SouthEnd Midrise Projects

[southslider]

West Trade Street in Gateway Village with its ground-floor retail is a good example of how planting strips get trampled beside high turnover parking. In such situations, tree wells work better.

However, the Circle in South End has very little ground-floor retail. Denser residential still needs formal on-street parking for visitors and guests, but it's then likely okay to have a planting strip, where such parking would see less turnover. Plus, compared to storefronts, stoops will typically see less foot traffic and provide less streetwall friction to motorists.

[New Name]

^ This is a good point, Atlrvr.

can someone shed some insight as to who/how the sidewalk situation is determined? Is there a standard for the city that needs to be amended according to the project, or does a developer have the ability to choose? There are many times when I feel like we lose out on a true "urbanity" because someone insists on a golf course sod lawn next to a city sidewalk. What's up with that?

[Andyc545]

Atlvr brings up good human-scale aspects where this project may consider to fail. There were a lot of opportunities wasted with the lack of ground floor retail. From an aesthetics stand point, I think this is a great looking complex. The material use selected was a great mix and the architecture is distinct and pleasing to the eye. It adds a lot of character to a rather steril environement.

[southslider]

Per the City's Urban Street Design Guidelines, all street types, except Main Streets (which have tree wells), are to have eight-foot planting strips between the curb and sidewalk. It's easy to see where a wide planting strip generally makes for a more pleasant walking environment than back-of-curb sidewalks. However, there are circumstances where narrower or non-existant planting strips make sense.

I already mentioned the case of high-turnover on-street parking, which is generally along streets with ground-floor retail, where it makes sense to have tree wells instead of planting strips. But I'll also add that any lower-speed or low-volume street (read non-thoroughfare) can get away with narrower planting strips, or even none, where consistently parked. That's because the main benefit of a planting strip (besides shade and aesthetics) is separation from a high-speed travel lane. If the street is not high-speed or consistently parked (empty parking provides less friction and thereby acts as a faster travel lane), then the pedestrian is still buffered.

Conversely, on very high-speed and high-volume "streets" (read major thoroughfares where the average speed is over 40), I think an even wider planting strip than eight feet would be ideal for comfort. That is, mid-block, since crossing at or near the curb at intersections is safer, given the visibility.

[Spartan]

Places where no planting strips are required should/will have extra wide sidewalks so that the Gateway Village issue doesn't happen again. Those sidewalks really need to be 15-20' or more to accommodate what they have going on comfortably. There are some places around Gateway Pub that have bricked in the planting strip since they can't get anything to grow and their outdoor seating takes up so much space.

I think the design of the facade of Circle has turned out to be much better than I expected. The metal has turned out to be aesthetically pleasing to me. But I still have the same problems as before.... there should be more retail facing the train station, and offices or SOMETHING facing South Blvd to activate it for the pedestrian.

[tozmervo]

I walked over to the Circle at lunch today to give it a test pedestrian pass. Aside from noting some pretty sloppy construction detailing work, I would rate it as a pretty solid and arbitrary "Average."

The car turn-in from Bland isn't as bad as I thought it would be. Until you're right on top of it, it disappears from the streetscape. And even then, their material paving selections helps it become more of an auto-plaza feel, rather than an asphalt drop off.

While I hear and definitely understand what you're talking about with the grass strips, I really don't mind them here. South Blvd is a pretty crap road to walk next to, and I don't think pedestrian density is going to get high enough - at least for a while - to be overly concerned about crowded sidewalks. The width is adequate enough for bikers to get around walkers.

In this case, I appreciate the element of suburbanity* that the strips bring with them. It makes the area feel more open and clean. Not to mention it should help with storm runoff. As time goes by, maybe they can vary the plantings in the strip or widen the sidewalk as necessary.

The thing that bothered me the most was the ground-level patios. This is something that plagues First Ward, too. Who the hell wants to use a patio that's open onto a street like that? I was frankly as uncomfortable walking by them as I suspect someone would be using them.

*Edit: In Transect-Speak (pdf), I think it is a good transition element as you move from the T5 Southend to T6 Uptown.

Edited July 7, 2009 by tozmervo

[monsoon]

.....

The thing that bothered me the most was the ground-level patios. This is something that plagues First Ward, too. Who the hell wants to use a patio that's open onto a street like that? I was frankly as uncomfortable walking by them as I suspect someone would be using them.

*Edit: In Transect-Speak (pdf), I think it is a good transition element as you move from the T5 Southend to T6 Uptown.

A couple of comments on this.

Agreed on the ground level patios. They don't work in a urban environment and apt. buildings should not be designed with residential units on the ground floor. A possible exception to this would be a two story unit with street access and balconies and living space on the 2nd floor. However even this should be avoided because it is detrimental to the street. The ground floors of buildings in an urban area should be devoted to non-residential uses.

