To build high-rise in today’s market, rents need to be around $3.50/SF. Fortunately, Maeve is already in the high $2s and low $3s, and if the lease-up performs well, lenders and investors will likely gain confidence in supporting this expensive building type.
This is a great reminder. Taller buildings will come but there’s a of other things to focus on to make sure Raleigh is vibrant.
Trying to translate this so I understand. Please tell me if I have this right.
1 - Land cost still being negotiated, but hotel moving forward?
2 - Plans are to proceed with affordable housing? But who’s building? Wasn’t that part of the Loden proposal?
3 - Back out for proposals? What’s left here? Grocery, market price residential?
My understanding is that Loden would proceed with the site 1 and 2 - hotel (1) and the affordable housing (2) component but walk away from the other aspects of the east site 3 (resi tower).
That site 3 will likely see the City ‘put back up’ for RFP
The city of Raleigh issued an RFP for Moore Square, following a similar approach to how Mooresville did their Town Center RFP. In this model, a “Master Developer” is chosen as the private sector partner in a public-private partnership. Based on the firm’s expertise and project requirements, they then collaborate with other developers specializing in specific aspects of the multi-phase, various asset development.
Think of it like a restaurant—while the core team focuses on prep, cooking, and serving appetizers and main courses, they may outsource bread to a bakery and desserts to a pastry shop. Similarly, the Master Developer brings in specialized partners to handle different components of the larger project.
The Moore Square RFP attracted a range of proposals, each with distinct visions and partnerships. Loden’s team included notable players like Greystar, Greystone, and Northpond, bringing strong industry presence. However, Loden itself is a relatively small firm with limited experience in developments of this scale and no prior role as a master developer.
For large, complex projects like this, capital markets capability and execution are key drivers of success. While I won’t weigh in on the individual proposals, some alternatives may have been better suited to realizing a cohesive vision.
It’s encouraging to see the affordable housing component moving forward, but dividing the parcels and restricting development flexibility could make the remaining property less attractive for a developer looking to execute a comprehensive vision.
Actually I always wonder about Loden and this project. Seemed really ambitious for that developer but it might all work out in the end. The city needs to sell off those other parcels and maybe someone like Greystar will still be interested and develop a tower there. Charlotte had a very similar project for a block and half. It all fell apart too and the city has said it will sell them off individually instead of letting one developer attempt it all. It was going to 3 high rises an office tower, a residential tower and a hotel along with the a new main library (which is underway) and a renovated theater which is underway as well. Sometimes cities have big ideas for development and know they want but finding a single developer is execute it is hard to find.
So breaking this block apart into development sites I think will be better and more doable.
I got around to watching this council session on Moore Square East and I think people have already summed up what’s taking place. I want to share this part of the presentation that really shows how quickly the market economics have changed. It’s a bit weedsy in terms of financials but I think this is worth watching a few times (just listen to Ken Bowers go through a chart for 2-3 minutes)
I’m not ready yet to explain this but I do this this is important in the context of downtown development economics these days. By the way, seems rents are dropping.
Thanks for the specific numbers, but nothing new there we didn’t already know. I kept listening after those slides and the next part was more interesting. He kept mentioning the parking podium and eluding to higher costs associated with that layout (which everyone here also already understands). So, for the affordable housing component, isn’t this the ideal place to attempt a Culdesac-esque development with no parking? Given the proximity to the bus station (forget the debate about moving that for a moment)? This seems like the project to take that risk. The city could donate some city-owned spaces in nearby public decks if absolutely necessary to have a parking option for residents, but the idea would be to lure residents looking for a car-free option, with enticing rents made possible by lower construction costs from not including podium parking.
City Council voted in the afternoon session today to allow the Raleigh Housing Authority (RHA) to issue up to $31,682,000 in bonds “for the purpose of financing, constructing, and equipping the Moore Square Apartments, a 160-unit affordable rental development,” which is located at 319 E. Martin St and being developed by Moore Square Harmony Housing LLC. A public hearing on the bond issuance was held on September 15th.
Got an email that my parking spot in the 330 E Hargett Lot will no longer be available due to development starting December 1st. It does say I can move to the 313 E Martin St lot, which is the south side of the same block, so maybe just development on the north side?
What development would this be?
I believe this is the smaller, “affordable” housing project - Texas-donut apartment building. Unsure if this includes the Raleigh Rescue Mission plot or if that is coming down for the taller tower portion of this development.
In my opinion worst city project was Moore square. Cut down nice trees to make a useless open field.
That open field in Moore square is used by hundreds of people on the daily for all sorts of recreational activities. I.e. being used as a park.
Nash square is a glorified pedestrian path with little other ways to be used. I love trees but open space is much more useful in this area.
I will say that Moore Square, I think, has been significantly improved since Lucky Tree has moved into that retail spot. My chief complaint now is just lack of shade during the summer months.
Idk about hundreds of people… Moore Square is successful because the city is artificially activating it constantly with festivals and events. Nash Square will need to be activated organically through densification of businesses and people living nearby, which the city is working on through its Nash Square Public Realm Plan. Seems like they understand that the use cases for the two parks are distinct and they are doing the right things to make sure they are successful.
The DMV site is of a slightly larger scale but, if the city can get their ducks in a row, it should be successful as well.
I wouldn’t say it’s artificial at all. Organizations that want to set up events approach the city and ask for permits to have vendors there that suit what they’re trying to host. Nash Square doesn’t have the infrastructure to do that.
I guess “artificial” and “organic” aren’t totally accurate. Maybe something more like “event-based” and “non-event based” or “amenity based” activation; where Moore Square’s amenities are somewhat ephemeral and centered around facilitating events vs what I hope Nash Square becomes through its Public Realm Plan, which is a space to hang out just cause it’s convenient and has nice things that individuals or small groups can take advantage of impromptu. I’ll be pretty disappointed if Nash Square gets the same treatment that Moore Square did because we don’t need two event squares so close to each other, and I feel that Downtown needs something similar to a communal backyard.
I like Nash Square much more than Moore Square and agree the renovations to Moore Square gave it the wrong design. It’s just not attractive as a park in its own right. Feels like a lot of pavement for a park. Not necessarily worse than it was before but… it could have been better.
