Charlotte's Urban Lowe's Home Improvement

[dubone]

I just can't make sense of it. Is it that Lowes is Big Box, and in-town affluent people tend to be boutique-type people and dislike Big Boxes, which may put some little stores out of business? Is it is Lowes is a home improvement store, and there is risk that it will make it easier to build and renovate, which causes a lot more development pressure on their historic neighborhood. Is it that they perceive that by renovating the "bad" areas near their neighborhood will result in more competition or more population (and people are bad...)? Is it that rich old ladies have nothing better to do?

I just cannot make sense of it.

What are the Dilworth HOA's main points of contention? Does anyone know if Olmstead Park residents are mostly proponents or opponents?

[monsoon]

The stated reason is they do not want noisy delivery trucks rolling through their neighborhood.

[atlrvr]

  Is it that rich old ladies have nothing better to do?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That's a big part of it.

Again, I live on the far other side of the neighborhood from the project so I'm not too sure that I can offer that much. I've heard nothing, but then traffic would be a non-issue here. Mary Hopper who serves of DCDA lives a few houses down from me an is actually working for Lowe's to get approval....there's a conflict of interest....but she has recused herself from voting.

The main concern is from people who live on Magnolia who see their street as the most likely link fom people travelling up Park Rd. Also, there will not be access from South, so everyone will have to turn onto Mag. to reach Lowe's. My sentiment is oh well, you live in an urban neigbhorhood. There is a YMCA on my street, and my life isn't unbearable by traffic. My son knows better than to run into the road for no apparant reason, their kids can learn too.

Regardless of all of this, I don't see the city not voting for it. The district rep lives in Elizabeth, so she will not be affected. Lassiter lives on Dilworth Rd., and though he is close, he will see no impact. The city wants to attract intown retail, and this seems to accomplish that while getting rid of vacant industrial buildings. Also, DCDA has no true power, and this property is outside the Historic District so the HDC cannot block it.

I'm hopeful that it will happen. I'd shop there, instead of driving to HD at Wendover or further down South.

[teshadoh]

What monsoon said, which was what Inman Park residents in Atlanta said, along with cut through traffic to get to the development. But additionally, there is some snobbiness in regard to a big box or a national chain moving into 'their' neighborhood. Many of these people may be liberally inclined - but too often they are so accustomed to car dependance that it isn't a big deal for them to drive 5 miles out of town for shopping.

[dubone]

Lowe's rezoning request and site plan are up on the rezoning.org site now:

http://www.charmeck.org/Departments/Planni...ns/2005-089.htm

at first i freaked out, because i thought the car ramp up to the roof deck was along south blvd. but after looking more closely, i see that the renderings of the south blvd building-face shows that they hide the ramp with faux storefronts.

I really like the design, and actually think it is perfect that they rely on the grid to deliver and distribute traffic to their entrance, rather than entirely on south blvd.

I still think the old ladies need to find a new cross-stitch pattern and just forget that south blvd exists, this looks like a good project for the rest of us.

[orulz]

Counting the surface and rooftop parking but not the residential spaces, they have a total of 498 parking spaces for the Lowes. More than half of it is on the roof, but 498 spaces still seems like a lot. Or is that normal for a home improvement place? The only entrance still faces the parking lot just like any other suburban Lowes. The truth is, this isn't an urban design, it's just a suburban design crammed into a half-sized lot. I don't live in Charlotte so I can't speak as to how well this fits in with the area, but given its proximity to the LRT I think they should have made more pedestrian and neighborhood-friendly concessions.

A second entrance that actually addresses South Blvd, would be nice, for one. Big box retailers don't typically do that, because it makes security more difficult. But if I recall correctly, there was a case here in the Triangle where a city actually got Barnes and Noble to build a store with two entrances by means of conditional use zoning. Maybe they could do something like that here, too.

[dubone]

I agree with you about the 2 entrance part. I guess in support of the current design, south blvd is not that pedestrian oriented, given the much calmer grid that this plugs into. the surface lot is also fairly small, and is not the typical big box lots that are very unfriendly for pedestrian traffic.

realistically, this design will see major improvements when planning staff gets involved. walmart's plan on wilkinson improved dramatically through the planning process, and that was not in Dilwuth.