There isn't a transition from Southend to Downtown. It's a discontinuity caused by I-277. One side is urban, the other side is a mixture of suburbia interspersed with big monolithic complexes such as the one above. The problem is there are competing interests on what should happen here. South Blvd is considered a thoroughfare, there is mass transit, there are a significant number of single family homes with yards, there are various inconsistent attempts at TOD, and finally reuse. It is not urban.

So this causes a dilemma. Do you try to use urban standards in this suburban setting or are you only look urban but stick to suburban design goals because it maximizes profits and potential customers. Depending on how you answer that question you either have a project that fits the bill or doesn't. Another way to say this, is that a building that should work downtown, isn't going to work well in Southend. Different standards should be applied. This won't change until these developments give up designing for the automobile and they somehow reduce SB to a local street. I don't see this happening anytime soon.

[New Name]

Everyone - awesome discussion! This is exactly why I am come to UP and not the other sites. Thank you all.

So I wonder this, in the Vision Plan for South End, did anyone ever explicitly say "South End shall be considered an Urban area and shall be developed in such standards." (Or did they say "suburban"?) Or was it not specified, and that has lead to this discussion?

[tozmervo]

^ In my mind, the debate isn't necessarily Urban v Suburban so much as how Urban. While I have reservations about a lot of Duany-Plater Zyberk's theory, I really like the Transect (see my previous post) categories for describing areas of a city. Uptown is one kind of urban, Southend another, Dilworth yet another. Each level has its own spacial requirements and unique considerations.

As for South Blvd specifically, I think it can be a very urban street regardless of its arterial use. Some of the greatest streets in the world can pull off the traffic and still be urban in use and character. Does The Circle move us in that direction? Ultimately, yes- not as much as we want, but we're getting closer. I agree that the massive parking decks make car use too damned easy.

[atlrvr]

West Trade Street in Gateway Village with its ground-floor retail is a good example of how planting strips get trampled beside high turnover parking. In such situations, tree wells work better.

However, the Circle in South End has very little ground-floor retail. Denser residential still needs formal on-street parking for visitors and guests, but it's then likely okay to have a planting strip, where such parking would see less turnover. Plus, compared to storefronts, stoops will typically see less foot traffic and provide less streetwall friction to motorists.

Gateway Village is the worst offender in regards to planting strips in a very urban area with lots of foot traffic.

And while I would probably prefer no planting strips (tree wells only) in urban zoning districts (MUDD, TOD-M, and UMUD) on what would be considered commercial streets, the reason I find Circle at South End so egregious is because the on street is already recessed into the setback (planting strip/sidewalk area). This means there is already a 5'-6' buffer from traffic regardless if a car is parked there or not. Therefore, I don't see the need for any further planting strip. There is already curbed planters between the on-street parking spaces, so there is a continuous buffer. It just seems that if we are on a major commercial corridor, less than 1/4 mile from a transit station, and are encouraging on-steet parking, that we are shooting ourselves in the foot by:

1. Unnecessarily limiting the width of the sidewalk. (if this really is 6' wide like I think it is, that's not wide enough for a single person to walk past a couple. Seems shortsighted for what is supposedly a high foot-traffic area)

2. It's just counter-intuitive to park in front of a business just to walk through grass/mud to get to it.

3. It requires mowing. This is bad for several reasons. Mowing isn't a pedestrian friendly activity. Also, in dense areas that are now developing, mowing becomes much louder accoustically and pollution becomes much worse because of lack of air movement. A lawnmower is far worse than a car for emissions, and it is occuring much closer to pedestrians/residents, etc. They also typically require those big trucks with trailers that ultimately will block a lane of traffic for a couple of hours.

I guess what I'm getting at is that planting strips area really a suburban solution to an urban problem. There are plenty of urban solutions. The good thing about planting strips is they are far less permanent than, say, a building.

As Monsoon stated/asked, what is the likely outcome of South End? A true urban district, or high-levels of density in a close-in suburban setting.

As a final note, I notice that the newly paved section of Elizabeth also has the ridiculous recessed on-street parking between curbed planters, and THEN a planting strip before the sidewalk. I'm with-holding anger here only in hopes that once Grubb redevelops the parcels that front the suburban sidewalks, that they will relay sidewalk that goes from the back-of-curb to the building. I'm holding out hope at this point that the city is just being cheap or naive.

[southslider]

As a final note, I notice that the newly paved section of Elizabeth also has the ridiculous recessed on-street parking between curbed planters, and THEN a planting strip before the sidewalk.

Is the planting strip you saw west or east of Charlottetowne? West of Charlottetowne, or the CPCC section, Elizabeth doesn't have on-street parking (instead bike lanes) or much ground-floor retail. Hence, I could see planting strips serving a purpose there. But east of Charlottetowne, or the Grubb/Elizabeth Village section, Elizabeth does have on-street parking (and no bike lanes) with significant ground-floor retail. That section shouldn't have a planting strip, but street trees in curb extensions between parking spaces and/or tree grates within a wider sidewalk.

