Cameron Village Underground - just saying
6 Likes
What is this Cameron Village place you speak of? 
4 Likes
My opinion on preservation is always changing/evolving but I’ll throw my thoughts out there.
I do agree that the building (the core piece minus the warehouse portion) is very nice. If there was a plan to get it saved and preserve that character, I’d be all for it. I do think there are processes and market forces against all this however.
To the best of my knowledge, buildings with a historic significance are identified and then go through the process of reaching that “historic designation” status which gives them protections. This building doesn’t have that. I’d be interested to see if it just didn’t reach that or it was identified for protection and didn’t qualify. Or neither. So you and I might like it but it doesn’t hold up when compared to The Creamery which does have historic status. Just the opinion of some committee, right?
Second, we have the market affect. 100 or so years ago, this building made sense and it has since made sense as a venue for comedy. (cool history project here to list all the uses it has gone through) The uses today are undervalued overall when you look at the land value so something higher use (call it higher intense use) is what can be delivered and both a developer and the city benefit. It’s tough to argue against that unless you are a die hard preservationist. 400+ residential units and retail is pretty nice though which encourages more retail, more walkable living, more DT vibrancy.
I’ve recently thought about preservation at a new level because what I don’t want is a frozen museum that is Raleigh of my “insert golden decade here” but rather want to preserve the human character in and around it. This means the businesses, residents I’ve loved while at the same time allowing others to come in and make their mark. If we preserve everything then that means we don’t allow for new, also great things to be built.
The middle approach is reuse, of course, which is great from a preservation perspective and adapting to the new growth that we face. It’s also greener so bonus points for that. This is, however, the costlier option so encouraging this will have to take some creative policies put in place BEFORE this happens.
Finally, does Goodnights make the building or does the building make Goodnights? Maybe others can chime in as I haven’t been in a very long time, and only once or twice even, but couldn’t Goodnights itself adapt and grow if they move to a new location? Warehouse district next to Morgan Street Food Hall? The Depot? I could see them as an anchor attraction in Smoky Hollow to be honest.
So I’m not sure I’m that upset over losing this building right now. I’ll go get some pictures and bid the building good bye. It served Raleigh well and if Goodnights lands safely in a new home, I’ll be ready for the next phase. 
13 Likes
The way I think about it… the existing building has a ton of character, unique design, durable materials, and offers a placemaking aspect to the neighborhood. The replacement design is extremely boring.
I think I would feel less worried about losing the building if the replacement building had any meaningful design contribution or used anything other than the cheapest materials and construction methods possible.
11 Likes
I’ll put it out there that if a building like this were in my Hometown of Asheville, developers would go to great extents to make sure they incorporated it as a part of their project. For some reason, it’s just understood there that character sells. Even the most marginal, dilapidated buildings seem to get restored (sometimes at great expense!) and reused if they have a proper urban form factor. I am not entirely sure why that is the case in Asheville but not in larger cities like Raleigh or Charlotte.
8 Likes
I definitely see your argument, and I think where I’m landing is that the current Goodnights building just fits in well with the neighborhood. Yes, I know I’m discussing “neighborhood character” like some NIMBY but I’ll continue.
The building that Remedy Diner was in (927 West Morgan if I’m not mistaken) actually did a great job of adding to the housing stock while not being out of character with the rest of Morgan St…thinking Drink Drank Drunk, Irregardless, all those older houses, etc. Breaking up the massing on the Morgan St. side actually helped a lot with that, and it seems like there were some significant upper floor setbacks for the Remedy Diner side of the building. I feel like that’s the development type the City should be aiming for along here, something that adds vibrancy, economic benefit, and reduces sprawl while still maintaining the “charm,” for lack of a better term, of this corner of the City. Because let’s face it, we don’t have many neighborhoods like this in Raleigh or the Triangle as a whole.
