Who’s moving on up?

My buddy Joe (and earlier, Tom Hanchett) shared a fascinating, though lengthy article in The New Republic by Alan Ehrenhalt about urban “inversion” — not the kind where hot polluted air settles over a city — but a demographic shift.

His point is that Chicago and other cities are seeing more middle- and upper-income people moving to the center, and low-income families and immigrants moving out to the far suburbs. He attributes it to several factors: de-industrializaton, less crime, young people eager for urban life, and traffic.

It includes several mentions of Charlotte, which is experiencing the kind of inversion he writes about. Here’s one:

In downtown Charlotte, a luxury condominium is scheduled for construction this year that will allow residents to drive their cars into a garage elevator, ride up to the floor they live on, and park right next to their front door. I have a hard time figuring out whether that is a triumph for urbanism or a defeat.

In Atlanta, he says, “the middle-class return to the city is occurring with more suddenness than perhaps anywhere in the United States,” and most people say it’s due to traffic and gas prices.

‘Extreme’: Higher taxes? Who pays?

Plenty of folks reading the previous post worried that the King family might not have money for the higher taxes they’ll pay. Some suggested the day care they run isn’t licensed. It is, and has a four-star rating.

Newsroom colleague and great writer Elizabeth Leland, apparently a Naked City reader, e-mailed me with a note pointing to Mark Washburn’s article Saturday about the size of the house and the family’s upcoming bills.

A pertinent excerpt is below, or you can read the story online. Mark’s story doesn’t address the questions of “green” building, though some who left comments
say the show makes a point of using energy-efficient techniques. Does anyone have any information?

What is not generally known is that producers often set aside money to ensure families can afford their gift homes. Community fundraisers, such as this week’s concert at SouthPark, help underwrite the accounts.

“Most family mortgages are paid off,” says Didiayer Snyder, one of the designers on the Charlotte build. Also, money is put in escrow for things such as power bills and other expenses, including scholarships.

In the case of the Kings, they are planning to finish degrees at UNC Charlotte and the show might make that part of the package, but it probably won’t be known until the show airs in October.

“We do not build McMansions,” says Diane Korman, senior producer with Lock and Key Productions in Hollywood, which creates the shows for ABC. “Houses need to be affordable for the residents.”

… Korman said this week that the Charlotte project has been designed to fit in with the Windsor Park neighborhood, which is mostly one- and two-story brick homes. Lavish palaces are not the goal of the program, she said.

“Extreme Makeover”: Is house too big?

Jerry Fleeman of Gastonia e-mails with this (sarcastic) query:

Given the many past columns and blogs surely you will write on the evils of the McMansion built by the TV show “Extreme Makeover: Home Edition” in the Windsor Park neighborhood of Charlotte.

A 1,900 square-foot single-story house was transformed into a 5,100 square-foot multi-story mansion. Surely this house now adversely impacts the neighborhood. Some quotes from the Observer story: “At 5,100 square feet, it barely fits on their Sudbury Road lot. “
And, “Its tall roof soars over the Windsor Park neighborhood, where modest one-story brick homes are the standard.”

Whaddaya think?

I’ve been wondering how much thought went into making the house as energy efficient as possible. Does anyone know? I’ve not been following it closely. Is there daylighting? Passive solar? Any solar panels? Geothermal heating? Recycled materials?

I hope some provision is being made to help this family with what are likely to be much higher utility bills (unless the house is “green”) and higher property taxes.

Finding the Naked City, Part 2

I’m taking a vacation day today and possibly tomorrow, so no new Naked City news for now. (Try saying that 5 times, fast.)

To the readers asking how to set up an RSS feed: When I use Firefox as a browser there’s an orange box in the window where the URL shows. Click on it and you’re asked how you want the feed to work.

Naked City is listed under the “blogs/columnists” link that shows only if you scroll your cursor over the “Opinion” tab at the top. The blogs/columnists link showing when you open the new home page give you only “News” blogs/columns because the “News” tab automatically opens. For Sports, Editorial Page, Entertainment or other columnists you have to click on the appropriate tab.

Meantime, what’s the reaction to the Observer’s newly designed Web site? It’s now charlotteobserver.com instead of charlotte.com. The charlotte.com URL will keep working for a while but it will disappear at some point, so be sure to fix your bookmarks.

Cheers.

The end of uptown hamster tunnels?

Some folks are aghast that Charlotte Center City Partners President Michael Smith would cast aspersions on the Overstreet Mall system uptown of sidewalks and hidden shops. In an Observer article published Thursday, Smith said the overstreet system β€œis dilutive to creating a vibrant center city.”

One of those aghast is Bill Little, who owned the BB&T Center — home to many interior retail spaces — until selling to an REIT a couple of years back. He consistently defends it. Here’s a portion of a letter he wrote to the Observer:

“Mr. [Michael] Smith fails to see the big picture. Overstreet Mall is more than a series of pedestrian bridges connecting coffee shops and newsstands. Think of it, rather, as effectively bringing millions of square feet of office space under one roof. I know of no other U.S. city east of the Mississippi where more office space — not to mention hotels, parking, retail, performing arts centers, and residential buildings — can be accessed under cover.”

