First Ward Urban Village / North Tryon Vision Plan

[KJHburg]

^^^ But the county owns 2 empty blocks just north of this site.  We had as many older high rises as any city your mentioned above but we tore them down for bigger and newer.  We have so few left.  Then my argument of removing blocks of "old houses" with newer higher density townhomes and apartments should be considered.  Since there is NO value in older buildings then we should make everything anew.  Affordable housing is important but there is 2 blocks owned by the county that CHA could make a play with and sell this hotel site.  Plus the county and city bought the Eastland mall site and I don't see one affordable housing project proposed there.  why not?  So build 2 blocks of affordable housing on the county owned blocks and that would be much bigger than this small frame low rise apartment tower. I AM NOT AGAINST AFFORDABLE HOUSING  just makes more sense to sell this site and build on the rest and work out a deal with the county on their land for a larger affordable housing community.  This tower was affordable housing until CHA abandoned it and let it go downhill on their watch.  

[Cadi40]

2 hours ago, TCLT said:

TL;DR: Having old buildings is nice, but it shouldn’t take priority over other real concerns.

I adore historic structures and value their presence in communities greatly, and I am in no way shape or form in favor of the demolishment of the Hall House. But if we put in half the effort that’s gone into this campaign to save the Hall House into other social and economic issues we could’ve made/can make some respectable change in our community. With Police Brutality, Coronavirus, a looming recession and decision 2020 all plaguing the U.S. right now, I think there’s plenty more to be fighting for.
 

I understand everyone has something to fight for and it’s excellent to use your voice for what you believe in, but personally in this hell hole that’s known as 2020 my priorities are a little bit different.

F.Y.I. This post is not directed at any specific person, just a general thought I’ve been thinking about for the past few weeks.

Edited August 4, 2020 by Cadi40

[Guest]

2 hours ago, TCLT said:

So I’m going to push back again on the accepted wisdom that saving the building is the correct move. To be honest, I haven’t seen a convincing argument yet about why keeping the Hall House standing will have tangible benefits for Uptown and the city more broadly other than vague declarations of preserving history and adding character. It seems to have been pretty well established that this building is historically and architecturally insignificant, so other than keeping something that is old there is nothing of note to preserve. As far as character goes, Charlotte made the decision long ago to focus on new development. A single brick building is going to have a negligible impact on the overall character of this area of Uptown. I think there’s an argument to be made that even a 5 over 1 apartment complex could add more character and more life to the area than this building. The apartment building would bring more street level retail than a hotel lobby, and the retail would be more accessible (from both a socioeconomic and pedestrian point of view). Imagine if the building included micro-retail spaces like Railyard. That could do wonders for Uptown and North Tryon. And I’ll repeat my assertion that adding the several hundred full-time residents that the apartment would bring would make the area infinitely more alive than a refurbished luxury hotel. The residents could support so much more retail and the full-service grocery that Uptown lacks. Residents would be more likely users of transit than hotel visitors. Residents would fill the area’s parks and plazas and patronize the beautiful new library once it is built. And it’s not like there’s a shortage of high-end hotels already built and in development in Uptown (Iveys, Dunhill, Kimpton, JW Marriott, Intercontinental, Hilton, Ritz, etc). At the end of the day, who is a city supposed to be built for? The people that live here or the people that visit.

Which brings me to my next concern, which is that this vigorous effort to preserve this building has left a bit of a bad taste in my mouth. For decades, the city (and especially its politicians, even recently ahem Larken) have had no problem keeping quiet while developers bought up and demolished old buildings in the name of progress. So it’s an ugly look when people finally take a stand in the name of saving history to delay or halt a project by the public housing authority that is bringing affordable housing. I realize that that isn’t the intention, but it seems that more often than not the quest for the “right” development comes at the expense of poor people. It’s reinforcing the message that center city isn’t for them. I mean there’s comments in this thread that the city’s signature street isn’t the place to build a midrise apartment complex. Why not? Why shouldn’t there be a place for poor and middle-class residents to live in the city’s prime areas? And let’s be honest, the fact that there’s plenty of surface lots around could also be used as an argument that “signature” developments could go elsewhere just as much as a reason for this project to go elsewhere. Election after election affordable housing is among the top concerns for Charlotte voters. So this effort to save the building seems misplaced and unlikely to garner widespread public support anyway. Plus, losing 12 stories of bricks with no inherent value other than its age seems like a small price to pay for giving part of the city back to the people who live in it.