Now I don’t think that reason in and of itself is a justifiable one for saving the Goodnights building. That would result in a race to the bottom where every project imaginable is DOA due to “aesthetic” concerns. However, there is absolutely a way to incorporate the current structure (not the warehouse, just the three-story masonry-clad building) with plans to develop the overall parcel, sort of making the current Goodnights building the Remedy Diner to this development’s 927 West Morgan. Like you said, the middle approach of reuse.
But is it really costlier than demo and new construction? The building doesn’t look all that bad from the outside. I suppose there are some mechanical/wear and tear issues we can’t see but it does not seem like a salvage job by any means. I don’t think there’s a way you can implement a city policy to do this because it would be gamed by either side to death, but in one specific case, where the entire vibe of the neighborhood sort of relies on these modest buildings lining the strip, I think the developer can absolutely achieve the best of both worlds.
And failing that, if the building does have to go, I hope the design either extends the street grid by connecting the stub end of Wakefield Ave. to the Morgan Street curve in some way, or the new building is context-sensitive to the corridor and decreases in floors as it approaches Morgan. Hopefully if the Morgan curve stays in its current alignment, the building reacts to it appropriately almost like how the Goodnights building has that little courtyard in front (or a curved façade along Morgan would be interesting as well). TL;DR is that I’m just hoping the developers don’t just throw a stickbox on this property and call it a day, even if it means the current building is a goner.
2 Likes
“MaRkEt FoRcEs”
This really should be a straightforward argument. Raleigh simply does not have much history remaining. You can count good looking structures that have that age outside downtown on one hand (and even inside downtown, they’re endangered). The building covers a tiny percentage of the lot - plenty room for whatever generic apartment cubes they probably want to plonk down. Keeping it there would be better for everyone, because it adds architectural variety to the neighborhood, and it allows us to be smug in internet arguments with people from Charlotte. This is a very critical component of Raleigh’s culture you’ve underestimated. Market forces do not take externalities into account. Turning into a soulless hellscape devoid of identity is one of those pits Raleigh can easily fall down. Thank you for listening to my TED talk. 
19 Likes
Thank you, I’m glad I’m not the only one who appreciates Asheville’s dedication to this. I’ve said it before, but it’s rare you spend an afternoon walking around downtown and upon leaving said “I wish they had taller buildings”. The curb and sidewalk experience is probably the best in the state too. Just think of the hoops they made Urban Outfitters jump through, I mean hell they made the largest fast food chain in the world, Mcdonalds, build one of their more elaborate buildings to match the neighborhood just to operate in Biltmore Village. It’s makes my stomach hurt when I look at old pictures of Raleigh’s downtown with the buildings we’ve lost, even the CVS building was incredible. The city has the ability to lean on developers to put these protections in place, but they don’t… hey but we’re getting new bike lanes in North Raleigh.
Biltmore Village McDonalds:
I found new pictures of Goodnights also, RAL today reported they have been in this building since 1983, but before that it was home to White’s Ice Cream. That explains the loading dock and warehouse sections of the building.
20 Likes
Yeah I’m sorry but I’m with the commenters after you, and I definitely think you’re off the mark here. As others have said, we don’t really have as many old/historic structures left. When I visit old cities like NY, Philly, etc; I’m not usually just marveling at the new, supertall skyscrapers - I’m mostly impressed with the classic looking old structures that have remained and basically allow us to “look back in time” when visiting these places. Your statement “If we preserve everything then that means we don’t allow for new, also great things to be built.” is very off the mark, IMO. There are countless- countless - surface parking lots and single-story/single use (and UGLY) buildings from the 70s/80s/90s that can absolutely be developed. But preserving what little historic structures we have left that actually add diversity and character to the street level experience should take priority (and regardless of the lack of historic status for this building in particular, sorry but a 92 year old building in such great shape is absolutely historic).
12 Likes
Any idea what the driver of that might have been? My guess is that the character of Asheville is more directly tied to the tourism that they have. That’s something you can see more clearly.