I would expect a south blvd entrance, and some other improvements on lyndhurst and iverson.

[atlrvr]

I went to the DCDA meeting tonight to hear the Lowe's presentation and to get neighborhood feedback....it turned out to be a few more people than just the old ladies......I'll delve into it tomorrow....it was quite entertaining to say the least.

[715nchurch]

According to the CHarlotte Observer, it looks like the crowd was alitttle fiesty

http://www.charlotte.com/mld/charlotte/news/11330904.htm

[nyxmike]

Do these people realize they live pretty much in a city environment, even if they have a quiet little street? I doubt anyone is going to go down the street - does it even connect to anything?

[uptownliving]

I can see where people would use Euclid and Lyndhurst as an alternative to South Blvd (I already do that myself sometimes) I still think the vast majority of traffic will use South Blvd....especially if they widen it a little and repave it...and put in a light on South for the Lowe's store.

I also think that Lowe's needs to put in an entrance on South Blvd. Office Depot did this at their store on South Blvd...an entrance on the street and an entrace to the rear parking lot.

Maybe they could flip the design around so that the Garden Center adresses South Blvd...most Lowe's stores already have a seperate entrance for the Garden Center anyways.

[monsoon]

I think the protesters in Dilworth will only be happy if it isn't built.

[orulz]

I think the idea of faux storefronts along South Boulevard is a stupid one. Lowes has a store like that in Cary that just opened a few days ago. It's not in an urban location, but even so the faux storefronts look really dumb. I'd rather have an unadorned box than anything faux like that.

Seems to me that maybe Lowes could put some real storefronts along South Rd flanking a second entrance to the Lowes. I suspect that Lowes isn't used to sharing a building with anybody else but eating up a 200 yard chunk of streetfront on South Blvd with nothing but "false storefronts" sounds pretty awful.

If I get a chance I'll post a photo of the Lowes with false storefronts in Cary so you can see what I'm talking about.

[atlrvr]

There is no way that the residents will be appeased. I agree to one point raised on here. This is still the basic layout of there store with rooftop parking and some additional asthetics. There is perhaps more that could be done, but regardless, these people would fight it to the bitter end.

I felt that the design was a high quality and that all issues had been addressed appropriately (save the location of the rooftop ramp which i discussed with the site planner) but there is no way I would speak in favor of it in that group without risking being horse-whipped. One man who did speak for it was ridiculed by several people as he was speaking.......you'd expect better from supposedly sophisticated people.

Granted, the loudest were long time residents who perhaps didn't imagine the neigbhorhood densifying futher, and there were a few intelligent questions, namely what Lowe's exit strategy was should the store be non-profitable.

This will perhaps be a tougher battle than I thought, and I saw at least 1 conerned city council member in the audience. If anyone is truly passionate on this issue, I would suggest writing your city council rep.

[monsoon]

Actually the Lowes in Huntersville (its flagship store) once shared its building with Krispy Kreme. (KK failed here because it didn't cook doughnuts at the store). Now this section of the building is occupied by NationsRents.

[Neo]

Actually the Lowes in Huntersville (its flagship store) once shared its building with Krispy Kreme.  (KK failed here because it didn't cook doughnuts at the store). Now this section of the building is occupied by NationsRents.

I think this is fairly normal for Lowes though. The Lowes store in Monroe also has a NationsRent store.

[CharlotteDemonDeacon]

The response that should be given to all the people protesting this development: You live in a city, increased density happens, if you want your quiet suburban street we have a nice new address you can have, its called Interstate 485. Now get over your petty crap and enjoy the fact that your city isn't on the decline and people actually WANT to build businesses where you live.

[orulz]

One comment made in that Observer article that I disagree wholeheartedly with is the guy who said "Am I going to walk over there to get a 50-pound bag of fertilizer to carry back to my house two blocks away? There's no way." Exactly how often do you go to Lowes to buy 50 pound bags of fertilizer? Or anything so big that you can't carry it home for that matter. 90% of the time I'm ever in a Lowes or Home Depot, I'm buying some little tool or a pack of nails or a lightbulb or a doorknob or whatever. I almost never have to buy the 4x8 sheet of 1/2 inch plywood or the bag of Peat Moss that would require an automobile.

