First Ward Urban Village / North Tryon Vision Plan

[B Randy]

23 minutes ago, TCLT said:

I disagree. The affordable units should be in uptown. It'll contribute to a more vibrant and equitable city. The idea of affordable/workforce housing is to let people live in close proximity to job opportunities. There are probably thousands of low wage workers uptown (fast food, service, hotel staff, janitorial, etc). It isn't helpful or fair to push low wage workers that are necessary for a city to function to the city's fringes and force them into long and expensive commutes. Providing uptown housing options makes it possible for those people to work without a car or incredibly long public transit rides. It gives them more time with their families. And you get better outcomes when you mix residents of various socioeconomic statuses. We shouldn't continue to segregate the poor in affordable housing projects away from job opportunities, cultural amenities, and more well off people. 

I believe the potential for off-site units generated has been misreported.

The 207 units is via the BofA $4.2M earmarked contribution. 

Depending on the desired allocation for the remaining  $14.5M, overall potential for off-site could be closer to 600-800 total units.  

[Nathan2]

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/12/opinion/sunday/urban-density-inequality-coronavirus.html

Good article that touches on the point that we need to have affordable living within well to-do areas of the city. Pushing people elsewhere is just the continuation of class and racial segregation.

[KJHburg]

I am just saying I think getting more units if they are transist accessible is important.  Uptown is the most expensive real estate in town.  Not tyring to segregate anyone. How about this buying some of Levine's land and building a stick built apartment complex which is much cheaper a few blocks away. How about Southend or towards NoDa along the light rail line?  To just get 36 units to say we have affordable housing uptown! is not an answer to the overall shortage of affordable housing.  If the Brooklyn deal falls apart there should a LOT more affodable housing over as the city and county own the land.  There is another uptown option. 

[Desert Power]

6 minutes ago, KJHburg said:

I am just saying I think getting more units if they are transist accessible is important.  Uptown is the most expensive real estate in town.  Not tyring to segregate anyone. How about this buying some of Levine's land and building a stick built apartment complex which is much cheaper a few blocks away. How about Southend or towards NoDa along the light rail line?  To just get 36 units to say we have affordable housing uptown! is not an answer to the overall shortage of affordable housing.  If the Brooklyn deal falls apart there should a LOT more affodable housing over as the city and county own the land.  There is another uptown option. 

Exactly. We need more units built in dense and transit accessible locations full stop. 

[TCLT]

14 minutes ago, KJHburg said:

I am just saying I think getting more units if they are transist accessible is important.  Uptown is the most expensive real estate in town.  Not tyring to segregate anyone. How about this buying some of Levine's land and building a stick built apartment complex which is much cheaper a few blocks away. How about Southend or towards NoDa along the light rail line?  To just get 36 units to say we have affordable housing uptown! is not an answer to the overall shortage of affordable housing.  If the Brooklyn deal falls apart there should a LOT more affodable housing over as the city and county own the land.  There is another uptown option. 

Looking at adding affordable housing in many center city neighborhoods is definitely the right way to go. I like the suggestions of First Ward and Brooklyn, but those are even further out from being reality than the Seventh and Tryon project. South End and Noda should've been perfect opportunities for it but neither the city leaders nor the developers cared enough to make it happen during the last decade's building boom. And when it comes to affordable housing, more isn't necessarily better. Building a huge number of units where it's cheap to build just results in further concentrating poor people in places that are already poor, underdeveloped, and underserved. It doesn't help with access to food, jobs, transit, or education. Putting small amounts of units in every (or most) developments in Uptown, South End, Noda, and other dense, transit accessible areas will probably result in better outcomes than plopping down several hundred in one place in the outer neighborhoods. Getting people close to jobs should increase employment stability, reduce overall costs, get children into better schools, and improve quality of life. This might allow people over time to outgrow the need for the affordable housing they live in. In my view, the goal of affordable housing shouldn't be to provide cheap shelter for the largest number of people for the longest possible time, but should be to give people the stability and tools to beat the traps that poverty lays to prevent escape from it. There's an opportunity to add 36 units in Uptown and it shouldn't be passed up. 36 more units in center city is better than none.

