500 West Trade (14 story apartments on site of former Polk Building)

[Niner National]

Switch up condominiums with apartments in that clipping above and that is the situation today. Basically a complete reversal of the situation back then.

[Guest]

I will admit the new apartments don't look terrible to me and the price range varies a bit so it isn't rediculously expensive (still pricey) but it still seems silly. The Polk Building seems to be the only structure surviving in the immediate area against a sea of useless parking. Yet, instead of even trying to save it every plan so far includes leveling it to the ground. What makes it such a burdon to save?

[Windsurfer]

Am trying to delete this post. Can't figure it out. TIA

Edited May 4, 2015 by Windsurfer

[Guest]

I've put some thought into it and I hate to say it, but the writing is on the wall with this building. Crosland has owned this building for nearly a decade and has never tried to preserve it or do routine maintenance that would suggest there was an interest in saving it. There have been two plans that I can remember to redevelop the entire site and one to preserve, but that last time someone seeker to preserve the building was 2002. I think it's as good as gone.

Edited May 4, 2015 by Guest

[Guest]

I'll try to contact either the company or city planners to get the lowdown. Charlotte has lost so much stock of it's once varied historical buildings. No more.

[atlrvr]

I mean, I like the building and wish it was saved, BUT, when I hear "it's just really well built, just replace the facade", I have to think, do these same people also want to save Charlotte Observer building, because it is built like a tank too. 

 

I won't speculate on the economics of saving the facade, but generally suspect it costs far more to repair and retrofit the strucutre than to knock it down, especially considering it would qualify for tax-credits that would off-set some of the costs.  I do think the building sits very very close to both Graham and Trade, and absent a road-diet on either, I wouldn't feel comforatble engaging this building at the streetlevel as a pedestrian.

 

The State really messed this building up, and they sold the property as a "tear down" back in the day, even agreeing to a land-swap on the rear parcels.  When you have the state facilitating the creation of a super-block, and ignoring basic maintenace of the property for 20+ years, I think the ire should be directed at them, and ask them to contribute state funding to make a rehab profitable (good luck with that).

[Guest]

I mean, I like the building and wish it was saved, BUT, when I hear "it's just really well built, just replace the facade", I have to think, do these same people also want to save Charlotte Observer building, because it is built like a tank too. 

 

I won't speculate on the economics of saving the facade, but generally suspect it costs far more to repair and retrofit the strucutre than to knock it down, especially considering it would qualify for tax-credits that would off-set some of the costs.  I do think the building sits very very close to both Graham and Trade, and absent a road-diet on either, I wouldn't feel comforatble engaging this building at the streetlevel as a pedestrian.

 

The State really messed this building up, and they sold the property as a "tear down" back in the day, even agreeing to a land-swap on the rear parcels.  When you have the state facilitating the creation of a super-block, and ignoring basic maintenace of the property for 20+ years, I think the ire should be directed at them, and ask them to contribute state funding to make a rehab profitable (good luck with that).

I think I'd have a more inviting Graham Street than anything else. 

[Guest]

Stewart Gray from the landmarks commission said the building is in such a poor state of repair, it will be difficult to give it historical protection. Pretty much the same as you guys are saying. I'll try to contact the landowners and see if they have anything to say.

[Spartan]

I mean, I like the building and wish it was saved, BUT, when I hear "it's just really well built, just replace the facade", I have to think, do these same people also want to save Charlotte Observer building, because it is built like a tank too. 

 

Good point - though if the Observer building had a better street presence I would be making the argument to save it. I have made and will make arguments (mainly in SC cities) to save buildings with that type of architecture if they are a good representative example that doesn't otherwise detract from the city and street.

 

At any rate, I guess there's really no point in trying to argue why we should save the building. Just tear it down and start over. It's the Charlotte Way. I'm sure J&WU will build something fairly generic with beige stucco/EFIS - but if it has a residential component then maybe it will support more retail activity along Trade and the 6th/Graham area of 4th Ward.