I wouldn't say that the idea of a home improvement megawarehouse in an existing, reasonably dense, urbanizing neighborhood is impossible, but they haven't showed a design that strkes the needed balance yet. Of course something like an Ace or a True Value would be a much easier fit since they're smaller, neighborhood-oriented retail. There would probably be a lot less neighborhood opposition to something like that, too, but I think the folks in the neighborhood would do best to keep an open mind because they might end up with something really great by working together with the city council and the developers. With this design, Lowes has shown at least some willingness to "think outside the (big) box." So, rather than flatly refusing them with the most fundamental of NIMBYist arguments and leaving the final decision up to city council, the neighborhood should be working together with city officials to push for something even better. These people may end up learning the hard way that jeering, no-compromise NIMBYism garners no respect in city councils these days.

At any rate, I don't think the design should be approved as-is. This is a brand-new concept, and it's supposed to be a flagship store, so nobody knows how far Lowes will go to accommodate the neighborhood and the city. The waters haven't even been tested yet! I'm interested to see what develops.

[nyxmike]

The response that should be given to all the people protesting this development:  You live in a city, increased density happens, if you want your quiet suburban street we have a nice new address you can have, its called Interstate 485.  Now get over your petty crap and enjoy the fact that your city isn't on the decline and people actually WANT to build businesses where you live.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

lol... well said.

[Miesian Corners]

It's a hard site to work with. I don't understand why Lowe's doesn't build a smaller store--along the lines of what Home Depot did on Wendover. Fitting a tradional big-box into the urban fabric is a pretty difficult thing to accomplish. They may have bitten off more than they can chew.

Most residents had valid concerns. The developer tried to make out that the traffic signal at Magnolia would be the cure-all for the increase in traffic volume. Problem is, the vast majority of shoppers would be coming from the east, not the other four directions. What is east? Dilworth. What's the shortest route? Little two-lane Magnolia Ave.

Iverson Way is another trouble spot. If 15 to 17 deliveries via 18-wheelers are scheduled every day and the loading dock has space for only one truck at a time, what happens if four show up at once? Where do they park in the mean time?

I'm not anti-Lowe's, nor do I think the current collection of garbage on the proposed site is anything to try and keep. I just think that the powers that be up in Mooresville need to come up with a better site plan than the one they showed last night. Sometimes even corporate America has to think outside the box (in this case, literally) and build stores that don't fit their prototype.

Some ideas: reduce the square footage, put real windows and doors in the South Blvd facade, and figure out delivery schedules. Lowe's wants this badly. If Dilworth residents play it cool and provide options, they could get a good addtion to the neighborhood. Make them pay for curb, gutter and sidewalks the entire length of Magnolia. Make them put utilities underground. Make 'em pay for speed tables on Euclid and Magnolia as a way of slowing and reducing traffic.

Oddly, the one thing I noticed that no one seemed concerned about was the light pollution the store will generate. The roof parking has tall lamp posts that will cast a sodium vapor glow over Olmsted Park.

[dubone]

you are absolutely right, miesian. there are serious issues that have solutions if people work to find the solutions. If they itemize their complaints, they can find a middle ground or compromise and get a corporation to pay for things they'd need to wait years to get from the city.

I'm not totally sure i agree with the suggestions to shrink the store size. It is a business, and they have their processes fine-tuned for certain product selections and inventory. They want to compete and win against the urban home depot's, which don't have as much selection as burban stores. i can understand that they want to be what they are, but locate in the middle of the city.

I also don't agree that faux storefronts are worse than a bland box. For one thing, it helps for redevelopment if it stops being a big box, as they just need to cut a door into into it. Also, some of the best historic buildings in charlotte are old warehouses and mills, which were very large complexes, but still had elements of human scale. I'm not suggesting this is even in the same ballpark, but for me if the storefronts provide the human scale elements to an intimidating building.

