|
May. 28, 2005
URBAN OUTLOOK
Vision? Who needs it? A parking lot's
just fine
Land near arena likely to become
another surface parking lot
MARY NEWSOM
Stray a block or two off Trade or
Tryon and what do you see?
What you don't
see are many reminders of the past. The spots that might have told us
about those who came before -- the house where artist Romare Bearden was
born, the stores that once lined East Trade Street, or the graceful South
Tryon building that for decades housed Jack Wood's menswear shop -- all
have been obliterated. What you see, instead, are surface parking lots.
You'd think your city government
-- the one paying the salaries of urban designers and city development
specialists -- would not be promoting more surface parking lots uptown.
Think again.
The city staff wants the City
Council to OK the sale of a piece of land it acquired for the uptown arena
to Preferred Parking Service, which apparently plans to use it for
parking, although company owner Roger Stacks also develops property. The
council's Economic Development and Planning Committee voted 2-1 Wednesday
to recommend the sale. Only council member John Tabor expressed concerns.
Here's the situation. In buying
land for the arena (and tearing down several historic buildings in the
process), the city ended up owning several sites not needed for the arena
building. Two lie between
Sixth Street
and the newly curved
Fifth Street
. Bisected by
Brevard Street
, they're known as the "pork chops," from their shape. The city
owns the whole chop next to the trolley tracks but only part of the other.
Four other owners hold the rest, including Preferred Parking.
It takes no architectural genius
to see how much better any development along
Fifth Street
would look if the two sections of the curve were designed and developed in
tandem.
But the city's plan to sell its
piece of the chop will make that unified development unlikely.
This defies any semblance of
vision. It shows a sadly passive approach toward urban design on the part
of the city's leaders.
Some visions for that part of
uptown do exist, of course. Two studies, both done for the nonprofit
Charlotte Center City Partners, point out the pork chop sites' development
potential.
Los Angeles-based Future Cities,
in a 2004 study, cautioned against "allow(ing) a laissez-faire real
estate market condition to take over" the arena district. The pork
chop sites, it says, are "the best opportunity for new
entertainment-retail development."
A study by a local panel of the
nonprofit Urban Land Institute was finished in February but CCCP hasn't
released it, saying too many uptown projects have been proposed or changed
and they want to update the report before releasing it.
But a copy I obtained specifically
addresses the pork chop sites, saying that because of their key location
they "provide a unique opportunity (and inherent flexibility) to
vertically integrate a variety of uses -- retail, entertainment, office,
cultural and residential."
I keep looking for a mention of
"surface parking lot." Hmmm. Doesn't seem to be there.
Why is the city trying to bow out
and consign the site to be a parking lot, at least for now? Originally it
stipulated the property couldn't be sold for surface parking. But
according to Deputy City Manager Curt Walton, the arena financing package
requires the city to sell the small parcel this year. Multiple ownership
of the block makes it less attractive. The offer from Preferred Parking
"is good enough now," he said.
How hard did the city try to get
another offer? Kent Winslow of the city's asset management office says it
was advertised locally with classifieds, and a brochure. And, he said, a
brochure was passed out at a national meeting.
Clearly, selling both pork chops
together would make more sense -- and probably make a lot more money for
the other landowners as well as for city taxpayers. But the city can't
market the other pork chop until 2007, Walton said.
The arena is an expensive city
asset. You'd think city leaders would want a stronger say in how the area
nearby develops. But it appears you'd be wrong.
The offer to buy is for $80 a
square foot; the city paid $50. It wouldn't lose money on the deal. But
what it will lose is opportunity, and any hope of unified development at
the site.
The City Council should delay this
sale and adopt a more sensible strategy.
Mary
Newsom
|
