Went to Roanoke Park yesterday to get some shots up because it was the only empty court I could find.
There’s signs all over the neighborhood “do you really want 48 apartments, 4 stories and 2 stories of parking in your neighborhood. Email your concerns to…”
Come on 
I don’t understand. It’s right on the edge of the neighborhood and having development would only help their neighborhood grow. What is it that makes some so against development?
It’s called NIMBY. Everyone wants more, affordable housing. Just as long as it’s not near them.
Either that or shadows.
I feel like they even have a problem with the neighborhood commercial component too. Who doesn’t want walkability and some nice shops and cafes by your doorstep. So weird.
I can tell you what the issue is…100 automobiles. A building with 48 apartments will require 2 spaces (with the retail included). I live in 5 Points. I have no problem with 48 units…just with 24 parking spaces. Could live without the retail. The cars are the problem. There are already too many dumbasses hauling ass off Capital cutting thru Roanoke Park where little kids are playing racing to either North Hills or one of the breweries…all while staring at their stupid phones
100 cars is literally 5-10 per hour in the peak hour. 1 per every several minutes…put a mini round about at that intersection and speed humps and nobody is doing over 15 mph through there. And isn’t the plan to cut off that direct ramp from Capital at some point?
ultimately my understanding is Fairview access from Capital will be cut off…when is the question.
It’s too many cars period in what is supposed to be an ‘urban’ environment. There are kids playing in that park who run out into Cherokee regularly. The cars coming through today are already an issue…100 more are a non-starter for me and most of the neighborhood.
Folks are not opposed to the development…just the cars.
The reality is that, given our current transit context and that specific location, limiting parking at the project will only result in cars parked on neighborhood streets. Frankly, I am not interested in subsidizing development with tax funded parking (and it’s not even my neighborhood).
again, 100 cars is un-noticeable in a vacuum. The park probably generates just as many vehicles as that on a normal day…
This is why I no longer turn left from Whitaker Mill. I either takes Scales to Harvey to go south on Glenwood or Scales to Wade ave if I’m going out that way. Of course, I’m familiar with the area, whereas most who are cutting through have to deal with that POS intersection.
not even close. I have lived there for a long time I can say with certainty nothing close to 100 cars. We are hearing rumblings of a restaurant; namely Garland. Alcohol, a kids park, and cars are not a great combo. Cut the cars and you’ll find neighborhood support.
Neighbors will say a big fat “NO” to just allowing people to park on the street as an alternative ‘parking solution’. They don’t want the cars…period. Its 2021…there is a thing called ride-sharing now
I wish you were around back when we had CACs and rezoning meetings. I’d have made it worth your while to come to some of the ones we had to provide an expert opinion (facts) about some of those topics. Maybe beers? Coffee for payment? lol
I had a spreadsheet from the DRA (Kimley Horn survey) that shows traffic levels over a 10 or so year period covering a significant general growth period in Raleigh (specifically DTR) that showed traffic increased less than 1% over that same timeframe. I referenced that a couple of times when the “OMG THE CARS” topic came up and there was no more discussion of traffic after that.
I’d attend those for free honestly if I had time! Haha
But very good point, which goes along with saying that a lot of these developments really aren’t adding traffic, it’s just redistributing and in some cases decreasing because people are able to do stuff closer to where they live, work and play
This is the hardest thing for people to understand. Density does not increase traffic in urban areas like it does in suburban ones. If you don’t have to get in a car for EVERYTHING, traffic will not be an issue. Making your neighborhood more walkable and urban isn’t the same thing as edge city development.
If you have walkable amenities in your neighborhood, your property values will increase.
100% correct. The developments that were the topic of discussion and up for consideration of rezoning were in fact mixed so that was my point. Not a point people that are NIMBY and just “against new things” consider. Of course then I spun that the retail component is also something I’m looking forward to.
I remember when you were sharing that, such an awesome resource and real evidence that did not align with lots of people’s knee jerk reactions/worldview. There are a couple of areas with development where people will have a really strong reaction/feeling that they feel must be true but is actually false.
The apartments will both be disliked for possibly being more affordable and also be called not really affordable for those who need it. Whatever is scarier in peoples minds will be applied.
In my mind, diversity in housing makes the best neighborhood.
Wait, you’re hearing rumblings of Garland moving into the retail space of this development on Bickett??
Density does not but giant parking decks do…
What a neighbor said to me this weekend