I’m on Michael Smith’s side. People who say they want more stores downtown aren’t going to get them until at least three things happen.

First, better designed retail space has to be available — the kind where you can walk past the store windows, see inside and go right in. You know, like old storefront buildings (example: inside the Latta Arcade) and like stores in shopping malls. Those mall folks understand window shopping. Architects who design office towers and grudgingly throw in required ground-floor retail space do not.

Second, uptown needs a retail cluster. People like to shop where other shops are. Again, the shopping center developers understand this. Uptown not only doesn’t have this cluster, there’s little hope it will get one. The retail spaces built in recent years (required by the uptown zoning) are too scattered. The older retail spaces that might have served to link them together have almost all been demolished for the new towers. The only solution would be building a sort of outdoor-air shopping mall uptown. That’s expensive.

Finally — you knew I’d get here — Overstreet Mall should transition to business support tenants: Printing companies, shoe repairs, cleaners, etc. I’d say it has to go, but the city in its infinite wisdom granted what amounts to perpetual rights-of-way over the streets. So the tunnels will be with us for years to come.

Why do you think shopping malls locate at interstate interchanges? Traffic. Uptown, the traffic is feet. In Charlotte too many feet are diverted into the overstreet system. Or conversely, too many feet are people on the sidewalks with no clue the overstreet system exists or how to get there. In either case, potential retailers suffer.

Yes, I confess I use the overstreet system when it’s pouring rain or I need to get into one of the buildings. I understand some symphony-goers were shocked and appalled that they were expected to — gasp! — set foot on the sidewalks and walk when the overstreet passage between the Blumenthal and its deck was taken down. But it’s perfectly possible to have an excellent shopping district without those tunnels.

If you want strong retail uptown, not the half-hearted retail we now have, eventually Overstreet will have to change.

Mayoral talk over lunch?


Spotted having lunch today at Mimosa: City Council member Anthony Foxx (right), a Democrat, and former City Council member Patrick Mumford (left), a Republican.

Maybe they lunch together often and it’s no big deal. Who knows? But I stopped to greet them and when I asked what they were talking about (hey, I’m a journalist and it’s my job to be nosy) they just smiled and didn’t answer.

The common denominator for Foxx and Mumford — other than their council experience — is that both have been the subject of speculation about mayoral ambitions. Charlotte’s current mayor is running for governor. The next mayoral election isn’t until 2009. If Pat McCrory moves to the Governor’s Mansion in Raleigh, who succeeds him?

I’m not an expert at this moment in how a mayor gets chosen if one leaves office, but I’m pretty sure that if a Republican leaves, a Republican must be appointed. If recent council history is a guide, council members would rather appoint someone who doesn’t plan to run for the office. That’s how Greg Phipps got appointed to the council in 2005 after Malcolm Graham was elected to the state Senate.

Mumford left the council in 2007, saying he wanted time with his family. Might he be a candidate to be appointed mayor if McCrory wins the governorship?

Foxx, of course, is considered likely to run for mayor regardless of whether is opponent is McCrory, or any other Republican.

Mumford, by the way, had a pizza and Foxx had a bowl of chili. Bon appetit!

How does your neighborhood rate?

Interesting story in today’s newspaper about the city’s semi-annual statistical study of neighborhoods. It’s called the 2008 Neighborhood Quality of Life report. If you want to see the map I think you have to see the on-paper version (at 50 cents still cheaper than a cuppa coffee), as I can’t find an online link. But here’s a link to the report itself. Warning: It’s a slow-loading PDF file. Here’s a link to the page on the City of Charlotte’s Web site about the report.

I haven’t read the report yet — it’s 246 pages — so don’t kick me around for “endorsing” it; I’m simply sharing it for those who might be interested. I hope to find time this week for some reporting, with luck for my Saturday column.

One quick thought: I find its terminology unclear. The report says that in 2006 it changed its classifications from Stable, Threatened, and Fragile (also unclear — which is better, “threatened” or “fragile”?) to Stable, Transitioning, and Challenged. But Transitioning is applied to neighborhoods in “an improving or declining position.” So if the number of “transitioning” neighborhoods has increased, is that good news for the city or bad news? Who can tell? And is this because the city wants only happyface news about its neighborhoods? Or because these kinds of reports are done by geographers and academics, not writers or editors? Who can tell?

Anyway, happy reading. Check back with you later.

Save 8th Street uptown

Yes, I’m a dweeb. I’m sitting here watching the City Council meeting on TV. Just watched Mayor Pat McCrory veto a proposal for the city to buy a small convenience store in the Belmont neighborhood.

