Misc. Uptown Projects/News

[SgtCampsalot]

I know NoDa's core is not Uptown or CBD, but this is the very reason why it will always have a special place in my heart.

These three-ish blocks of storefronts are the most cozy place in Charlotte to stroll or sit, especially on that bus stop bench in front of Billy Jack's patio.

Edited February 16, 2021 by SgtCampsalot

[Matthew.Brendan]

Just imagine if you could banish all street parking along those couple blocks of N.Davidson street and instead double the width of the sidewalk and/or make proper bike lanes.

[dylansukkert]

5th street from Church down to the Arena on Friday and Saturday nights was a nut house (in a good way) so many people lined up getting into bars or restaurants. If there was a concert or game it was even crazier, can’t wait to get that back. 

[RANYC]

8 hours ago, CharlotteWkndBuzz said:

Not new construction (or shopping), but this is one of my favorite stretches in Uptown that reminds me of the pic above and before covid, this was a popular/busy area...loved seeing all the taxis lined up at night.  Attached two photo below, however, I wish Tryon in Uptown was a strolling/shopping corridor. 

Camden starting at Flower Child looking towards Uptown gives me seem vibe too:

I'm obsessed with the first picture here.  Thanks for sharing it.  I'd love to build on streetscapes like this all throughout Uptown and center city, more broadly.

8 hours ago, SgtCampsalot said:

I know NoDa's core is not Uptown or CBD, but this is the very reason why it will always have a special place in my heart.

These three-ish blocks of storefronts are the most cozy place in Charlotte to stroll or sit, especially on that bus stop bench in front of Billy Jack's patio.

This is lovely

[Desert Power]

11 hours ago, SgtCampsalot said:

I know NoDa's core is not Uptown or CBD, but this is the very reason why it will always have a special place in my heart.

These three-ish blocks of storefronts are the most cozy place in Charlotte to stroll or sit, especially on that bus stop bench in front of Billy Jack's patio.

It's better compared to this pic, but I agree there shouldn't be parking anywhere in this picture. This looks before they even put stop signs here.

[san]

On a separate note, do we know if CATS is partnering with Arrival? I’m quite fond of the look for their busses and would hope to see them around Charlotte.

[DMann]

With both Lowes and Grant Thorton both planning to move out of the Charlotte Plaza Building, I would think that could open a lot of space for relocations of out of town companies to come in.

[atlrvr]

Biggest space will be 301 S College...Wells giving back 500k sq ft at the end of this year.... much of it is contiguous.

[J-Rob]

Hopefully Charlotte fares better than most, but I am curious how hard it will be for either space to find new tenants.

Fed Sounds Alarm on Commercial Real Estate, Business Bankruptcy (yahoo.com)

Edited February 24, 2021 by J-Rob

[KJHburg]

that is why I am saying don't look for any new high rise office towers uptown for a while.   The vacancy is going up however I do think smaller buildings less than 350,000 sq ft or so will continue to be built in Southend.    Truist will continue to push some tenants out of their building which might land elsewhere uptown.  

[RANYC]

I wish there was someway to spur a ton of low/mid-rise, but highly pedestrian-activated construction on empty lots all throughout Uptown and Center City.  Think Binaco Tower, but times 50:).

[kermit]

4 minutes ago, RANYC said:

I wish there was someway to spur a ton of low/mid-rise, but highly pedestrian-activated construction on empty lots all throughout Uptown and Center City.  Think Binaco Tower, but times 50:).

1. Land value tax (rather than our current property tax which values land based on current use)
2. Parking tax (Pittsburgh has had one for a long while)

[RANYC]

57 minutes ago, kermit said:

1. Land value tax (rather than our current property tax which values land based on current use)
2. Parking tax (Pittsburgh has had one for a long while)

Just tried to get quickly educated on Land Value taxes, apparently also in common use in the Pittsburgh area.  Milton Friedman was a big advocate.  Originated a long time ago with Henry George, a journalist, who wrote a best-seller in the 1890s called "Progress and Poverty". 

