If people look hard enough, there are beautiful, old buildings scattered all over DTR. But we seem to think the world is ending every time one gets torn down. We can’t have it both ways…in order to have a bigger, busier more electric downtown, you have to replace some of the old ones. There are plenty still around and will be around for a long time.
4 Likes
Berkeley is a gem. One of the few of its kind left here. Always feel transported back in time going in and love the personality of the place. It will really suck to see it go for some apartments, even though the building’s height will be great for the skyline.
If it were condos I’d feel better about it, but this will just be a taller Sky House in a few years because these apartments aren’t well kept over time. Losing a gem of a historical building for Sky House+ is a thumbs down for me.
2 Likes
Why do you think Skyhouse isn’t well-kept? I’ve been in the building recently and nothing about it seemed like it was in a state of disrepair. Surprisingly, it still feels pretty modern.
1 Like
Apartments aren’t as well kept as condos because renters vs. owners. Many of them look great in the beginning and worn down after a few years.
To clarify, I don’t mean to call out Sky House specifically here (even though I did). The comparison was it being a taller apartment building than the typical 5 over 2.
But you don’t have to. That is literally incorrect. The only scenario where that’s accurate is if lots aren’t available in the desired area. That is far from the case now. There was no protection for the building the Berkeley Cafe occupies today and so someone (group) legit bought the property and can build by right. Not their fault by any means, but there is nothing that says we “have to” tear these few buildings down in order to have “a bigger, busier and more electric downtown”.
5 Likes
I don’t fault the developer. They’re doing what they’re supposed to do: develop land into buildings to make the highest return for their investors. I fault the city for not having better protections for our old buildings, and the state for probably blocking attempts by cities to implement those protections.
9 Likes
Sure …and I also fault the developers for short-sightedness in not giving a single shit about our city’s history, and instead cashing in for as much as possible with as little regard for our city’s history as possible. It can be both, here, lmao
6 Likes
I feel like that’s like blaming the military for killing people and breaking stuff. That’s their job. I blame the leaders for stupid wars, not the soldiers.
5 Likes
I agree. You can’t expect every single developer to be on the same page in terms of historic preservation. All it takes is a single developer out of tens of thousands to have a different opinion than the others. Without protections in place, that building is coming down.
I mean… a certain brand of Soldiers tried that defense after a pretty significant war in the 40s. Hasn’t worked out for them. But that’s besides the point, as these are entirely different things you’re comparing. A developer isn’t just “following orders” - they’re literally the one drafting the development proposal lmao. They 100% can think outside the box and consider that “hey, this building on the property we’ve purchased is 100 years old - would be a shame to just knock it down. Let’s incorporate it into our new development somehow so we can honor the history of this city while also adding to it.”
1 Like
I’m not saying a developer is just following orders; I’m saying a developer developing to make money is fulfilling its purpose. If they give a shit about our city’s old buildings and spend more money to preserve, or lose out on some profit to not build out the max potential, they’ll get replaced by people who are better at making money. That’s the market economy. I just see it as government’s role to be the other side of that equation. Looking out for the public’s interest, and the things that don’t generate a profit (art, culture, transit, etc.).
11 Likes
It’s like there was nothing they could do about it. At least he did accommodate the plans a little.
My good friend just gave me some information. Nash Square 1st. floor will be restaurant & retail. I haven’t been downtown in a while so I’m not sure if Berkeley Cafe is still there or not , but it will be demolished. Some new news! 200 W. Morgan St. is located a 3 story old church. This will be replaced with a 20 story apartment tower with a internal parking deck & first floor retail.
12 Likes
I understand it is subjective but The Berkeley Cafe building infatuation seems much more about an individual’s nostalgia for it than “historic preservation”. Would anyone rank it in the top 25 “historic” structures in the city?
If this was being replaced by something similar in scope or an office I can get some of the pushback but this is a lot of density being added. I get that we want to prioritize other open lots, and I support those political carrots to encourage it, but the line has to be drawn somewhere and these are very NIMBY-like arguments against this development.
Cities evolve. My guess is that there is very good chance the Berkeley building replaced an even older building when it was built. To that effect, I would much rather focus on replacing this building with something more iconic than preventing it from happening at all to save a standard brick building that just happens to be old. JMO
12 Likes
I agree look Berkeley Cafe is an downtown institution however we can look at the Char-Grill rezoning and show that they’re can be new things. Maybe they even ask Berkeley to incorporate the new retail and restaurants.
YIMBY----------------------------------------------------NIMBY
So there is no between? If you’re just right of YIMBY, you’re “NIMBY-like” and if you’re just left of NIMBY, the NIMBY crowd says you’re “YIMBY-like”? Sorry, I don’t subscribe to that. Far left and far right here are not good for the city. That’s my opinion of course.
12 Likes
I mean it is a spectrum, so yes, this argument is closer to the NIMBY side for this particular development. Ironically, the far left and far right are both NIMBY so I agree with you!
It feels like a “middle ground” would be much closer to what I laid out. Pro density not just pro development, carrots to prioritize developing on empty lots and emphasizing design for premier locations.
1 Like
According to Google Maps, that’s this building. I didn’t know this was a church of any kind, but I’d be more than happy to see it go, especially for something tall that adds lots of housing.
8 Likes
It’s the office building for the Episcopal Diocese of N.C.
It has a fun real estate listing that references the Kimpton: 200 W Morgan - Raleigh - Properties for Sale | US | JLL
9 Likes