Charlotte fantasies, past and future

UNC Charlotte design student presents plans imagining a transit-oriented neighborhood, North Park. Photo: Mary Newsom

It was 250 years ago this week, Dec. 3, 1768, that the City of Charlotte was officially born with an act by the royal governor of the colony of North Carolina. (Read that charter here.) Monday, the city celebrated in a ceremony uptown with a sound stage and music so extremely amplified that you couldn’t talk to anyone, with birthday cake and food trucks.
Jim Williams as Thomas Polk
It wasn’t a fancy, planned-for-two-years kind of celebration – no fireworks, parades with visiting dignitaries, planes flying banners overhead. But of course, officialdom in Charlotte for as long as I’ve lived here has been more interested in pushing future growth and prosperity than in examining and learning from the past.
That 1768 charter designated five white men to be “city directors,” and one of them, Thomas Polk, was loitering near the sound stage Monday, waiting for the noon speechifying. Polk, or really, local history enthusiast Jim Williams, was resplendent in a black tricorne hat, buff-colored waistcoat, and knee breeches and frock coat of the color that 200 years later would be known as Carolina Blue. Polk – the real one – was a shrewd fellow of Scots-Irish ancestry who before eventually moving on to Tennessee played a key role in the city’s first – but by no means last – spec development.

Polk and a few others, on their own dime, built a log courthouse where two trading paths intersected, in hopes of giving the young town a competitive edge to be designated the Mecklenburg County seat. Which would, of course, make their own property more valuable.
It worked.
And for a city on the make, what could be a more fitting foundational story?
WE MOVE FROM 1768 TO … SOMETIME IN THE FUTURE

After the noontime birthday festivities that celebrated the past, I headed off to hear, instead, about an imagined future –
one that would transform an unattractive, car- and truck-filled intersection into a neighborhood of shops, sidewalks, fruit trees and, of course, a brewery.

First-year Master of Urban Design students at UNC Charlotte’s College of Arts + Architecture were presenting their fall semester project: Envisioning a transit-oriented neighborhood near the Old Concord Road light rail stop. It’s just northeast of the Eastway Drive-North Tryon Street intersection, one of the city’s many areas built solely for the benefit of car and truck drivers.
The assignment from Professor Deb Ryan was to draw a plan for the area generally within a 10-minute walk from the station. After she assigned it, Ryan said, she learned that Mecklenburg County had bought a large chunk of the area – the almost-defunct old North Park Mall site, with its vast potholed asphalt parking lot and derelict empty spaces – and planned to turn it into community services offices.

Although such student plans are essentially just theoretical exercises of the imagination, the students opted to incorporate some of the county’s plans into their own – in hopes the county staff might see some ideas and cooperate in helping transform the whole area.
Cardboard model of the envisioned North Park neighborhood. Photo: Mary Newsom

The students offered a vision – and a nifty cardboard model arrayed on the floor – of a walkable neighborhood with plenty of trees, housing and offices set out along streets lined with stores. They envisioned an elementary school, a research campus outpost of UNC Charlotte, which is 4 miles to the north, and a generous helping of affordable housing.

“What we tried to do is push the idea of health and walkability,” Ryan told a small audience of community members and professional urban designers.
The area today has few attributes of walkability. Although it has some begrudging sidewalks, things are built far enough apart that walking isn’t attractive. The stores and restaurants are splayed out along busy thoroughfares with parking lots in front and between them. Many of the smaller streets don’t connect to anything. It’s hard to cross the busy streets. More walkable areas, by contrast, have nearby places you’d want to walk to, interesting shops and businesses set along the sidewalk, lots of connections, and plenty of residents close by so enough people are out and about to make the area feel safer.
As one student said,  “We had to kind of merge reality with fantasy.”
So they proposed, among other things:
  • 12 new connections for streets that, today, dead end.
  • Both a main street running through the area, and a perpendicular market street that would cross Eastway Drive.
  • A brewery in an old warehouse.
  • Flats, town homes, and single family houses
  • Mixed-use buildings with parking decks hidden on the inside, a form known as a “Texas doughnut.”
  • Reconfiguring the Eastway-Tryon intersection to slow the cars bulleting from Eastway onto Tryon.

Possibly the most controversial proposal (or it would be, if this was truly being proposed rather than an in-class exercise) was to reduce by almost half the existing “park” land nearby. 
Those quotes are because the “park” – Eastway Park – is disconnected from everything around it. Its 90 acres are reached via a long driveway (lacking a sidewalk) off the busy Eastway Drive thoroughfare, with no crosswalk or pedestrian light to allow pedestrians to get there. The driveway leads to a grassy area with two soccer fields, a big surface parking lot and a disc golf course.

Although the park is directly next to the railroad, and only a short distance from the Old Concord road light rail station, you can’t walk between the station and the park, thanks to some fenced-off freight rail lines running directly beside the park.

