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


7 minutes ago, Blue_Devil said:

So instead of getting a good amount of affordable housing, they will get none, and tank the whole project

ugh. Its not tanked, by any stretch of the imagination, what a irresponsible title, only the affordable housing, which was a massive selling point, is off the table.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Blue_Devil said:

So instead of getting a good amount of affordable housing, they will get none, and tank the whole project

If my understanding is correct, CHA already owns and operates Hall House, which is the part of this land under contention. Basically they're being asked to give up all ownership stakes and just have a ground lease, which is a pretty s* deal for them, giving up what they have for a developer's promise. 

Someone please correct me if I'm misinterpreting. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, tozmervo said:

If my understanding is correct, CHA already owns and operates Hall House, which is the part of this land under contention. Basically they're being asked to give up all ownership stakes and just have a ground lease, which is a pretty s* deal for them, giving up what they have for a developer's promise. 

Someone please correct me if I'm misinterpreting. 

you are correct.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Blue_Devil said:

I am not understanding, the news is fake? How could that be! 
 

in all seriousness that is good to know

The news is not fake, the title just assumes people will actually read the article. It says directly in the article that the partners, minus Inlivian, will look to move forward.

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My question about the deed restrictions.

If your goal is to get more affordable housing built NOW, aren't those restrictions good enough to accomplish what you want?

Yes, you lose ownership of the land (which I know you can use as collateral for debt, etc) but if the organizations stated mission is affordable housing and deed restrictions guarantee that there will always be affordable housing on that land, what is the actual drawback?

I do not think we are getting all the info here.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can someone help with a vacant spot in my memory? When the Blue line was planned there was to be a pedestrian element over 277 beside the rail line, an extension of the trail. That part was jettisoned due to cost. Was the original plan to include this pedestrian path through the convention center as well?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, tarhoosier said:

Can someone help with a vacant spot in my memory? When the Blue line was planned there was to be a pedestrian element over 277 beside the rail line, an extension of the trail. That part was jettisoned due to cost.      yes       Was the original plan to include this pedestrian path through the convention center as well?    I am not sure about that when the convention center maybe it was but that I don't remember. 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/27/2020 at 5:22 PM, tarhoosier said:

Can someone help with a vacant spot in my memory? When the Blue line was planned there was to be a pedestrian element over 277 beside the rail line, an extension of the trail. That part was jettisoned due to cost. Was the original plan to include this pedestrian path through the convention center as well?

I don’t believe there was ever any plan to run the trail through the convention center, it was just a bridge over the Belk.

Looking into the history of the rail trail would be very interesting. IIRC the rail trail was not intentional at all. The fire department said they needed truck access along the light rail and the path from Tremont to Remount was built for that purpose — I believe the trail developed organically from that root and the presence of sidewalks adjacent to the original (freight) rail line from Tremont to Bland.

tldr: I think the rail trail was a total accident so I doubt CATS would have gone to the expense of planning to run the trail through the convention center (but then again, they planned for the bridge over 277...)

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, kermit said:

I don’t believe there was ever any plan to run the trail through the convention center, it was just a bridge over the Belk.

Looking into the history of the rail trail would be very interesting. IIRC the rail trail was not intentional at all. The fire department said they needed truck access along the light rail and the path from Tremont to Remount was built for that purpose — I believe the trail developed organically from that root and the presence of sidewalks adjacent to the original (freight) rail line from Tremont to Bland.

tldr: I think the rail trail was a total accident so I doubt CATS would have gone to the expense of planning to run the trail through the convention center (but then again, they planned for the bridge over 277...)

My memory was that the "trail" was a trackside access for building the light rail and all necessary components. Emergency responder also, I guess. Further south the rails came on l-o-o-o-o-ng railcars, ballast also. The section from north of Clanton used the trackside areas for truck and personnel access (In my memory). Then the trail was an improvement of that no-longer-necessary strip. The trail, as such, was to continue across 277, again in my memory, since South blvd pedestrian path was years in the future. Following through the Convention Center was unlikely but I just cannot recall that discussion, if one.

Synapses will not double click.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looks like the convention center renovation had a cost-cutting change. Really liked the bridge cladding the original renderings had (screamed tvsdesign – they do great work). This new rendering doesn’t have as much allure on this side with the existing look. Any idea what happened @Tyree Ricardo?

New:

14624414-DA11-4408-B03B-AAB0E64E253C.jpeg

Original:

D67FAADF-CE44-4A05-B9D2-E7E7AD8E2CA6.jpeg

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

1 hour ago, captainjack said:

Looks like the convention center renovation had a cost-cutting change. Really liked the bridge cladding the original renderings had (screamed tvsdesign – they do great work). This new rendering doesn’t have as much allure on this side with the existing look. Any idea what happened @Tyree Ricardo?

New:

14624414-DA11-4408-B03B-AAB0E64E253C.jpeg

Original:

D67FAADF-CE44-4A05-B9D2-E7E7AD8E2CA6.jpeg

Theres actually two things that happened here. They had to cut one of the bridges, it was originally dual span. Its really very sad that we are going to get yet another Charlotte-ized, arts & crafts project, instead of something iconic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, MothBeast said:

Also, notice how staggered DEC 1 and DEC 2 are. My guess based on renderings was much closer together. The orientation may have been flipped as well, or at the least we are seeing a new side of the building.

Yea I noticed that, I think its actually just incorrect. The building is oriented in the manner it is, to have a sizeable setback from the historic church. Its more or less centered on the land. Rendered above, would almost have it sitting on the church itself. 

image.png

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.