Scaleybark Station Area Projects

[UPNoDa]

So....what happens to the park n ride spots? Are they being relocated in one of the two parking garages?

[southslider]

^Yes, that's been the plan for over a decade.

[j-man]

15 hours ago, EllAyyDub said:

My biggest desire for Charlotte is an MLS stadium & mixed use development where Brookhill Village is today (with a corresponding investment in affordable housing).

ON topic:  Can we please collectively kill the "L*S*" name with fire?

Yeah that would be great. I'm tired of the Atlanta comparisons, but what they did with their new MLB stadium creating like a community around it was a great idea. So much retail, offices, apartments, hotel rooms, and Lots of parking in one central location not a few blocks down the road. I think Charlotte, if it was to be a plan that it could happen. I like the idea of it being SouthEnd actually. 

[kermit]

Much to my surprise I spotted this on a bulletin board at UNCC today:

 

[jtmonk]

I'll have to disagree with some of critiques you guys are making.  I like the design and think it's a design that we need more of in Charlotte, not less.    The proportions and layout do not seem that off to me.  At first glance the few changes I would make is to move  the hotel, retail and office space D around so that the hotel doesn't face the townhomes.  I would also like for them to invest in a underground storm water retention system to free up the space at the corner of DeWitt Lane and Tryclan Road for more development.  The name is pretty lame, they should just stick with Scaleybark Station.  However, I think that Beacon has come up with better names than most other developers in the City. 

[J-Rob]

Wow.  I have a hard time understanding anti-gentrification outcry at times.  I get the underlying premise, but those Brookhill homes are hardly livable.  I understand the need for cheap rent, but if the rents aren't even high enough to support basic repairs and a safe standard of living... well, something has to give.  Tough situation to navigate.

5 minutes ago, kermit said:

Much to my surprise I spotted this on a bulletin board at UNCC today:

 

[j-man]

10 minutes ago, kermit said:

Much to my surprise I spotted this on a bulletin board at UNCC today:

 

I love urban development, but I would have to agree. I hate gentrification with a passion. I know many of you couldn't care any less but it sucks and it erases history, bonds, and cultures. Charlotte is rapidly growing, but gentrification is the reason why people don't see any trace of history in this city. It's like just rip it down, and if its important enough to me, we'll put something in an article or museum about it. smh.  Sadly this is what is happening all over the South. 

Edited January 29, 2019 by j-man

[lancer22]

12 minutes ago, kermit said:

Much to my surprise I spotted this on a bulletin board at UNCC today:

 

One has to wonder if the people protesting have ever walked through Brookhill

[Sigma]

14 hours ago, QClifer said:

I think where they put the QP sign sucks.  Why is it not at the corner of the intersection instead of behind a fence 40ft from the road.  Oh well.  I’m sure he average person walking on the street has no idea what the sign is anyways 

I think they did a disservice to the QP sign as well. My father's office was down the street from the sign growing up. I loved the height it had. Queen Park Social House could've done much better with it.  Also, most people have no clue what the history behind the sign is for two parts: 1. most people going to QP Social House are not natives and would not have insight to the history. 2 QPSH does nothing (that I'm aware of) to inform patrons of the sign's history.

I would much rather see the old QP sign on top of this Beacon development tower than its current location and presentation.

 

RDF, IMO the social house is alright.  It serves a purpose / function of a late night option for this area and it does have a solid selection of games. My main complaint is they do not maintain the bowling alleys well and it affects play.

[CLT2014]

54 minutes ago, lancer22 said:

One has to wonder if the people protesting have ever walked through Brookhill

Where would you suggest people with kids who can't afford more than $600 a month go?

You either live in Brookhill or you have to move out to Gastonia. There are few apartments available for under $600 a month in Mecklenburg so it is a double edged sword... live in bad conditions at a rent you can afford or move out.... but have to consider sharing an apartment with other families that will split with your family, living in a garage, or moving out to Gaston County, acquiring a car, and commuting 20+ miles to work. 

I believe these protesters are advocating for the conditions to be brought up to habitable, but the rent be kept reasonable.  

Edited January 29, 2019 by CLT2014

[j-man]

14 minutes ago, CLT2014 said:

Where would you suggest people with kids who can't afford more than $600 a month go?