[Guest]

Good point - though if the Observer building had a better street presence I would be making the argument to save it. I have made and will make arguments (mainly in SC cities) to save buildings with that type of architecture if they are a good representative example that doesn't otherwise detract from the city and street.

 

At any rate, I guess there's really no point in trying to argue why we should save the building. Just tear it down and start over. It's the Charlotte Way. I'm sure J&WU will build something fairly generic with beige stucco/EFIS - but if it has a residential component then maybe it will support more retail activity along Trade and the 6th/Graham area of 4th Ward.

 

Moments like this wish I got an urban planning degree... but then again if I went to work with the Charlotte planning department I would probably jump off city hall in a couple weeks. I got a feeling the department has good folks but are being double teamed by apathetic developers and archaic zoning laws.

[cltbwimob]

http://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/business/biz-columns-blogs/development/article20296617.html

[atlrvr]

I probably come across as a developer apologist, and I probably am, but I find it really unfair to blame the developer in this case (and many cases).  The State of NC owned this building for decades and let it fall apart.  The State drilled the wood boards into the side of the brick veneer to hold it togethether instead of repointing it.  The State installed the scaffolding as opposed to repair the cornice-work.  The State marketed the property as a tear-down (I was involved with the developer due diligence back in 2004, with a different proposal that was 20-stories of aparments, but rents didn't justify the costs then).  We can all say the developer are bad guys because that's popular rhetoric, but I really do believe this is a case where through willful neglect (to save costs) the State let the property deteriorate, and then moved the people out when it became to expensive to even maintain the basic mechanicals. 

 

I always wanted to restore a classic car, a 1960's Ferrari preferably since I'm dreaming, but if you have a rusted chasis, even a 1968 365 2+2 cost more to restore than it would be worth.  Now a 1960 400 Superamerica, the car could be destroyed in an inferno, and if you have the original plates for the engine and chasis, the car will always be worth more than even retooling ever part.  The Polk Building is a nice classic building, but it has a rusted chasis, and given its location and size, it's only a 365 2+2, not a Superamerica.   

 

Sure, we could fight to put it on a national landmark register (good luck), but the reality is, the property is then untouchable until Trade St, Graham St, and Gateway Station are built out, before MAYBE the value of the space exceeds to exhorbinant costs of renovations.

[Guest]

Perhaps it's better for the city then to have new apartments than waiting forever to save the building. Still, another historic sight lost. I'll call the developer then move on if I can't get anything.

[cltbwimob]

I probably come across as a developer apologist, and I probably am, but I find it really unfair to blame the developer in this case (and many cases).  The State of NC owned this building for decades and let it fall apart.  The State drilled the wood boards into the side of the brick veneer to hold it togethether instead of repointing it.  The State installed the scaffolding as opposed to repair the cornice-work.  The State marketed the property as a tear-down (I was involved with the developer due diligence back in 2004, with a different proposal that was 20-stories of aparments, but rents didn't justify the costs then).  We can all say the developer are bad guys because that's popular rhetoric, but I really do believe this is a case where through willful neglect (to save costs) the State let the property deteriorate, and then moved the people out when it became to expensive to even maintain the basic mechanicals. 

 

I always wanted to restore a classic car, a 1960's Ferrari preferably since I'm dreaming, but if you have a rusted chasis, even a 1968 365 2+2 cost more to restore than it would be worth.  Now a 1960 400 Superamerica, the car could be destroyed in an inferno, and if you have the original plates for the engine and chasis, the car will always be worth more than even retooling ever part.  The Polk Building is a nice classic building, but it has a rusted chasis, and given its location and size, it's only a 365 2+2, not a Superamerica.   

 

Sure, we could fight to put it on a national landmark register (good luck), but the reality is, the property is then untouchable until Trade St, Graham St, and Gateway Station are built out, before MAYBE the value of the space exceeds to exhorbinant costs of renovations.

