Charlotte area "ring cities"

[southslider]

^Or at least built on the same side of I-77 as walk-friendly Baxter Village

[mfowler12]

The Developer most likely wouldn't move closer to Charlotte as they owned the land already and have done much development in the Fort Mill area - including Baxter Village. Agreed with the connection to Baxter though - would have been nice to get a Ped Bridge over 77 or Tunnel connecting them. Looks like it will be well done though and has a Fort Mill resident, looking forward to it.

[jednc]

A friend of mine worked for Wells but took a job at LPL about a month before they announced the Ft Mill move. He stayed there about a year and went back to Wells to avoid a commute to Ft Mill. Don't understand these companies that want to move out of town.

Edited September 6, 2016 by jednc
Autocorrect mistake

[mfowler12]

Aside from getting an affordable corp hq to consolidate all employees, LPL received a major tax incentive to move HQ to this Fort Mill from the State of SC.. It's really no different than companies relocating to Ballantyne. Unless you're North of uptown or in uptown itself, the commute to Fort Mill is likely easier than commuting to uptown.

[kermit]

1 hour ago, mfowler12 said:

 Unless you're North of uptown or in uptown itself, the commute to Fort Mill is likely easier than commuting to uptown.

And there is the rub of suburban relocation. You make your offices more accessible to about 1/3 of the metro and less accessible to about 2/3 of the metro. This decision is never a wash, especially when you draw workers from two worker households where the second wage earner almost always has to fight traffic their whole commute. The situation gets even worse when workers decide to change jobs. While cliche, uptown offices really are "half-way to everywhere."

Edited September 6, 2016 by kermit

[mfowler12]

Don't get me wrong, I wasn't stating they moved to make their HQ more accessible to their employees or potential employees..it was driven by the financial incentives to relocate as well as the affordability of the office space.

 

[cjd5050]

16 hours ago, jednc said:

A friend of mine worked for Wells but took a job at LPL about a month before they announced the Ft Mill move. He stayed there about a year and went back to Wells to avoid a commute to Ft Mill. Don't understand these companies that want to move out of town.

For some companies, like LPL, your friend is not the rule but rather the exception.  Yes, the relocation had a lot to do with incentives from a different state to which the metro does not belong and the more affordable office space, but it also has to do with the demographics of their employment pool.  For every person like your friend who didn't enjoy the commute from the Charlotte core or North or West of the core I would bet there are 3 who live south of the core who would prefer the commute to Fort Mill.  

 

14 hours ago, kermit said:

And there is the rub of suburban relocation. You make your offices more accessible to about 1/3 of the metro and less accessible to about 2/3 of the metro. This decision is never a wash, especially when you draw workers from two worker households where the second wage earner almost always has to fight traffic their whole commute. The situation gets even worse when workers decide to change jobs. While cliche, uptown offices really are "half-way to everywhere."

Too bad office location has more to do with demographics than topography.  

[kermit]

1 hour ago, cjd5050 said:

Too bad office location has more to do with demographics than topography.  

Topography? Do commuters hate to drive downhill? Did I miss the spectacular mountain Vistas of York County? Who mentioned topography?

How exactly are the demographics of Ft Mill different than N Meck? Office location is driven by proximity to workers and or clients / partners. My original point was  a ft mill location is great for the subset of folks in that portion of the metro bu it reduces access for the majority of the metro's firms and workers.

Edited September 7, 2016 by kermit

[cjd5050]

23 minutes ago, kermit said:

Topography? Workers don't like to drive downhill? Did I miss the spectacular mountain Vistas of York County? I think you picked the wrong word.

How exactly are the demographics of Ft Mill different than N Meck? Office location is driven by proximity to workers and or clients / partners. My original point was  a ft mill location is great for the subset of folks in that portion of the metro bu it reduces access for the majority of the metro's firms and workers.

No.  I didn't pick the wrong word.  

Your idea of a 'correct' location for a company is based on the proximity to Uptown, which exists where it is because it's on a hill.  That's topography.  Your thinking of a central location is best, always, falls flat in most cities as most cities are not a radial grid.  For every Paris and Charlotte there is a Chicago or Miami.  

