Jump to content

Charlotte Gateway Station and Railroad Improvements


dubone

Recommended Posts



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!). 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
  • Confused 2
  • Sad 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites


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

This piss everyone else off as much as it did me?20220315_183311.thumb.jpg.7eb6a18c62eb3a5fc5a6aecf8aea22b8.jpg

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.

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

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. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

spacer.png

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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).

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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? 

  • Like 1
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.

×
×
  • 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.