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.
C'mon man. What is this could be stuff? It isn't true and you know it. Indy is growing in both the city and metropolitan areas. FACT. Pittsburgh is decreasing in population in both the city and metropolitan areas. FACT.
Its purpose now is to exist in defiance of those who threw it away a generation ago, it seems.
The city of Pittsburgh is projected to have $11M more tax revenue in 2017 than it did in 2016, and a budget surplus of nearly $6M, all without any tax increases or spending cuts whatsoever. Fact is, moribund cities don't boost their tax revenue without tax increases, and they don't have surpluses without draconian budget cuts.
The vast majority of new developments within the cores of Charlotte and Atlanta meet that definition, easily. The residential developments have retail/restaurant uses on the ground floor. That's mixed-use.
You're providing absolutely no specifics here and you're wrong. Practically all new development in major cities these days is mixed-use, and Charlotte is no exception. Furthermore, you have no idea how far the core of Charlotte has come over the past 10 years or so in terms of foot traffic and pedestrian activity, and that's mostly due to new development.
But here's my problem, Charlotte's developments seems to be strictly based on height and architectural design, rather than connecting neighborhood or areas within the core. A good few of those projects you posted had ground floor retail, but it was also limited as well because the retail space was either too large, or there wasn't a large portion of it on a specific block; which also means the retail spaces for more businesses are slim. You're going to tell me, a building like this or this, can generate just as much activity as this one?
But here's my problem, Charlotte's developments seems to be strictly based on height and architectural design, rather than connecting neighborhood or areas within the core. A good few of those projects you posted had ground floor retail, but it was also limited as well because the retail space was either too large, or there wasn't a large portion of it on a specific block; which also means the retail spaces for more businesses are slim. You're going to tell me, a building like this or this, can generate just as much activity as this one?
You seem really picky. I personally find the first two building more visually appealing. But that's just my opinion.
Its purpose now is to exist in defiance of those who threw it away a generation ago, it seems.
The city of Pittsburgh is projected to have $11M more tax revenue in 2017 than it did in 2016, and a budget surplus of nearly $6M, all without any tax increases or spending cuts whatsoever. Fact is, moribund cities don't boost their tax revenue without tax increases, and they don't have surpluses without draconian budget cuts.
ok, i don't think any city was 'thrown away'. basically every city in country has experience periods of growth and periods of population loss. but i don't see how Pittsburgh is any different from these other cities. they are all places to live. people doing exact same kind of things in each of these cities so how is pittsburgh the only one with a 'purpose'.
But here's my problem, Charlotte's developments seems to be strictly based on height and architectural design, rather than connecting neighborhood or areas within the core. A good few of those projects you posted had ground floor retail, but it was also limited as well because the retail space was either too large, or there wasn't a large portion of it on a specific block; which also means the retail spaces for more businesses are slim. You're going to tell me, a building like this or this, can generate just as much activity as this one?
Sigh...once again, you don't know what you're talking about. Let's just take the second development that you linked to in Charlotte, Tryon Place.
Quote:
Crescent Communities is including over 30,000 sq. ft. of retail space, in addition to public plazas, courtyards, and greenspace throughout the new development. This will forever transform the southwest section of Uptown and form a solid link between the arts section (Bechler and Mint museums), and SouthEnd’s rapidly growing developments.
The $300+ million project will feature two massive new skyscrapers, including a 700,000 sq. ft. office tower and an undisclosed 300 room boutique hotel.
Coming soon to the currently empty plot including the sketchy club and parking lot on the site, at the intersection of Stonewall and Caldwell, is a 47,000 sq ft Whole Foods, 440 apartment units, 2 hotels and additional retail. By comparison the Whole Foods in South Park is 42,000 sq ft, so this thing is MASSIVE.
The 440 apartment units will be a mix of mid-rise units wrapping the parking garage, and an approximately 200 foot tall tower with the remainder of the units.
This project is especially designed to connect areas within the core, but most of Charlotte's core projects are infill--and appropriately so.
I don't know anything about that third project you linked to, but Tryon Place looks significantly larger with a greater mix of uses and I'd bet good money that it will easily generate more pedestrian traffic on its own than that project.
You keep getting this wrong. Just admit that you don't really know what's going on in Charlotte.
You seem really picky. I personally find the first two building more visually appealing. But that's just my opinion.
But see that's my point, the first two buildings are very architecturally pleasing, which is basically Charlotte's development in a nutshell. Like the architecture is great, phenomenal, breath-taking, whatever, but it's still not helping the process of generating foot traffic or activity.
But see that's my point, the first two buildings are very architecturally pleasing, which is basically Charlotte's development in a nutshell. Like the architecture is great, phenomenal, breath-taking, whatever, but it's still not helping the process of generating foot traffic or activity.
YOU. ARE. WRONG.
Dude...please stop. You simply don't know what you're talking about. These new developments are why the core of Charlotte is as active as it's been since the age of streetcars. I don't know why you persist in this line of thought when you have no firsthand experience with the city outside of CIAA.
The Best Places For Business And Careers: Forbes Welcome
"The Best Place for Business and Careers" CAN (depending on the criteria, numbers used, and how those numbers are used) be different than economic growth and that growth over a set span of time. Charlotte and Nashville have done this very well over the last 20+ years. Too, I'm not a huge fan of Forbes' or Money's rankings in general. Usually they leave out buying power when using economic factors, which skews the numbers in term of knowing weather you're really getting a good bang for your buck in a given metro area. I actually love the Indianapolis area. They rank well in my own ratings. I just think Charlotte and Nashville are a bit higher in most economic factors in the past, now, and seems to have a great projected future.
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.