Just because Uptown is located due to topography does not mean the LPL location should follow.  The location of LPL was selected for various reasons, outlined above, but one of those is the demographics of the region.  If you don't think there is a difference in the demographics of N Meck and SW Charlotte...I am not sure what to say to that.  

LPL does not need or want access to the majority of the metro population.  What LPL wants the best access to the section of the population that would either be inclined to a) work there or b) work with them.  That's SW Charlotte.  I love the idea of Ellicott's Radial Grid but companies are not in the business of building cities. 

If your 'logic' on the 'rub of suburban relocation' was true, the financial district in NYC would be located somewhere in Harlem rather than the bottom of Manhattan because that location would provide the best access to the metro region.  

 

 

 

[kermit]

I neither said nor implied anything about topography. I have no idea why you think it's relevant that uptown is on a hill in this context.

I do believe that the demographics of North Meck and S Meck are similar. 

I never said anything about firms being responsible for building cities nor where I thought Lower Manhattan 'ought' to be

My point was that any corporate location on the fringe of any city results in that firm having worse access to workers and clients. Its my contention that Ft Mill has worse access to the total of Charlotte's workforce than downtown. I was not weighing in on LPL specifically. If you want to disagree qith the 6th  grade, two dimensional, geometry of this statement then knock yourself out. 

Edited September 7, 2016 by kermit

[cjd5050]

5 minutes ago, kermit said:

I neither said nor implied anything about topography. I have no idea why you think it's relevant that uptown is on a hill in this context.

I do believe that the demographics of North Meck and S Meck are similar. 

I never said anything about firms being responsible for building cities nor where I thought Lower Manhattan 'ought' to be

My point was that any corporate location on the fringe of any city results in that firm having worse access to workers and clients. Its my contention that Ft Mill has worse access to the total of Charlotte's workforce than downtown. I was not weighing in on LPL specifically. End of story.

I used topography because topography is why cities are located where they are.  Uptown is where it is because of topography not because it's the center of the region for income or the center of the region for population.  It's because there was a hill a hundred or so years ago. 

Companies don't base the location of their business based on such things.  The 'fringe' in your mind is the distance from Uptown.  To LPL, the 'fringe' is defined by specific business metrics that they look at.  

You have a tendency to speak in absolutes and make claims based on personal opinion.  Might be news to you but life is not a game of SimCity and absolute positions are foolish.

You're also wrong about demographics.  Graphics below but you're free to do your own research here:  http://www.esri.com/data/esri_data/ziptapestry

 

[kermit]

I only speak in absolutes when statements are supported by peer reviewed research. Would you prefer I fill my UP posts with Chicago style or MLA format citations? 

I am plenty familiar with the basics of spatial demographics (and the errors inherent in spatial demographic data). Your legendless maps are doing nothing to sypport your argument. Rrgardless of what maps you make my point remains There are plenty of professional workers in N Meck that companies in FT Mill have trouble accessing due to distance and traffic. THAT IS THE ONLY POINT I AM MAKING HERE.  Plese stop tring to prevert my very simple statement.

Edited September 7, 2016 by kermit

[cjd5050]

1 hour ago, kermit said:

I only speak in absolutes when statements are supported by peer reviewed research. Would you prefer I fill my UP posts with Chicago style or MLA format citations? 

I am plenty familiar with the basics of spatial demographics (and the errors inherent in spatial demographic data). Your legendless maps are doing nothing to sypport your argument. Rrgardless of what maps you make my point remains There are plenty of professional workers in N Meck that companies in FT Mill have trouble accessing due to distance and traffic. THAT IS THE ONLY POINT I AM MAKING HERE.  Plese stop tring to prevert my very simple statement.

Peer supported research eh?  Funny.

You presented the issue, or 'rub' as you put it, of companies locating in places like Fort Mill removes accessibility for 2/3 of the metro.  I countered that companies don't locate based on such factors...as they are not playing SimCity or existing in a vacuum. 

You said 'this decision is never a wash'...which is false.  This is a silly absolute and generalize position.  You also said "while cliche, uptown offices really are "half-way to everywhere."...which is also false.  It may be halfway to some things but it's possible and probable that halfway for the desired talent pool of potential and current employees for a company like LPL is somewhere around South Park not Uptown.

Companies locate, to great dismay on your end, based on factors and metrics that are identified internally and not in peer reviewed research.  

