of how to balance peds and cars effectively -- nobody there beotches about difficulties parking or having to drive slow to get someplace as long as it is a worthwhile destination (meaning there is more than just a parking lot).

The only two data points we really have so far (in Charlotte) is that completely surrendering to cars doesn't work, nor does making a place completely pedestrianized. Given our past experience it appears the answer must be somewhere in the middle. Nobody loves a place just because it has great parking -- if they did all of Charlotte would hang out at the Speedway on Monday nights. 

Phew.... he writes wiping his forehead. :-)

I can't help but drift back to my impressions of Portland Oregon, where we go every summer.  Actually, we stay in Hood River but drive down to Portland several times a week.  What I see in Portland is that, apart from the log jam coming into the city on the freeway, all the streets in downtown are at least four lanes wide, and sometimes four lanes in one direction. Very seldom do you have a street that goes from four to two, or two to one.  They still manage to have great pedestrian activity.  The grided layout doesn't hurt.  And, I have to say, that's one thing I hated to see when we built the Panthers stadium:  the continuing loss of our grid.

Thanks for the response. 

Edited by Windsurfer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Windsurfer said:

Phew.... he writes wiping his forehead. :-)

I can't help but drift back to my impressions of Portland Oregon, where we go every summer.  Actually, we stay in Hood River but drive down to Portland several times a week.  What I see in Portland is that, apart from the log jam coming into the city on the freeway, all the streets in downtown are at least four lanes wide, and sometimes four lanes in one direction. Very seldom do you have a street that goes from four to two, or two to one.  They still manage to have great pedestrian activity.  The grided layout doesn't hurt.  And, I have to say, that's one thing I hated to see when we built the Panthers stadium:  the continuing loss of our grid.

Thanks for the response. 

I agree a grid is key. Denver DT also has the super wide 1 way through streets that are intimidating to cross at first but the grid is mostly short blocks and the cross walk times are quite long. There are also many streets with 2 lanes which aren't meant for cross city traffic and are easy to cross. The downtown retail tends to be there.  My mom, who is 88, and walks a LOT, considered Denver a walkers paradise while Charlotte scares her.

I know most here either hate the idea or think it is naive but imo we need to close Tryon to through traffic and make it like Denver's 16th or Boulder or Burlington, VT etc. In all those places pedestrian traffic and businesses absolutely flourished afterwards and actually became local tourist destinations. Alternatively pick Church since Tryon is so taken up by office space... What I don't know is how the heck you could relocate all the garage entrances? Must be possible though as the other places must've faced that challenge.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, elrodvt said:

I know most here either hate the idea or think it is naive but imo we need to close Tryon to through traffic

How much would it impact things if we closed off only the Trade/Tryon intersection to cars? I wouldn't think it would impede things too much since you've still got 4th/5th/Church/College to get you around. But then, I'm not an urban planner. Anyone?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From a traffic circulation standpoint, Tryon is not a critical street. It doesn't serve a purpose now so you could theoretically remove it from the system between maybe MLK and 9th and traffic would still flow pretty well. I personally almost never drive on Tryon Street, and every time I do I always question my life choices. I have never understood why people drive on Tryon. I actually say the same thing about Main Street in Greenville. It's a terrible street to drive down, and even though there is parking it's never available. IMO, Greenville is at the point that they need to consider permanently closing Main Street to cars - and I would say the same thing about King Street in Charleston. Tryon Street, IMO, isn't quite there yet - but it should be considered in the future.

Please note - many places tried this strategy in the 70s, but the goal was to revitalize downtowns by making them appear more like a suburban mall. When you already have a vibrant downtown, creating more space for pedestrians will result in good things.

