Nope, nope, nope. Good design/appearance is more important than just allowing anything proposed to be thrown up instantly. Whether it takes 1 year or 5 years for a building to go up, either way it will be there for all of our lifetimes. Needs to be attractive for the long haul.
10 Likes
Yeah the investors will go away been gone after 5 years, it only needs to be a 3 month process. This is why MLS and if MLB doesn’t come successful to much critique things needs to be fast pace.
1 Like
Isn’t there a middle ground here? I think Jake and Gavin both make valid points. We can’t approve everything and the city and its people vested in the leadership the need to set high standards for design, perhaps even develop a design vision (not “before other stuff gets done” just, something to consider. Another committee and survey!!), but regardless ensure that city development, especially major projects, genuinely add to the city’s character and will have positive impacts on the city well into the future.
That being said, Gavin has a point. Development goes in phases (in most places, including Raleigh, as for example do we actually think the current pro-development council will last forever?), and a streamlined process that emphasized efficiency of review and decisions (perhaps a reason why an overarching design vision might be beneficial) would ensure that more development does happen when it would best suit the market. (Aids to affordable housing etc etc).
As an example. Look at any segment of the city’s planning process. There are subdivision requests going back to 2014 still listed as “under review.” Why? How does the city justify taking five years or more to review relatively simple requests? A townhouse development off Garner Rd in a section of city theoretically designated for mid density has been sitting on a bureaucrat’s desk since 2017. This does not improve the city, it does not work for developers and discourages them offering anything interesting or unique.
How efficient IS our design review process? Could it be better? If we want better from developers, we as the city need to offer them something better, too. Does it really take two years to get a decent design proposal? If developers actually believed the city would approve new projects swiftly provided they met both defined minimum requirements and set a certain standard for design, maybe we’d get better first proposals. I think there is absolutely legitimate reason to ask whether our design review and other development processes are working efficiently, and whether improving them wouldn’t have knock-on effects as the city continues to grow.
8 Likes
Very good, Charlotte doesn’t have one, I’m going to email some council get there take on it
Evident Charlotte USA does not have one.
1 Like
It hasn’t been sitting on someone’s desk for 3 years. That’s not how it works. Developers often submit something that doesn’t meet standards, then staff kicks it back, then the developer sits on it. But that may still show ‘under review’. Could the development review staff get more help to move things along, probably, but just because something is pending doesn’t mean it’s always on the city. Just look at the other development plans that do get approved in much shorter time that are more complex. I haven’t submitted a plan to Raleigh but I have heard from consultants that staff has set deadlines that they have to review a plan by and if not they get dinged. They did say that it often goes up until those deadlines, but not after, but that may go back to workload.
5 Likes
If the bottom of the building looks like that I may take the opportunity to personally drive to the Kane Development offices and vomit down someone’s throat.
I understand the tenants will need parking but we can design a better facade than this surely
Related to this development, this may explain why the rush to demo old building in DTR for parking.
https://www.newsobserver.com/news/local/counties/wake-county/article241073431.html
Raleigh is expected to go from surplus of 500 spaces to a shortage of 500 space when lose parking for new buildings over the year.
1 Like
I don’t understand the connection to 121 Fayetteville?
Maybe I’m wrong but thought the Alexander Square parking deck was the one being removed for 121 F.
EDITED
1 Like
It’s amazing how one typo’d letter has me cracking up like i was in 3rd grade.
7 Likes
Ha Ha
You beat me too it! Lol 
1 Like
Ahem…say what? LOL
1 Like
OOPSSSSSSSSSEEEEEE will have to correct that
1 Like
Really hoping this project is not on the chopping block
6 Likes
It will be sad. It was gonna be a skyline changer this is why appearance commish should be removed.
There’s no news to be upset about, and no undue delay the appearance commission has caused…?
If anything the UDO with parking and height stipulations are the only issue.
12 Likes
Why do y’all disagree with the appearance Commission were the only major city with one. Everyone else that have it are small towns. You guys must be NIMBYS disliking it that progress being slowed.
1 Like
Based on law changes that the legislature made a few years ago, l don’t think that appearance commissions are even legal. A city a or town cannot dictate how a building looks. All the developer must do is meet the requirements of the zoning they are seeking or already have. Yet, Cary, Chapel Hill and Raleigh are still doing it. It will take somebody with big balls to make them stop.
I already emailed a representative on it.