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.
....
It looks much like a Park & Ride station, which is not really my cup of tea.
....Apparently, one needs to go North on the Blue Line to find stops which are not devoted to "making cars happy."
New Bern Station is not a Park & Ride station and there is almost no public parking there. It's not designated as P&R, not designed as P&R, and it's not meant to "make cars happy". Therefore your conclusion is incorrect and condescension undeserved. Furthermore anyone who does a proper study of this area would discover a considerable amount of housing within walking distance. Frankly I'm surprised at this quick dismissal from one who states they are interested using transit to guide development.
With that said New Bern Station is located in a challenging area. It should be extremely interesting for transit oriented planners to test their theories. Thankfully thoughtful people have already worked out an extensive TOD plan for this station.
... But when I do invest even in a place just for own use, I always try to understand the big picture, since I have seen how that matters in my past investments. Perhaps CLT is too slow-moving for such long term effects to matter.
I pay no mind to the personal accolades that people apply to themselves. Talk is cheap.
I focus on actions. And with that said you display an amazing inability to listen to anyone who actually lives in this city when they conflict with the notions that you have already conjured up. We have posted a number of site plans for this transit line, and you have simply ignored all of them. You make broad generalizations that have no basis in reality. i.e. "Perhaps CLT is too slow moving..." And your counterpoints are based on character assignation, distractions and logical fallacies, all while avoiding the actual point made.
I only bring this up because you have asked, I presume, for advice for investing near the Blue Line. IMO, I have never seen a successful real estate investor show such a lack of interest in the actual nitty gritty details that you have demonstrated here. Oh well. It's your money so you certainly have the right to handle it as you see fit.
I wish you luck in your endeavors. You will need it.
New Bern Station is not a Park & Ride station and there is almost no public parking there. It's not designated as P&R, not designed as P&R, and it's not meant to "make cars happy". Therefore your conclusion is incorrect and condescension undeserved. Furthermore anyone who does a proper study of this area would discover a considerable amount of housing within walking distance. Frankly I'm surprised at this quick dismissal from one who states they are interested using transit to guide development.
With that said New Bern Station is located in a challenging area. It should be extremely interesting for transit oriented planners to test their theories. Thankfully thoughtful people have already worked out an extensive TOD plan for this station.
Will you kindly find another thread to ruin with comments like this?
Or maybe you could start one of your own.
I am ready to abandon this thread, if they continue.
In the context of this topic where you originally asked......
Quote:
Originally Posted by Geologic
..... As someone who does not yet know CLT well, I am curious to learn ....
My Hong Kong and London trained eyes wonder: Where's the retail?
-And: How representative are these of the developments around the stops?
My commentary seems totally appropriate. You made an incorrect statement about New Bern and therefore a faulty conclusion, and I provided a correction along with a a site plan for this station that backs it up. I would have rather hoped that you would have wanted to discuss this plan in the nicest of terms.
I have reported this type of non-constructive post.
Let's see if the mods delete your posts here, or close the thread.
Either way, it is probably better than keeping a ruined thread going.
Location: The place where the road & the sky collide
23,814 posts, read 34,670,113 times
Reputation: 10256
Quote:
Originally Posted by Geologic
I have reported this type of non-constructive post.
Let's see if the mods delete your posts here, or close the thread.
Either way, it is probably better than keeping a ruined thread going.
Why do you keep doing this? Your thread title asks for help in investing. Every time that someone gives you information that doesn't suit you, you say that they are ruining your thread. There is something to be said for the here & now. You don't seem to want to know about Charlotte, but to project it forward.
Just my opinion, but I think that you've missed a major piece of the picture. That piece is history. People who are native to or longterm residents of the original colonies are proud of their history. It's reflected in their cities. This is why you will see more post modern new construction than modern, & people like human scale.
How can links to existing plans possibly ruin this thread? Why did you jump to a conclusion about development near the light rail providing parking instead of asking the obvious question of why? We nearly had another Great Depression & it has had profound effects all over this country. You're not asking about that. You seem to have no interest in hearing about that. It is part of the equation.
Lessons to be learned?
(From the Cash drain thread):
Quote:
Originally Posted by Malloric
But then you end up with Sacramento "built it and they will come," not that Sacramento's rail system would be anywhere near adequate for a large, dense city. Light rail hasn't exactly spurred the development that was hoped for here.