The goal in all cases should be to make it difficult to have a car in uptown, and rewarding to be on bike or on foot. Traffic is only going to continue to get worse as we add more and more high rises, and we can't add any capacity to uptown streets - nor should we try.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Vitamin_N said:

How much would it impact things if we closed off only the Trade/Tryon intersection to cars? I wouldn't think it would impede things too much since you've still got 4th/5th/Church/College to get you around. But then, I'm not an urban planner. Anyone?

each street carries about 10,000 cars per day. Ostensibly you are looking at displacing those vehicles onto parallel routes, I don't know how far those routes are from capacity so I can't say what those impacts would be.

In practice removing routes for cars has a much lower impact on surrounding streets that projected. The law of traffic generation is legit and it also works in reverse -- the more difficult it is to drive the fewer attempt it. Some don't make trips, some find alternative routes, some find alternative modes. Most discussion of freeway removal projects feature some version of the phrase "the traffic just disappeared."  I can't think of a single (contemporary) permanent street closure or highway removal that created worse congestion (that is not to say it hasn't happened, just that I haven't heard about it -- but I read a lot about this stuff).

Edited by kermit
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Several people have referred to a 1970s trend of ped-friendly design that destroyed the ability to drive anywhere. 

While I've seen one or two photos of protected bike lanes from the 70s that were torn out, are there any photos or articles/journals that document this trend in the 70s? As an 80s boy I'm intrigued.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

While I am all about making infrastructure more pedestrian and bike friendly, I do not think that Tryon Street should be closed to auto traffic.  If for nothing else, we should not seek to disrupt or disconnect any more of our street grid.  Quite the opposite in fact, I believe we should seek to reconnect the street grid where it has been disconnected in the places in and around Uptown where it has been disconnected (and anywhere else where a connection may make sense even if one did not exist to begin with).  

A city can have connected streets without having high-speed thoroughfares.  Single-lane "choker" street designs, speed humps, etc, can all help to reestablish the grid in places where the grid has been lost without sacrificing pedestrian safety.

As for Tryon, I believe that on-street parking is part of the solution rather than part of the problem.  I have read that, in urban planning, on-street parking is actually beneficial to the pedestrian experience because it gives pedestrians a sense of a barrier between themselves and traffic and it naturally causes cars to slow down.  However, I think the on-street parking on Tryon is only open for certain times of day and those times don't include high traffic times such as rush hour. I would say that the parking should be open all day, to include rush hour times.  This would naturally reduce speed during high-volume traffic times which likely also coincide with high-volume pedestrian times (I.e. Morning and Evening rush) and reduce the death trap feel.  Second, the parking spots on the street don't use the full width of the lane.  Based on what I can tell from street view, a bike lane could be incorporated into the additional width of space not consumed by the street parking.  Although I would probably put the bike lane between the sidewalk and the on-street parking.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, cltbwimob said:

Second, the parking spots on the street don't use the full width of the lane.  Based on what I can tell from street view, a bike lane could be incorporated into the additional width of space not consumed by the street parking.  Although I would probably put the bike lane between the sidewalk and the on-street parking.

I bike on tryon a lot and I've thought about that a lot and unfortunately I don't feel like there's room. It would be too risky between a tall curb (dangerous) and doors opening (deadly) it'd be tough.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, cltbwimob said:

While I am all about making infrastructure more pedestrian and bike friendly, I do not think that Tryon Street should be closed to auto traffic.  If for nothing else, we should not seek to disrupt or disconnect any more of our street grid.  Quite the opposite in fact, I believe we should seek to reconnect the street grid where it has been disconnected in the places in and around Uptown where it has been disconnected (and anywhere else where a connection may make sense even if one did not exist to begin with).  

A city can have connected streets without having high-speed thoroughfares.  Single-lane "choker" street designs, speed humps, etc, can all help to reestablish the grid in places where the grid has been lost without sacrificing pedestrian safety.

