The e-mail asked me:
“Is there any way you can find out why the city allowed the new Bojangles at 3rd and Independence to be placed in a typical suburban form? Here is a prominent corner between two high-profile projects, Elizabeth Avenue/CPCC and Pappas’ [Pappas Properties] Metropolitan and what do our planners allow? Suburban schlock. The store is pushed as far back from the corner as possible, meanwhile, the new store at Highland Creek will be urban (pulled to the corner with parking in the back). What do you think about this? Can you find out why what happened has happened?”
Full disclosure: I’ve been a Bojangles fan since they were founded in Charlotte in the 1970s. One night fellow copy editor Hank Durkin (who bailed out years ago, for Microsoft) took me to this fast-food joint at South Tryon and West Boulevard, and I’ve loved it ever since. (That original Bo’s, btw, was demolished and is now a parking lot for the newer Bo’s next door.)
But say it ain’t so, Bo. Your new spot at Third and Independence is essentially a huge parking lot, with a building distantly visible far away, behind the asphalt. It’s about as “urban” as the Costco on Tyvola. The rest of the area is shaping up so much more nicely, with the new CPCC buildings, the offices farther down Third with ground-floor retail, and the aforementioned Pappas project at the old Midtown Square. Too bad Bojangles dumped such inappropriate development at the corner.
My correspondent also sent a link to a discussion forum at urbanplanet.org, devoted to the ugly new Bojangles. Someone in there reports that Bojangles wanted to do a more urban design and “planning” wouldn’t let them. That didn’t ring true. I checked with Keith MacVean, land development program manager at the city-county planning staff.
The villain is the old B-2 zoning at the site. It allows suburban schlock – or as MacVean called it “highway commercial.” It does NOT, require it. Bojangles could have pulled the building up to within 20 feet of the Independence right of way, he said. The company didn’t. Because no rezoning was requested, the company didn’t even need to talk to the city planners, who would likely have tried to negotiate a more appropriate design.
There’s an upside, though, MacVean said. “I think they took down a billboard.”
Friday, September 01, 2006
No, Bo, say it ain't so
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
27 comments:
You know, I kept watching that spot, waiting for the Bojangles to go up. Then one day I raised my eyes -- and there was already-built building. It's so far back from the road that I hadn't even noticed it! What were they thinking?
Does anyone know of any Bojangles that have more urban forms? I did a quick google search and the only thing I could find was an outdated article about new, less "in your face," colors for their restaurants in 2003 (something that doesn't seem to have caught on much). Do people realize that it takes more than new colors to make a building feel appropriate for its setting?
Would you expect anything more from a chicken and biscuit fast food joint ?
It's not like it's McDonalds for Gods sake !
........I'm kidding.
It's most likely because it's a Southern based company and most of the South is "suburban".
If there is no mindset toward an urban flavor then there is no way to achieve it.
This is not a "Southern" bash by any means. So lets not get off onto that topic.
Another Bojangles topic: Does anyone know if all of the Bojangles print out religious memos on their receipts ?
I know the one on Arrowood / S. Tryon does.
I know refer to them as BoJesus.
As long as old zoning codes exist taht allow these things, companies will go the path of least resistance. It's a shame, but we'll probably see a lot more of these in newly urban settings.
Companies operate on whatever model will make them the most money. Period. They are beholden to their shareholders - NOT the new urbanist movement.
If Bojangles thought they would make more money by using an "urban" design, then they would have done it.
Maybe the fact that they didn't should show you, again, that urbanism, just for the sake of urbanism, fails to meet the economic viability test without government intervention.
Just a thought...
Maybe the fact that they are just simple biscuit makers should show you that they simply could care less about how they effect the quality of their surroundings given the chance to make a few more easy bucks.
Easy solution everyone. Boycott this spot.
I seriously doubt that the Uptown / Myers Park / Elizabeth residents are chomping at the bit to get in there and get some good old fashioned hydrogenated oil, cancer producing biscuits.
Surely they are smarter than that ?
But then again there's always the passing suburbanite on his long trek home who will gladly down some Cancer Hydro.
Bojangle???
Sounds like Mary Newsom is getting some top notch assignments at the Observer these days.
I look forward to your next article, 'Chick-Fil-A and New Urbanism'.
LOL
Maybe we can get Tonya Jameson in here, too and you guys can trash the country together.
Sounds like the Observer needs new folks in HR who do the hiring.
Rick, you are correct, and this is why zoning codes are implemented by the government because it has the responsibility of making sure that what's built is of quality and adds to the overall appeal of the city, especially given its location. They should take this responsibility even more seriously than developers that are out to make a quick buck. In these instances, the role of government is important. Leave everything to the private sector, and the entire city will consist of nothing but cul-de-sacs, drive thru's, and big boxes. The city dropped the ball on this one.
Anon said, "Sounds like the Observer needs new folks in HR who do the hiring."
Mary Newsom writes about urban growth you simple minded fool. The unsightly BoJesus that is now located in our "urban" environment stands out as much as your stupidity does.
If the topic doesn't interest you then move on.
............on to the Burbs !
Don't get me wrong anon, I agree that government has a role in zoning - not allowing adult bookstores next to schools for instance. That is something for the public good.
However, you are taking it to a level of design which is NOT the government's responsibility. The Bojangles store with lots of easily accessible parking is of no less "quality" than the one built right on the road. In fact, I would argue that it is better because of the easily accessible parking.