You either live in Brookhill or you have to move out to Gastonia. There are few apartments available for under $600 a month in Mecklenburg so it is a double edged sword... live in bad conditions at a rent you can afford or move out.... but have to consider sharing an apartment with other families that will split with your family, living in a garage, or moving out to Gaston County, acquiring a car, and commuting 20+ miles to work. 

I believe these protesters are advocating for the conditions to be brought up to habitable, but the rent be kept reasonable.  

Spot on. And lets dig deeper. People really don't care for other people especially the ones outside of their "class." The issue is that people do not want to be living in these conditions, just many of them are not granted the opportunists to get better paying jobs so they have to do  what they can, and now their neighborhoods get gentrified, and they are forced to relocate,  so their commute to work becomes even longer, and more money put into travel and more time away from their families. Its just a big mess that is deeper than not being poor like some jackass mentioned earlier.

[Guest]

Brookhill would not be hard to replace vertically integrated. I think theres maybe 80 homes left MAX that haven't been condemned. Hard to get an accurate read on that. This is over a 50+ acre area.

[Guest]

Edit: 
Though that does not necessarily mean the future developer is actually going to do true affordable housing

[lancer22]

30 minutes ago, CLT2014 said:

Where would you suggest people with kids who can't afford more than $600 a month go?

You either live in Brookhill or you have to move out to Gastonia. There are few apartments available for under $600 a month in Mecklenburg so it is a double edged sword... live in bad conditions at a rent you can afford or move out.... but have to consider sharing an apartment with other families that will split with your family, living in a garage, or moving out to Gaston County, acquiring a car, and commuting 20+ miles to work. 

I believe these protesters are advocating for the conditions to be brought up to habitable, but the rent be kept reasonable.  

I get the need for affordable housing, don't get me wrong. My point is that Brookhill is hell. Not to sound incendiary, but it is third world. You want to continue your endless loop of poverty and hopelessness? Live in Brookhill.

Solutions are never going to be perfect. Maybe you have to move o/s Meck County. Maybe it's tough on you personally. I get that, but there are other items you need to weigh against the cost of current tenants relocating. In the case of Brookhill, the scales are clearly tilted towards tearing it down.

Who knows, maybe the county can subsidize housing there. Seems like it could be the poster child for mixed-income housing in Charlotte.

 

[J-Rob]

These are both good post.  There are solutions other than just saving the current iteration of Brookhill.  Nobody is advocating for people to be out on the street.  If anything, I would think everyone on UP thinks they deserve a higher standard of living.  The residents of Brookhill deserve something better than what currently exists on that land, and RDF is right, redevelopment might be part of the solution.  It might actually increase the number of affordable housing units.   

10 minutes ago, ricky_davis_fan_21 said:

Brookhill would not be hard to replace vertically integrated. I think theres maybe 80 homes left MAX that haven't been condemned. Hard to get an accurate read on that. This is over a 50+ acre area.

 

1 minute ago, lancer22 said:

Who knows, maybe the county can subsidize housing there. Seems like it could be the poster child for mixed-income housing in Charlotte.

I don't think anyone said or implied this.  If they did, I don't see it.  It is a tough issue, but it is also a very nuanced issue.  It isn't fair to assume others "don't care about people outside their class".

14 minutes ago, j-man said:

Its just a big mess that is deeper than not being poor like some jackass mentioned earlier.

 

[kermit]

I have lived in Charlotte for 19 years, this is the first organized effort to protest gentrification I have seen in that whole time.

[hinsp0]

52 minutes ago, kermit said:

I have lived in Charlotte for 19 years, this is the first organized effort to protest gentrification I have seen in that whole time.

Yep.  Didn’t hear much outcry when almost the entirety of first ward was gentrified (with the exception of a handful of “affordable” housing units).

[QClifer]

Why does everybody act like Charlotte is the first place to have gentrification.  It happens in ever city for a long time.  I’m not that old but wasent Harlem rough and ghetto not to long ago and it’s making a comeback now?  It happens everywhere and will continue to happen.  

Owners get tired of low income renters and the wear it takes over the years.   So they sell or fix up for a better quality tenant.    And the long time owners that sell are getting a lot of money for their homes and can easily move elsewhere and have money left over. 