I wonder if they made the usual mistakes with rail:
+ Not dense enough development
+ Not enough mixed use development at/near the stations
+ Too much parking in the immediate vicinity of the station
Americans are so car-centric, it is hard for them to approve and build successful mass transit systems. And if you fight the car-focus, you just get push-back rather than understanding. Even if you SHOW THEM what works in other countries, they will never tire of telling you that you do not understand their communities. It never occurs to them that they might be the ones that do not understand, and they have lots to learn about non-car transportation from the rest of the world.
Get it right, and more commuters will use it, and the subsidies required will be less - helping to shrink the cash drain on the middle class rather than increase it
How much parking in the immediate vicinity of the station is "too much"? Has it occurred to you that "getting it right" in most American cities means having enough parking to encourage multi-modal trips?
To summarise what IR says:
"You must get the most amenities within 10-15 minutes of the station, and you will get a more functional station, if you assume people are walking from the station, not driving."
Everything that Ian Rasmussen says makes perfect sense to me, and is even obvious to someone who has lived carfree for decades. But I do not think it is obvious to most Americans - else, why would thy build so many non-functional stations?
BTW, I am not AGAINST having ANY PARKING near a rail station. (Perhaps it can be multilayer parking, or a little bit away from the station, as Rasmussen suggests.) The main idea is to have Housing and some Retail in the immediate vicinity of the station. This is critical, and if it is not done right then the station will be a destination in its own right, and may turn out as nothing but a means of transferring people from cars to rail - A dire mistake.
I will agree that Park-and-Ride stations may have a role to play in a rail system (even Hong Kong has one like that - It is so spooky to see it) but you cannot have a majority of the stations like that, and expect the rail system to function well. Such systems (with parking lots dominating the stations) are bound to require big subsidies.
....Get it right, and more commuters will use it, and the subsidies required will be less - helping to shrink the cash drain on the middle class rather than increase it
You might wish to study some history. The Middle Class was created by Henry Ford and the building of the Model T. It's a false claim to state that mass transit enables a middle class and there are no examples that you can cite that prove it. Furthermore there is mass transit in some of the most impoverished parts of the world because this is all they can afford. Poverty is caused by government oppression, over population and ignorance.
Quote:
Americans are so car-centric, it is hard for them to approve and build successful mass transit systems. And if you fight the car-focus, you just get push-back rather than understanding.
Bless your heart. This sounds like nothing more than trolling to me. It's a pointless generalization about a nation that crosses a continent with no basis in reality. Adults who really wish to discuss transit, don't make attacks like this about an entire nation.
Quote:
they will never tire of telling you that you do not understand their communities
You have demonstrated that you DO NOT understand Charlotte. When you have actually made a post about Charlotte, which this post demonstrates you don't do often, it's been proven wrong. This isn't going to change for you until you stop to listen to people, instead of condemning them and their country for not agreeing with your nonsense in the first place.
Everything that Ian Rasmussen says makes perfect sense to me, and is even obvious to someone who has lived carfree for decades. But I do not think it is obvious to most Americans - else, why would thy build so many non-functional stations?
It's difficult to take anyone seriously who condemns the Washington DC Metro because it's in a city that isn't as dense as NYC. LOL DC is as it is because 1. there is a height restriction on all buildings as to not obscure national monuments, and 2, much of the capital is full of national monuments, buildings, and attractions. Furthermore, I find the DC metro to be one of the most enjoyable metros in the world to ride on.
It's complete nonsense to imply the entire USA must be built like NYC. I suppose that transit zealots would like to see the USA pushed back to the 19th century style of living, but fortunately it's pretty easy to discount what they have to say with simple facts. Facts, that if brought up, they will dismiss as "not understanding". Charlotte isn't going to become Manhattan. (thankfully)
The USA isn't a nation overpopulated by a billion+ people. If and when that horrible time comes, when there are 1.3 Billion people living here, then yes, cars will be history and we too will be building dystopian cities where people live in rat cages and are forced onto trains because this is all society can afford. Thankfully this nation is much better off than that and so these suggestions that we must live like nations that are, are pretty pointless in my book.
Last edited by frewroad; 02-18-2013 at 04:57 AM..
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.
