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

[ScottCLT]

HOSTEL!  If the firehouse in uptown is already taken, someone should turn that into Charlotte's first hostel!  

The old firehouse is actually going to be a coffee shop in the near future.

 

EDIT: Never mind, I read your post wrong!

Edited August 15, 2013 by ScottCLT

[Spartan]

The old firehouse is actually going to be a coffee shop in the near future.

 

EDIT: Never mind, I read your post wrong!

 

What is your source? Just curious.

[ScottCLT]

What is your source? Just curious.

http://www.ebenezerscharlotte.com/

[Spartan]

Wow. Good source. That is exciting!

[Guest]

Wow. Good source. That is exciting!

I already knew about the Coffee Shop but I had not seen the amazing renderings! Now I'm super excited!

[ssh214]

I don't drink coffee but that place looks awesome! Can't wait for it to open

[Urbanity]

That is exciting and perfect!

[DMann]

The I Beams at the Polk Bldg apparently for a more permanent archway over the sidewalk. I asked the construction guys why they didn't just tear it down and they said the would rather, but the city can't decide what to do with the Bldg.

[Matthew.Brendan]

The whole situation with that building irks me. It would make outstanding office space or lofts.

Why is there no movement on this?

[dubone]

The I Beams at the Polk Bldg apparently for a more permanent archway over the sidewalk. I asked the construction guys why they didn't just tear it down and they said the would rather, but the city can't decide what to do with the Bldg.

 

So you're impatient to see a 90yo building torn down vs the 100+ parcels of asphalt and the cars of selfish and cheap commuters?

 

Better question, why is a steel structure to protect against falling bricks not considered a ridiculous solution rather than just repairing the facade?   Why is there painted stucco that looks terrible not just scraped of the GRANITE facade underneath?

 

I'm hoping it stays standing long enough for someone to finally have some imagination and incorporate it into a modern project with some tie to the past.   

[rooster8]

I read it that melk was hoping for a rehab of the building, but I could be wrong.

[Matthew.Brendan]

Well I believe he was replying to DMann.

Yes I would absolutely love to see this building saved and renovated.

Absolutely step one is to remove the stucco and return to the original Granite.

[rooster8]

Oops. I see that now. Hard to follow the thread while reading on an iPhone in a dark car :-)

[Badtz]

 the cars of selfish and cheap commuters?  

 

I know this isn't on topic, but I'd really love for you to elaborate on this comment a little. I am a person who works in uptown and drives in from my home, and I park in one of the cheap lots on Graham street. Calling me cheap, I can understand a little I guess. There are decks that are much closer to my office, and even one attached to the building, but they all cost $100 a month or more. The lot I park in now is $50 monthly, which in my opinion is still pretty high, considering that it's full of potholes and fills up like a swimming pool with water when it rains. 

 

But.. selfish? I would love for you to enlighten me on exactly how this makes me selfish. Is it simply because you don't want to see parking lots from the view of your uptown condo? If that's the case, then I'm sort of wondering who exactly is being selfish here. 

[dubone]

It was slightly hyperbolic, but I didn't expect that to be a controversial statement on urban planet.   Sometime in the 1960's and 70's, 1/3-1/2 of the blocks uptown were leveled of century-old buildings with character in exchange for a pad of asphalt that has the design motif of a Walmart's front yard.  It was due to the demographic change from people living near town and taking transit or walking between shops and offices and housing to driving in from the suburbs and leaving after work.   In that world, CBD's had no value outside of the concentration of office buildings, so there was no value in keeping all of the old buildings that once supported the active and diverse city life, so they became a rubble foundation for asphalt parking lots.    

 

City leaders have spent the last 30 years trying to revive what was destroyed by that transition, trying desperately to revive by zoning standards to have residences, street-front shops, etc., and they have not been all that successful except in pockets.   After all this time,  we still have vast acreage of parking lots that are the key symbol of the urban decay bought on by suburban auto commuters.    Those areas are ugly, unpleasant, and don't even provide as much parking as the decks do, yet are hard to rebuild on because the land-owners appreciate the daily revenue at little to no cost.    

