Ken, logical and likely 100% correct but way less interesting than the other guesses. 
2 Likes
However, I canāt imagine this empty lot will last for much longer! Weāll get something here eventually, and by that time I can imagine it might end up going taller than anything surrounding it!
It actually looks like the lots could have a very similar scale to the surrounding neighborhood.
Hereās 11 homes across the street compared to the Masonic Temple.
EDIT: also, the price tag is unfortunate, but 2 million isnāt all that crazy for the area. The homes just to the north of the site are mostly worth over that.
5 Likes
But, doesnāt the house remain with only the temple being removed from its backside? If so, then all of that land isnāt available for the 11 houses.
Iām also curious how they are going to site the homes vis-a-vis the entrance ramp to westbound Wade from southbound Glenwood. I certainly wouldnāt pay 2M for house on top of that.
@John, it was my understanding that the house is going too.
I agree, its a big plot, but two sides bounded by real busy roads. Maybe they do an interior street? A sweet cul-de-sac. Things just sound so classy in french. 
Yeah, just look at Sussex Dr to get a feel for what Beacon Street will likely do hereā¦
Imaps shows it is 3.89 acres. Technically townhomes would not be allowed I believe since itās only R4.
Full density would allow 15 houses based off R4 density and a potential up to 22 attached homes with the new Text Change that has taken effect. Attached homes would have been a better win. Still expensive, but 22 expensive homes helps with the expensive demand.
In saying that, I do prefer the 11 homes compared to the existing Masonic Temple, but still wish there was more.
5 Likes
Itās all going away. Most of its already down.
1 Like
went by there on my evening walk. Itās gone.
Itās a shame the house couldnāt be saved. Houses of this type built in the early 1900ās cannot be duplicated today. The house itself is not a white supremacistā¦lol.
6 Likes
victim - woke people sleep walking
1 Like
Then people complain that there is no history in America like in Europe.
1 Like
Clearly this was a money play to develop that land.
Posted this in another thread, but thought it might fit here actually. Would love to see this intersection redone to open up more useable land. no idea how to get this in front of the right people though
2 Likes
Iād be willing to bet itās something NCDOT has thought about. It makes sense but itās probably on the list of āif it aināt broke donāt fix itā since thereās no actual big time issues. I donāt think the land profit would make up for the construction cost. Just a case of mid century over-design.
If it were up to me, Iād take it in a slightly different step and remove the grade separation (Also at Oberlin) and install multi-lane roundabouts. Would give it more of a neighborhood feel and slow things up a bit which is desperately needed also. With some good landscaping it could make for a nice welcoming gateway entering the city as well.
9 Likes
DOT scoffed at removing the interchange at Peace/Capital so Iād say thereās no way they will remove the Wade/Glenwood and Wade/Oberlin interchanges either.
Hereās my more conventional solution (folded diamond) that retains free flow on Wade but still modernizes and clears up the mess of 1950s era traffic engineering, especially in the NW corner, and removes all the free flowing ramps onto/off of Glenwood.
The pedestrian route and sidewalks along Wade would have to be on the ramps rather than under the bridge.
4 Likes
I think the Peace / Capital one is a bit different since they probably want Capital eventually to be signal free out of Downtown up to 440 and eventually beyond.
I like this one too. The NE quad loop may be a little tight truck radius wise for todayās WB-67 standards.
1 Like
Nothing is beyond repair. This building could have and should have been saved.
2 Likes
What radius would wb67 prescribe? 100ā radius to the outside curb seems like it should be possible here. Figure 15mph?
Looks like they want 230ā radius for a minimum of 30 MPH, but I have seen some 15-20 MPH ramps so maybe it is feasible.
But it does go on to mention 150ā radius for roads with <50 MPH speed limit which this is. So 150ā should get it done.
Since itās a controlled interchange, āExpresswayā terms would have to be followed.
2 Likes