As for not needing planting strips next to parking, I generally agree but again stress the importance of how consistently parked and frequently turned-over is the parking. Motorists actually drive faster on South Boulevard north of East Boulevard towards Bland than south of there towards Tremont. And I'd argue it's partly due to the on-street parking often being empty and thereby creating a wider street north of East Boulevard.

If you have curbside sidewalks next to empty parking, pedestrian comfort is also less than what it would be with a planting strip. In other words, a busy parking lane is essential to curbside sidewalks feeling comfortable. And the best way to ensure a busy parking lane is a dense array of ground-floor uses for active street walls.

Edited July 8, 2009 by southslider

[atlrvr]

The planting strips I'm griping about is east of Charlotte town in front of the properties planned for development by Grubb. They have already added on-street parking via recessed parallel spaces between bumped out curbs (curbed planters). There is a planting strip between the on-street parking back of curb and the newly laid sidewalk. Right now, the planting strip has been seeded and straw laid, so it looks EXTRA suburban

[queensguy06]

I'm sure it's been mentioned recently and I just didn't see a post about it, but on my way in to Uptown tonight on the LRT I noticed the dormant Enclave site. Is this development still a go or has it been scrapped for the time being?

[tozmervo]

That's actually the Colonial Reserve site (assuming you're talking about the land next to Pepsi). I think its on hold, and the Enclave sign is just their way of trying to make use of the land.

[krazeeboi]

I was just about to say that Enclave is finished and it surely isn't in SouthEnd...LOL.

[Charlotte_native]

I've not seen any fanfare or media about it, but a new project appeared on the MLS today. Southend Flats and Southend Towns. To be built on the corner of S. Church and Summit. Its being built by The Boulevard Company -- prices for 2 bedrooms 2 baths starting in the $140's. 4 story brick. Will be interesting to see if these sell, but IMO at these prices they will go and probably quickly.

[Spartan]

Any renderings?

[Charlotte_native]

Any renderings?

Only thing up is a front/side rendering -- it is copywrited to the MLS so I can't cut and paste it. Looks OK, typical of what's been built for similar properties -- looks sort of like Village of Southend, Quaterside, etc.

[palmetto75]

I've not seen any fanfare or media about it, but a new project appeared on the MLS today. Southend Flats and Southend Towns. To be built on the corner of S. Church and Summit. Its being built by The Boulevard Company -- prices for 2 bedrooms 2 baths starting in the $140's. 4 story brick. Will be interesting to see if these sell, but IMO at these prices they will go and probably quickly.

Alright, for all those clamoring for cheap/affordable housing in/near uptown here you go! I presume "excellent standard finishes" translates to stripped and not equipped.

I agree I think there will be some demand here.

[Niner National]

I heard about these some time ago. I was also told they will be putting some in Uptown as well (but do not know where) starting in the 150's for 2 bed 2 bath.

Edited July 18, 2009 by rworkman09

[tozmervo]

Word has it that at least two of the three commercial spaces at the Circle have tenants lined up. South @ Bland is supposedly getting an Asian restaurant (Chinese or Vietnamese, please. No more Thai or Sushi!!) The spot back by the LYNX station looks to be getting some kind of English pub.

Since their respective openings, I've observed a gradual trickle of residents moving into the Ashton and Circle. While its too early for opinion on the latter, I have to say that the Ashton appears to have higher occupancy than I would have guessed at this point. I always see people out on the patio and sidewalk areas around it now, and many balconies with various bits of furniture.

Having said that, I'm about to resign my Sedgefield apartment lease at 20% less than last year's rent. Silver lining.

[ScottCLT]

Word has it that at least two of the three commercial spaces at the Circle have tenants lined up. South @ Bland is supposedly getting an Asian restaurant (Chinese or Vietnamese, please. No more Thai or Sushi!!) The spot back by the LYNX station looks to be getting some kind of English pub.

I can't seem to make out where the spot you are referring to by the Lynx station is. Everything just looks like apartments. Is it on the side of the building on Bland? Or across the tracks from Jillians?

[tozmervo]

Down directly across from the Trolley Museum, where the shadow of Rensselaer Ave cuts through the block. The space is a little below grade relative to the station, so it's easy to miss behind all the construction equipment and fencing.

[atlrvr]

I believe the Uptown ones will be in the area between Gateway Village and Elmwood Cemetary.

I like these two projects. Simple, yet all brick. Nothing wrong with simple, affordable filler.

[tozmervo]

Any renderings?

Southend Flats (Church St): http://www.mytownhome.com/cgi-bin/detail2....amp;allphotos=1

Southend Towns (Next to Trolley Museum): http://www.mytownhome.com/cgi-bin/detail2....amp;allphotos=1

I must admit I am deeply skeptical of the latter from those renderings. Its the house-over-garage syndrome, and the garages would appear to be facing toward the lot next to Bland St Station. With the right site design, it might work okay.