 

The parking revenue is the core business of landowners with little sense of civic duty.  The best example of this is Daniel Levine, who has successfully torn down a number of 19th century warehouses that in many cities would be considered high value assets for a shop or small business with a lot of character.  He has done this despite better historic building preservation standards because he uses a strategy called 'demolition by neglect'.   For historic buildings like Treloar House, he makes sure that the elements can get into the structure so that it becomes more dilapidated over time, eventually claiming that it is too expensive to repair and is granted permission to tear it down for 5 more parking spaces.   It should not be any surprise to anyone that he has failed to come to leasing terms to use that building as a shop, just the same as any other historic building on his land holdings.  But once they have successfully removed the structure their property taxes go down instantly (lower carrying costs) and they now can either put gravel or asphalt down and reap the cash cow rewards with very low cost.   It does not matter to them that it has destroyed the urban fabric or that new buildings have very little chance of having the architectural character of buildings reused from 19th or early 20th century uses.

 

The Polk building is dropping bricks, and the state in its total lack of wisdom put stucco over granite making the facade look cheap, and probably did terrible things to the interior as well.  But the building is structurally sound and once re-used for any modern use will instantly have the character and history of a century old building that once sold automobiles to men in straw barber hats.   

 

 

 

So I don't have much sympathy if you have to pay a few extra dollars a day to park in a structured parking deck if it means that our urban neighborhoods will not be denuded of its buildings, especially of its historic buildings with character that remind us of our past.  

 

Full disclosure: I live in a victorian house from the 1890s that was almost leveled to become a church parking lot... the kind of parking lot that is used only a few hours a week.  Mind you, it had to be relocated to be saved and renovated, but the old location remains a parking lot that almost never full.   No one parking there considers the many victorian-era buildings that were torn down so that people would not have to walk too far to go to church or learn to parallel park.  

[Badtz]

I appreciate your feelings, but it still seems unfair to blame people like me for the situation. If the public transportation system in Charlotte were better, I would gladly stop commuting by car and ride a bus or rail to work each day. And if my only parking options were decks, I would pay for those decks. But the cheap lots are there, and I think it's crazy to pay $100 a month or more just to park my car when I can pay half that much. Just because the demand for cheaper parking exists, doesn't mean that the people who use it asked for a row of historic buildings to be torn down.  

 

I would love to see the Polk building be re-purposed rather than knocked down. And I'm also all for the preservation of the city's historic character. But don't let that stop you from sweeping me into your broad generalization of commuters as selfish redneck wal-mart shoppers who are too fat to walk. 

[15895]

* the people do want it there in the sense there is demand for it. That said, parking lots need to go.

[teeg]

Surface parking is -- above all -- a cheap and easy way for hold land for future development.  For the speculator, razing the building immediately lowers the annual property tax bill, and also eliminates maintenance, liability insurance, etc associated with the building.  Management of the lot can easily be outsourced to one of the parking firms operating downtown (incl one owned by our mayor-elect?).  

 

I was told that until just a couple of years ago city zoning allowed parking as a primary use uptown.  That has changed, but I am sure that the existing surface pay lots are grandfathered-in, and they will probably stay just as they are until the real estate market compels the speculator to sell or develop.  

 

To blame the existence of those lots on suburban commuters looking to save on parking fees really passes blame unfairly.  The speculator knocked down the historic building, and it's never coming back.  They probably are not overly concerned about making a profit on the parking, and would be happy to just hold the land without significant annual expense.  

[Urbanity]

The Polk building is dropping bricks, and the state in its total lack of wisdom put stucco over granite making the facade look cheap, and probably did terrible things to the interior as well.  But the building is structurally sound...

 

 

Dubone I absolutely agree with your post above and am not challenging it, but I do have a question about the part I quoted and within that quote the part I bolded.  Do you have any proof that the building is structurally sound?   Or does anyone here have proof of that? I ask because I've seen on this board questions/statements of structural issues.   I've also heard from people as well - though my sources are more man on the street kind of thing to be frank; I don't put much stock into them.

 

Again - I've seen statements that the building is structurally sound and statements that it is not.   Maybe no one here is in a position to actually post anything (publicly) that can move this point beyond speculation but that question does seem to be the heart of the matter. 

 

For the record I would love to see the building restored.