I am sorry, I do not buy into the idea that a developer who is willing to tear down a classic structure and put up some lame low rise bears no responsibility in this.  Yes you are right that the state should be blamed for this, but also, the developer, and any other party who makes this possible also shares in the blame.  To say that the developer is completely innocent in this case is analogous to saying that Duke Energy should share no portion of the blame for the Dan River ash spill because the state allows power plants to dispose of their coal ash in ponds beside rivers.  In both cases-through shoddy regulation, poor maintenance, etc-the states actions may facilitate/exacerbate the problem, but it does not excuse a party for being reckless even if their behavior occurs within the confines of the current regulatory or zoning framework.

 

The other thing I'd like to say is this-we as a society need to be more careful about our usage of words.  One word that is used without regard for its actual implications is the word "economics".  People most often use this word to talk about the explicit costs of taking one action versus another, when in reality the word connotes so much more than just dollars and cents.  True "economic" analysis takes into account all costs associated with an action, not just the mere dollar figures.  To say that the "economics" of restoring this building aren't good therefore it should be torn down ignores both the opportunity cost and potential external social costs associated with tearing it down.  In the case of this building, the "financials" may show more profit from tearing down and rebuilding vice a historical renovation; however it is completely within the realm of possibilities that a negative "economic" profit could result due to ignored opportunity costs and social costs.  Unfortunately, developers in their strictly dollars and cents view of "economics" end up destroying something of at least some historical significance (if only for the fact that it has, to this point, survived the wrecking ball) and replacing it with the urban answer to the McMansion.  When people rationalize those types of actions, they implicitly become part of the problem.  This is why Charlotte has so many forgettable beige, stucco, stick-built buildings in the first place, because we are willing to be complicit in our own cheapening in the name of this pseudo "economic development".

[BullDurhamer]

 

I am sorry, I do not buy into the idea that a developer who is willing to tear down a classic structure and put up some lame low rise bears no responsibility in this.  Yes you are right that the state should be blamed for this, but also, the developer, and any other party who makes this possible also shares in the blame.  To say that the developer is completely innocent in this case is analogous to saying that Duke Energy should share no portion of the blame for the Dan River ash spill because the state allows power plants to dispose of their coal ash in ponds beside rivers.  In both cases-through shoddy regulation, poor maintenance, etc-the states actions may facilitate/exacerbate the problem, but it does not excuse a party for being reckless even if their behavior occurs within the confines of the current regulatory or zoning framework.

 

The other thing I'd like to say is this-we as a society need to be more careful about our usage of words.  One word that is used without regard for its actual implications is the word "economics".  People most often use this word to talk about the explicit costs of taking one action versus another, when in reality the word connotes so much more than just dollars and cents.  True "economic" analysis takes into account all costs associated with an action, not just the mere dollar figures.  To say that the "economics" of restoring this building aren't good therefore it should be torn down ignores both the opportunity cost and potential external social costs associated with tearing it down.  In the case of this building, the "financials" may show more profit from tearing down and rebuilding vice a historical renovation; however it is completely within the realm of possibilities that a negative "economic" profit could result due to ignored opportunity costs and social costs.  Unfortunately, developers in their strictly dollars and cents view of "economics" end up destroying something of at least some historical significance (if only for the fact that it has, to this point, survived the wrecking ball) and replacing it with the urban answer to the McMansion.  When people rationalize those types of actions, they implicitly become part of the problem.  This is why Charlotte has so many forgettable beige, stucco, stick-built buildings in the first place, because we are willing to be complicit in our own cheapening in the name of this pseudo "economic development".

this is such a great post.  

Edited May 6, 2015 by BullDurhamer

[atlrvr]

Since I was quoted, I assume the whole post was for me, at which I'd like to point out I didn't use the word economics, but costs, value, and expensive.  If you were paraphrasing, then I agree, I define economics as something strictly monetary.  That doesn't mean I support everything that is most financially rational, but also think it ignore basic business since.  Developers borrow money, and have to pay specific rates of return on that money.  If they can't, they either would take a loss of the project or not do that project.  Therefore, they chose not to do a project where loss is the likely outcome.  Developers are not wealthy people in the sense that they have $10's of millions laying around, and therefore can afford to make non-rational decisions.

