Jump to content

Renaissance Park Projects & Developments


Spartan

Recommended Posts

In an attempt to be optimistic - garden apartments have a lifespan of 20-30 years. In that timespan, there could be enough market pressure to warrant a developer buying it to build something bigger and better. It might suck if we get this now, but there's still hope for the future.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites


I finally listened to the City podcast about the new apartments. I definitely feel better about the urban design component, especially knowing that they still need to go through the DRB, and that the developer is committed to creating an urban product. It sounds like this is probably the best we can hope for given the market conditions as they are in downtown.

It was also nice to hear that they haven't given up on retail on Liberty Street.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • 5 months later...
  • 4 weeks later...

There's an interesting item in the City Council agenda for tomorrow that I don't fully understand.  The City is planning to remove 3 parcels from the St. John – Daniel Morgan Tax Increment Financing District (pages 12-21).  They say "removal of the parcels will provide the city with additional future flexibility with regard to development of the parcels."  The three parcels to be removed (see map below) are ones that already have projects planned.  Is this to remove the extra tax burden of paying into the TIF from these coming developments ?  How do you guys interpret this?

1568126949_tifmap.JPG.70d0c22e72f6d7c33400708a95966b3d.JPG

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have no inside info. However, Florence did the same thing when Hotel Florence was developed. Parcels inside a TIF were removed. I don't remember the details too well, but I think it allowed the future property owner to get a tax break on property taxes. TIFs do not raise taxes on anyone. They simply redirect new revenues to pay off bonds for improvements within the TIF.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right. A TIF District is not a tax increase, it's a financing mechanism. It lets you take out a loan to pay for improvements within a defined area based on the idea that the types of improvements being made will increase the desirability of the area, and thus land value, and thus tax value. So tax revenue will go up as a result of the investment, and the incremental revenue increase over the current revenue (based on current tax value) is used to pay back the loan while the City ends up with more properties that produce more tax revenue without raising taxes.  It's based on the "rising tides raise all ships" concept. 

But as to why you would remove properties from a TIF district, I have no idea. There must be something within the regulations that affects the developers' financing. 

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, vicupstate said:

I think being inside a TIF precludes providing  a FILOT agreement to any property in the TIF.  A FILOT (Fee in Lieu of Taxes) reduces the property taxes on said designated properties.   

I suspect something like this is probably the case.  Anyway, City Council literally just approved removing the parcels from the TIF at tonight's meeting.  And thanks for clarifying the way TIF works.  I had a general idea, but was fuzzy on the details. Appreciate it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

At Monday's meeting, City Council will discuss a potential development agreement for project that would be 24 single family houses on a 4.5 acre site along Silverhill Street behind Barnet Park.  The sales prices of the homes would start at $275,000; so these will be pretty nice houses.  The City would sell the land for $100 and improve Silverhill Street at a cost of $80,000.  Site and site plan are below.

I'm not sure if SFHs are the best use of this land.  I'd like to see something more dense.  And I continue to believe that it is a huge mistake not to punch Converse back through to Daniel Morgan Ave.  With all the development coming to the area, it would really help to absorb future traffic demand.

MSsite.JPG.f0c0d0d38b968ede4cb0b4d4cdea4649.JPG

MSsiteplan.JPG.61558aef46152c423b9eb3000de80f36.JPG

Edited by westsider28
Added link to agenda
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the larger downtown core needs a mix of housing, and while I'm always an advocate of greater density, having some single family houses available this close to downtown is a positive, I think.  We really lack modern single family housing throughout the city, but especially in the core.  If you aren't into older homes (Hampton Heights, Converse Heights, South Converse) then you are pretty much out of luck if you want to buy a house that's really close to downtown.  I suspect there's going to be some questions about the price tag, however.  Since the land is free, the comment about the land value driving the home price might not hold up quite as well.  I'll be interested to see how much "workforce housing" is ultimately available - especially with only 24 lots.  Will be interesting to see if something like this might happen on the old TK Gregg property nearby.  This could be a pilot for some other projects.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ICYMI: the SFH development agreement was tabled by City Council in order to consider options for a workforce housing component.

On a different topic, I was looking at the Liberty Street office building listing on Loopnet and noticed that there was a more specific completion date posted: Fall 2019 (or November 2019 in some places).  I would think construction would need to begin in the next few months in order to hit that target.  Though, I suspect we'll first have to see a City bid approval for the relocation of Silverhill Street to accommodate the project.  Anyway, I hope we get some concrete news soon.  Oh, and the floor plans changed slightly (looks like the core elements are more centrally located now). Old first, then New (below).

