Why you should defer the proposal for a 20-story Midtown tower, according to a Cherry resident

My name is Diane Powell. I am a 2.5-year Cherry resident referenced, by name, in Clayton Sealey’s April 23rd CharlotteFive development article (“Why you should fight for this 20-story Midtown tower and the neighborhood’s future—not against it”) on the proposed 20-story building planned by NAI Southern between Third and Fourth streets and Baldwin and Lillington Avenues.

As a member of the Planning Land Use Zoning Committee with a Cherry Neighborhood group, I wanted to clarify my position on the proposed development and respond to some of the comments that Mr. Sealey shared.

(1) I am not trying to kill the development.  

Labeling me and others who voiced concerns with the current plan as (professional) “NIMBY’s” and “naysayers” is haphazard and presumptuous. The historic Cherry neighborhood has been redeveloped and gentrified in recent years, and, as a newer resident, I am a part of this transition. And, Cherry is a socioeconomically and racially diverse neighborhood – quite the opposite of a “NIMBY” mindset, posture, and reality. Despite popular belief, I and many others, moved our family here to be in community with the diversity this historic neighborhood has to offer.

(2) The developer worked with the planning department and several residents of the Cherry neighborhood for over a year in what was put forward as a good faith effort to receive neighborhood feedback on the project.  

While the meetings were respectful and non-confrontational, residents absolutely expressed concern about the traffic and safety impacts on a neighborhood already increasing in density (along with the height) – and did so not with “nodding” and “content faces.” The proposal presented to City Council was effectively the same as the one initially proposed to a year ago, clearly with little to no accommodation made to the traffic concerns, neighborhood investment, or height.

(3) The proposed development indeed has attractive characteristics and appeal:  design aesthetic, mixed-use, and pedestrian-friendly streetscapes.

The petitioners are proposing a 512,000-square-foot building that they translate to a 299 ft tall building (this is taller than the height of Uptown’s Westin hotel and NASCAR building). The proposed design does NOT conform to the current design standards in the area, and the height and intensity (floor to area ratio) of the development are inconsistent with what is currently in the 2012 Midtown Morehead Cherry (MMC) Area Plan.

(4) I am advocating for a compromise around traffic concerns and wanting more discussion on how our neighborhood and other contiguous neighborhoods might benefit, rather than be negatively impacted, by allowing this type of investment so close by.  

I’d also like to propose an intelligently-designed building at a lower-elevation. I am NOT advocating for “a dozen stick-built apartment buildings mimicking the South Boulevard corridor” that Mr. Sealey posits as the alternative. The contracted design firm, Gensler, per their website, appears to have designed several, beautifully-conceived projects of fewer than 299 ft. The same should be expected from them – or any other design firm who would jump at the opportunity to be involved – in this project.

(5) I have never worked in commercial real estate.  But to state that the “the 11-story building design (472,000 square feet) would be attractive to users with a much higher concentration of employees” strikes me as misleading.  

Sure, an 11-story development in Midtown might be attractive to “higher density companies that utilize cube farms.” But is that the only alternative? As a general comparison, corporate tenants in SouthPark’s taller office buildings reflect a healthy, high-end professional services and business mix – hardly cube farms.  It would seem that a desirable, high-end anchor tenant that the developer would like to have as a resident could be found for a building with lower elevation in such a desirable Midtown location. The restriction then is more the financial return targets of the developer than the tenant demographic.

(6) Mr. Sealey’s statement that comments made regarding affordable housing have “little relevance” to this proposal are off the mark and regressive.  

Per the Area Plan, the land could indeed include residential (i.e., housing). I propose that integrating an affordable housing component to this project, proposed on what Mr. Sealey describes as an “underutilized piece of land;” and to which he attributes unique value due to its proximity to the [underutilized] Lynx Gold Line, is extremely relevant!

In the face of Charlotte’s affordable housing shortfall, and in the wake of city leadership admittedly missing the boat on developing affordable housing opportunities along the entire LYNX Blue Line, and in support of this City Council’s continued public commitment to affordable housing, would not affordable housing be “relevant” to the potential development of ANY underutilized piece of land in a location so ripe for fostering mobility in every sense? Please stop minimizing the relevance of affordable housing, particularly in proximity of the “wedge.” Mr. Sealey’s rhetoric around and dismissiveness of this critical need are harmful.

I support development and have my opinion on the decision criteria and desired outcomes that should help guide it. Constructing a 299-foot-tall building one block away from historic neighborhoods that are part of thoughtfully-conceived design standards, that could bring 5,000 more car trips per day – a 139 percent increase – to an already congested area and re-routing traffic by an increasingly-utilized neighborhood park do not align with my desired criteria and outcomes. I am seeking a deferral until we can have a more thoughtful examination of traffic concerns around all surrounding areas and a plan for what the future is for our area plan.

I appreciate the range of opinions on this proposal – on our block, throughout our neighborhood, and across the city, and encourage anyone interested, particularly those who stand to be most affected, to have a voice in the consideration of this proposal. But, I respectfully disagree with the basis upon which Mr. Sealy implores residents to speak up in support of this project from his office in New York City.

Featured image: Courtesy NAI Southern Real Estate

This story was originally published April 26, 2018 at 9:02 PM with the headline "Why you should defer the proposal for a 20-story Midtown tower, according to a Cherry resident."