Edited November 10, 2013 by Urbanity

[dubone]

Surface parking is -- above all -- a cheap and easy way for hold land for future development.  For the speculator, razing the building immediately lowers the annual property tax bill, and also eliminates maintenance, liability insurance, etc associated with the building.  Management of the lot can easily be outsourced to one of the parking firms operating downtown (incl one owned by our mayor-elect?).  

 

To blame the existence of those lots on suburban commuters looking to save on parking fees really passes blame unfairly.  The speculator knocked down the historic building, and it's never coming back.  They probably are not overly concerned about making a profit on the parking, and would be happy to just hold the land without significant annual expense.  

 

I know at the consumer level it is hard to feel in control of the economic system, but without that demand, a lot of those things stop.    It's the same for drugs, processed food, unethically produced clothing, etc.   Obviously this one has FAR less negative social impact compared to those 3 example, but the consumer does implicitly support any number of corrupt systems by rewarding them in the marketplace with their dollars.    If pink slime ammonia nuggets of pulverized chicken nerves and tendons with anti-frothing agents is not a good thing for humans to eat, then stop buying chicken mcnuggets and when enough people stop buying chicken mcnuggets and the company will adjust and realize that this is not a product they can sell.  

 

If people stopped parking at these surface lots, there would be far fewer reasons for the mayor's and Levine's terrible businesses to continue holding the land away from development.     

 

What is tough about that is that it takes a culture change where lots and lots of people won't accept something.   It isn't just one dutch person that said stop tearing out blocks of beautiful old buildings for roadway arteries and parking, instead just build a bike path system, it was a lot of dutch people.   So no, it isn't just one person's fault, but it is one person's fault as a part of everyone's fault that we have a culture that accepts vast areas of surface parking.   

 

I personally do my best to not contribute my consumer dollars to systems that I don't want to exist, even if it means that I spend a bit more.  

[Charlotte411]

http://www.ebenezerscharlotte.com/

This property is designated as a local historic landmark and receives a 50% property tax abatement annually.  Don't see how they will get permission to demo the second floor, add-on to the building, etc..., as there are interior elements that contribute to its historic significance.   

[Urbanity]

This property is designated as a local historic landmark and receives a 50% property tax abatement annually.  Don't see how they will get permission to demo the second floor, add-on to the building, etc..., as there are interior elements that contribute to its historic significance.   

Looking at the drawings on the site (which are pretty sweet) it seems the leave intact the original building.   I may be wrong, but I don't think local historic landmark designation outright prevents add-ons.

Actually looking at the renderings - I think they do a tremendous job of preserving the original historic building.

Edited November 22, 2013 by Urbanity

[CLTProductions]

Well it was certainly a wild morning in uptown. Just another reason they need to do something with this building.

 

http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2013/12/27/4570527/police-standoff-under-way-in-uptown.html#.Ur2BYmRDsx2

[Urbanity]

^I honestly wonder if that alone may become a sort of reason.  It's a perception issue for the CBD particularly now that it is right by the "family-oriented" minor league ballpark and Romare Bearden Park.  

 

Could the city use the threat of crime (not actuality of crime, mind you - just the perception of a threat) from an abandoned building as justification to have the building torn down.

 

I could honestly see that.  I could also honestly see them just turn it into a parking lot too.

[CLTProductions]

^I honestly wonder if that alone may become a sort of reason.  It's a perception issue for the CBD particularly now that it is right by the "family-oriented" minor league ballpark and Romare Bearden Park.  

 

Could the city use the threat of crime (not actuality of crime, mind you - just the perception of a threat) from an abandoned building as justification to have the building torn down.

 

I could honestly see that.  I could also honestly see them just turn it into a parking lot too.

Honestly, a lot of people will moan and complain because its "historical" and that nonsense....but the building looks like crap. It's an eyesore and especially with the development of that area once the park is up and running and the apartments in the area the Polk building will just be even worse.

 

Even if they tear it down for parking (at least be a dang garage) it'll be better than what is there now. The fact that the 'suspect' stole a car in SOUTH charlotte and wound up there....I hardly think it is a coincidence he picks one of the few abandon buildings uptown, crashes into it, and hides out inside. Just seems too coincidental. The building has got to go, or be repurposed......Remind me again, who owns it? and why is it being neglected?