One last note, Charlotte was largely irrelevant as a city until after the 1920s. Winston-Salem, Wilmington, Greensboro, and Charleston were all equal to or greater than Charlotte in population, economy, and importance until the 20^th century. So I don’t really get the heartburn caused by those cities having more turn of the century buildings than us.

TL;DR: Having old buildings is nice, but it shouldn’t take priority over other real concerns.

But we aren't advocating against affordable housing on site, we are advocating to have vertically integrated affordable housing on site. Inlivian claims its not possible, but conversations I've had with Housing Partnership, and national affordable housing developers say that they are incorrect in this assessment. 

[TCLT]

11 minutes ago, Tyree Ricardo said:

But we aren't advocating against affordable housing on site, we are advocating to have vertically integrated affordable housing on site. Inlivian claims its not possible, but conversations I've had with Housing Partnership, and national affordable housing developers say that they are incorrect in this assessment. 

But Inlivian currently owns this land, has a shovel ready plan, and funding now. How much more money and time is it going to take to redesign the housing and negotiate the land swap/sale? I'm sure your contacts are right that it is possible, but is it practical? Just look at Brooklyn Village. It's been a decade of negotiating with developers and nothing to show for it.

And I'll repeat what I said at the beginning of my last post: what is the actual benefit to saving the building? All I've seen on this forum is variations of arguments that boil down to "saving old buildings is good because having old buildings is good". That's circular logic and not very persuasive. Why else should people support your position? Is rehabbing Hall House into a hotel going to increase tax revenue or spur development around it or support retail expansion or support transit expansion? Is it going to provide opportunities to the city's vulnerable populations? Will it do any of that over and above the apartment building? In my view, there's been a lot of preaching to the choir so far. If you're actually going to stop Inlivian you'll need a lot more than the choir.

[kermit]

Clayton-Quehote  is starting to get some traction (and I am glad)

https://ui.uncc.edu/story/approaches-for-historic-preservation-Charlotte

Edited August 4, 2020 by kermit

[Guest]

30 minutes ago, TCLT said:

But Inlivian currently owns this land, has a shovel ready plan, and funding now. How much more money and time is it going to take to redesign the housing and negotiate the land swap/sale? I'm sure your contacts are right that it is possible, but is it practical? Just look at Brooklyn Village. It's been a decade of negotiating with developers and nothing to show for it.

And I'll repeat what I said at the beginning of my last post: what is the actual benefit to saving the building? All I've seen on this forum is variations of arguments that boil down to "saving old buildings is good because having old buildings is good". That's circular logic and not very persuasive. Why else should people support your position? Is rehabbing Hall House into a hotel going to increase tax revenue or spur development around it or support retail expansion or support transit expansion? Is it going to provide opportunities to the city's vulnerable populations? Will it do any of that over and above the apartment building? In my view, there's been a lot of preaching to the choir so far. If you're actually going to stop Inlivian you'll need a lot more than the choir.

Theres a lot more than choir happening behind the scenes, and they 1. Don't yet even have financing 2. Don't yet have a completed design 3. Do not have permission from the National Registry of Historic Places to tear down the building. So I'm getting in on this at the perfect time, and I have a plan to stall them in their tracks.

