[QUOTE][I][COLOR=red][B]UNC Chapel Hill[/B][/COLOR][/I] students have Franklin Street. And a stroll through downtown Athens is a must at the University of Georgia.
[/QUOTE]
Ha ha owned.
So, if we get a village, who gets the job of village idiot?
Dibs.
:lmao:
Dibs.
I’m really, really disappointed that this thread made it to Page 2 and no one said that Dax would take over as village idiot. I mean, I like the guy on the message board, but it just seemed so obvious. It was like Eden Ramos set it up there and all I had to do was come in and kill it to the floor.
God, please, let this be a reality.
God, please, let this be a reality.
I guarantee that if the light rail line gets built as planned, this will be snapped up by a developer and completed. If it were my money and my project, you would see a mix of apartments, office, retail, and restaurants/bars. If anyone wishes to fund my dreams, pm me and I will make you rich. Oh yeah, and I’ll be rich, too.
I guarantee that if the light rail line gets built as planned, this will be snapped up by a developer and completed.Just like the the land beside the proposed Scaleybark station?
If it were my money and my project, you would see a mix of apartments, office, retail, and restaurants/bars.Until the government told you, you had to put in low income housing instead.
i love how were the only two who care about light rail on this board, yet are opposite in the opinion of it. :silly:
Just like the the land beside the proposed Scaleybark station?Until the government told you, you had to put in low income housing instead.
i love how were the only two who care about light rail on this board, yet are opposite in the opinion of it. :silly:
I’ll convert you before the vote…
The mtc is obviously pretty confident that the rail lines will increase property values exponentially because they are talking about using TIF to fund the commuter line to Davidson.
And the developers of the Scaleybark MUD are going to make a killing…just watch…
[QUOTE=ninerID;243857]Just like the the land beside the proposed Scaleybark station?
Until the government told you, you had to put in low income housing instead.
i love how were the only two who care about light rail on this board, yet are opposite in the opinion of it. :silly:[/QUOTE]
http://www.planetizen.com/news/redirect.php?lid=34791&nid=24992
The Little Engine That Could
In many cities, the hottest development is taking place along the train lines
By KEMBA J. DUNHAM
June 11, 2007; Page R3
In cities across the country, mass-transit lines are the new frontier in urban development.
In dozens of cities – from Charlotte, N.C., to Denver to Portland, Ore. – the hottest redevelopment project is happening next to the local train station. Aging transit hubs and stops along new and expanded train lines are being transformed into multi-use developments that offer housing, retailing, restaurants and offices.
WSJ.com’s Paul Lin reports from Naugatuck, Conn., where city officials hope a giant new development based around a unique transit system will breathe life into the economy.
This transit-oriented development, as it’s known, is being promoted by local officials and developers as a way to counter sprawl, reduce traffic on the roads and revitalize struggling urban neighborhoods. By some estimates, there are about 100 such developments in the U.S., with 100 more in the pipeline. Reconnecting America, a national nonprofit group that works to spur development around transit stops, forecasts that by 2030 the number of households near transit stations will rise to 16 million, from six million today.
Demographic and lifestyle shifts are among the primary reasons many cities and developers are willing to bet on transit-oriented development. A growing number of households include singles and retiring baby boomers who are opting to live in smaller homes in urban areas.
“I think we have a collision of things going on – a desire to revitalize our cities connecting with the growth of smaller households that are desiring denser and more-convenient living choices,” says William Millar, president of the American Public Transportation Association, a nonprofit advocacy group in Washington, D.C. “This isn’t to say that the traditional suburb is going away,” he says, but there will be more housing built “for this demographic who desire walkable communities with easy access to transportation.”
Most successful transit-oriented developments are public-private partnerships. Local governments build or refurbish rail lines and surrounding infrastructure like roads and parking facilities. Private developers then build in the surrounding areas. “There’s a lot of research that shows that if the public sector puts money into a transit system, they can expect three to five times that amount in private money” for adjacent development, says Marilee Utter, president of Citiventure Associates LLC, a Denver firm that has worked with a number of cities on development around light-rail systems.
These developments can pay off for cities in several ways. Research shows that the value of commercial and residential properties close to transit stations often rises – and that translates into higher real-estate tax revenues in that area. Economists from the University of North Texas, for instance, found that between 1997 and 2001, office properties near suburban Dallas Area Rapid Transit stations increased in value 53% more than comparable properties not served by rail. Values of residential properties rose 39% more than a control group not served by rail.