Lotta council discussion, and much of it reasonably intelligent, even when the members disagreed with each other. McCrory’s veto was the right thing to do. I wrote a column on this issue last year. I can’t link to it tonight, but will try to add a link tomorrow. Headline: The Belmont neighborhood — thanks to strategic city investments and other good efforts — is on the upswing. The private marketplace is slowly regenerating it, and those old retail buildings will help add character and a home for small business entrepreneurs. If there’s a crime problem (and with some of the old stores, there is) the solution is policing, not the buildings. The city’s money is needed in other, more desperate neighborhoods.

But here’s what inspired me to crank out this posting. They’re talking about a plan for the First Ward section of uptown, and for a park. It’s a complicated land-swap deal, and will involve a park, underground parking, a UNC Charlotte building and other good things.

BUT, and it’s a big but, council member Nancy Carter is spot on with her resistance to the proposal to close Eighth Street for the park. Uptown’s traffic can be so congested that the last thing it needs is to close off even more of its grid. And as its development continues it is going to get even more congested. The city can’t keep chipping away at connectivity uptown. Plenty of excellent parks have a small-scale street running through them, and this one could be one of them.

The Central Avenue challenge

Wonderful discussion about retrofitting suburbia. If you haven’t read the comments, I recommend them.

Retrofitting can be expensive for taxpayers, when a city has to build sidewalks, add storm drains and so on. The city’s changes in recent years — requiring sidewalks, better street designs, etc. — help with new construction only. Even the city’s admirable, if slow-moving, sidewalk-building gets at only part of the problem.

Most of the potential retrofitting happens as part of the natural economic evolution of a city: A business closes, another business buys the building and renovates it, or tears it down and build again. Or a business expands its building.

The city’s passivity is hurting those small-scale opportunities all over town. Here are two examples, both a couple of years old, are the Bank of America branch at Kings Drive and Charlottetowne Avenue (a.k.a. the old Independence Boulevard), and the Bojangles at Third Street and Charlottetowne. Plenty of other examples abound all over the city, especially along the so-called International corridor of Central Avenue, between Eastway Drive and Eastland Mall.

That branch bank and the Bojangles are welcome businesses. I just spent a year in Massachusetts, suffering withdrawal from good fried chicken and biscuits, so believe me, I value Bojangles. The bank replaced one that was demolished for the Little Sugar Creek Greenway and was needed in the neighborhood.

BUT … The two buildings — not the businesses within, but the buildings and lot designs — are awful for the location. They’re suburban in design — one-story buildings with deep setbacks from the street and huge parking lots out front. They’re unsuitable for an in-town location, especially an area where other developers are trying to build more urban patterns. Those two small buildings should have helped with the urban retrofit of Midtown area, yet they didn’t. Why not?

The city’s old-fashioned zoning codes are to blame. Although I often praise the city’s planners for devising a variety of urban codes in the past 10 or 15 years (MUDD, PED, TOD, etc.) those standards apply only to property that holds that zoning. If your property has the older, suburban-style business zoning (B-1 or B-2) you can build suburbia with no trouble from the city. You’re virtually required to, in fact, because of the required setbacks and buffers. You have an economic incentive as well, because going through a rezoning costs money. Keeping your old zoning doesn’t.

Plenty of other examples abound along Central Avenue. Small owners, small buildings, and old zoning codes add up to lost opportunities for small retrofitting steps over time.

If you’re one of the hundreds of people deeply wishing to see a Central Avenue revitalization, you should push the city to change its B-1 zoning standards. I’m getting tired of visionary plans that don’t address this issue. Central Avenue still looks like bedraggled suburbia because the underlying rules that govern building designs haven’t changed under the old zoning that exists along Central Avenue. To change the way things look, change the rules that govern how things look.

(UPDATE as of 7:30 p.m.: Got an e-mail this afternoon that said the city had adopted a PED overlay for Central Avenue. If that’s the case it would do exactly what I’m hoping for — require more urban-style development. But I can’t find it listed on the planning department’s web page. Doesn’t mean it didn’t happen, but means I can’t, tonight, confirm or deny it.)

And before you go off about how the city shouldn’t set design standards, let me just open your eyes to the reality that B-1 zoning, which requires deep setbacks, is less favorable to property owners than a zoning that would allow them to build closer to the property line and cover more of the land with buildings and less with setbacks and buffers. If you’re required to keep 35 feet of property vacant in front, you can’t build as much income-producing square-footage as if you’re required to keep only 15 feet of property vacant in front. I’m not proposing ADDING a lot of design controls, only altering the ones that already exist.

Any hope for ’60s suburbia?

Excellent question at the end of the previous comment string, from “Tom” from Nashville.

“Suggestion for your next blog topic: Is it possible to “retrofit” a suburb, particularly the middle-ring suburbs that are struggling, to be more connected and urban? Can a ’60s-style neighborhood be made to behave like a ’30s-style neighborhood?”

You won’t be surprised to hear I have thoughts. But this afternoon I have other tasks. So I’ll toss out the question and let others take it on. Maybe Dan Burden of Walkable Communities Inc., can weigh in, or someone from the Congress for the New Urbanism, or some developer/designer who’s done a retrofit project and can talk about how it went.

See you later.