In Raleigh, as much as I love it here, has a different dynamic… or I could be wrong and Raleigh just chose a different path. 
3 Likes
And I would then argue that if Raleigh ever wants to have the level of tourism that Asheville has (and we totally should want that) - we need to think more like them and preserve/encourage more character here in Raleigh!
6 Likes
Part of it likely has to do with a more restrictive development environment where more projects have to go before council. They are, somewhat understandably, more NIMBY. They came down hard on AirBNB because it was actually having a huge impact on the local housing market (something like 9% of the homes in the city were on AirBNB at least part time!) There is a low max height for the downtown area. But there’s no outright prohibition on redevelopment, and yet I can’t remember the last time that any old building downtown or really anywhere was proposed for demolition by a developer.
Another part of the difference is, for all the brouhaha about housing shortages in Aville, its economy is just not as diverse, it is not as populous, nor as wealthy, nor growing as fast as Raleigh. Larger developments just make more sense when you’re in a county with 1.1 million people averaging roughly 2% annual growth, compared with 260k averaging south of 1%. To accommodate that growth rate, Wake needs new housing for 22,000 people per year; Asheville needs 2,200 - a full order of magnitude difference… Maybe with more growth or more population, things would be different there too.
And yet somehow I have a feeling that the above doesn’t fully explain it. Developers seem to understand and appreciate that character is a big part of the appeal of Asheville, both for tourism and as a destination to live, and that this can even be used and exploited for profit by doing historic renovations where possible, and working around historic buildings otherwise. Don’t kill the goose that lays the golden egg; get one of those golden egg-laying geese for yourself! This is something that seems to be relatively lacking here; developers seem more eager to start with a clean slate. I dunno why. My best guess at this moment is to follow the money: the lenders who finance development here are the source of many of the frustratingly non-progressive aspects of developments here such as astronomical parking requirements and uninspiring design. Whereas historic renovation is the proven moneymaking scheme there, nondescript Texas Donut apartments are the sure bet here. Perhaps the developer even wanted to save the building, but the lenders NOPE’d that idea. Who really knows.
5 Likes
For comparison… the Ironworks project probably could make the developers a lot more money if they cleared it all and put up the maximum massing of cheap apartments.
All the 865 Morgan project had to do was leave and work around 4.6% of the site area. Its just lazy and greedy.
17 Likes
Yeah that is a good point, historic renovation is not entirely absent in Raleigh. Not quite seeing why this is viable and desirable at Ironworks, but not Goodnight’s, except for the reasons you state: laziness and greed.
3 Likes
Now that I have taken a closer look and done a little research, this picture shows the origination of White’s Ice Cream at 1911:
Someone mentioned The Creamery Building on Glenwood South and its “Historic” building designation, but after looking on Wikipedia, the Creamery Building was built in 1928 and awarded the honor in 1997. At nearly 17 years difference what makes White’s Ice Cream not a historic landmark but the Creamery Building is?
9 Likes
1914 map. Bottom right corner. Looks like a smaller (different?) building. City imaps has building date of 1929 but sometimes thats not accurate.
2 Likes
Probably that nobody applied for the designation? Owners not wanting to give up the freedom to sell to the highest bidder.
4 Likes
I’m assuming this would be the reason why, especially after you look at the City’s current list of Historic landmarks. White’s Ice Cream beats the majority on this list in terms of age, building design, historical reference and building materials used. For instance this office building built in 1956 on Wade Avenue is on the list but White’s Ice Cream is not? Early Development, Prior to 1830, Antebellum and Civil War Period, 1831-1865, Late Nineteenth Century,1866-1899, Early Twentieth Century, 1900-1945, Late Twentieth Century, 1946-1999, Commercial, Industrial, Residential, Institutional | Raleigh Historic Development Commission
5 Likes
Nice one! Like I said earlier, just a committee’s opinion. 
1 Like