1395747524_libold.JPG.3ff8128440805ef74372d9eb7a5063c6.JPG1008946243_libnew.JPG.a6e4b276b963d3344d11f1ed656c88bd.JPG

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...
  • 3 weeks later...
22 minutes ago, Spartan said:

The building proposed to the DRB looked amazing. I saw it on instagram I think. I haven't been able to find a higher quality image to post, but wow. I'm hoping someone here can find it.

Checkout the city's Facebook page and you'll see it there. 

The rendering looks impressive to me. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it looks a bit on the suburban side (like neighborhood-ish) with the hipped roofs.  Since this building will be diagonally across from a 5-floor office building, I think it should look more "urban" (like downtown-ish).  Also, you can't tell from the black-and-white rendering, but the whole thing is siding, not brick (which would be greatly preferable).  DRB will have more to say before final approval, I'm sure.  They already suggested bigger windows at the corner (which is a common area), to make it look more like a retail space.  But this building is the best looking one in the complex, IMO.  I'll see if I can get pictures of the other buildings.

Edited by westsider28
Better wording?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

^I don't disagree with any of that. However, I've seen so much garbage being built here in Charlotte that I was skeptical the a developer was even capable of building something that looks different. I really like how the balconies are designed into the structure, and I like the roofline and attention to detail. I agree that siding is not good in an urban setting, and I also concede that without having seen the whole plan my opinion might change.

My one criticism will likely be that I'd like to see more ground floor activation, but it's hard to tell what's going on based on the renderings.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The architect is Torti Gallas + Partners, who have done a lot of work in the DC area.  You can check out their projects here.  Looks like pretty good stuff, generally.  Of course, developer budget is a big factor impacting the architecture.  They did make it a point to design this project differently than the typical apartments going up everywhere, so that is a positive.

I believe the plan is to have stoops / direct street access for some of the ground-floor apartments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To the point about ground floor activation, that did come up in the presentation.  The developer did address the idea of retail but he wasn't really that enthused about bringing retail to that spot, and said they didn't really have the space for it, and more importantly, the parking.  If they added a restaurant, they would have to add a whole lot more parking, and he seemed like he wasn't all that interested in a coffee shop or other similar place.  

FWIW, I like the design, but I never claimed to have good taste.  

I am going to attempt to embed the link from the video on the City's Facebook page so you can watch the entire DRB meeting if you are interested.  

 

If that doesn't work, I'll try something else.  

Edited by Historyguy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, I've got the presentation from the DRB meeting, so I've looked over it more.  If you have any questions, I can probably answer them.  First, here's the site plan.  It's a bit hard to tell, but I think there's parallel parking on Liberty and Silver Hill.  The sidewalks are planned to be quite wide to accommodate bikes & pedestrians (functioning as part of the Rail Trail extension, essentially).

1265577032_RenParkAptssiteplan.JPG.11d8c9504cd987d6be7075255510fedd.JPG

Next, I was mistaken about materials on the corner building (C).  There is brick on the first 3 floors of the portions indicated below.

1319443076_RenParkAptscorner-annotated.JPG.9d2f418d14fda06102fac24401d3f01a.JPG

I wish the brick extended to the 4th floor, but I'm sure it's a cost thing.  I don't really understand the change in siding type/color for the 4th floor on the rest of it, though.  I'd rather see the siding type/color vary in vertical masses to break up the long building more visually.

993451568_RenParkAptsCLibertyelev.thumb.JPG.f2d8427c782bd9302ebc0f0b883928dc.JPG

Here are two of the other buildings (B and D) and the (rental) townhouses.  As I said, I like these less.  There's a vague federalist/colonial-ness about buildings B & D that's a bit odd and out-of-place in Spartanburg (it's more of a Northeastern or coastal style).  And you can also see how the topography makes things challenging.

1139823664_RenParkAptsbldgB.JPG.1f4dc4963e22fbb00b172d92f93d89b7.JPG2024250338_RenParkAptsbldgD.JPG.eff2e6608425272bf13ebef63f7a5cbc.JPG

861280845_RenParkAptstownhouses.JPG.47347aff389cc07a5b6dc9a41e28e442.JPG

Anyway, this turned into a massive info dump.  Analyze and react at your leisure.

  • Like 2
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.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • 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.