The thing about this that plays out in all suburban nimby battles are the complaints against cars on their streets. frankly, i don't get it. if they don't want cars on those streets, then the city should not pave them. asphalt is way too expensive and polluting to be there for show. I understand about speeding traffic, and also about small residential streets becoming thoroughfares, but the beauty of gridded street networks is that there are so many alternates and traffic dissipates.

The light pollution is an easy fix, if they are willing to put the same streetlights that are already throughout dilworth and most neighborhoods.

[bits]

Many people that have moved into Dilworth over the years have been pioneers. They have spend large sums of personal weath revitalizing a neigborood that was in utter decay. Indeed there are still fringes of this neighborhood that need revitalization. I just have to respect the will of these people a little bit. We do live in a free country where business can try what they like, but likewise the Dilworth community is free to determine the destiny and tone of the community that they have build over the years with their sweat, money and patience. This is a full size store, inluding a complete lumber yard which is simply being dressed up. It's smack on the the proposed rail line right in the desingated transit corridor.

Your tax dollars are funding the transit corridor whether you agree with it or not. Does it really make sense to put a full size Lowe's right in between two of the stations in the designated transit corridor? Isn't the rail system suppose to reduce cars and move people. I just don't see people taking the light rail to Lowes. Your tax dollars are also hard a work funding the "pedscape plan" for Dilworth and Southend. This is suppose to make the area pedestrian frendly...again your tax dollars at work and this store is inconsistent with the pedscape plan entirely.

This is way beyond the issue of light bothering a couple of houses or even the look of the building. This is a defining moment for the future of a small urban community and will likely change the landscape in a profound way. These people have a certain right to ponder this destiny. The developer and Lowe's have been pondering it for 2 years as the property has been secretly purchased or options.

[atlrvr]

The one arguement I never understand is that people try to sit on both sides of the TOD issue on this one. Those who argue that people will never ride the train to Lowe's say that since it is in the middle of the two stations that no one would be willing to walk that far. Then there are those who says people would walk to this since it is so convenient to both stations, but Lowe's isn't a transit compatible retailer. I think the more obvious truth is that no one would walk this far to a retailer so why not have a not-transit compatible retailer there that is providing urban ammenities to the single worst block in Dilworth.

This is two blocks that currently has sidewalks only along South Blvd and is more than 50% occupied by INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS......what I can't fatham is people would prefer to see industrial buildings in the neighborhood instead of the most asthetically pleasing Lowe's in the country, which is screened on both Magnolia and Lyndhurst with townhomes.......

[monsoon]

The transit argument is a red herring being used by the Dilworth residents who don't want the development in their neighborhood plain and simple. Many of them have stated a preference for the store to be located down near Woodlawn where presumably the exact same situation would exist, but it would not be in their neighborhood. No doubt the TOD protests from the Dilworth residents would disappear if this were to happen.

The reality of the situation is that Lowes in this location does reduce the net effect of cars on the "entire community". That is because people, that would be served by this proposed Lowes, would no longer need to drive to the suburbs for their needs. And I do believe that many would use the train to get to this store which will further help the situation. But of course the few protesters of this project don't care about what happens to the "entire community" as long as their little enclave remains exclusive.

This is one of the best examples of Nimbyism that I have ever seen.

[bits]

Alt and Metro... you may have missed my point. Let's say you are the first person to buy a hillside lot on a mountain that is being developed as vacation residential. You know quite well that the rest of it is a big undeloped mountain...in fact you are somewhat frustrated with the closed coal mine right up at the top of the mountain. But you have a vision... a vision for what you want and believe will be the fruits of your pioneering spirit. Fast forward 20 years... your neigborhood is coming along nicely until a developer puts a bid in for the old coal mine. The developer tells you that they are building a big 500 person hotel at the top of the mountain. All the guest have to drive up. One half of your brain says it will bring money to the area and will not look that bad as it's a quality developer and good hotel chain. The other half of your brain says...wait....my vision and all that I have pioneered for has just changed 180 degrees...it's just not going to be the same place. Call it NIMBYism if you like. I would rather call it controling ones destiny.