[B Randy]

Much more accurate depiction of big picture and choices around housing.

https://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/local/article242815616.html

WHERE WILL HOUSING MONEY GO?

Bank of America already has committed $4.2 million, about half the proceeds from selling its land, to fund up to 207 units in affordable housing projects already underway outside of uptown. The money would close funding gaps to make units available faster.

That leaves commissioners to decide how to spend $14.5 million, which comes from the rest of the land sales and $3 million committed by the developer for affordable housing.

County officials presented the commissioners three options, two of which would put affordable units in or adjacent to the Seventh and Tryon development.

The first would use the $14.5 million to build 36 affordable units on site, including 12 for households earning 30% of the area median income, or $23,700 for a family of four.

The second option would bring Inlivian, formerly the Charlotte Housing Authority, back into the mix. Inlivian, which owns land originally included in the Seventh and Tryon project, left the landowners group after disagreements with other landowners about whether the housing authority would sell its land outright or lease it back to the master developer.

County officials and others involved in the project, including Bank of America, planned to move forward without Inlivian or its land, and have previously said the now-smaller footprint would make affordable housing too expensive on site.

County officials offered no details about how Inlivian would be involved under option two.

The third choice, similar to a proposal Seventh and Tryon leaders outlined to The Observer earlier this year, would direct all money from the land sale — $18.7 million — to affordable housing projects outside of uptown already underway.

If all of the money went to outside projects, it would increase the possible units spread across several developments to more than 700, rather than the 200 Bank of America has committed to with its $4.2 million.

Commissioners can also choose to direct money to a combination of the three options.

[KJHburg]

I found a junior architect working on a plan for one of Mr. Levine's many empty blocks in First Ward.  It seems to be a perimeter stick built apartment row on the edge of the block with surface parking behind and a central castle like feature in the middle of the block.   Word is he is done with multilevel parking garages thus the surface lots.   When asked for further comment I was met with a "No comment especially to any UPer"

Update later in the day the project was 100% complete! 

 

 

Edited May 24, 2020 by KJHburg

[TCLT]

I found a junior architect working on a plan for one of Mr. Levine's many empty blocks in First Ward.  It seems to be a perimeter stick built apartment row on the edge of the block with surface parking behind and a central castle like feature in the middle of the block.   Word is he is done with multilevel parking garages thus the surface lots.   When asked for further comment I was met with a "No comment especially to any UPer"
Update later in the day the project was 100% complete! 
 
 

If the rumors are true that sand might be more structurally sound than Levine’s concrete.

[Rufus]

https://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/local/article243026506.html

This does not make me happy. Inlivian proposing 360+ units, of varying affordability, but within a 6-story building that goes in place of Hall House which will be demolished according to their plans. 

UGH

[michaelef]

A parking lot sits right next to Hall House, build it there. I am all for more Affordable housing but I don't want to lose Hall House!

 

[49er]

I hope the county commissioners squash this quickly. What I see is the private sector coming in and whining about the cost of renovating a historic structure. Same song we heard with the Polk building.  Odell wants to honor history....blah blah blah "The intent is... to honor that legacy and celebrate that history but at the same time support the new residents,” said Brad Bartholomew of Odell

[Blue_Devil]

1 hour ago, 49er said:

I hope the county commissioners squash this quickly. What I see is the private sector coming in and whining about the cost of renovating a historic structure. Same song we heard with the Polk building.  Odell wants to honor history....blah blah blah "The intent is... to honor that legacy and celebrate that history but at the same time support the new residents,” said Brad Bartholomew of Odell

Except are they the Housing Authority? I am confused about Inlivian’s status. 

[cltcane]

2 hours ago, 49er said:

I hope the county commissioners squash this quickly. What I see is the private sector coming in and whining about the cost of renovating a historic structure. Same song we heard with the Polk building.  Odell wants to honor history....blah blah blah "The intent is... to honor that legacy and celebrate that history but at the same time support the new residents,” said Brad Bartholomew of Odell

This is the most offensive redevelopment proposal I’ve seen in a long time.  Replace a historic Art Deco high rise with a cheap mid rise on Tryon St?  Plus how many more affordable units could be built just Uptown where land is cheaper?  People should be up in arms.  What can we do to make sure this doesn’t happen?

