Jump to content

Tear down Historic Houses for Condos?


monsoon

Should Charlotte Approve the demolition of historic houses for condo development?  

73 members have voted

  1. 1. Should Charlotte Approve the demolition of historic houses for condo development?

    • Yes
      32
    • No
      38
    • Indifferent
      3


Recommended Posts

I'm sure there are a few parcels....but as I was saying.....the price for almost all the parcels is outrageous. People are willing to sit on their parking lots for decades in hopes that they are chosen as the site for the next skyscraper.......although I hate this fact, I'm too much of a property rights person to suggest mandatory downzoning.

Here is a guide to historic buildings......there are pictures of the significant remaining one. http://www.cmhpf.org/neighborhoods/CenterCityProps1.html

Here is an overview on the history of center city housing.

http://cmhpf.org/uptownsurveyhistoryhousing.htm

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Replies 93
  • Created
  • Last Reply

So far though no one is selling.......The church isn't ready to move.....the convention center wants to expand.......the Adam's Mark is bundled with the Cameron Brown and is asking way too much anways......Walton Plaza is still necessary until Freedom Mall is converted for them......Metro School isn't complete so the current one is still needed....CMS has said they are uninterested in moving, since building a new building will cost more than they would get from the proceeds of selling the current building and land....plus they have said "we are not in the business of real estate, we are in the business of educating children"......the county has also said that they are not interested in selling for below market value and accused the city for suggesting they should.

The basic point is the city planners and Land Design came up with a great plan for a low to mid rise neighborhood.....unfortunately they planned it for an area they have no control over.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First Baptist is not going to move anytime soon...in fact they are going to expand on their current site.

The Adam's Mark will eventually sell...and maybe become residential.

Freedom Mall redux is already in the works.

Metro School will be complete this year.

All the stakeholders bought into the 2nd Ward plan. Don't expect for all the pieces to fall into place in one day...it is a long term project...but it will happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As far as Polk house.....the house now is a recreation.....his original birthplace was several miles away and destroyed decades ago.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Recreation? Its not a place where people go to play softball. Its the James K Polk Historical Homesite...have you ever been? The land is the actual land that he was born on. The original home was destroyed by fire over 100 years ago and what is there is a replica of the original house.

You can also go to Raleigh and see the President Johnson birthplace which is still standing in its original form.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course I've been.....I've made lye soap with the bonnet-hooded ladies.....it's the actual land in a sense that it is somewhere in the vicinity of the original house.....what's the point? I was simply addressing the fact that we don't have our other local president's original house preserved......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Reading this thread's many tangents are quite a "recreation" :).

I think the major fallacy (among many) of "urban renewal" which wiped out most residential downtown, was the idea that the areas would redevelop into nice new places just because there were greenfields instead of a rundown poor neighborhood. Neighborhoods grow contiguously based on previous successes.

2nd ward will eventually come back to life, when the old demons are eventually gone.... but for now, it is first ward that is growing again due to the result of creative forces, like hope VI, and new urban pioneers like furman and his customers.

There are plenty of parcels for mid-rise developments, but the development in question is here is happening because it is contiguous to the positive/successful garden district neighborhood.

It is a big shame, but that is often why older buildings get torn down to make new ones...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

MEETING TAKING PLACE WHERE REZONING IS ON THE AGENDA!!!!!!

PS---On the internet at www.charmeck.org under events schedule and city council meetings that the district city council representative James "Smuggie" Mitchell is having a town hall meeting for District 2 on March 29, 2005 from 6:00PM - 8:00PM at the Mount Moriah Primitive Baptist Church at 747 West Trade Street (on the corner of West Trade Street and South Cedar Street) Free Parking is available on site. I believe this is right across the street from where the Johnson and Wales student residence is located and down the road from the Panther Practice Field.

This is Listed as a PUBLIC MEETING FOR ALL RESIDENTS AND BUSINESS OWNERS WITH CONCERNS ABOUT DISTRICT 2 ISSUES.

COME ON OUT AND MAYBE YOU CAN GET A HOLD OF THE TRUTH THE WHOLE TRUTH AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH....in regards to this situation.

Peace and Truth

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't feel like taking the time to respond to the whole truth. I just want to point out that no one lobbyed for these home to be considered historic until this proposal, that the HLC doesn't consider these homes historic, and that the people who lived their certainly felt that they were getting a fair deal for their homes with the knowledge that they would be destroyed.

As far as selling to the highest bidder for hopes of renovation? I didn't realize that peoples property rights and intelligence were things we need to micro-manage.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So what happens if Drakeford doesn't get his rezoning? I lived in First Ward for five years. I know these people. Who is going to invest money into restoring these four houses that are literally falling apart. Certainly not those who own them...they can't afford it.

One of the anit-Drakeford types is a man who lives on 8th St. He lives in what he refers to as an "original" First Ward house (although its was built in the 1970s). His family's trust also owns one of the houses to be demolished. They were the first ones to agree to sell. Now he rails against Drakeford, telling anyone who will listen to his diatribes that (they) are trying to force the black folks out. BULL! Bobby Drakeford IS black!

