Thanks, thats not too bad. It quieted down for a while then recently picked up major steam. All good though it’ll be worth it when all is said and done
1 Like
Haha so even the sunshine emoji’s weren’t enough. It’s been loud these days, making me reach out here, but happy to find a vibrant discussion on the development!
4 Likes
The sidewalk will be quite a bit more dangerous with all those cars coming and going all day.
For those interested in Phase 3 here is a link to the zoning request. Looks like 18 stories to me
https://cityofraleigh0drupal.blob.core.usgovcloudapi.net/drupal-prod/COR22/Z-021-20.pdf
11 Likes
Wow. Going for DX-20-UL-CU though height limit says no more than 18 stories (as @Stan3 mentioned).
Active use for ground stories with the exception of parking entrances (seems parking pedestal?).
Mix of office and retail (seems no resi).
Traffic Analysis will be performed for the rezoning.
Development depends on demand and economy…
No impact to historical buildings.
The two houses on Boylan are spared:
6 Likes
Is more parking really needed here?? 
3 Likes
Neighborhood meeting with Boylan residents could get interesting. I personally would love that height there
Typically, I am all for more height, but in this case getting into a historic neighborhood I think keeping the 10-12 MAX would be advisable. I am also disappointed by MORE parking and not including any residential in this “complex” of buildings. Hopefully we will see that as part of the yet to be announced Hargett Street side of the complex.
2 Likes
I agree with you on both counts. Probably a little high for that plot, and need more mixed use. TIA would look better with some resi included.
3 Likes
I wish they had done 20 stories on phase 1-2 and then 12 here. With that said, I’d still take 18 for phase 3.
5 Likes
If memory serves, they thought they were going to get rezoned for 20 stories when they were planning One Glenwood and they were going to build a parking pedestal. But they didn’t, they got rezoned for 12, and that is why they built the parking garages separately.
They think the high parking ratios are part of the reason why their projects have leased so quickly, so I don’t see them changing that strategy.
Agreed it would have been better if the earlier stages were 20 and this was 12, and also agreed I’d take 18 here
3 Likes
Maybe the old lady that owns the 2 historic homes next to this site will finally sell and they can be turned back into single family homes, offices or maybe restaurants!
My understanding is the old lady lives at the beach but not sure if this is true or urban legend…either way whoever owns them needs to spend some money!
1 Like
Or moved or torn down and replaced with skyscrapers. This is like 500 feet from Union Station - some of the most important real estate for the future sustainability of the city.
I’ll allow that as houses, they are pretty special - but giving up that much real estate that close to the key station of the $2b rail project for single-family residences is unacceptable in my book.
Relocating would be great but finding a lot to put them on would be a challenge.
3 Likes
Technically they’re multi-family houses. I believe both have like 4 tenants each. Your point is still pretty valid though. It’s a lot of real estate with very low density given it’s location.
2 Likes
What’s the time horizon on closing the at-grade crossing on Hargett? It’s only 500 ft now, but it would be about a half-mile walk to get to RUS from there unless a footbridge is part of that closing.
I’m all for moving those houses. As @OakCityDylan points out, they are multi-family residences, and they’re closer to the affordable end of the cost spectrum (as are other low-density, multi-family properties nearby).
Every time we lose that type of housing, it seems like it’s gone forever. Hopefully new developments can offer a range of price points to keep the downtown population diverse and interesting. But I’m not holding my breath.
6 Likes
You and I have two very different (maybe opposite?) definitions of “sustainability.”
1 Like
Maybe so? 
Agree to disagree I guess?
The notion of generating some waste today, to save/prevent a much larger amount of consumption in the future, strikes me as a potentially reasonable sustainability tradeoff.
2 Likes
Just curious…if everyone had electric cars and all electricity was generated from non-carbon based sources, would you position still be density at any cost? How about if you add in a 50% reduction in commuting needs a permanent result of COVID’s experiment? I think something like 90% of combustion engines will be done for in 10 years and commuting is talking a grand hit…where’s the need to ultra densify? What if the carbon equation objectively favored leaving all buildings as is? Would you go along with it? I realize, of course, that roads still need built and habitat preserved for wildlife, water quality etc, but the calculus of 20 years ago no longer exists and the ‘just right’ level of development and redevelopment does not feel like its the same.
The answer for me is yes, I would still favor density. I like living in areas that are designed in proportion for people, not machines. Just because cars are electric doesn’t mean they don’t pose hazards in other ways, and neighborhoods are more vibrant when you interact with your neighbors face to face (mask to mask for now, I suppose!) rather than behind glass.
8 Likes