[KJHburg]

That is insane to knock down that 1940s hotel when someone might be interested in developing it as a hotel or even market rate apartments.  Plenty of other room behind the hotel for another apartment structure.  

[Nick2]

Ok this is bullsh*t. The Polk building was literally falling apart so they at least could argue that it was just simply too expensive to save. Renovating the hall house can't be that difficult.  They can easily build a parking deck adjacent and wrap it with six floors of stick built.

 

[NCMike1990]

Save Hall House! There's plenty of room in the area to build this project.

[KJHburg]

we need a champion for this building to write an article like a great Charlotte writer @Tyree Ricardo

Here is some history the ONLY high rise built in Charlotte between 1920s to the 1950s

http://landmarkscommission.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Barringer-Hotel-SR.pdf

Save th Barringer Save the Hall House!  Save our History!  The proceeds from selling the Hall House will go a long way to funding the affordable housing.  

More information on the buildng

https://www.cmstory.org/exhibits/robinson-spangler-north-carolina-room-image-collection-charlotte-postcard-collection-462

 

Edited May 29, 2020 by KJHburg

[videtur quam contuor]

The Addison at McDowell and Morehead, was a residential structure of approximate vintage of Hall House. It fell on harder times and languished until renovated by private partners. Not at all the same as Hall House. But as a comparison the modern communications, lighting, and HVAC required ceilings lowered and tenants say it is one of the things they have to come to terms with. The convenience of Addison, the history, the strong corner presence and Dilworth location sell it sufficiently that it stays leased for business tenants.

Point:  An older building with structural limitations can be renovated for the 21st century.

Edited May 29, 2020 by tarhoosier

[Nick2]

Whatever happened to this plan?

https://www.stantec.com/en/projects/united-states-projects/c/charlotte-hall-house

[cltbwimob]

Call your commissioners and demand that they not give in to Inlivan on this.

If they allocate the $14+ mil to Inlivan they will get 110 affordable units.  If they choose the third option which is to combine the $14+ mil with the $4.2 mil BofA has committed to projects outside of uptown, they can get up to 700 units total (approximately 500 on top of the 207 BofA is helping to fund).  And we don’t lose a building that’s on the National Register of Historic Places.

https://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/local/article242815616.html

Edited May 29, 2020 by cltbwimob

[cltbwimob]

https://mobile.twitter.com/inlivian
 

All right “twitterers”, Inlivan has created a thread regarding their Uptown plans on their Twitter account.  Please channel your anger and inundate them with #SaveHallHouse tweets in that thread.  

[CLTNative]

I certainly will #typemyconcerns...

This is a ridiculous proposal. CCCP has always included the Hall House preservation In their vision plans. I’d love to see it back to BERINGER glory. Check out this one in Sioux City, it’s a casino conversion, but the exterior is similar and the proposed decor is pretty groovy.
 

https://siouxcityjournal.com/news/local/warrior-hotel-project-includes-hotel-theater/article_3858f868-bdf5-5acb-b630-9b0ad9424be2.html

[dubone]

It is a beautiful building that deserves to be kept and restored.  Not only does it have prewar art deco intrigue but also some LGBT history as well

https://www.wfae.org/post/archiving-charlotte-lgbt-communitys-history#stream/0

https://files.nc.gov/ncdcr/nr/MK2935.pdf

 

700 units and saving the old building is a far better plan.   Not to mention, uptown already has a huge number of public housing and affordable housing in this area.    Building a higher number of units somewhere just outside of uptown on the transit lines will have far greater good. 

 

To use public money to destroy a National Registered Historic building is a pure travesty when other options exist. 

[SgtCampsalot]

Everyone's right, we need County Commissioners to squash this quickly. Politicians sway with the current right in front of them. The longer this sits out there, the more entrenched they'll become.

Here is the list of County Commissioners to call and email:
https://www.mecknc.gov/CountyManagersOffice/BOCC/Pages/Home.aspx

Here's a map to know which district you live in:

[SentioVenia]

 

There's not an eye roll emoji big enough.