In addition, cities can extract fees from these developments, including levies on the developers, sales taxes from retailers and fees for business licenses and parking. Those funds can be reinvested in the transit system or in the development, or anywhere else in the city.
Plans for Naugatuck
One developer is betting that transit-oriented development can help revive Naugatuck, Conn. Naugatuck, a town of 30,000 people located 70 miles northeast of New York City, was once a thriving industrial center, home to rubber, chemical and candy manufacturers. But over the past 30 years, the town has languished as its biggest industries have moved to other states or offshore. One of the final nails in the coffin was Hershey Co.'s April announcement that it would close its Peter Paul plant, where it churned out Almond Joy and Mounds candy bars.
REVIVAL PLAN Artist’s rendering of Naugatuck project.
Now, developer Alex Conroy is planning a $700 million transit-oriented development that will include housing, offices, retailing, hotels and entertainment on 60 acres in downtown Naugatuck. The Conroy Development Co. plans call for rubber-tire trolleys, jitneys and buses to provide connections to the Naugatuck stop on the commuter rail line that runs into New York, so that cars won’t be necessary for those working, living and shopping in the development.
Towns like Naugatuck can take some encouragement from the Washington, D.C., suburb of Arlington County, Va., which has transformed its economic base through transit-oriented development. During the 1970s, Arlington was in decline, like many of the suburbs nearest to major cities. In response, the county planned five closely spaced metro stations along its aging commercial corridor, stretching from Rosslyn to Ballston. The plan was for these stations to anchor medium- to high-density, mixed-use development, generally within a quarter mile of each stop.
The project has spurred approximately 40 million square feet of development so far, and the area around each station has an urban feel. From 2002 to 2006, land values in the Rosslyn-Ballston Corridor grew 84%, to $4 billion from $2.18 billion, says Dennis Leach, Arlington County’s director of transportation. Although the corridor is only two square miles in area – less than 8% of the county’s land area – it is the source of more than 30% of Arlington’s real-estate taxes, he says.
“Arlington’s approach to focusing transit-oriented development around its Metrorail stations has been central to the county’s economic health,” says Mr. Leach. “This approach has allowed Arlington to continue to expand its tax base, expand local services and invest in the conservation of existing neighborhoods.”
Challenges Loom
For all their promise, transit-oriented developments can be tough to get off the ground. For one thing, public funding for transit systems and the surrounding infrastructure often is severely limited. Land is more expensive for projects in established communities than it is in low-density areas. The involvement of city governments and transit agencies and sometimes state and even federal officials, as well as representatives of the communities where developments are planned, can make reaching agreements on details difficult and time-consuming.
“It’s not that these challenges are insurmountable, but for some places, this is new and takes a more focused effort to really see this idea come to be,” says Shelley Poticha, president of Reconnecting America.
Others suggest that some cities clamoring to build extensive development around transit may be misinformed about the potential economic rewards. Ms. Utter of Citiventure says that a lot of cities that are mainly funded by sales taxes are desperate for transit-oriented development because they are betting on a windfall resulting from the retail component. “But there is a great misunderstanding that transit attracts a lot more retail than it actually does,” she says. “On the other hand, things like cinema, museums and ballparks really attract riders and generate economic activity.”
And in some cities, proponents may have to confront opponents who worry that transit-oriented projects are a recipe for deterioration rather than development. “In many parts of the country, it’s the poor, people of color and the young and old” that take public transportation, says Robert Cervero, an urban-planning professor at the University of California at Berkeley. In some places, he says, mass transit carries a stigma that “reflects a deeper racial and class divide that continues to plague American cities.”
A few years ago, Mr. Cervero heard an owner of a mixed-use project say that he didn’t want tenants who specifically wanted to be located near transit because those tenants tend to attract an undesirable element. This owner not only believed that these patrons would drag down rents, but he also expressed concerns about having to absorb higher costs for security and cleaning the buildings, recalls Mr. Cervero.
“In his mind, transit-oriented development was a deterrent to economic development,” he says. “This obviously doesn’t hold in global cities like New York where people of all walks of life – from the Wall Street exec to the cleaning lady – patronize transit.” But it does hold, he says, in some smaller cities “where most well-off folks drive.”
–Ms. Dunham is a staff reporter in The Wall Street Journal’s New York bureau.
Write to Kemba J. Dunham at kemba.dunham@wsj.com5
The mtc is obviously pretty confident that the rail lines will increase property values exponentially because they are talking about using TIF to fund the commuter line to Davidson.The north line would have been the way to go first. The track is already down and the cost overruns and perception would have been less likely, and well i live near it.