 

Great architecture usually comes from people where profit is a secondary motiviation.  Government buildings (NASCAR HOF), Non-Profits (Carolina Theatre) and Corporate Offices (BofA Corp Center would not be built as is, if not for BofA willing to make less rational decisions out of corporate pride).

 

Since generally speaking, these entities don't build much, you're going to have to wait quite some time before a non-financially-motivated-entity wants to adopt Polk as a pet-project.

[UrbanGossip]

I am sorry, I do not buy into the idea that a developer who is willing to tear down a classic structure and put up some lame low rise bears no responsibility in this.  Yes you are right that the state should be blamed for this, but also, the developer, and any other party who makes this possible also shares in the blame.  To say that the developer is completely innocent in this case is analogous to saying that Duke Energy should share no portion of the blame for the Dan River ash spill because the state allows power plants to dispose of their coal ash in ponds beside rivers.  In both cases-through shoddy regulation, poor maintenance, etc-the states actions may facilitate/exacerbate the problem, but it does not excuse a party for being reckless even if their behavior occurs within the confines of the current regulatory or zoning framework.

 

The other thing I'd like to say is this-we as a society need to be more careful about our usage of words.  One word that is used without regard for its actual implications is the word "economics".  People most often use this word to talk about the explicit costs of taking one action versus another, when in reality the word connotes so much more than just dollars and cents.  True "economic" analysis takes into account all costs associated with an action, not just the mere dollar figures.  To say that the "economics" of restoring this building aren't good therefore it should be torn down ignores both the opportunity cost and potential external social costs associated with tearing it down.  In the case of this building, the "financials" may show more profit from tearing down and rebuilding vice a historical renovation; however it is completely within the realm of possibilities that a negative "economic" profit could result due to ignored opportunity costs and social costs.  Unfortunately, developers in their strictly dollars and cents view of "economics" end up destroying something of at least some historical significance (if only for the fact that it has, to this point, survived the wrecking ball) and replacing it with the urban answer to the McMansion.  When people rationalize those types of actions, they implicitly become part of the problem.  This is why Charlotte has so many forgettable beige, stucco, stick-built buildings in the first place, because we are willing to be complicit in our own cheapening in the name of this pseudo "economic development".

 

Developers are business people and businesses not philanthropists.  I think you are wishing they were the later.  The manager at McDonalds trying to make a living for her and her employees probably shouldn't be blamed for making people fat and unhealthy.  The scope is different but the issue is scalable.

 

The blame, if there is any, lies before and above whatever developer finds a way to do something with this derelict property in my opinion.  Sad yes, but if any ire should be had, it shouldn't be at someone trying to build crappy housing to make a buck and provide rentable square footage for people that want to live uptown.

[cltbwimob]

Since I was quoted, I assume the whole post was for me, at which I'd like to point out I didn't use the word economics, but costs, value, and expensive. If you were paraphrasing, then I agree, I define economics as something strictly monetary. That doesn't mean I support everything that is most financially rational, but also think it ignore basic business since. Developers borrow money, and have to pay specific rates of return on that money. If they can't, they either would take a loss of the project or not do that project. Therefore, they chose not to do a project where loss is the likely outcome. Developers are not wealthy people in the sense that they have $10's of millions laying around, and therefore can afford to make non-rational decisions.

Great architecture usually comes from people where profit is a secondary motiviation. Government buildings (NASCAR HOF), Non-Profits (Carolina Theatre) and Corporate Offices (BofA Corp Center would not be built as is, if not for BofA willing to make less rational decisions out of corporate pride).

Since generally speaking, these entities don't build much, you're going to have to wait quite some time before a non-financially-motivated-entity wants to adopt Polk as a pet-project.

Well, the first paragraph I wrote was specifically why I quoted that post. The second paragraph was in relation to a post you wrote a few days ago about the economics of a renovation, but I was also intending for the comment to be applied to a wide audience of people who use the term "economics" as hide-behind of sorts when trying to rationalize businesses whose actions carry with them certain implicit costs that are not considered as part of a financial analysis.