As for Tryon, I believe that on-street parking is part of the solution rather than part of the problem.  I have read that, in urban planning, on-street parking is actually beneficial to the pedestrian experience because it gives pedestrians a sense of a barrier between themselves and traffic and it naturally causes cars to slow down.  However, I think the on-street parking on Tryon is only open for certain times of day and those times don't include high traffic times such as rush hour. I would say that the parking should be open all day, to include rush hour times.  This would naturally reduce speed during high-volume traffic times which likely also coincide with high-volume pedestrian times (I.e. Morning and Evening rush) and reduce the death trap feel.  Second, the parking spots on the street don't use the full width of the lane.  Based on what I can tell from street view, a bike lane could be incorporated into the additional width of space not consumed by the street parking.  Although I would probably put the bike lane between the sidewalk and the on-street parking.

Its true. In general, most urban planners would agree than on-street parking is desirable. However, the ultimate goal in a dense urban area is a pedestrian-friendly, pedestrian-first environment, and there are different levels of design treatments that can help achieve that goal. Parked cars help shield pedestrians from moving cars and provide opportunities for people to park in the area near their final destination. In general, its a good thing to have cars. However, in an environment that has heavy pedestrian traffic, it becomes more desirable to remove cars from the street altogether - the idea being that if volumes are that heavy, then people are finding their way without using the parking spaces. Many cities have "transit malls" in that they only allow busses (and bikes) to use the street, while cars are banned altogether. Other cities have a 'woonerf' concept, which is an open street design that allows cars, but it has no pavement parkings and is flush with the sidewalk. It's a very European concept that is starting to catch on in America, and it allows pedestrian to be the priority without ignoring cars altogether. The other option is to remove all motorized traffic and pedestrianize the street. This is less frequent in America, but it can be successful if done in the right context.  I've said before, I don't think Tryon Street is the right context yet, but it could be.

1 minute ago, SgtCampsalot said:

I bike on tryon a lot and I've thought about that a lot and unfortunately I don't feel like there's room. It would be too risky between a tall curb (dangerous) and doors opening (deadly) it'd be tough.

There isn't enough room for bike lanes to be located in a way that prevents dooring. I wouldn't mind seeing parking be exchanged for cycle tracks, but unfortunately there isn't enough room for both.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Cadi40 said:

Anyone know of a 22 Story high-rise coming into Uptown? I was talking to a buddy who does electrical and he says he is going to be working on a new 22 Story in Uptown. I couldn't tell if it's already been announced yet. 

Is the Northwood Ravin Stonewall tower or the Lennar apartment tower or some mysterious other building. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, KJHburg said:

Is the Northwood Ravin Stonewall tower or the Lennar apartment tower or some mysterious other building. 

I don't know, He said it was secret and he couldn't tell me the name and they don't know when they are starting. Maybe it's a new one who knows though.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Cadi40 said:

I don't know, He said it was secret and he couldn't tell me the name and they don't know when they are starting. Maybe it's a new one who knows though.

I have heard some rumors of another tower for sure but not at liberty to say but  many will be shocked on its location and height.  Possibly a top 17 or so  high rise. 

Edited by KJHburg
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

^^ Maybe the same one give or take a floor not sure.  

But other high rises not yet started would be the Lennar apartment tower, the Bohemian hotel, the Intercontinental hotel, future Legacy tower (could be talking about that one too) or this other mystery tower. 

Exciting times to be sure uptown and for those of us who love to see new high rises go up. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/20/2017 at 5:15 PM, kermit said:

Using Tryon, Trade and 277, 77 as boundaries this is what Popstats (Synergos) reports for each Ward (Q1 2016 estimates)

            POP                MHI

1st:  3,956       $70,600
2nd: 1,187       $85,700
3rd:  2,915      $79,000
4th:  6,217      $81,500

Here are the Q3 2017 estimates from Popstats (again, I am not suggesting these numbers are spot-on, but this is almost certainly the data source that a grocery chain would be using for site evaluation). These data are derived from models so they are subject to the myriad flaws that models with inadequate calibration produce.

                  POP             MHI
1st:        4,187           $67,500
2nd:       1,300           $88,000
3rd:        3,255          $90,300
4th:        6,614           $82,500 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • 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.