Here's a comprehensive overview: On firmer ground - The time may be right for land-value taxes | Briefing | The Economist

Ultimately, the write-up argues for a Split-Rate System, with one rate for property (improvements on the land/buildings), and a much higher rate on Land.  Free Market economists like Land Value Taxes because Land is a basic, God-Given capital element and so it's hard to determine who originally should have had claim to this most basic of capital elements so anyone holding it and restricting access to its development and enhancement should pay for such a restriction to God's Grant:).  It is the improvement to the land that reflects man's genius and work ethic, and that's the thing we don't really want to punish by taxing it...or if we do tax it, tax it less.

I guess how this would work in Charlotte is we'd keep total tax rates the same on developed lots of Charlotte, but then extract out of that RATE some sort of Land Value Tax Rate component (which would be higher than the property tax rate component), and then levy that Land Value rate on vacant lot holders, who i guess are currently not paying much of anything.

This would have been much easier to implement during the city's mass revaluation.

Edited February 24, 2021 by RANYC

[atlrvr]

I like it in theory, but imagine the outcries of affordable housing (and anti-gentrification) activists.

[scg211]

So give those apartments housing tenants below some arbitrary AMI level an abatement.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[j-man]

6 hours ago, RANYC said:

I wish there was someway to spur a ton of low/mid-rise, but highly pedestrian-activated construction on empty lots all throughout Uptown and Center City.  Think Binaco Tower, but times 50:).

Why lowrise? I’d love more towers

[CharlotteWkndBuzz]

6 hours ago, RANYC said:

I wish there was someway to spur a ton of low/mid-rise, but highly pedestrian-activated construction on empty lots all throughout Uptown and Center City.  Think Binaco Tower, but times 50:).

I would love to see a B-Tower type building on steroids built on the pocket park (Polk park) at trade and Tryon. Overlooking the square and next to the gold line stop...would be an amazing spot. Need activation on that corner of the square and would mesh well with the new retail renovations at independence tower. 

[jthomas]

11 hours ago, j-man said:

Why lowrise? I’d love more towers

There are certainly locations where low- and mid-rise is not the highest and best use of land. However, for everywhere else, here are some of the advantages of mid-rise urbanism:

1. Simpler buildings = less expensive to construct.
2. Building footprints can be smaller, which produces more variety on a block than a single large development. Finer grain = good urbanism.
3. From a pedestrian perspective, you don't really notice a building as much above the fourth or fifth floor, at least in my opinion. So a 5-story building feels just as urban as a 40-story building.
4. Mid-rise urban form can still support very high population densities (see Paris, for example).

I do have a question for those in this forum who are more knowledgeable in real estate. So many modern mid-rise projects are of the superblock variety, rather than small-footprint infill. What are the factors that drive this - is it zoning? Project economics? Financing issues? From an urbanist perspective, I'd rather see 20 smaller projects than one megaproject. That's how cities were built in the past, but it doesn't happen today. Why is that?

[JHart]

12 minutes ago, jthomas said:

I do have a question for those in this forum who are more knowledgeable in real estate. So many modern mid-rise projects are of the superblock variety, rather than small-footprint infill. What are the factors that drive this - is it zoning? Project economics? Financing issues? From an urbanist perspective, I'd rather see 20 smaller projects than one megaproject. That's how cities were built in the past, but it doesn't happen today. Why is that?

Land costs in cities have skyrocketed. Yes it is cheaper to build a smaller building, but if the land it sits on costs the same regardless of what goes on top it makes more sense for a larger project. 

[RANYC]

1 hour ago, jthomas said:

There are certainly locations where low- and mid-rise is not the highest and best use of land. However, for everywhere else, here are some of the advantages of mid-rise urbanism:

1. Simpler buildings = less expensive to construct.
2. Building footprints can be smaller, which produces more variety on a block than a single large development. Finer grain = good urbanism.
3. From a pedestrian perspective, you don't really notice a building as much above the fourth or fifth floor, at least in my opinion. So a 5-story building feels just as urban as a 40-story building.
4. Mid-rise urban form can still support very high population densities (see Paris, for example).