As for developers, I absolutely understand the profit motive. What I am angry about is the fact that this spot, with a nearly century-old structure is the one that gets chosen for this despite all the other empty surface parking lots that exist in and around downtown. Do not get me wrong, I am also livid at the state for letting the building get into this level of disrepair, but the developer here has many other options to build something like this elsewhere. Instead, they pick the spot where a historical structure has to come down. I would not be so livid if this were getting cleared to, say, make way for something like CGS, but Charlotte has gone well past the point where these cheap apartments, in a true "economic" sense, provide much benefit for the city at large. In fact, I would argue that these stick-built apartments provide negative marginal benefits (once again, from an "economic" standpoint) when they are built in downtown-even when they do not require the destruction of a historic structure-because they undercut the potential for more transformative projects. Think about all the complaining on this forum at the thought of Pollack Shores bringing a stick-built construction project to Stonewall, and that project would not even require the destruction of a historic structure.

Historic structures can be renovated and profitable. Nonprofits and governments are not the only ones that can make classic, early 20th century architecture into something useful. If you do not believe me, come up to Richmond sometime and drive around. Go look at Tobacco Row, an entire row of old tobacco warehouses along the James that were at one point abandoned. The buildings are similar in size and scope to the Polk building, and were by no means built to house residences, yet developers with an actual imagination were able to turn the entire group into a profitable venture by renovating them and turning them into apartments. Look at Broad Street, where many of these lamentable old relics have fallen into disrepair, yet, developers and entrepreneurs are finding ways to rehab and turn them into profitable buildings. If these buildings would have been in Charlotte, they would have already met their fate at the hands of a demolition crew, but because they exist in a city that actually cares about its history, developers, over time, find new ways to make these buildings desirable again. I would rather the Polk building sit abandoned for the next two decades if that's what it meant to save a century old building and get a beautiful historic renovation (vis-a-vis a carbon copy of the Mint or Woodfield at Graham).

I will stop at this...I doubt anyone here would advocate legalizing hunting threatened species just because it can be lucrative enterprise. If so, then why would anyone advocate allowing developers to continue to destroy the most endangered species in Charlotte, the early twentieth century structure, all in the name of making a buck?

Edited May 7, 2015 by cltbwimob

[BullDurhamer]

as somebody who visits charlotte somewhat regularly with out of towners, i can tell you i've heard on more than one occasion while uptown the question asking where the old buildings are.  maybe that's not so important, i don't know, but there is without a doubt a serious lack of charm or character in the uptown area.  with that said, i'm sure that will change and the culture is rapidly evolving with the influx of people moving in, but for now i just can't help but wishing we were 20 years down the road with this evolution.  

 

 i'm going to have to seriously agree with the statement above that it's crazy to go around tearing down perfectly good buildings while you have surface lots galore where other perfectly good building were torn down in the past.  i've also heard many times how charlotte has the hottest real estate market in the south.  so with that said, you guys do know you have some leverage over the developers, right?  they really don't have to get every single thing they ask for and charlotte will still be on fire and perhaps that much better.  all i hear is complaining about big lobbies and beige...well, how about saying no?    i know i know, the politics won't let it happen, but i don't even really see much effort here to stop anything so you're going to get what you're going to get.  a giant new uptown with beige and glass skyscrapers galore with a starbucks on every corner.   

[BullDurhamer]

I will stop at this...I doubt anyone here would advocate legalizing hunting threatened species just because it can be lucrative enterprise. If so, then why would anyone advocate allowing developers to continue to destroy the most endangered species in Charlotte, the early twentieth century structure, all in the name of making a buck?

 

and at the same time so many lament the loss of so much of all of our downtowns during the urban renewal destruction of the mid 20th century.  

 

maybe i'm just spoiled living in durham which is basically a downtown area with nothing but awesome old buildings that have been repurposed for modern life.  i also see just how inviting it is and how insanely popular.  we've seen durham have one of the worst reputations in the state just not so long ago to having durham become a huge attraction for people from all over the triangle.  the transformation has been incredible and old buildings are right in the middle of the entire thing. 