Factors such as:

• Proximity to both where current employees live and where potential employees are likely to live
• Operational costs such as land acquisition, leasing costs and terms and access to infrastructure.
• Ability to obtain incentives from various governmental agencies

These factors of course don't fit into your narrative because you think and see in absolutes.  Which is fine for opinions, as everyone is entitled to one, but comical when presented as a basis for an organization you're clearly not a part of.

 

Edited September 7, 2016 by cjd5050

[kermit]

Dude, let me rephrase my only statement here:

Fort Mill is further from Davidson than uptown. Period, full stop. (Apologies for speaking in absolutes)

When firms locate on the edge of a polycentric metro they have access to fewer total workers etc. Than they would at the center of the polycentric metro. I simply don't see the point of debating this statement of geometry

If you actually read my posts you would see that I made no statements about the myriad other factors which influence office location. I wasn't dismissing those factors, I was merely simplifying the system to make a message board conversation possible. 

I welcome your disagreement with my perspective but I'll bet that all of us would get more out of that disagreement if you made it substantively rather than sarcastically.

Edit: by 'never a wash' I was saying that moving to the burbs never increases the total number of potential workers etc that a firm as access to. Sure the firm will be closer to some, but it will always be a subset of the total.

'Half way to everywhere' was a metaphor. I thought that was pretty clear when I used the phrase 'cliche' to describe it. 

 

Edited September 7, 2016 by kermit

[cjd5050]

29 minutes ago, kermit said:

Dude, let me rephrase my only statement here:

Fort Mill is further from Davidson than uptown. Period, full stop. (Apologies for speaking in absolutes)

When firms locate on the edge of a polycentric metro they have access to fewer total workers etc. Than they would at the center of the polycentric metro. I simply don't see the point of debating this statement of geometry

If you actually read my posts you would see that I made no statements about the myriad other factors which influence office location. I wasn't dismissing those factors, I was merely simplifying the system to make a message board conversation possible. 

I welcome your disagreement with my perspective but I'll bet that all of us would get more out of that disagreement if you made it substantively rather than sarcastically.

Edit: by 'never a wash' I was saying that moving to the burbs never increases the total number of potential workers etc that a firm as access to. Sure the firm will be closer to some, but it will always be a subset of the total.

'Half way to everywhere' was a metaphore. I thought that was pretty clear when I used the phrase 'cliche' to describe it. 

 

You posted in a 'ring cities' thread and replied to a post specifically about LPL...so I am not sure why you think that context does not matter.  

I was discussing the specifics of LPL, as well as, the idea that not everything in the Charlotte metro should be based around it's proximity to Uptown.  Which is a spill over from previous conversations I have had with you.  That happens from time to time on message boards.  

At the end of the day having access to fewer 'total workers' does not matter to anyone outside of academics and politicians and certainly does not matter to companies.  So I am not sure why you continue to present that point.  Of course it's a fact but it's not relevant.  

Now to your 'moving to the burbs never increases the total number of potential workers' comment....  Which is another silly absolute. 

Just what do you define as a potential worker?  Is it just someone who can show up to the office on time or is it someone with the skills and qualifications necessary for the position itself.  I would love to read a peer review study on the proximity to qualified workers if you have one that proves locating in the 'burbs' prohibits a company from being in close proximity to most of the potential and desired work force.   

There are reasons why call centers are located along bus lines in less affluent areas and reasons for why financial services are located in urban high rises and upscale office parks on the edge.  The reasons are many but have nothing to do with general population statistics.   

[Niner National]

29 minutes ago, cjd5050 said:

You posted in a 'ring cities' thread and replied to a post specifically about LPL...so I am not sure why you think that context does not matter.  

I was discussing the specifics of LPL, as well as, the idea that not everything in the Charlotte metro should be based around it's proximity to Uptown.  Which is a spill over from previous conversations I have had with you.  That happens from time to time on message boards.  

At the end of the day having access to fewer 'total workers' does not matter to anyone outside of academics and politicians and certainly does not matter to companies.  So I am not sure why you continue to present that point.  Of course it's a fact but it's not relevant.  

Now to your 'moving to the burbs never increases the total number of potential workers' comment....  Which is another silly absolute. 

