The PC meeting was yesterday. No vote was held as the developper will do more modifications and present them at a future comity of the whole.
4 people spoke about the project, 2 from the townhomes, the owner of the garage in the corner and someone from across wake forest rd, behind Jerry’s grill.
The message was pretty similar: in favor of the development buy they asked for a reduction of the height.
The townhomes owners said they would like 3 stories instead of 5/6.
The garage owner wants more buffer between his lot and the future buildings.
The PC asked the développer to update the sunlight study and to engage with folks on the west side of WF road.
2 Likes
Boo. No reduced height, please. I understand the 4 who spoke out for NIMBYing, but it doesn’t hold water when their desires are short sighted at best. In 10-15 years, it’s likely that garage will sell his land as it becomes too valuable for him not to, and the townhome owners may end up realizing that as well. Even if not, dawg… y’all live in the city. What do you expect lmao.
5 Likes
So that’s a thing…?
1 Like
Sounds a little shady to me 
Thank you Raleigh, I’ll be here all weekend!!
8 Likes
Although Raleigh will likely never develop this problem, NYC is actually having real consequences from this exact thing from the new super tall condo buildings facing Central Park.
7 Likes
I think that there’s a validity to placemaking at this scale being integrated into its context, rather than landing without that consideration.
If I think about some of my least favorite crowded suburban style areas of the country (I’m looking at you Houston), what strikes me is how little each development relates to its context or surrounding neighborhoods/developments. These self contained projects just become somewhere that we drive to, park, and walk within its boundaries. They are often fenced off as part of the development, or fenced off by their adjacent neighbors as part of a mechanism to hide their offensiveness.
If developers thought in terms of their projects integrating into their context, and listened to the adjacent property owners, then some of these walls can be broken down and the impact of projects can be a positive thing for everyone as we transform our city into its next incarnation. If we just ignore concerns, we just end up with a bunch of projects walled off from each other, and we don’t solve for creating larger walkable communities.
7 Likes
Yes agreed.
I think the townhomes complaints are legitimate especially since the building will directly be on their south. A 5 story building 20ft from their 2/3 story home will mean that they won’t get a lot of sun.
On the other hand, the guy complaining about the 15 stories tower that lives 2 streets away doesn’t have much credibility imo.
For the garage part, that sounds like a joke to me. I cannot believe they didn’t make a deal now. This would even allow the developper to push that 6 story aisle more south to give more buffer to the townhomes. And you solve two problems with one move doing so!
5 Likes
Sounds like Atlanta. I call it “dart board” development.
It’s also funny when people complain about city type developments in cities. Like what did you think was going to happen when you decided to live there.
I think Raliegh is doing much better in that regard in terms of creating more districts instead of spotty development.
11 Likes
Agreed. The official downtown area is manageable in that regard, but this project is not downtown. While older, and nearer downtown, it’s decidedly suburban in nature.
1 Like
Not downtown agree, but I think writing it off as “decidedly suburban” is not quite right. When we get the bike lanes of Atlantic it will be very accessible for all the neighborhoods east of Capital and it is already in a good position for “greater” 5 points area. With the Iron Yard coming online, the area is turning into a really good node by Raleigh standards. If all of this gets built I could see going there over North Hills for a drink and food Work needs to be done on accessibility for sure, but I think this is really well positioned to be a more urban part of town and start connecting spread out stuff today. If the area around Capital Blvd. leaving downtown and headed north really gets developed then it would connect this development right to downtown.
5 Likes
I have an innovative and controversial solution for NYC: sell off Central Park in parcels to developers, and put skyscrapers up on all of it. The city would make trillions and be able to fund everything they need for decades.
1 Like
There are those that will argue that Cameron Park is suburban and it’s a mile from the capitol building.
I stand on my statement that it’s decidedly suburban. Yes it’s accessible to downtown, but it’s still developed around the car in a suburban model. Frankly, I think that this appeals to A LOT of people. They like having their nice sized yard, places for multiple cars at their doorsteps, and quiet streets that feed onto thoroughfares. It’s suburbia.
1 Like
It is suburban, for sure, but street care
suburban.
What I wouldn’t give for a suburb that actually was pretty sympathetic to the geography and not just flattened. I live in the center of a post-war “suburb” where they did exactly this wrong thing. Its hilly, but the streets are a grid. Many of them dead-end above bottom land, and other places the less steep creek bottoms were put in pipes and filled over. Its always so frustrating as I walk to work and I think what might have been. Alas . . .
I already choose to go over East Whitaker Mill instead of North Hills. Lynwood, Hummingbird, Wilson’s, Big Boss, and Bowstring have been great so far. I haven’t been to Altered State or Black Fire brewery but it’s all in the same area.
The area there has a very high brewery/bar count that I think could compete with Glenwood South (as far as beer destinations go). They are a bit off from the restaurant/shopping scene, but in general it is a very good area.
5 Likes
Cities will need parks. Central Park is a huge part of Manhattan. Take it away and the city would have lost a major amenity.
Imagine if they were like China or Tokyo where China is putting major restrictions on buildings that are taller than 250M (820 ft) and where Tokyo has the height restriction of 250M (820 ft). The tallest building in Tokyo is 838 feet.
There is also Funguys on Paula st and House of hops in McNeil pointe 
.
Can anyone summarize the redevelopment plans article from the business journal today? It is regarding the old Josephus Daniels home in Hayes Barton. Article says a local developer has purchased the building after it was removed from historic designation by the city.
“As Raleigh natives, we’re excited about the future of this property and look forward to working with our neighbors as we finalize plans for a thoughtful development of single-family homes within the current zoning that fits seamlessly into the historic Hayes Barton neighborhood,” Beacon Street said in a statement.
Beacon Street’s specific plans for the building are unclear, and a company spokesperson said they couldn’t comment beyond the statement this early in the planning process. The land is currently zoned to allow for up to four homes per acre, which would allow for up to 15 homes on the site.
The building was stripped of it’s historic designation because it’s racist.
2 Likes
I’ve known of the history of this home’s owner for quite some time now. Glad it was stripped of its designation. A real slap in the face for many driving into downtown.
I was mapping the site on the google machine, and am curious what makes up the totality of the property? I am able to see the TBJ article for a split second before it disappears…just enough time to hit screen capture BTW. In any case, it talks about the Masonic Temple as well. It seems as if there are like 3 total parcels that make up this development, but I am not certain. Does anyone know?