[pgsinger]

I just wanted to chime in with a couple comments and thoughts.  First, I don't see a single personal attack above.  There are numerous other threads where a conversation like this has degraded to a personal attack, so bravo on the exchange of different points of view and keeping it polite.  

 

Second, I don't think the comparison between Durham warehouses or Richmond buildings can be made without significant detail provided as numerous factors impact the ability to repurpose a building (zoning, grant funding, state of repair of the building in question, etc.).  More specifically to Durham, the bulk of downtown renovation was kicked off by "non-rational" (to use the wording above, in a non-derogatory manner).  The first warehouse to be repurposed were done by Blue Devil Ventures (Christian Laettner and Brian Davis), which subsequently went under.  The city of Durham helped the DBAP replaced the DAP.  Then Self-Help provided low cost funding to help restore the downtown loop area.  How many new 10 story plus building are in Durham?...0.  Durham is a much better city than it was, but this is not because of private investment.  It is because of public-private investment.  I know far less about Richmond, so I cannot comment there. If the city, county, or state provided a grant or funding to repair the building, then the financial metrics of the property might warrant the repurposing of the building.  The state in its lack of maintenance and care altered the metrics of this building to where they are now.  Therefore, in my opinion, they deserve the blame.

 

As for midrise stick built apartments in Uptown, I realize these are not ideal.  However, there are a few benefits that I think are being ignored.  First, they get people living in Uptown who might not be able to afford the rent/mortgage on a $400,000 condo in a highrise, and therefore overall increase the Uptown population.  That higher population will lead to more activity and retail in Uptown, which should have an impact on additional positive draws to Uptown.  While we may not like prime locations going to apartments, ultimately, these empty (given the state of Polk, I am considering it an empty lot for this sentence) spaces needed to be used to push the financial metrics for developers into taller buildings.  We are seeing so many midrise buildings because the cost of the land has to be spread out over relatively little rent.  As the remaining land gets pushed up in price, developers will need to build up to create enough space (rent) to support the added land costs.  So, these midrise apartments will eventually lead to more height.  Finally, these midrise apartments will be cheaper in 25-50 years to be torn down for 30 story building than a 10 story condo/apartment tower (unless UP'ers are complaining about their historic value at that time). 

[DMann]

To the best of my knowledge, the Polk Building could be purchased by anyone willing to pay the price.  Buy it and do what you want with it.

[ah59396]

To the best of my knowledge, the Polk Building could be purchased by anyone willing to pay the price.  Buy it and do what you want with it.

 

 

This is a pretty ridiculous comment.

[DMann]

My point being that unless you have inspected the building and deemed it recoverable, something that the state and current owners have and deemed it is not, how can you ask anyone else to put pride in front of profit.  Perhaps we should not invest in the Gold Line, but save the Polk Building.  I am not trying to start a fight, I am humbled by the great information that shows up here, the regular contributors have amazing resources at their disposal, and I appreciate the insight.  Please forgive me if I have offended anyone.

[ah59396]

My point being that unless you have inspected the building and deemed it recoverable, something that the state and current owners have and deemed it is not, how can you ask anyone else to put pride in front of profit.  Perhaps we should not invest in the Gold Line, but save the Polk Building.  I am not trying to start a fight, I am humbled by the great information that shows up here, the regular contributors have amazing resources at their disposal, and I appreciate the insight.  Please forgive me if I have offended anyone.

 

 

Ha ha, no one is offended, you are fine.  I'm not sure what shape this building is in (probably bad).  While I do think that developers should be held to a higher standard in our fair city, I'm at the point where I could care less about the Polk Building as it stands.  It's been vacant for as long as I've lived here (1996), you probably can't find a soul in the city that has an actual tie to it, and let's face it, Charlotte is just not a historical city.  We've got a paltry stock of historic buildings, saving 1 more isn't going to make a difference.  No one is ever coming to Charlotte for our stock of historic architecture.  I know that's not a popular opinion around here, but there are 100 other cities in this country I'd rather go to to explore American history, Charlotte won't move up that list by saving the Polk building.

 

Tear it down and build something of high architectural standards in its place.  Of course, that is where developers need to be held to a higher standard.