Category: Uncategorized

In the category of “my, things change,” we have Starbucks in Pittsboro. To be specific, TWO Starbucks in Pittsboro.

Pittsboro – if you’re not from North Carolina or don’t get out much – is a formerly small town just south of Chapel Hill and the county seat of Chatham County. It’s where you used to turn left to get to Chapel Hill if you were driving the back way through Asheboro and the Blue Mist. (Though some of my Asheboro-savvy friends have pointed me to the Henry James on U.S. 220 for even better barbecue. No, it isn’t named for the novelist.)

Pittsboro has a great old county courthouse in a traffic circle in the middle of town. Or at least, it used to. If Starbucks has come to town it’s entirely possible things have changed.

Let me note here that while Pittsboro may be chi-chi enough to attract TWO Starbucks, most of East Charlotte remains Starbucks-free. South of University City and east of Monroe Road, you’re out of luck. (Starbucks’ web site shows stores way out Indy Boulevard and one apparently tucked into a place called Northlake Commons either in or near Mint Hill.) Indeed, if you drive the rural route to Chapel Hill, either heading out Albemarle Road or up N.C. 49, you’re in Starbucks-free land until you hit Pittsboro and 15-501.

Think Starbucks will ever recognize East Charlotte as a market? Does it need to?

And just for fun, reader Don May, who lives near Lake Wylie Elementary shared this photo with the Observer. It was shot Jan. 20, on Laurel View Drive. “Thought you might want to show your readers that neighborhoods and wildlife can coexist,” he says.

A new Guilford County middle school is getting a lot of publicity because it’s been designed to be more environmentally sensitive than most schools. Here’s what the Raleigh News & Observer wrote about it.

How does it compare to what’s being built by Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools? Well for starters, though the article says the new Northern Guilford Middle school was built for only a half a percent more in construction costs, for $26.5 million, CMS’ middle schools are being built more cheaply, especially if you consider cost per student.

I phoned Tony Ansaldo, CMS director of architecture, to get some facts. Ansaldo said Crestdale and Bradley, two of CMS’s newer baseline (that is, typical) middle schools, cost approximately the same in today’s dollars as the Guilford middle school but are designed for 1,200 students instead of 950 at the Guilford school. He says the next CMS middle schools to be built will likely be 130,000 square feet for 1,200 students, down from 145,000 square feet at Crestdale and Bradley. The Guilford school is 140,000 square feet.

Ansaldo applauds Guilford for working to build a greener school. He also talked about what CMS is doing to help make new schools greener. (One irony, he noted, is that older schools from the 1930s to 1950s have much better daylighting than the 1960s and 1970s schools.) Among other things, CMS tries to design window walls to take advantage of daylight, though most CMS schools are not being designed specifically as “daylit” schools, he said. (One exception is the new Mint Hill Middle School, where a UNC Charlotte daylighting expert was a consultant.) People using the school love it, he said, though the higher windows are harder for maintenance crews to clean.

Ansaldo also said CMS had looked at the dimming system for fluorescent lights, mentioned in the article, but at the time it wouldn’t have paid for itself over the school’s lifetime. Technology is changing quickly, he noted, so maybe newer systems are more economical.

With those advances it’s possible that soon the cost of building a green school will be cheaper than a conventional building, even before lifetime energy costs are considered.

There’s a cohort of people in Charlotte-Mecklenburg who really want CMS to build the cheapest schools possible. They make a lot of noise, and many are not conversant with green building, either the concept or the details.

Another cohort wants CMS to build much greener schools. They don’t make nearly as much noise, at least not in political circles. And they don’t seem to recognize the political power the “cheap” cohort exerts.

So the current push for school buildings is for cheap, not green.

A new Guilford County middle school is getting a lot of publicity because it’s been designed to be more environmentally sensitive than most schools. Here’s what the Raleigh News & Observer wrote about it.

How does it compare to what’s being built by Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools? Well for starters, though the article says the new Northern Guilford Middle school was built for only a half a percent more in construction costs, for $26.5 million, CMS’ middle schools are being built more cheaply, especially if you consider cost per student.