Anyways, the north line is set to recieve no federal funding and Irredell told Cats they didn’t want to have anything to do with it (losing the Lowes Campus, ouch.). Also I don’t know what to believe from the MTC b/c they said that the north line will create, get this…, 80,000 new jobs within a half mile of the north line. Lets put that into perspective. . . .
- Uptown Charlotte has about 40 - 50 thousand jobs.
- Huntersville, Cornelius, and Davidson combine for only 50K people.
- at MAX capacity, the north line will tansport 4500 people per DAY, an extra lane on I-77 (hope to God not HOV) carries 2000-2500 cars per HOUR.
anyone asking how does a capacity of 4500 have anything to do with 80K jobs? it doesn’t.
I-77 has about 77K vehicles per day between the irredell line and Charlotte, in 20 years that number is projected to be 177K vehicles. Now lets say that the light rail goes in, is completely full. of the 130% increase in volume from the north, 0.45% of those can be carried by a 750 Million dollar train set.
However, deep down the thing that gets me is 60% of the funds for transportation are spent on 2% of the population in this county, that is robbery. Oh and the light rail proponents would like to thank the folks in mint hill and matthews for their continued contributions, just they won’t be getting anything.
LMAO... That's right.He’s right I’m sure, but it’s just funny… almost like he has a hobo phobia:
CharSFNiners:
:lmao: :lmao:
Na, I don’t fear hobos, but I have 2 degrees in Architecture, have worked with communities on master plans, and work now in Charlotte, and trust me the first time a community person at a town meeting or hearing even gets the slightest idea that a hobo could hide there you will never hear the end of it. I think it is ludicrous as well.
If it’s well patrolled, lit at night, and trafficked, there wouldn’t be a problem. Bridges over roadways are like band-aid’s, tunnels are no better. Think of that area of 29’s speed limit dropping to 35 or possibly 25 to allow larger medians that are landscaped so people can cross the entire road, not run for their life.
This really will be a boon for the University and students if it does in fact get built this time. i still wish McAlpine would have gone through with the other site because it was closer to all the residences and apartments. This site isn’t terrible, but its definitely not as good as the other one.
i love how were the only two who care about light rail on this board, yet are opposite in the opinion of it. :silly:getting OT, but how can you be against light rail?
Will, let’s get the development contract.
Will, let's get the development contract.Seriously. That would be a dream come true.
And I don’t remember your real name haha.
[QUOTE=Charlotte2002;243794]They could use streetscape improvements and traffic calming along 29 in the University area instead of a pedestrian bridge. [/QUOTE]
Speed bumps. Lots of 'em. That should do the trick. Speed bumps on Tryon Street. Yea, I’m kidding, but I’m not sure if much of anything else will work.
This village is long overdue and will be a [B]great asset IF APPROACHED CORRECTLY[/B].
[QUOTE=49or bust;243903]getting OT, but how can you be against light rail?[/QUOTE]
easy, watch the city of Chlt waste zillions of tax dollars on stupid shiit. Eventually people get fed up w/ over budget billion dollard projects and tax hikes while the schools suck, high crime, BET arena, and NO COMPLETE 6 LANE OUTER BELT.
disclaimer: I am not a Chlt tax payer…but if I were this might be my opinion. 
[QUOTE=ChevEE;243779]Here is what I am finding in the old Master plans [/QUOTE]
easy, watch the city of Chlt waste zillions of tax dollars on stupid shiit. Eventually people get fed up w/ over budget billion dollard projects and tax hikes while the schools suck, high crime, and NO COMPLETE 6 LANE OUTER BELT.disclaimer: I am not a Chlt tax payer…but if I were this might be my opinion. :lmao:
Well I think 485 is great and it is almost done. And while light rail might be expensive and a long project which will probably go over budget, it is imperative that we get it. Especially in the University Area.
Well I think 485 is great and it is almost done. And while light rail might be expensive and a long project which will probably go over budget, it is imperative that we get it. Especially in the University Area.
the first 6 words of this post take away any bearing that I might actually come close to being in agreement with the rest of it. I take it you have never tried to go from 77 S to Ballentyne or Carolina Place anytime between 4 and 7 pm, providing there wasnt a tanker blown up somwhere causing you to be the only one on the road.
Seriously, the hobos under walking bridges could have done a better job designing 485 than the local DOT did.