Charlotte Gateway Station and Railroad Improvements

[Matthew.Brendan]

5 minutes ago, JBS said:

This piss everyone else off as much as it did me?

 

ooooooh, nice!

[deleted account]

23 minutes ago, Matthew.Brendan said:

 

ooooooh, nice!

I'll take that as a "no"...

[JeanClt]

It’s freshly poured concrete too lol
(Not even 2-3 years old)

[TGIBridays]

12 hours ago, JBS said:

This piss everyone else off as much as it did me?

The graffiti?  Honestly it's better than just the bare concrete in my opinion.  But I can see why others would feel differently. 

[deleted account]

2 hours ago, TGIBridays said:

The graffiti?  Honestly it's better than just the bare concrete in my opinion.  But I can see why others would feel differently. 

[michaelef]

15 hours ago, JBS said:

This piss everyone else off as much as it did me?

You can report it to the city 

https://charlottenc.gov/services-site/Pages/requestreport.aspx 

[Hidden Valley memory]

16 hours ago, JBS said:

This piss everyone else off as much as it did me?

No

[abttown]

When I first saw the picture, I initially thought the poster was asking about the bland colors of the 500 West Trade building, lol.  Honestly, I sort of expect to see some tagging in a bigger city and it adds to a city's ambience.

[kermit]

I personally find the graffiti to be much more humane than the blank cement wall.

This is one of the elements of urbanness that I like best, things that are useless to residents (like blank walls) get organically repurposed into slightly more useful things. This aint Banksy, but its better than no color at all.

[Matthew.Brendan]

9 minutes ago, kermit said:

I personally find the graffiti to be much more humane than the blank cement wall.

This is one of the elements of urbanness that I like best, things that are useless to residents (like blank walls) get organically repurposed into slightly more useful things. This aint Banksy, but its better than no color at all.

they are down right friendly ^.^

[deleted account]

Interesting.  Popular consensus is that graffiti is desirable (even though it will quickly be painted over in Charlotte at taxpayer expense). And this isn't even good graffiti. I'm assuming people here welcome panhandlers and litter as well (adds color to the city, better than bland clean sidewalks!). 

[kermit]

1 hour ago, JBS said:

Interesting.  Popular consensus is that graffiti is desirable (even though it will quickly be painted over in Charlotte at taxpayer expense). And this isn't even good graffiti. I'm assuming people here welcome panhandlers and litter as well (adds color to the city, better than bland clean sidewalks!). 

Aesthetics are weird and visceral things (I hate the look of auto infrastructure, overhead powerlines and brutalism, but I can't do much to change any of that).  I guess I don't feel much of a need to be logically consistent with my own visual preferences.

My wife would say "don't yuck my yum."

Edited March 16 by kermit

[TGIBridays]

31 minutes ago, JBS said:

Interesting.  Popular consensus is that graffiti is desirable (even though it will quickly be painted over in Charlotte at taxpayer expense). And this isn't even good graffiti. I'm assuming people here welcome panhandlers and litter as well (adds color to the city, better than bland clean sidewalks!). 

Eh. Maybe not desirable as much as more desirable than a blank concrete wall. I'd prefer it if the city didn't spend resources cleaning it off, but I don't have control over that same as I don't have control over people tagging blank walls.

To be honest bland clean sidewalks do sort of feel off to me. People buy distressed pants because they're more interesting than brand new blue jeans. As far as panhandlers and litter, those are vastly different issues in my mind. A lot of modern commissioned art doesn't tend to look that much better than those tags to me, so I don't see a big difference to a lot of the "look art" sculptures and murals that get put up these days. 

[CLT2014]

How does one even see this graffiti? Seems like it is a location not visible to most of the public. 

Edited March 16 by CLT2014

[LKN704]

6 hours ago, abttown said:

When I first saw the picture, I initially thought the poster was asking about the bland colors of the 500 West Trade building, lol.  Honestly, I sort of expect to see some tagging in a bigger city and it adds to a city's ambience.

That was my initial reaction too...I actually didn't notice the graffiti at first but was fixated on the ugly copy-cat American mid-rise building behind it...which I find way more offensive than the graffiti. 

[nakers2]

This was not the direction I thought this sub was gonna head, but I find it interesting. Recently took a trip up north. First to DC, and then to NYC, utilizing Amtrak on the way up, public transportation in both cities, and to the airport for the flight back. While graffiti is not tolerated (or ignored) on platforms and trains like it once was (and in those cases I'd agree it was an issue) the amount of graffiti in tunnels, under bridges, and along the back walls of businesses facing the tracks was hard to ignore...as was the trash, homeless camps, and general blight. I think we should tackle those issues before we worry about some paint. This is also far from an American thing, go to any European train station and you'll see it beyond the platform edge in just as much concentration. People hate blank walls, that's why murals are so popular. 

[JacksonH]

On 3/15/2022 at 3:36 PM, JBS said:

This piss everyone else off as much as it did me?

It depends on which part you're talking about.  The bottom, colorful part I kind of like.  I much prefer that to the bare, gray brutalist concrete.  It's just urban art and gives the otherwise uninspired typical American architecture and surroundings an accent of local culture and personality.  But the top part looks like gang tagging.  I don't know if it is, but that's what it looks like to me and it's ugly.  I used to live in a place where we too often were having to spend part of our weekend painting over gang tagging, which is tantamount to vandalism and is quite ugly, so I have a visceral reaction when I see that.  It screams three things in my head:  ugly, unsafe, and declining property values.