These houses are crap and sit on huge lots in an urban neighborhood. They are as historical as the Earle Village Housing Project that was demolished to make way for what we see today. On the other hand you have the wealthy residents of the south side of Ninth Street who are blasting the project because they don't want their skyline views blocked (or their well-maintained back yards looked upon). They were fine with tearing down the African-American urban fabric to get their 2,700 square foot faux bungalows and Dutch Colonials, but now want to "save the history of the neighborhood". Jeez, give me a break! They are acting like the suburban NIMBYs who they claim to dispise. After all, they moved uptown to be "urbane" and get away from those people that, as one Ninth St resident said to me once, "(suburbanites) just don't get it".

Sorry to go off on a tangent like this, but I know all these folks and what their REAL agendas are. It's one of the reasons I moved out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So what happens if Drakeford doesn't get his rezoning?  I lived in First Ward for five years.  I know these people.  Who is going to invest money into restoring these four houses that are literally falling apart.  Certainly not those who own them...they can't afford it. 

One of the anit-Drakeford types is a man who lives on 8th St.  He lives in what he refers to as an "original" First Ward house (although its was built in the 1970s).  His family's trust also owns one of the houses to be demolished.  They were the first ones to agree to sell.  Now he rails against Drakeford, telling anyone who will listen to his diatribes that (they) are trying to force the black folks out.  BULL!  Bobby Drakeford IS black! 

These houses are crap and sit on huge lots in an urban neighborhood.  They are as historical as the Earle Village Housing Project that was demolished to make way for what we see today.  On the other hand you have the wealthy residents of the south side of Ninth Street who are blasting the project because they don't want their skyline views blocked.  They were fine with tearing down the African-American urban fabric to get their 2,700 square foot faux bungalows and Dutch Colonials, but now want to "save the history of the neighborhood".  Jeez, give me a break!  They are acting like the suburban NIMBYs who they claim to dispise.  After all, they moved uptown to be "urbane" and get away from those people that, as one Ninth St resident said to me once, "(suburbanites) just don't get it".

Sorry to go off on a tangent like this, but I know all these folks and what their REAL agendas are.  It's one of the reasons I moved out.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

There was only one legitimate argument that I saw and that was that the buildings weren't attractive and the development would be too deep requiring a sideways orientation of the buildings. Drakeford did what he could to ameliorate the problem and seemed to go a long way to protect the houses, even donating two of them. If they've been moved once, I don't see any harm in moving them again.

The guy with the trust seems to be just so caught up in anti-establishment rhetoric that he can't face any changes to the neighborhood. However, it appears to me that he wears out his welcome by not showing any willingness to compromise and is kind of an odd bird with ten million different, dizzying, emotional based arguments that attempt to whip people up into a frenzy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The guy with the trust seems to be just so caught up in anti-establishment rhetoric that he can't face any changes to the neighborhood.  However, it appears to me that he wears out his welcome by not showing any willingness to compromise and is kind of an odd bird with ten million different, dizzying, emotional based arguments that attempt to whip people up into a frenzy.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I see you know exactly who I'm talking about. The man is a lunatic. He once questioned the architects of ImaginOn about the effects of strong winds that (no, I'm not making this up) blow through that part of East Seventh Street. Would children be knocked down by it on such a large plaza? The look on the architect's face was priceless.

Not to disparage, but the man on Eighth St. is a kook.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see you know exactly who I'm talking about.  The man is a lunatic.  He once questioned the architects of ImaginOn about the effects of strong winds that (no, I'm not making this up) blow through that part of East Seventh Street.  Would children be knocked down by it on such a large plaza?  The look on the architect's face was priceless. 

Not to disparage, but the man on Eighth St. is a kook.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Does this guy happen to be a middle-aged African-American guy with a fairly high-pitched voice? Cause if so, I also think i know who you're talking about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

.....On the other hand you have the wealthy residents of the south side of Ninth Street who are blasting the project because they don't want their skyline views blocked (or their well-maintained back yards looked upon).  They were fine with tearing down the African-American urban fabric to get their 2,700 square foot faux bungalows and Dutch Colonials, but now want to "save the history of the neighborhood". 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Thanks for posting that. It all starts to make sense now. I wondered why this 1st ward HOA was so against it now I know why. Only the foolish would expect the land between that part of 1st ward and DT would remain undeveloped. Kind of reminds me of suburbanites who build a house next to woods, then complain when they cut down those woods for the next subdivision.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

welcome to the forum, twtnbt.

this is a very intense post, and a little scary to reply to, but i'll give it a try.

I can understand your passion, if you are aware some of the dirty details/actions of the developer in this case. for many of us, though, we set our opinions on the how this situation, at a high level, fits in to our vision for charlotte and our worldview.

I don't think you will find many people on this forum that don't philosophically believe in preserving historic buildings, but also most of us believe that uptown must become a dense core in order to create a vibrant city that will be liveable in a few decades. Those two philosophies can blend together nicely in most cases, as historic structures and districts often create destinations for people, and create an attractive place for people to identify with and want to be around. In other cases, it is a conflict.