[TCLT]

2 minutes ago, Tyree Ricardo said:

Theres a lot more than choir happening behind the scenes, and they 1. Don't yet even have financing 2. Don't yet have a completed design 3. Do not have permission from the National Registry of Historic Places to tear down the building. So I'm getting in on this at the perfect time, and I have a plan to stall them in their tracks.

Fair enough. And I appreciate you correcting my wrong assumptions about the project. Those are important details. All I can say is good luck. If you can figure out a way to save the building and still get the housing on site done soon-ish then you'll have accomplished something fantastic for the city. But it would be a shame to see the housing delayed or pushed to another site. Either way, I respect the effort you're putting in.

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, TCLT said:

Fair enough. And I appreciate you correcting my wrong assumptions about the project. Those are important details. All I can say is good luck. If you can figure out a way to save the building and still get the housing on site done soon-ish then you'll have accomplished something fantastic for the city. But it would be a shame to see the housing delayed or pushed to another site. Either way, I respect the effort you're putting in.

I'm very pro affordable housing, but I can tell you that people like The Housing Partnership are doing big plays for affordable housing all over the city (including uptown) with little to no fanfare, and here Inlivian is just shooting for the big splashes, to give themselves good PR, meanwhile they are creating communities that are a minority True affordable housing opportunities. Less than 1/3 of this building is affordable, the rest is market rate. 

[JRNYP2C]

7 hours ago, Cityplanner said:

Thanks, everyone.  I totally respect everyone's varying opinions particularly where they differ from mine.  I appreciate that everyone is so thoughtful and insightful about this topic.

Trust me when I say this, but I'm torn.  Coming from Pittsburgh where they built some newer buildings in the mid to late 80's as Renaissance II, and didn't have anything new until about 3 years ago with the new PNC Bank headquarters, and bump that up against Charlotte where everything that was old has been bulldozed for something new, I'm in the middle.

I like the newness of Charlotte and have enjoyed watching all of this growth take place over the past 30 years.  Comparing PGH to CLT is apples to oranges in some circles, and downtown PGH can still be dirty and gritty in some parts.  It's basically still old and they are trying to revive it.  They will never have the influx that we have going on here (past, present and hopefully future).

I think the two lessons to learn is that a city can be in the middle of the two extremes.  There is something to be said for preserving (where financially feasible) and making way for new opportunities and growth.  I tend to use Asheville as a good example (and anyone on this forum is free to dispute me here), but that city, in my mind, has an excellent mix of old and new.  They have redone where they can, and for a smaller city, I think they have hit the sweet spot with combining the two aspects.

To quote KJHburg - 

well maybe we can take a bull dozer to couple of blocks in Plaza Midwood and replace with higher density townhomes too or maybe take down Latta Arcade and build a high rise there.  

(Blue means I joking or being absurd in this case) 

This is the one thing that makes me nervous though in all seriousness.  Take a look at Plaza Midwood and see what is being built there.  The charm and funkiness of that area is slowly being discarded for stick built apartment buildings.  Just like NoDA.  I remember North Davidson at 36th street when it was nothing but one story art houses and funky people.  There was a grit to it that is long gone.  My fear is that these parts of the city that have an old school charm and edge to them are slowly being take apart for blandness.

Just my rambling two cents for the day!

[tozmervo]

3 hours ago, Tyree Ricardo said:

Theres a lot more than choir happening behind the scenes, and they 1. Don't yet even have financing 2. Don't yet have a completed design 3. Do not have permission from the National Registry of Historic Places to tear down the building. So I'm getting in on this at the perfect time, and I have a plan to stall them in their tracks.

No permission for demolition is required unless they are tapping Federal tax credits for preservation. Being on the national register doesn't keep a property owner from modifying or demolishing the building. Since it doesn't lie within a Charlotte historic district, there is no local review procedure to prevent demolition.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, tozmervo said:

No permission for demolition is required unless they are tapping Federal tax credits for preservation. Being on the national register doesn't keep a property owner from modifying or demolishing the building. Since it doesn't lie within a Charlotte historic district, there is no local review procedure to prevent demolition.