I do have a question for those in this forum who are more knowledgeable in real estate. So many modern mid-rise projects are of the superblock variety, rather than small-footprint infill. What are the factors that drive this - is it zoning? Project economics? Financing issues? From an urbanist perspective, I'd rather see 20 smaller projects than one megaproject. That's how cities were built in the past, but it doesn't happen today. Why is that?

You hit the nail right on the head.  Number 2 is key for me.  Smaller building footprints.  The cities I love in Europe are cities where you can find 20 different buildings or styles on one block.  Even the neighborhoods I loved in Manhattan, like SOHO or Lower Eastside or the Villages, are distinct in their appeal because of the predominance of mid-rise bldgs and eclecticism of structures comprising the block.  Towers over-rated.  Again, yes people like to fly by in their cars on the interstate and marvel at towers as some symbol of growth and regional vitality (as they dart off to their auto-centric existences amidst sprawl, wide boulevards, and parking lots), but I'm more concerned with my experience on the ground as a pedestrian, and outside my car.  Too many sunbelt cities are filled with gleaming towers, but are dead as a doorknob on the ground outside of work hours or some mega-venue event like a football game or arena concert.

1 hour ago, JHart said:

Land costs in cities have skyrocketed. Yes it is cheaper to build a smaller building, but if the land it sits on costs the same regardless of what goes on top it makes more sense for a larger project. 

If we're at the beginning of a generational shift in demand for super-vertical workplaces, maybe some of the price pressure on urban land eases and we see a growing opportunity for smaller building footprint construction, and hopefully with uses that draw people to live and play in center city, with far less reliance on the car for mobility. 

Edited February 25, 2021 by RANYC

[JHart]

1 hour ago, RANYC said:

You hit the nail right on the head.  Number 2 is key for me.  Smaller building footprints.  The cities I love in Europe are cities where you can find 20 different buildings or styles on one block.  Even the neighborhoods I loved in Manhattan, like SOHO or Lower Eastside or the Villages, are distinct in their appeal because of the predominance of mid-rise bldgs and eclecticism of structures comprising the block.  Towers over-rated.  Again, yes people like to fly by in their cars on the interstate and marvel at towers as some symbol of growth and regional vitality (as they dart off to their auto-centric existences amidst sprawl, wide boulevards, and parking lots), but I'm more concerned with my experience on the ground as a pedestrian, and outside my car.  Too many sunbelt cities are filled with gleaming towers, but are dead as a doorknob on the ground outside of work hours or some mega-venue event like a football game or arena concert.

If we're at the beginning of a generational shift in demand for super-vertical workplaces, maybe some of the price pressure on urban land eases and we see a growing opportunity for smaller building footprint construction, and hopefully with uses that draw people to live and play in center city, with far less reliance on the car for mobility. 

I agree completely with you and share your desires for mixed use buildings, pedestrian experiences, and fighting suburban sprawl; I'm just pointing out that it is unfortunate that we don't have any incentives for people to develop those types of spaces. People are still moving to Charlotte and while there might be a pullback in office spaces briefly, they will fill back up again and we will head back into another construction boom focused on high rises.

We need something like a land value tax or a shift in increased taxation for land and a decrease in building value taxes, especially residential (with credits for affordable housing) in order to spur development in otherwise non-utilized spaces. There is a reason people like Levine sit on property and land all across Charlotte and it's because if someone doesn't buy it right now at the asking price, it will only be worth more in a few years and they will continue to hold it. You can see a city like Pittsburgh that has had several cycles of LVT and increased land vs building value taxes and can see the types of infill and mixed neighborhood spaces that you are talking about. 

[RANYC]

4 minutes ago, JHart said:

I agree completely with you and share your desires for mixed use buildings, pedestrian experiences, and fighting suburban sprawl; I'm just pointing out that it is unfortunate that we don't have any incentives for people to develop those types of spaces. People are still moving to Charlotte and while there might be a pullback in office spaces briefly, they will fill back up again and we will head back into another construction boom focused on high rises.

