Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
WSOCTV did a piece on the "boom" in South End. They rightfully did not attribute it to the light rail. In fact it only got a passing mention. What they did say was the reason was that South End is in a special tax district. Every property owner there pays a higher property tax, and that extra tax money is used to stimulate development in the tax district. So the construction that is being seen there comes at the expense of the taxpayer. i.e. corporate welfare, developers love it.
Isn't picking an area of a few blocks, where apartments are being built on top of failed condo projects (because transit failed to get them off the ground too) an example of cherry picking? The title of the topic is after all "South End boom thanks to Light Rail".
There have been many foreclosures and bankruptcies all over this city (and this country) over the past 5 years. Many of them took place in areas with little or no mass transit at all. To be honest, your argument could be used to suggest that I-485 caused the near-foreclosure of Ballantyne Village last year. As silly as that sounds, this is exactly what you're saying about Charlotte's light rail.
As for the lack of urban development south of New Bern, give it time. The system is only 5 years old and isn't complete. As soon as next year, we could see work begin on making platforms longer for 3-car trains. Now that I've thought about it, the only stations on the line that are not seeing development are the park and ride lots. I could easily make the claim that those suburban-style parking spaces are impeding urban development south of New Bern.
There have been many foreclosures and bankruptcies all over this city (and this country) over the past 5 years. Many of them took place in areas with little or no mass transit at all. To be honest, your argument could be used to suggest that I-485 caused the near-foreclosure of Ballantyne Village last year. As silly as that sounds, this is exactly what you're saying about Charlotte's light rail.
Try re-reading what I said. I did not say there was cause and effect. I said that if you make the argument that it's justified to spend money on LRT because it stimulates development then you also have to accept, what you call "silly", the argument that money was mis-spent if said development does not occur. All of the examples I cited were either cited as reasons to build the line. If you don't do this, then it's a hypocritical argument. Yet we have a newspaper, and paid city staff that make this kind of argument endlessly.
Transit lines are ONLY justified to solve transportation issues. This is BTW, the only reason allowed by the federal government now to justify New Starts funding. (of course politics often interferes with this)
Every property owner there pays a higher property tax, and that extra tax money is used to stimulate development in the tax district. So the construction that is being seen there comes at the expense of the taxpayer. i.e. corporate welfare, developers love it.
You bring up a good point here, but you're missing a point too. What infrastructure advantage does South End have to justify the higher tax? If we took THAT advantage away, South End would be a ghost town. FWIW, I do believe that Uptown also has a higher property tax rate. Proximity to a high number of restaurants, jobs, sporting events, concerts, conventions, mass transit etc are all reasons why Uptown's higher taxes are justified.
Or are you willing to argue that this photo would still have the same level of development with higher property taxes and no light rail? If so, start your own thread and argue away. Just don't do it here because this is a South End development thread thanks to Light Rail. Any further arguments against the title are off-topic and will be reported to the Mods for review.
^I remember Dilworth & what is now called South End in the late 1970s. Both were boarded up places that were considered dangerous to travel into. In 1978 I knew someone who bought one of the large Victorian homes in Dilworth for ~$12,000 for the purpose of urban pioneering. It was rat infested and drugs had been dealt there. In the decades since Dilworth was re-developed into one of the most desired areas of the city and this happened without the promise of transit.
Likewise, South End was in the same shape. There was an abandoned cotton mill complex there. The most significant event that changed the situation there was the rehab of one of the new mill buildings there into the Spaghetti Warehouse (or Factory don't remember which one). It was enormously successful as there would be lines of people to get into the place. That brought a huge interest to that area and there was much redevelopment that followed it. The first live/work condos that I remember seeing were those on West Blvd. Phat Burrito moved in. This all occurred over 20 years ago and long before there were any thoughts of light rail going through there.
So yes I believe it would have happened anyway simply due to its proximity downtown and to Dilworth.
So yes I believe it would have happened anyway simply due to its proximity downtown and to Dilworth.
Fair enough. Start your own thread and I'll be happy to play "debunker" on it. Understand that I do respect your insight; you're just taking this thread off of its intended target. As it stands now, more urban rentals are being built in the South End than I can count.
