The Green [Park] Expansion?

[rockhilljames]

Show of hands; How many people would love to see this surface lot become an extension of the Green? That would actually be a really nice sized urban park.

[Windsurfer]

Show of hands; How many people would love to see this surface lot become an extension of the Green? That would actually be a really nice sized urban park.

[elvigy]

And mine.

[BUILDIT]

and the church which uses that land might not like it. but really, something should go there eventually

[Andyc545]

and the church which uses that land might not like it. but really, something should go there eventually

[Neo]

and the church which uses that land might not like it. but really, something should go there eventually

Perhaps it would be possible to work out a deal where a parking deck could be built below ground and have the park on top like with The Green on the other side of the church. Perhaps Wachovia could pony up for the funds to build the deck and the park and strike a deal that would allow the church to use the deck (I know Wachovia isn't likely in a position to do this anytime soon though).

[orulz]

I would guess that this land is far, far too expensive to ever be purchased by a public entity and turned into a park, even if a parking deck were built below it. Unless the private entity that eventually develops this land decides to (or is forced to) have a significant open space element, then we won't (ever) see much of a park there. Besides, my personal take is that this is not the right spot for a large urban park. The 3rd ward park is close, and there will probably (10-20 years from now?) be a cap over 277 just a block away. Not to mention all the plaza space that is part of the Wachovia project. As nice as open space is, downtowns should be mostly development in order to have enough activity.

Most of it (5 of 6 parcels) are owned by Eastern Federal. The 5th, right in the middle of the College Street side of the properties is owned by QSM, making it harder for eastern federal to develop its property without either partnering with or buying out QSM. QSM, by the way, also owns the building at the corner of College and Stonewall on the Trump/Infinity block. You can tell the area that QSM owns, it's where the cars are parked perpendicularly, rather than diagonally. Do QSM and Eastern cooperate on management of these parking lots? If so, then maybe a partnership to develop the land isn't so far-fetched after all.

[Commoner]

The church does utilize the parking deck at 3WC. Childress Klein allows church parkers to park for free.

I think a park would obviously be a great extension of the Green, but would also complement the AACC. In my opinion, the AACC stands out wonderfully from the rest of the low-rise Wachovia campus projects and developing the appurtenant space as a park would preserve that.

[Andyc545]

What would be a little more distinguishable would be if that was developed as a small pond or lake that they could freeze over during Nov/Dec and use as the winter ice rink, instead of taking up the space at the current Green. Looks like they would have more room to make it larger, also. Some trails could be placed around it and make it something a little different then just green space.

The 3rd Ward park doesn't look like it will have anything on the lines of water features, and the only thing really in the immediate area are business fountains and the fish at The Green.

[dxartist]

that green expansion would be awesome. I can see it now. Lush green grass on one side of the church and more lush green grass on the other side. The expansion would fit with the same theme as The Green with respects to design and theme, except bigger. During lunchtime or anytime, you can go out and relax on the benches or grass and enjoy part of the day.

Alas, all we have now is dull parking lot.

[rockhilljames]

Wow. Make one offhand post, come back a few hours later and look what happens! Thanks to whoever pulled this off, didn't mean to get too off topic.

Thanks for the information about ownership. It's obvious that such a convoluted ownership situation would make such a project very hard to pull off. The most likely scenario is that the land will stay empty until a large project comes along with enough cash to buy out all parties and unify the land. Or perhaps we'll get really lucky and find a parking deck on that spot!

The pluses (in my opinion) for a park extension would be huge. You could build a "front lawn" for the AACC, a small amphitheater, water features as mentioned above, or a true extension of the Green. Wrapping the Church in green space would create a very peaceful environment for it, and having such a large amount of green space connecting the Convention Center and the Wachovia cultural campus would be a huge boon in creating a stroll district between the museums and convention center. I had lunch one day in Rittenhouse Square, in Philly, and it seemed like the whole downtown was there at lunch time. I think you'd see something very similar there.

Rittenhouse Square for comparison:

[CapeFearRiver10]

Show of hands; How many people would love to see this surface lot become an extension of the Green? That would actually be a really nice sized urban park.

[Charlotteman]

There comes a time when land becomes too valuable to turn it into parkland. Unfortunately I feel this land already reached that point quite a while back. I agree with everyone---what a terrific idea to utilize this parcel as an extension of the Green. But the reality is that this land is worth millions and millions of dollars, and it will most probably be developed in some commercial/residential direction (in the future).

[Miesian Corners]

Why can't the church utilize the parking at The Green parking deck? Also, couldn't they continue the below grade deck with the expansion park above it?

[Mobuchu]

I would guess that this land is far, far too expensive to ever be purchased by a public entity and turned into a park, even if a parking deck were built below it. Unless the private entity that eventually develops this land decides to (or is forced to) have a significant open space element, then we won't (ever) see much of a park there. Besides, my personal take is that this is not the right spot for a large urban park. The 3rd ward park is close, and there will probably (10-20 years from now?) be a cap over 277 just a block away. Not to mention all the plaza space that is part of the Wachovia project. As nice as open space is, downtowns should be mostly development in order to have enough activity.

[Raintree21]

The only problem is, a park doesn't make any money for the private land owner. I counted about 200 spaces there now. So say $3/day parking x 200 spaces x 5 days a week x 52 weeks = $156,000 income. I would think that more than pays for the taxes and creates some surplus income for the owner. There's no incentive to make it a park if you look at it from the money side unless the land is purchased. And as several have said, it's too valuable of a piece of property to buy just to make a park.

[Andyc545]

Not taking in account to who owns the land and who would be able to use it, but here is my quick photoshop comromise, with parking below.

[Mobuchu]

The only problem is, a park doesn't make any money for the private land owner. I counted about 200 spaces there now. So say $3/day parking x 200 spaces x 5 days a week x 52 weeks = $156,000 income. I would think that more than pays for the taxes and creates some surplus income for the owner. There's no incentive to make it a park if you look at it from the money side unless the land is purchased. And as several have said, it's too valuable of a piece of property to buy just to make a park.

[cha]

i'd personally rather see it fully developed.. romare's park will be right around the corner

[cltheel.sdl]

i'd personally rather see it fully developed.. romare's park will be right around the corner

[Spartan]

The only problem is, a park doesn't make any money for the private land owner. I counted about 200 spaces there now. So say $3/day parking x 200 spaces x 5 days a week x 52 weeks = $156,000 income. I would think that more than pays for the taxes and creates some surplus income for the owner. There's no incentive to make it a park if you look at it from the money side unless the land is purchased. And as several have said, it's too valuable of a piece of property to buy just to make a park.

[cooperdawg]

Disregarding land acquisition and cost, I like the idea a lot. Could be modeled in terms of usability after Copley Square in Boston where you have churches, museums, and office towers (John Hancock Building) bounding the park.