I phoned Tony Ansaldo, CMS director of architecture, to get some facts. Ansaldo said Crestdale and Bradley, two of CMS’s newer baseline (that is, typical) middle schools, cost approximately the same in today’s dollars as the Guilford middle school but are designed for 1,200 students instead of 950 at the Guilford school. He says the next CMS middle schools to be built will likely be 130,000 square feet for 1,200 students, down from 145,000 square feet at Crestdale and Bradley. The Guilford school is 140,000 square feet.

Ansaldo applauds Guilford for working to build a greener school. He also talked about what CMS is doing to help make new schools greener. (One irony, he noted, is that older schools from the 1930s to 1950s have much better daylighting than the 1960s and 1970s schools.) Among other things, CMS tries to design window walls to take advantage of daylight, though most CMS schools are not being designed specifically as “daylit” schools, he said. (One exception is the new Mint Hill Middle School, where a UNC Charlotte daylighting expert was a consultant.) People using the school love it, he said, though the higher windows are harder for maintenance crews to clean.

Ansaldo also said CMS had looked at the dimming system for fluorescent lights, mentioned in the article, but at the time it wouldn’t have paid for itself over the school’s lifetime. Technology is changing quickly, he noted, so maybe newer systems are more economical.

With those advances it’s possible that soon the cost of building a green school will be cheaper than a conventional building, even before lifetime energy costs are considered.

There’s a cohort of people in Charlotte-Mecklenburg who really want CMS to build the cheapest schools possible. They make a lot of noise, and many are not conversant with green building, either the concept or the details.

Another cohort wants CMS to build much greener schools. They don’t make nearly as much noise, at least not in political circles. And they don’t seem to recognize the political power the “cheap” cohort exerts.

So the current push for school buildings is for cheap, not green.

Is the problem that most Americans are cretins when it comes to architecture?

Or is it that architects keep designing weird and ugly buildings that aren’t pleasant to look at or be inside?

Or is something else causing the disconnect between buildings architects love and buildings Americans love?

Wednesday’s Wall Street Journal reports on a public opinion survey by the American Institute of Architects to pick Americans’ 150 favorite buildings. The results are quite revealing. The most recent structure in the Top 10 was built in 1982 – Maya Lin’s Vietnam Memorial in Washington. (Sure, the list shows the National Cathedral as a 1990 building, but it took 80 years to build.) After that, the most recent was the Jefferson Memorial (No. 4) in 1943, then the Golden Gate Bridge (No. 5, 1937).

It’s hard to avoid the recognition that Americans simply do not embrace much of contemporary architecture, and they feel a lot of affection for Neoclassical national monuments or other century-old monuments and buildings. And, finally, that they like places whose walls carry emotional weight as well as building load.

Asheville’s Biltmore House (1895) came in at No. 8. No. 1 was the Empire State Building.

Maybe the most controversial choice? It’s probably the lavish (some would say egregiously tacky) Bellagio Hotel and Casino in Las Vegas, which ranked No. 22 – ahead of such architects’ faves as Frank Lloyd Wright’s Fallingwater in Bear Run, Pa. (1935, No. 29), Chicago’s Sears Tower (1974, No. 42), and Frank Gehry’s Disney Concert Hall in Los Angeles (2003, No. 99).

Several of the comments on the previous post had some mistaken assumptions or questions, such as whether parking at the Scaleybark station would be built by the city, and whether it would be free.

Tom Flynn, the city of Charlotte’s economic development director, had some answers.

– The parking for transit riders will be free. At this point, says Flynn, both development proposals under consideration would also offer free parking for people using the stores. It’s possible, Flynn says, that the residential portion of the development would have parking restricted to residents only.