In this case, these structures are certainly old, and play a role in revealing first ward's past. But for me, it is a very close call as to whether their historical value is equal or greater than the future value of well-designed urban density. It is no contest if we are talking about Treloar or the old little rock church (now aacc). but these four houses are not of the same caliber. It is true that they the 8th street houses tell a story, but every house does in some way. but assuming that these houses tell a unique story of life in first ward 100 years ago, then the 3 other houses that will remain on 8th street from that period will tell the same story.

I want first ward to be a dense urban neighborhood with mixed incomes, mixed housing types, mixed races, and mixed uses throughout. I want us to retain a sampling of older structures to tell our history. But i think that the balance was struck well during the rezoning. For saving history, the developer agreed to move the structurally sound house, and will not touch the others on 8th st northeast of myers. for growing into the future, the developer improved the aesthetics and walkability of his design.

The dirty details are definitely ashame as far as building relationships, but it doesn't change my opinion.

Thank you, though, for sharing your input and passion on the subject. It is definitely a worthwhile subject, as we define our city for the next century.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I definitely know that 8th street guy. I even was at the meeting he complained about the imaginon design, because it would be too dark and windy on the north side of the building. (wouldn't that be the case against building any building in the northern hemisphere? and in the southern hemisphere you could complain that the south side was too dark and windy).

That cracked me up.

Seriously, though, i can see why people want to retain one or two streets as SFH in first ward, as it doesn't look like any more developments will be that way for the rest of the neighborhood. I can also see self-interest on both sides of the equation. but at the end of the day, i think the result of that debate was a happy medium that allows progress and a reasonable effort to save the houses. Anything beyond that does have the appearance of nimbyism, which (as long as it isn't against a heavy industrial project) doesn't belong downtown.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I definitely know that 8th street guy.  I even was at the meeting he complained about the imaginon design, because it would be too dark and windy on the north side of the building.  (wouldn't that be the case against building any building in the northern hemisphere? and in the southern hemisphere you could complain that the south side was too dark and windy). 

That cracked me up.

Seriously, though, i can see why people want to retain one or two streets as SFH in first ward, as it doesn't look like any more developments will be that way for the rest of the neighborhood.  I can also see self-interest on both sides of the equation.  but at the end of the day, i think the result of that debate was a happy medium that allows progress and a reasonable effort to save the houses.  Anything beyond that does have the appearance of nimbyism, which (as long as it isn't against a heavy industrial project) doesn't belong downtown.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I agree. I think all will come out ok.

By the way, dubone, you write more calmly than I do, thus making your point in a much friendlier, more civilized manner. I can learn from that. Cheers! I'm glad there's someone in the 'hood that has the patience for all of it. I ran out of steam and gave up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This morning's NYTimes has a story about the National Trust for Historic Preservation endorsing the demolition of an historic structure in downtown St. Louis.

The Trust apparently has taken a similar attitude that many on this site have advocated, that of setting a priority on urban density over preservation.

I personally do not agree with the Trust endorsing this demolition. Historic Preservation can be a real impediment to dense development at times, but it is important to have the voice of Preservation out there. It is a shame to see an organization bend to its core values like this.

from the NYT:

"FOR 108 years the neo-Classical style Century Building, with its 10-story marble facades accented by ornate friezes and pilasters, graced half a block in downtown St. Louis."......

....."Officials at the national trust said that its part in the demolition reflects the changing role of preservation, which they said includes fighting urban sprawl and reviving entire downtown areas, as well as saving historic buildings and sites. "

requires log in...

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/31/garden/31pres.html?hp

Link to comment
Share on other sites

that sounds like a building we would kill to have in this city. But from the description of that building, which even the historic trust has agreed to let pass, the first ward houses do not even compare.

I suspect this very same battle will be waged over hundreds of other houses and buildings as charlotte becomes more dense. That is another major benefit to having to the transit corridors, as it gives a focal point that welcomes density to avoid largescale densification of old treelined neighborhoods.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To put things in perspective, St. Louis bulldozed down square miles of urban development to make way for the park that contains the arch. The photos of this destruction are amazing and even Charlotte has seen nothing quite like it. This project, while giving STL an global landmark, did nothing for urban renewal which is what it was supposed to do. In the last 50 years, the city's population has fallen by 500,000 and continues to drop even to this day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it's a real tragedy the Century building is being torn down. People will regret it in future years, as NYC still bemoans tearing down one of its greatest buildings. The old Penn Station in NYC was torn down in 1963....replaced by the horrific "modernist" present day Madison Sq. Garden. Penn Station was one of the most beautiful structures ever erected...and it's destruction is what eventually led to the creation of the New York Landmarks Commission.

penn_old_concourse.jpg

Can you believe this was torn down for a basketball arena?

Anyway, you are right dubone, we would kill to have that sort of building here. Kind of puts the whole Drakeford housing thing into perspective, doesn't it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For an office building that is going up on 3rd St they are moving the house to an empty lot before building the new office building.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yellow Myer's Park mansion, that U/L was referring to, being moved for an office building (Queens/Hawthorne/3rd):

18266740-L.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • 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.