In other words, Eastway Park is a design fail. In my few visits there, admittedly a highly random sample, it’s only lightly used unless there’s a ball game going on. The county park department plans to build a new recreation center there – although that won’t do anything to improve the park’s unwalkable, isolated site.
Hence the students’ idea to take some of the unused park land and built affordable housing there, to improve the “eyes on the park” for safety, and to give lower-income residents a way to easily access a rec center and park. They propose the same for the Hidden Valley Park in the nearby Hidden Valley neighborhood.
Farther down the fantasy end of the spectrum, although intriguing, was this idea: a series of “productive greenspaces” where trees and other food-producing plantings line streets and small parks. You could walk down a sidewalk and pick an apple. Or a peach, or maybe pawpaws.
Will any of it get built? There’s no way to know, because it’s currently just a gleam in the eyes of a group of graduate students. But as Thomas Polk might have advised back in 1768, when he was building a courthouse on spec with visions of town growth: Why not dream big?

Legislature 2013: Most ‘pro-business session in N.C. history’?

‘Snout houses’ in Indiana. Photo: John Delano, Wikipedia.com

Ran across an interesting post from the blog of the local Real Estate and Building Industry Coalition, reporting the doings at a Friday forum the lobbying group held for legislators from Mecklenburg, Union and Iredell counties. Sponsors were REBIC and the N.C. Home Builders Association.

The session “gave home builders many reasons to be optimistic that 2013 would be one of the most pro-business sessions in North Carolina history,” reports the blog.  Read it in full here.

All the legislators on the panel agreed they’d support legislation similar to Senate Bill 731, which passed the Senate in 2011 but didn’t make it through the House before the session died. That bill, sponsored by Sen. Dan Clodfelter, D-Mecklenburg, and Sen. Fletcher Hartsell, R-Cabarrus, would have limited munipalities’ ability to regulate architectural details such as windows, doors and garage doors for single-family residential developments with five or fewer units an acre.

Planners informally called it the “snout-house bill,” because one of the most contentious items in some zoning ordinances, including Davidson’s, is a provision forbidding garages to project far in front of the rest of the house, dwarfing the front door and windows. Planners call those “snout houses,” and say they create a street view that emphasizes cars over people.  Home builders counter that on small lots it’s more economical to build garages that way, and that cities shouldn’t get so deep into architectural details.

Download the text here.
Read its history in the 2011-12 General Assembly here.

Back to the Friday forum:
A bill requiring a sunset provision for “all state administrative rules” won plaudits as well. Primary sponsors include Rep. Ruth Samuelson, R-Mecklenburg, and Rob Bryan, R-Mecklenburg.

What’s that P in APA? Hint: Not ‘process’

Journalists and planners share many interests – community wellbeing, policymaking and government, for instance – but here’s one thing they don’t share: A fascination with process. Most journalists I know get twitchy whenever people start talking about “the process” or about “creating a framework.”

Maybe we shouldn’t, because after all, the democratic process is just that. But truth is, process is tedious and all too often, an excuse for avoiding difficult or controversial decisions. Plus, it makes for boring coverage.

So it was music to the ears today to hear the national president of the American Planning Association, Raleigh’s Planning Director Mitchell Silver, tell the state planning conference of the N.C. chapter of the APA that the P in APA should not stand for Process. “Very often people find comfort in process, not planning,” he said.

His Friday morning talk, “The value of planning in the 21st century,” was a rousing pep talk aimed at inspiring planners to start planning with a capital P, using plans to express their vision and values. “Sustainability,” as a term, he said, has a shelf life, but its intent to support the economy, the environment and equity will live on because they’ve always been at the heart of the goals of planning. But planning evolves.

Fall back in love with planning, he urged the group. “This is the most exciting time to be in this profession.”

I covered his talk via Twitter. (Silver is on Twitter as well, at @Mitchell_Silver.) So rather than blather on, I’ll just offer up my Tweeting stream:

– APA Prez + RA Planning Director Mitchell Silver: The P in APA should not stand for Process.

– @Mitchell_Silver To NC planners: Fall back in love with planning. Take your comp plan out for a romantic dinner.

– This one I didn’t Tweet because I got behind. But I would have said: People who say no to density are saying we don’t want creative workers.

– China is graduating 20K planners a year.

– By 2030 NC will see 124% increase in people over 65.

– By 2015 in US 15.5 million 15.5 percent of those 65+ will live in poor transit  areas. (Corrected, via later information from Silver.)

– By 2030 US will have 22M excess single-family homes. (I.e. built but no buyers.)

– Do we still want to build “Polaroid” communities (suburban subdivisions) for a digital generation?

– If you want Gens Y and Z at your public meetings, gotta use social media.

– Wachovia Center in dntwn Raleigh = 90 times the tax value/acre of the average suburban subdivision.