– Flynn also verifies that, essentially, the city is paying for the parking at the station. Each development proposal is a complicated financial deal, with developers paying $3 million to the city for land CATS had bought earlier, planning for parking. The developers will pay to build 315 parking spaces. (The Bank of America proposal calls for a deck, worth about $5 million to $6 million, and the Scaleybark Partners’ proposal would be a surface parking lot costing about $1.5 million, which might convert to a deck during a future Phase II development). In each case the city would end up either owning the land under the parking lot, or owning a portion of the parking spaces in the deck.

– How much will monthly transit passes cost? I have a call in to CATS PR woman Jean Leier.
But they’re expected to be the same as monthly bus passes. Current monthly bus passes (unlimited rides) are $48, and express bus passes (unlimited rides) $66. A fare increase has been proposed (a public hearing is set for Feb. 28) under which monthly bus passes would be $52 starting July 1, and express passes $70. One trip (bus or rail or a combination of both) would be $1.30.

– Yes, the Scaleybark Partners’ proposal includes land the developers had purchased previously in hopes of doing a transit-oriented development at the site. In analyzing the deals, the question before council will be whether to spend more now and get a larger, more intense transit-oriented development that is expected to bring in more tax revenue in future years, or spend less public money now for a development that won’t bring in as much money later.

– And who goes to the store at a transit station? Experience in other cities shows that, as usual, “It depends.” The more residents living within walking distance, the better chances for retail that goes beyond coffee shop/newsstand/dry cleaners. Both development proposals include a grocery store and a library branch.

– One final point. Cities such as Atlanta and Miami built transit systems but didn’t, until a few years ago, change their suburban-style land use codes. Much of the development at their transit stops wasn’t conducive to walk-in or bicycle-in business and didn’t encourage high-density residential development nearby. They had a lot of big parking lots right next to the stations, and so missed out on the possiblity for coffee shops, dry cleaners, etc. That means comparing development at Atlanta’s Metro stations of 15 years ago with Charlotte’s plans is kind of apples to oranges.

Several of the comments on the previous post had some mistaken assumptions or questions, such as whether parking at the Scaleybark station would be built by the city, and whether it would be free.

Tom Flynn, the city of Charlotte’s economic development director, had some answers.

– The parking for transit riders will be free. At this point, says Flynn, both development proposals under consideration would also offer free parking for people using the stores. It’s possible, Flynn says, that the residential portion of the development would have parking restricted to residents only.

– Flynn also verifies that, essentially, the city is paying for the parking at the station. Each development proposal is a complicated financial deal, with developers paying $3 million to the city for land CATS had bought earlier, planning for parking. The developers will pay to build 315 parking spaces. (The Bank of America proposal calls for a deck, worth about $5 million to $6 million, and the Scaleybark Partners’ proposal would be a surface parking lot costing about $1.5 million, which might convert to a deck during a future Phase II development). In each case the city would end up either owning the land under the parking lot, or owning a portion of the parking spaces in the deck.

– How much will monthly transit passes cost? I have a call in to CATS PR woman Jean Leier.
But they’re expected to be the same as monthly bus passes. Current monthly bus passes (unlimited rides) are $48, and express bus passes (unlimited rides) $66. A fare increase has been proposed (a public hearing is set for Feb. 28) under which monthly bus passes would be $52 starting July 1, and express passes $70. One trip (bus or rail or a combination of both) would be $1.30.

– Yes, the Scaleybark Partners’ proposal includes land the developers had purchased previously in hopes of doing a transit-oriented development at the site. In analyzing the deals, the question before council will be whether to spend more now and get a larger, more intense transit-oriented development that is expected to bring in more tax revenue in future years, or spend less public money now for a development that won’t bring in as much money later.

– And who goes to the store at a transit station? Experience in other cities shows that, as usual, “It depends.” The more residents living within walking distance, the better chances for retail that goes beyond coffee shop/newsstand/dry cleaners. Both development proposals include a grocery store and a library branch.

– One final point. Cities such as Atlanta and Miami built transit systems but didn’t, until a few years ago, change their suburban-style land use codes. Much of the development at their transit stops wasn’t conducive to walk-in or bicycle-in business and didn’t encourage high-density residential development nearby. They had a lot of big parking lots right next to the stations, and so missed out on the possiblity for coffee shops, dry cleaners, etc. That means comparing development at Atlanta’s Metro stations of 15 years ago with Charlotte’s plans is kind of apples to oranges.

