Here is a little summary of the homes in this requested NCOD for reference.
I pulled the Imaps data for all the homes in the proposed NCOD, & there are 119 total. One from 1932 on Woodburn. Then 102 homes were built between 1950 and 1955. First on Smedes last on Woodburn. I can see the 18ft height here.
After 1955, the “nub” house was built in 1965, then nothing happened until 1999.
Followed by a tear down in 2017 with a pretty tall home coming in. Has a chateau feel to it.
In 2018 these two homes were built in a lots split. And in 2019 this lots is becoming a new home or two from a teardown. That is 14-16 homes since 2000 and 104 from before 1963. I was expecting a more radical change to prompt the NCOD request.
The “neat” duplex is a single family house designed and owned by a retired local architect. He has an affinity for Scandinavian design.
I’m pretty sure the “nub” that was included in the overlay is the Everett Case house. I think it may have been designed by the architect who designed the original Cameron Village. It served as his office away from the university where they would view game film, have meetings, etc. It has history that’s significant to many State fans, which is probably why it persists.
I think a NOCD needs to have a certain level of neighborhood buy in before the council will consider it. If the Apartment and Condo owners don’t want to be a part of it, they shouldn’t be forced to just because the buildings are old.
It wouldn’t surprise me at all if they designed and permitted it as a duplex in case they decided to rent it out in the future.
It’s an interesting thought though. If you designed your house so that when you were ready to “downsize” all you have to do is add a single interior wall in order to rent out a whole 2,000sf unit. You have income generation built in to your primary residence and you don’t have to move to make it happen. It might not even be an inconvenience if it was designed right.
The thing that I find most curious in this whole NCOD thing is the delusion of permanency regarding housing stock. What’s being targeted is the rambling split-level ranch style which is now hitting the 50-year mark. They came in vogue when RTP was getting going and steamrollered over farmland instead of rebuilding older neighborhoods.
Now, those original owners are aging out and quite likely are looking to cash in on their investment. The problem is that it’s an uneven pattern, creating the patchwork of infill development like one sees in Anderson Heights. And, the opportunities to redevelop large scale ITB swaths like Whitaker Park are few and far between.
Great Britain may have had a good idea with their Green Belt plans to save farmland from development . But, conversely because of it, it’s one of the most expensive cities in the world to live in, requiring service and trade employees to live and commute into the City from some distance. The only saving grace there, one would suppose, is their well-developed rail infrastructure.
But, drawing a line against the tide won’t work in the long run.
I don’t even remotely blame the residents for wanting to keep the current feel and look of their neighborhoods. But with that being said, why would the city allow these NCOD’s to even happen? At least put expiration dates on them and make them renewable every 20 years or something like that. The city needs to retain the right to end these when it becomes apparent that they are not now a good thing for the city.
I grew up in North Ridge, and am very familiar with the overlay area of the so called “North Ridge West”. I don’t understand why these particular homes have organized into an NCOD. IMO, other than their proximity to North Ridge Elementary, there’s nothing particularly notable about this area. Tanbark, for many, is just a road used as a cut-through between Harps Mill and Hunting Ridge Roads.