[deleted account]

1 hour ago, JacksonH said:

It depends on which part you're talking about.  The bottom, colorful part I kind of like.  I much prefer that to the bare, gray brutalist concrete.  It's just urban art and gives the otherwise uninspired typical American architecture and surroundings an accent of local culture and personality.  But the top part looks like gang tagging.  I don't know if it is, but that's what it looks like to me and it's ugly.  I used to live in a place where we too often were having to spend part of our weekend painting over gang tagging, which is tantamount to vandalism and is quite ugly, so I have a visceral reaction when I see that.  It screams three things in my head:  ugly, unsafe, and declining property values.

This is reasonable. When we moved from San Diego two of the first things we noticed were lack of graffiti and lack of homeless people. Homelessness has increased exponentially but is still a fraction of SD (understandably with that near-perfect weather). Graffiti is still pretty rare and I don't hate the colorful street art as you described it. When it's sanctioned I love it. I remain opposed to vigilantism (whether that's crime fighting or imposed art installations) because it's not fair and there are no standards on quality or content. If the city invites people to paint it (and even pays them, as they did the BLM mural) I'd be thrilled. Some rando thinking they have the right to indiscriminately paint wherever and whatever they want...that I will never support. 

[JacksonH]

19 hours ago, JBS said:

This is reasonable. When we moved from San Diego two of the first things we noticed were lack of graffiti and lack of homeless people. Homelessness has increased exponentially but is still a fraction of SD (understandably with that near-perfect weather). Graffiti is still pretty rare and I don't hate the colorful street art as you described it. When it's sanctioned I love it. I remain opposed to vigilantism (whether that's crime fighting or imposed art installations) because it's not fair and there are no standards on quality or content. If the city invites people to paint it (and even pays them, as they did the BLM mural) I'd be thrilled. Some rando thinking they have the right to indiscriminately paint wherever and whatever they want...that I will never support. 

Yo3y moved from San Diego?  That's interesting because that's where I live now.  I haven't seen much graffiti here, either, although it was a place I was living in San Diego about 15 years ago (same neighborhood where I still live) where I was dealing with the gang tagging, which was ugly and obnoxious.  The neighborhood has changed dramatically since then (gentrification) and that no longer seems to be a problem.  

I do get your point about sanctioned versus unsanctioned urban street art and I agree that it would be better that it be art sanctioned by the city.  I guess my response to that is the city may never sanction it, or even consider allowing it in certain places where it could be a visual enhancement.  In those circumstances I'm not bothered by it as long as it looks nice.  Some of what was in that picture you posted did look good to me.  But some if it (the colorless writing) was quite ugly.

[AirNostrumMAD]

I think it is unbothersome.

In Europe, there is so much graffiti even the Metro trains are covered in graffiti. Italy seems to have the most on their trains. In Sao Paulo, you'll see Graffiti all over skyscapers prominently. I've never really seen a large city without graffiti along the concrete of their metro lines.

[deleted account]

10 hours ago, JacksonH said:

Yo3y moved from San Diego?  That's interesting because that's where I live now.  I haven't seen much graffiti here, either, although it was a place I was living in San Diego about 15 years ago (same neighborhood where I still live) where I was dealing with the gang tagging, which was ugly and obnoxious.  The neighborhood has changed dramatically since then (gentrification) and that no longer seems to be a problem.  

I do get your point about sanctioned versus unsanctioned urban street art and I agree that it would be better that it be art sanctioned by the city.  I guess my response to that is the city may never sanction it, or even consider allowing it in certain places where it could be a visual enhancement.  In those circumstances I'm not bothered by it as long as it looks nice.  Some of what was in that picture you posted did look good to me.  But some if it (the colorless writing) was quite ugly.

Lived in Oceanside, La Mesa, San Diego, Mira Mesa and Jamul (20+ years). Significantly more graffiti compared to Charlotte (my brother is still there so I visit often). I'm not knocking SD, I love it there. Just knew whenever a new wall was built it would be graffitied within days (and they are much slower to repaint).

[TheMightyBK]

City cores should sponsor/commission graffiti art IMO. Non-sanctioned art should be evaluated by a panel and removed if deemed unworthy. Promote art!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JacksonH]

1 hour ago, AirNostrumMAD said:

I think it is unbothersome.

In Europe, there is so much graffiti even the Metro trains are covered in graffiti. Italy seems to have the most on their trains. In Sao Paulo, you'll see Graffiti all over skyscapers prominently. I've never really seen a large city without graffiti along the concrete of their metro lines.

I started to read your post, saw the word Europe and it immediately made me think about the graffiti I saw from the train while traveling through Italy.  Then I read your next sentence and *you're* referring to Italy.  Haha.  So we agree there's plenty of graffiti over there. 

I grew up watching "Welcome Back, Kotter" on TV and recall the graffiti in Brooklyn in the opening credits.  I think ever since then I have associated graffiti with being a normal part of an urban environment. 

I agree with TheMightyBK; it's art.  Sometimes it's bad art and when that happens the city ought to remove it.  But when it's good art -- and often it is -- it would be tragic to remove it.  Graffiti is life, it's culture.  Its very existence is proof the city has a heartbeat and is alive.

[kayman]

On 3/15/2022 at 6:36 PM, JBS said:

This piss everyone else off as much as it did me?

Not really as Charlotte is a major city and graffiti comes with the urban landscape. 

Edited March 23 by kayman

[KJHburg]

question:  all this land the state DOT owns along N Smith St between 6th St and 9th St being used for the track expansion and will any of it be sold off after the project is completed?  Or is this where the Silver Line might run through?