The city’s plans to sell 17 acres at its Scaleybark light rail station for transit-related development moved ahead a notch last week. On Wednesday a City Council committee voted 3-2 to recommend one of two proposals. (Yes: Nancy Carter, Andy Dulin and James Mitchell. No: John Lassiter and Don Lochman.)

The recommended (though just barely) proposal is from Scaleybark Partners – a coalition of Pappas Properties, GreenHawk Properties of Raleigh, Shook Kelley, ColeJenest & Stone and the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Housing Partnership, among others. The other comes from a coalition of Bank of America, Harris Murr & Vermillion and Urban Design Associates of Pittsburgh.

Financial analysis is ongoing. The headline seems to be: Scaleybark Partners project would cost more now but bring in more revenue later. But let’s talk about design for a minute, specifically retail, and learn a cautionary tale from the Bay Area.

Fruitvale Village is a transit village built on a former Bay Area Rapid Transit parking lot in Oakland, Calif., that “has become a reluctant symbol of the difficulties that transit-oriented development (TOD) can encounter,” says an article in the December issue of New Urban News, an industry newsletter. (To read it, click on “Past Articles.”)

Some cautions: Don’t assume the whole development’s a failure because it’s had problems filling its 40,000 square feet of retail space. The vacant stores are slowly being filled, and the development has been successful in many other ways. And it’s simplistic to single out one factor alone to blame for its retail problems.

BUT – you knew a “but” was coming – here’s what Charlotte should pay attention to. “BART more or less mandated that the main commuter parking garage be built where it would create a short and direct route between commuters’ cars and the station,” says the article. That means transit riders who arrived by car had no incentive to walk past the retail space.

The design from the Scaleybark Partners puts some retail space directly between the parking lot and the rail station. The Bank of American design doesn’t. I hope City Council members, scheduled to choose a developer Feb. 12, look closely at whether the design will make retail success a big uphill struggle.

Oh, and one more thing. The Unity Council, the nonprofit community development corporation that sponsored Fruitvale Village, made some dumb moves. Said Unity Council’s Jeff Pace: “We turned away Starbucks twice.”

The city’s plans to sell 17 acres at its Scaleybark light rail station for transit-related development moved ahead a notch last week. On Wednesday a City Council committee voted 3-2 to recommend one of two proposals. (Yes: Nancy Carter, Andy Dulin and James Mitchell. No: John Lassiter and Don Lochman.)

The recommended (though just barely) proposal is from Scaleybark Partners – a coalition of Pappas Properties, GreenHawk Properties of Raleigh, Shook Kelley, ColeJenest & Stone and the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Housing Partnership, among others. The other comes from a coalition of Bank of America, Harris Murr & Vermillion and Urban Design Associates of Pittsburgh.

Financial analysis is ongoing. The headline seems to be: Scaleybark Partners project would cost more now but bring in more revenue later. But let’s talk about design for a minute, specifically retail, and learn a cautionary tale from the Bay Area.

Fruitvale Village is a transit village built on a former Bay Area Rapid Transit parking lot in Oakland, Calif., that “has become a reluctant symbol of the difficulties that transit-oriented development (TOD) can encounter,” says an article in the December issue of New Urban News, an industry newsletter. (To read it, click on “Past Articles.”)

Some cautions: Don’t assume the whole development’s a failure because it’s had problems filling its 40,000 square feet of retail space. The vacant stores are slowly being filled, and the development has been successful in many other ways. And it’s simplistic to single out one factor alone to blame for its retail problems.

BUT – you knew a “but” was coming – here’s what Charlotte should pay attention to. “BART more or less mandated that the main commuter parking garage be built where it would create a short and direct route between commuters’ cars and the station,” says the article. That means transit riders who arrived by car had no incentive to walk past the retail space.