Just a little background on me. Though I've lived in other cities as an adult, I grew up in Charlotte during the 80s and 90s, Southside homes to be exact (yup, "da hood"). Since light rail (and ONLY since light rail) has development started to encroach Southside Home's and Brookhill's borders. Today, the rentals on Remount near the light rail tracks (just 2-3 blocks east of a Cricket communications and coin laundry in Southside) are going for well over $1,000 per month. This is the block near what used to be a methadone clinic. The clinic moved (about 2 years ago) over to the Clanton Road/I-77 area. I can tell you that the relocation of that clinic has played a role in the development we're now seeing south of Remount. The pressure to move that clinic were both external and internal. 1-The clinic was growing like a weed (pun intended ) and 2-The clinic did not fit in with the future plans to develop the South End. Factor #2 started as soon as the light rail line began service. So for the record (if you're keeping score), light rail caused the relocation of a methadone clinic away from the luxury rentals. That's something that our friends at the John Locke Foundation would not care to admit.
Try re-reading what I said. I did not say there was cause and effect. I said that if you make the argument that it's justified to spend money on LRT because it stimulates development then you also have to accept, what you call "silly", the argument that money was mis-spent if said development does not occur. All of the examples I cited were either cited as reasons to build the line. If you don't do this, then it's a hypocritical argument. Yet we have a newspaper, and paid city staff that make this kind of argument endlessly.
Transit lines are ONLY justified to solve transportation issues. This is BTW, the only reason allowed by the federal government now to justify New Starts funding. (of course politics often interferes with this)
This is different than the topic at hand. The topic is that the Light Rail has brought on new development in South End, which it has, yes thanks to some other factors as well. The topic is not about politicians claiming the future development was the reason for the light rail.
This is different than the topic at hand. The topic is that the Light Rail has brought on new development in South End, which it has, yes thanks to some other factors as well. The topic is not about politicians claiming the future development was the reason for the light rail.
Indeed, light rail has been a major catalyst in the ongoing development and transformation of southend.....this is actually the beginning phase of Charlotte's first densely populated transit corridor. With the huge influx of people and transportation options, the amenities in the near and adjacent areas will continue to expand. I do envision many of those older unused industrial facilities getting refurbished and/or upgraded, becoming an integral part of the southend story....maybe a historic "stroll" district of some sort.
Fair enough. Start your own thread and I'll be happy to play "debunker" on it. Understand that I do respect your insight; you're just taking this thread off of its intended target. As it stands now, more urban rentals are being built in the South End than I can count.
Just a little background on me. Though I've lived in other cities as an adult, I grew up in Charlotte during the 80s and 90s, Southside homes to be exact (yup, "da hood"). Since light rail (and ONLY since light rail) has development started to encroach Southside Home's and Brookhill's borders. Today, the rentals on Remount near the light rail tracks (just 2-3 blocks east of a Cricket communications and coin laundry in Southside) are going for well over $1,000 per month. This is the block near what used to be a methadone clinic. The clinic moved (about 2 years ago) over to the Clanton Road/I-77 area. I can tell you that the relocation of that clinic has played a role in the development we're now seeing south of Remount. The pressure to move that clinic were both external and internal. 1-The clinic was growing like a weed (pun intended ) and 2-The clinic did not fit in with the future plans to develop the South End. Factor #2 started as soon as the light rail line began service. So for the record (if you're keeping score), light rail caused the relocation of a methadone clinic away from the luxury rentals. That's something that our friends at the John Locke Foundation would not care to admit.
Yep, ignore the John Yuck Foundation, keep moving forward, those same people will ride the train and visit the area while continuing to malign the obvious progress.
Fair enough. Start your own thread and I'll be happy to play "debunker" on it. Understand that I do respect your insight; you're just taking this thread off of its intended target. As it stands now, more urban rentals are being built in the South End than I can count......
If I thought such a topic here would receive reasonable discussion I would raise it. But as you can see there are some here who perpetually troll topics such as this. Only one opinion is allowed.
I appreciate you sharing the background. I used to work at I-77 & Clanton back in the mid-80s so I'm very familiar with what you are talking about. I think the changes over that way are a mixed bag. There are definitely some improvements but I think other areas are worse off.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Understand that I do respect your insight; you're just taking this thread off of its intended target. As it stands now, more urban rentals are being built in the South End than I can count.
) and 2-The clinic did not fit in with the future plans to develop the South End. Factor #2 started as soon as the light rail line began service. So for the record (if you're keeping score), light rail caused the relocation of a methadone clinic away from the luxury rentals. That's something that our friends at the John Locke Foundation would not care to admit.