 

Edited January 29, 2019 by QClifer

[kermit]

Some have said that the only way to avoid gentrification is to force everyone to live in their parent's basement, forever.

(I am not trying to dismiss any concerns, but gentrification is a (nearly) unavoidable aspect of urban growth. Even more so in places where zoning limits densification)

[11 HouseBZ]

3 hours ago, CLT2014 said:

I believe these protesters are advocating for the conditions to be brought up to habitable, but the rent be kept reasonable.  

I used to work part  time for a company that was contracted to fix these up and bring them to habitable condition. It would make more sense to tear down and build better, affordable apartments. As stated above, these units were/are deplorable. It was that way because the owners were too cheap to fix them. When I worked there the owners said we were fixing too much, therefore we cost them too much money. They were requesting us to renovate at least 5 units a week with minimum funds to do so. We couldn't because every unit we'd find too many things wrong, broken or rotted. My friend, who owned the construction company, lost the contract because of this. He felt it unethical to not fix something right or to skimp on the repair.

I don't know what the solution involves. But these people deserve better living conditions and it shouldn't require the current Brookhill shacks. 

[Windsurfer]

Probably drifting off topic, and I apologize in advance,  but the whole thing about South End, Dliworth and NoDa, is that those were originally mill villages. The owner of the mills owned and housed his employees. That's not done these days. (Although I did hear of an experiment in Eastern Carolina where some teachers were being housed by the town's school board in an apartment complex at cheaper rent).  Do you think some of the larger corporations could be granted tax incentives if they themselves created cheaper quarters for their own workers?  I guess it'd cut into employees having the freedom to move from one job to another, but from an employer's vantage point that'd be a good thing.

[lancer22]

17 minutes ago, Windsurfer said:

Probably drifting off topic, and I apologize in advance,  but the whole thing about South End, Dliworth and NoDa, is that those were originally mill villages. The owner of the mills owned and housed his employees. That's not done these days. (Although I did hear of an experiment in Eastern Carolina where some teachers were being housed by the town's school board in an apartment complex at cheaper rent).  Do you think some of the larger corporations could be granted tax incentives if they themselves created cheaper quarters for their own workers?  I guess it'd cut into employees having the freedom to move from one job to another, but from an employer's vantage point that'd be a good thing.

One could argue that South End is a mill village for BofA, WF, and Duke...….

Don't think they could get tax breaks for it, nor do I think employees would want it

 

[tozmervo]

23 minutes ago, Windsurfer said:

Probably drifting off topic, and I apologize in advance,  but the whole thing about South End, Dliworth and NoDa, is that those were originally mill villages. The owner of the mills owned and housed his employees. That's not done these days. (Although I did hear of an experiment in Eastern Carolina where some teachers were being housed by the town's school board in an apartment complex at cheaper rent).  Do you think some of the larger corporations could be granted tax incentives if they themselves created cheaper quarters for their own workers?  I guess it'd cut into employees having the freedom to move from one job to another, but from an employer's vantage point that'd be a good thing.

I think it's not uncommon for state and federal government to provide worker housing. Many UNC campuses provide staff and visiting faculty housing. I know some private colleges do the same: they own houses around their campuses and offer them as part of the deal to remain competitive with institutions that can offer higher salaries. 

[RiverwoodCLT]

My question is why did the city let people live a dump.   If the owners will not fix up the places like this,  do not let the  owner rent a dump to people that is unfit to live in.  There should be a standard for a place that can  be rented to people.  Hope Charlotte can move on in building low rent housing that is fit to live in.

[atlrvr]

The Feds seized the property.....so the answer is the government didn't allow it in perpetuity.

But it is a tough situation.... without subsidy, it's hard to make enough money to keep them habitable.

Some rough numbers:

$450/mo x 12 = $5400 per unit (assuming 100% occupancy and no one misses rent payment)

Less insurance 

Less property taxes

Less ground lease payments due to Spangler

Less some staffing/property mgmt

I mean... without attempting a guess at those per unit costs, but also being realistic that there are probably a fair number of tenants not paying consistently, plus eviction costs/timing, each unit is probably generating below $2000/year BEFORE maintenance/capital improvement costs....for wood housing never originally built with this lifespan in mind, I am sympathetic to the fact that it's virtually impossible to both maintain them and keep rents at that low of a level.