The design from the Scaleybark Partners puts some retail space directly between the parking lot and the rail station. The Bank of American design doesn’t. I hope City Council members, scheduled to choose a developer Feb. 12, look closely at whether the design will make retail success a big uphill struggle.

Oh, and one more thing. The Unity Council, the nonprofit community development corporation that sponsored Fruitvale Village, made some dumb moves. Said Unity Council’s Jeff Pace: “We turned away Starbucks twice.”

So much to say, so little time. So here are two quick hits, then news about an opportunity for East Charlotte’s international corridor, Central Avenue.

Ask and ye shall receive? Saw today that Duke Power will help pay to bury some power lines in Greenville, S.C. Why not Charlotte? Apparently Greenville asked and Charlotte didn’t. After a major 2005 ice storm, Greenville and Duke negotiated for a year. Note this line in the story: Duke Energy Carolinas President Ellen Ruff says Greenville and Durham were the only cities in Duke’s service area to push for overhead lines to be relocated. So now Duke’s starting a “pilot project” on cost-sharing with municipalities – but only in S.C.

Argh! Charlotte (and the rest of North Carolina) had a horrific ice storm in December 2002 that knocked out power for a week or more. During Hurricane Hugo in 1989 almost the whole city lost power, many for two weeks or more (including our house). After the 2002 ice storm the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Planning Commission and City Council made a few noises about pushing Duke to bury power lines here. But what got buried was the idea, not the power lines.

More design discussions: Architect Manoj Kesavan says the new point8 online magazine is up and running. Its editorial team is made up of artists, designers, writers and enthusiasts. But, it says, “We believe that what you have to say is far more important than who you are.” The goal: “To promote creativity, critique and communication.”

East Charlotte: Local architects hope to work with Central Avenue’s international corridor to help business owners, property owners, residents and the larger community to “address the urban fabric and architectural issues that hinder the area’s development.” They want to help figure out how to make the area more walkable, more economically vibrant and help build an identifiable image.

(My quick two cents: Change the zoning ordinances that apply. The standard business zoning that much of the street carries allows, even requires, auto-oriented design. And you’re shocked when it gets built?)

The Charlotte chapter of the American Institute of Architects plans to spend the first quarter of 2007 studying the area, and meeting with residents, businesses and other interested groups. In late April, San Diego urban planner Teddy Cruz would facilitate a workshop on the area.

To hear more about ideas for the project, come to the Civic by Design forum 5:30-6:30 p.m. Tuesday, Feb. 13, at the Levine Museum of the New South uptown.

IKEA’s announcement last week that it’s building a store in Charlotte kicked off a frenzy not equaled since Nordy’s finally opted to come here. I’ve never been to an IKEA, so I’m not in a position to rave about their furniture, though I know lots of other people who do.

But a source at the city planning department says there’s a battle, of sorts, going on over the size of the signs IKEA wants. That’s why it’s requesting a very urban-type of zoning (MUDD-O for those of you who know the lingo). That “-O” is key. It stands for optional, and it means you can get permission for all kinds of things that, without the “-O,” you wouldn’t be allowed to do. Such as have very large signs and very tall signs.

In reality, “battle” isn’t the right word since it sounds as if the planners are going to buckle and allow IKEA its gigantic signs. “We have no leverage,” my source said. The building’s architecture is “not negotiable.” According to this source, IKEA’s negotiating stance was essentially “take it or leave it.”

I’ve never shopped at IKEA, so maybe it’s such shopping nirvana that it’s worth breaking all the rules for. It does have plenty of fans. But man, that is one ugly building. And at 345,000 square feet, it’s going to be one very huge, very ugly building – roughly twice the size of the 176,000-square-foot Wal-Mart supercenter to which Waxhaw just gave thumbs down. And did I mention that the building is ugly?

“It is not an attractive building,” said my planning source, who clearly hadn’t gotten the memo from on high to praise all things IKEA. (Or maybe said memo was indeed received. You’ll notice I’m not using the planner’s name.) “It’s a blue and yellow big box. Yeucch!”