Huntersville mayor’s a winner

Huntersville Mayor Jill Swain won an award Thursday from the N.C. chapter of the American Planning Association for distinguished leadership by an elected official. The group held its annual statewide planning conference in Charlotte, Wednesday-Friday. Other awards for agencies in the greater Charlotte region:

Outstanding planning award for implementation (small community): Town of Davidson for its “Circles at 30” development at Exit 30 of Interstate 77.
Outstanding Planning Award for Implementation (large community): Iredell County for its land development code.
2011 Special Theme Award for community development: Town of Davidson for its affordable housing ordinance.
2011 Special Theme Award for sustainable community planning: City of Conover, for Conover Station, and the cities of Gastonia, Belmont and Bessemer City and the Gaston Urban Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (a.k.a. GUAMPO), for “Creating Opportunities for Active Living: An Action Plan to Promote Physical Activities in the Built Environment for Gastonia-Belmont-Bessemer City.”
The Town of Davidson won honorable mention for the Outstanding Planning Award for Comprehensive Planning (small community).
Not from this region, but the statewide winners for Outstanding Planning (large community) were the City of Raleigh’s 2030 Comprehensive Plan and the City of High Point for its University Area Plan.

Bike-sharing in Charlotte – soon?

A Charlotte City Council committee today takes up the question of what should happen next if Charlotte is to have (or not) a bike-sharing program. It also takes up an even more hot-potato topic: How to pay for the city’s road needs.

For those unfamiliar with the term bike-sharing, those programs have sprung up in cities all over the country, as well as in other countries. For a small fee – typically paid online – you can become a member or pay for a temporary membership. That gives you the ability to take a bicycle from a bike station, ride it for a certain number of hours and return it to another bike station

In its August meeting, the committee heard a presentation from Alta Bicycle Share, a consultant group that manages the Washington bike-sharing program known as Capital Bikeshare. (Photo courtesy of Capital Bikeshare, taken from the City of Charlotte’s website.) 

If you click on the link in the first sentence of this item, you’ll see that the committee agenda also holds a discussion on the sure-to-be-controversial topic of what revenue sources (read: tax or fee increase)
might be available to provide money for the Charlotte region’s huge transportation needs. The agenda says “provide detailed information on a variety of potential transportation revenue sources.”
The presentation will be a reprise of the recommendations from the Committee of 21, led by developer Ned Curran, which met in 2009 to look at the city’s “road needs.” It did not look at transit needs.  It did not look at “street” needs. None of which is to say that the city doesn’t need some work on its roads. It does. But in Mary’s Perfect World, we’d talk more about streets, which is what you have in a city, and less about “roads,” which are what you have between cities. And we’d mostly talk about “transportation” needs, which means looking at driving, transit, bicycling and walking, i.e., the Big Picture. We need to serve all those transportation forms.
The Committee of 21 looked at a gigantic list of possible funding, including such  Big City ideas as charging a fee for driving into uptown. It rejected most of those. For instance, congestion pricing (the downtown fee) can work well where residents have plenty of good options for transportation other than driving. Charlotte is not one of those places.
Why is the Committee of 21 presenting a reprise? I asked committee chair David Howard that very thing when I chanced to run into him Saturday at the UNC Charlotte Student Union. (I was walking around campus for exercise; he was waiting for his daughter to finish an educational program on campus.) He said he asked for it to be put on the agenda, because it’s a conversation the community needs to have.
The committee meets at 3:30 p.m. today in Room 280 of the Government Center.  

Charlotte’s disappearing focus on planning

So I’m poring through Charlotte City Manager Curt Walton’s proposed budget today – I know you wish you could do the same, but sometimes they just pay us here at the paper to have fun like that – and I notice that the City Council’s committees and their “focus areas” seem to have dropped a word from previous years. That word is “planning.”

The committee formerly known as Transportation and Planning is now simply Transportation. Council member David Howard, who chairs the committee, says that while the official council “focus areas”  don’t mention the word “planning,” the committee name remains Transportation and Planning.  Before Mayor Anthony Foxx took office in 2009, there was a committee known as Economic Development and Planning.  When Foxx took office, it became Economic Development, and “Planning” was added to the title of the Transportation Committee, and there it remains.

Of course you can make the case that “planning” is embedded in many focus areas, such as environment, transportation, housing, etc. For the record, the focus areas are: Community Safety, Economic Development, Environment, Housing and Neighborhood Development and Transportation. Other committees are Budget, Government Affairs [no silly, this does not include Schwarzenegger, Edwards, et al] and Restructuring Government.

Pardon my bias here, but I want to stand up for the idea that planning, in and of itself, is important for a growing city such as Charlotte.

The City Council should make clear, as part of its focus areas, that planning is important. Aren’t the city’s plans a valued resource for the council and the whole community? If they aren’t, why not, and what needs to happen to make them so? A comprehensive city plan, drawn up with massive public involvement, builds buy-in from the community toward a vision for the city’s future, lays out a road map for policy changes that help get there, and builds buy-in as well for making those changes.

Planning should again become a visible part of the City Council’s focus.