We need something like a land value tax or a shift in increased taxation for land and a decrease in building value taxes, especially residential (with credits for affordable housing) in order to spur development in otherwise non-utilized spaces. There is a reason people like Levine sit on property and land all across Charlotte and it's because if someone doesn't buy it right now at the asking price, it will only be worth more in a few years and they will continue to hold it. You can see a city like Pittsburgh that has had several cycles of LVT and increased land vs building value taxes and can see the types of infill and mixed neighborhood spaces that you are talking about. 

I'm in total agreement.  Land Value Taxes don't appear to be a part of a wider civic dialogue at all, however.  Given that the city will soon ask taxpayers to fund massive capital investments in transit, investments which have often favored vacant land-holders, who have every incentive of sitting on the land and waiting until the 10+ years of transit build-out before cashing in, perhaps it's time for a serious consideration of Land Value Taxes.  Or once again, will taxpayers foot the bill for light rail lines, and then a select group of vacant land-holders reap the benefits?  Would a a Land Value Tax actually help to fund these mobility investments so that there's less need for the sales tax? 

[KJHburg]

I am going to put this article about returning to the office and the future of office here as uptown is the largest such concentration of space in the region.  It has major implications if only on any given day 50% show up to the office for spatial needs in the future,  retail shops uptown etc.   I have talked to major T bank employees and both said they are working remote into the summer and then project only some days in the office.    My additional thoughts you will see as leases are up smaller footprints will start to happen more and more especially with tech firms.  This is why I don't think you will see any major office towers uptown for a while unless an inbound relocation like Honeywell.    

from the article:

""A wide expectation among Little's clients is that not everyone will be working in the office five days a week. Hall said, pre-Covid-19, about 85% to 90% of a workforce would be in the office most days. Post-pandemic? It's looking more like 50% on any given day, said Courtney Fain, financial interiors studio principal at Little.   
"Not one company I've seen has said, ‘We're going to require everyone 100% back in the office,'" she added.""

Remote work, technology and social distancing to play big roles in post-Covid-19 office space - Charlotte Business Journal (bizjournals.com)

Edited February 25, 2021 by KJHburg

[KJHburg]

Miscellaneous photos of uptown today from close up and afar. 

Noticed more people on the streets still far from normal but I think better weather is helping people get out and walk around. 

[j-man]

11 hours ago, jthomas said:

There are certainly locations where low- and mid-rise is not the highest and best use of land. However, for everywhere else, here are some of the advantages of mid-rise urbanism:

1. Simpler buildings = less expensive to construct.
2. Building footprints can be smaller, which produces more variety on a block than a single large development. Finer grain = good urbanism.
3. From a pedestrian perspective, you don't really notice a building as much above the fourth or fifth floor, at least in my opinion. So a 5-story building feels just as urban as a 40-story building.
4. Mid-rise urban form can still support very high population densities (see Paris, for example).

I do have a question for those in this forum who are more knowledgeable in real estate. So many modern mid-rise projects are of the superblock variety, rather than small-footprint infill. What are the factors that drive this - is it zoning? Project economics? Financing issues? From an urbanist perspective, I'd rather see 20 smaller projects than one megaproject. That's how cities were built in the past, but it doesn't happen today. Why is that?

I get what you’re saying but from a developers perspective pertaining to costs and whatnot. I’m just saying that for Uptown I think a mix of buildings would be good not just lowrise for the rest of uptown. This city is growing so much and larger develops would create less sprawl. I’d rather see more 30 story apartments than a bunch of 5 story stick apartments Uptown. Sure the lowrise buildings have more opportunities to create a more pedestrian friendly vibe but I think the skyline can definitely extend further north rather than a drastic shift to a bunch of lowrise buildings. 

10 hours ago, JHart said:

Land costs in cities have skyrocketed. Yes it is cheaper to build a smaller building, but if the land it sits on costs the same regardless of what goes on top it makes more sense for a larger project. 

Yes! That’s another great point.