Or, even connect through to the new construction at the JCP site. Very nice.
It would require a cut/cover construction through the North State Bank parking lot, and a box tunnel jack under Six Forks.
Very do-able.
3 Likes
I honestly can’t speak to the cost or feasibility, but from the perspective of tying the two halves of North Hills together, I think this is about the best case scenario, and would function much better than any conceivable bridge configuration.
4 Likes
The new North Hills shopping experience.
14 Likes
It’s been mentioned on this forum before, but here’s a mention about box jacking…
…and I mentioned it earlier on this thread, too 
Glad I’m not the only one who thought about that.
(I still feel like that would be more appropriate as long as you presume that you’re trying to create an additional, underground shopping/social experience, and not just a pedestrian connection)
3 Likes
Thanks @keita. Scroll backs on my phone are a bit wonky.
1 Like
The idea is that the tunnel could help the building in red here as well as the wing in green become part of the overall retail experience, in addition to “linking” the experience on the east with the experience on the west.
This is why I think the best opportunity for this to happen will be when the North State Bank is redeveloped. When they do that, they will probably be digging down anyway to add a level or two of underground parking. That would be the best opportunity to go ahead and put in a tunnel and build the building to address it. But if they don’t go ahead and do it at that point, then the opportunity is essentially lost.
5 Likes
I’m trying my best to scrounge around and find what had been approved around 2006 when NHE was getting off the ground.
There was the failed tax-increment financing plan with the City of Raleigh for parking decks.
And, there was a quiet approval for a pedestrian bridge over Six Forks at a time when it seemed appropriate.
If Kane is playing the long game, his team will dust this off and look exceptionally prescient when it gets shown off.
7 Likes
Found it…
Kane said the development also calls for a 300-unit retirement center that would be called the Cardinal at North Hills and a pedestrian bridge over Six Forks Road would link both North Hills developments.
20 Likes
I dimly remember from talking to Kane & Co. that they’re aware of it as a problem, but don’t see it as their problem, but rather as a public-sector problem.
To make it Kane’s problem: IIRC, the PUD agreements specify a certain LOS for various nearby intersections. A ped bridge could certainly have an appreciable impact on the LOS at Dartmouth + Six Forks, unfortunately mostly by eliminating ped “conflicts” but also perhaps by allowing people to turn right (and then walk across) rather than piling into the left turn lanes.
If there had been serious consideration of a future bridge, it would have been fairly straightforward to build a “landing pad” into one of the east-side parking garages, so that a bridge could use the garage’s elevators.
If it ever happens, I agree that it would make sense if timed with redevelopment of the bank/Exxon sites, and that the bank’s replacement tower would ideally incorporate the street-level entrance to the bridge/tunnel. There are likely in-place leases that are standing in the way, though like with JCPenney those will eventually expire.
4 Likes
Beacon Partners announced their intent to build mixed-use buildings near Crabtree Creek!
This is the same company that’s also behind the recent purchase of the NC Education Lottery headquarters on Capital Blvd. and plans for an industrial park near Garner’s new Amazon distribution center.
From the article:
9 Likes
Yeah, that was discussed quickly in another topic, maybe the five points one.
I went to the neighborhood meeting, the developper told us that they want to do a PD to instead of a classic rezoning so that they don’t have to connect Bellaire to Hodges as the UDO would require (there is a “stub” at the end of Bellaire currently). They will instead provide a pedestrian connectivity for eventually a better access to the Greenway (I think the city would have to put up a bridge though).
It looked like the people present at the meeting were ok with that, it looks like a fair negotiation technique to avoid too much backlash from people living in Forest Acres.
4 Likes
Cool. It will be interesting to see how the design addresses the flooding that occurs there.
4 Likes
I would also hope this is in line with the midtown master plan that has a park in the floodplain of this area.
3 Likes
Agreed. I don’t recall if the park is on both sides.
1 Like
I think the floodable park is only planned on the North side.
Here is a little bit more of info I got at the meeting (sorry for the pic, didn’t find how to do a screenshot on ipad fast enough)
It looks like classic suburban apartment design to me with ton of surface parking 
.
10 Likes
Boring. What a waste.
3 Likes
Looks like it is, sadly. That’s because the southern border of the study area is Crabtree Creek; the Beacon development’s just south enough to be out of its scope.
This mean, like @Vic said, the plan specifically recommends zoning changes on the northern side, but doesn’t say anything about the southern bank. See below, paying attention to what is not indicated on these maps:
The closest the report gets is a “south side greenway” on the southern bank with “greenway-facing restaurant[s] and retail”. As of right now, the city hasn’t adopted any area-specific guidelines for its Comprehensive Plan that would apply to this project.
3 Likes
I was really excited reading the article, but now hugely disappointed to see the sketch from the meeting at the apparent waste so much usable space.
I too am curious of the flood measures. In case any was curious I just took this snip from NC flood Map:
4 Likes
Developper claimed that flooding situation in the neighborhood would be improved because they would maintain the underground pipe between the pond (or the swamp if you prefer) and the creek (they implied it is not maintened properly now).
Considering that they are adding more impervious surfaces than what is there currently, I have a really hard time believing this is true.
If that parcel was not previously developed, I’m not sure they would be allowed to develop it under the new floodplain regulations. But we are in free market and unless the city wants to buy the land at current market price there is not so much that can be done now, except tightening regulations more but builders don’t like that.
7 Likes