My info comes from the Historic Landmarks Commission, which said there will be a number of hurdles before demolition would be possible.

[Cityplanner]

How many people in this thread who want to keep old buildings uptown actually live in old buildings?

I have lived in buildings built in the 1800s and buildings built as late as the late 1990s.

As much as I like historic architecture, I have zero interest in living in a 1920s building again, with 1920s technology.

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, Cityplanner said:

How many people in this thread who want to keep old buildings uptown actually live in old buildings?

I have lived in buildings built in the 1800s and buildings built as late as the late 1990s.

As much as I like historic architecture, I have zero interest in living in a 1920s building again, with 1920s technology.

Lived in buildings in Brooklyn from 1917, 1880, 1941 and my parents house in the mountains is from pre civil war. 

Edited August 5, 2020 by Guest

[tozmervo]

45 minutes ago, Tyree Ricardo said:

My info comes from the Historic Landmarks Commission, which said there will be a number of hurdles before demolition would be possible.

Hmm... I wonder if there's some additional oversight possible because Inlivian is a public agency

[Guest]

1 minute ago, tozmervo said:

Hmm... I wonder if there's some additional oversight possible because Inlivian is a public agency

I'll get clarification, I just took their word as dogma, but I'm learning that not everyone is on the same page.

[tozmervo]

Just now, Tyree Ricardo said:

I'll get clarification, I just took their word as dogma, but I'm learning that not everyone is on the same page.

I mean, maybe it's good they think they have to get permission

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, tozmervo said:

I mean, maybe it's good they think they have to get permission

well it was the landmarks commission that was under the impression they needed permission. So... need to make sure thats not something I'm overlooking

[atlrvr]

It's the same 1 year stay of execution, just like in an historic district.  I think landmarks commission actually has the right to purchase the property, though doubtful they can afford it.

Edit: nevermind, see now it's not landmarked by CMHLC...so, agree, don't see there is power to prevent demo

[Guest]

10 minutes ago, atlrvr said:

It's the same 1 year stay of execution, just like in an historic district.  I think landmarks commission actually has the right to purchase the property, though doubtful they can afford it.

Edit: nevermind, see now it's not landmarked by CMHLC...so, agree, don't see there is power to prevent demo

Then I guess I gotta bump up my plan for a stay of execution.

[cltbwimob]

49 minutes ago, Tyree Ricardo said:

Then I guess I gotta bump up my plan for a stay of execution.

Does Inlivian plan on using any federal tax incentives to help fund their project?

[Guest]

14 minutes ago, cltbwimob said:

Does Inlivian plan on using any federal tax incentives to help fund their project?

yes

[Cityplanner]

7 hours ago, Tyree Ricardo said:

Lived in buildings in Brooklyn from 1917, 1880, 1941 and my parents house in the mountains is from pre civil war. 

Yes and how many people on this thread now live in old buildings?  If we want people to live in 80 year old Hall House I’d hope that we live in old buildings as well.

[SouthEndCLT811]

My house was built in 1950 fwiw.  This reminds me of a funny article I saw in a lifestyle paper in London one time where they featured a travel to New Orleans segment.  They raved about going to see the "100 year old buildings that American's think are old".  I guess when buildings stick around for as long as they do in other countries it may seem funny anything under 100 we're considering old and even in some cases, needing torn down.

Edited August 5, 2020 by SouthEndCLT811

[KJHburg]

3 hours ago, Cityplanner said:

Yes and how many people on this thread now live in old buildings?  If we want people to live in 80 year old Hall House I’d hope that we live in old buildings as well.

I think it has better use as a hotel but probably could be made into apartments.    and for the record Charlotte does not have huge quantities of homes from 1940 or earlier either as most of the city's rapid growth has been since WW2 especially compared to major northeastern cities.  

[Guest]

Oh also lived in two pre 1900 homes in Savannah.