Just what do you define as a potential worker?  Is it just someone who can show up to the office on time or is it someone with the skills and qualifications necessary for the position itself.  I would love to read a peer review study on the proximity to qualified workers if you have one that proves locating in the 'burbs' prohibits a company from being in close proximity to most of the potential and desired work force.   

There are reasons why call centers are located along bus lines in less affluent areas and reasons for why financial services are located in urban high rises and upscale office parks on the edge.  The reasons are many but have nothing to do with general population statistics.   

Since you apparently can't understand what kermit is saying, I'll make it simple:

• North Charlotte suburbs have similar demographics to South Charlotte suburbs
• Fort Mill is a far longer commute for people that live in the northern suburbs than Uptown is
• LPL's new location will make it very difficult to attract talent with similar skills and qualifications that reside in the northern suburbs, thus limiting their potential labor pool to those that live in South Charlotte.

You're either dense or you're being an argumentative little sh*t just for the sake of being one.

Edited September 7, 2016 by Niner National

[cjd5050]

26 minutes ago, Niner National said:

Since you apparently can't understand what kermit is saying, I'll make it simple:

• North Charlotte suburbs have similar demographics to South Charlotte suburbs
• Fort Mill is a far longer commute for people that live in the northern suburbs than Uptown is
• LPL's new location will make it very difficult to attract talent with similar skills and qualifications that reside in the northern suburbs, thus limiting their potential labor pool to those that live in South Charlotte.

You're either dense or you're being an argumentative little sh*t just for the sake of being one.

Oh look, we have a tough guy.  Don't let me get in the way of your flexing on the keyboard.  

North Charlotte does not have similar demographics to South Charlotte.  While it somewhat resembles education level, although education levels are higher in the South Charlotte wedge, the population density is nowhere close to being the same.  You do know what population density means right tough guy?  They call it a talent pool for a reason guy.  It measures the volume of total qualified applicants.  

The Fort Mill location for LPL offers them the ability to recruit from the South Charlotte wedge all the way down to South Carolina.  There is a reason why financial services migrate south...first to South Park...then to Ballantyne and now to Fort Mill.  It's because that's where the talent pool lives.  

 

[SgtCampsalot]

Everybody stop talking.

[ah59396]

LOL wtf is this thread?!?!!?

[KJHburg]

This report from the Charlotte Chamber shows various labor pool figures from various spots in Mecklenburg county ie the labor shed. Points centrally located in Mecklenburg county have huge labor pools and so does the University area.  I will let everyone look this over and you can draw your own conclusions. It does not mention Fort Mill locations per se but does show the Westinghouse Blvd area.   I was surprised how good for example the University area is in drawing people from most of Charlotte Mecklenburg, Cabarrus and parts of Rowan, Gaston and Iredell counties. http://charlotte.global/clientuploads/Economic_pdfs/DriveTime2015.pdf   But most companies poll their existing workers when they move intramarket like LPL and Lash Group. 

[CarolinaCrown]

On 9/5/2016 at 3:09 PM, KJHburg said:

Is that stack a designer piece or temporary? Nice buildings but they should have stayed in Charlotte or moved closer in maybe at the Scaleybark site. 

Definitely gotta be a designer piece.

[mfowler12]

12 hours ago, CarolinaCrown said:

Definitely gotta be a designer piece.

The 'smoke stack' is a designer piece and not temporary..I believe it's something to evoke the textile mill(s) that helped create Fort Mill itself.

[rancenc]

Nice addition to the downtown area of Salisbury....actually more of the former warehouse district near the railroad tracks.  This is one two breweries in the core of Salisbury.

http://www.salisburypost.com/2016/09/11/morgan-ridge-opens-rail-walk-brewery-and-eatery/

 

[mfowler12]

News today about a redevelopment of several buildings on main street in Fort Mill. If you haven't been down that way, it's a pretty small strip of retail but does contain some nice looking store fronts and it already home to several popular restaurants.

[SgtCampsalot]

1 hour ago, mfowler12 said:

News today about a redevelopment of several buildings on main street in Fort Mill. If you haven't been down that way, it's a pretty small strip of retail but does contain some nice looking store fronts and it already home to several popular restaurants.

Nice. Every saved old structure is a win. 

Edited September 13, 2016 by SgtCampsalot