That's not really the point though. The point is that it offended you. The point is that you don't like how it looks. You think it is the government's responsibility to appease your sensibilities .
Here's a question...
If Bojangles had built their store right on the road, but painted it in bright Bojangles colors, would you still be complaining?
No one would complain then.
Of course they would have the same colors. It would just fit in with the area better if it was street front.
Just like the new Lowes they are building in South End.
Picture them building a 40 story tower out in the suburbs. Would that appeal to you ?
Appeal to the BBQ lover in me.... me love BBQ
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the design if the Lowes in Southend the result of residents' concerns and filing complaints? People actually DID something and didn't rely on govco to completely do it for them.
As for the 40 story tower in the suburbs, it wouldn't bother me at all because I live on a cul de sac with mature trees.
I wouldn't be able to see it.
I have no idea if the Lowes was due to residents complaints or govco ?
Bottom line is that it will look much more appealing considering the neighborhood it is in.
I also believe a porn shop would look quite nice in your cul de sac.
Well see, now your arguement has just fallen apart. That happens when you start making statements that can't be true.
Your bottom line is that you want something to look the way you want it, and you want govco to do it for you without any effort on your part.
Mine is simply that I want people to follow the law and not be criticised for it. Bojangles followed the law. If you don't like the law, then work to have it changed. Don't be lazy and whine about it.
Just because something is already "zoned" to allow the development to occur does not mean that a city cannot require the building to meet certain standards that are more in keeping with the surrounding area. Many communities across the country require all non-residential development (even when they do not need a rezoning) to submit a master plan of the site. The master plan must include the proposed site layout, building elevations and parking circulation. The master plan approval allows staff to require design considerations that are more compatible with the surrounding area. Maybe it is time for Charlotte to get serious about design standards by requiring new development to go through "master plan" review. The City Planners are only as good as the tools they are empowered with.
As for what Rick says. I agree that companies will cut costs to make money (that includes minimal building design). However, many companies (even the Walmarts and Lowes etc) are willing to meet the local design guidelines because they have done their market analysis and know they want to be in that location. Higher design standards will not chase them away and long-term will pay many dividends to the community.
Rick, the issue with the Bo's is that it is NOT in the suburbs, it's in Elizabeth! It is surrounded by urban forms. CPCC, Elizabeth District, the new Midtown development, the hospitals. The area is developing as a PEDESTRIAN zone, not one for cars. I have no issue with fast food joints, I just wanted them to try and be good neighbors and fit in with their surroundings (much like Highland Creek Homeowners want all grass to be fescue). Lowe's worked like the devil to do the right thing on South Blvd. Why? Because of the same reason you bring up that Bo's didn't: economics. Attractive places pull people in. The businesses that operate them act as good stewards of the communites they serve. Residents appreciate it and will shop with them. It's good business. Further, a Bojangles rep was quoted as saying they tried to do the right thing but were turned down by the city. They obviously lied. Not a way to make peace with a community.
Of course as so many others have said, the issue really lies with the city and its archaic old zoning laws. The fact of the matter is that when Grubb and Pappas got approval for their projects (along with CPCC) the city should have changed the zoning to MUDD or U-MUDD. It didn't and because of it, we get a building that belongs in front of a Wal-Mart rather than on the corner of what will become a high profile intersection.
One more thing, why the heck does someone who lives on a suburban cul de sac come to an urban forum anyway, much less comment on urban form?
'...why the heck does someone who lives on a suburban cul de sac come to an urban forum anyway, much less comment on urban form?'
Because Mary often takes her anti-suburban rants to the suburbs, chastising developers in the outskirts of the city, as well as I-485, any mall, etc. Are suburbanites supposed to let these statements go unabated? I don't always agree with Rick, or the other cul-de-sac dwellers who visit this forum, but I think Mary is way off the mark much more often than not.
In this particular case, I have to agree with Rick. BoJangles was given the rules and they played by them. The building and its layout may offend a few Elizbeth residents, urban architects and and editorial writers. Heck I can't say I'm too thrilled about it either. But to the chicken eating public that will be driving by intersection every day, I believe most just don't care. Those are the people BoJangles are serving.
Danimal
Thank you Danimal. You are absolutely correct.
If this forum was not a constant attack on my current chosen way of life, I would not be on the constant attack in defense of it.
Plus, based on my experience having lived in urban parts of the DC area for 10 years and having been a bus driver for 5 years prior to that, I just think Mary's ideas on urbanism and public transprotation are just plain wrong most of the time - not to mention our differences on private property rights.
Since the Observer doesn't provide a balanced forum for these types of issues, I choose Mary's forum to express those views. As I've said before, Mary and I disagree on just about everything, but at least she chooses important topics for discussion - most of the time.
So's your momma.
Mary here: Hey folks, let's lay off the insults. I don't agree with Rick on very much, but the personal attacks are pointless and degrading.
I do not agree with Rick very often. However, I appreciate his comments. Wouldn't this forum be boring and useless if only Mary's cheerleaders were posting?
Anyone who gets so worked up over the placement of a Bojangles that they have to have their comments deleted is seriously wacky. Gotta wanna needa gotta hava therapist?
They were not "worked up" comments that were deleted. They were just some wise cracks from Rick's neighbor. They were actually pretty funny.
speaking of suburban planning/zoning, anyone know what the design will be at the 5,000 foot building going up at the corner of Woodlawn and South? Hubby and I have our fingers crossed that the parking is hidden in the back. We're not holding our collective breath, however.
Post a Comment