Possible New Development Locations and Projects - Rezonings

Yes, the new development was linked by oakcityimby when I first asked about the other development in the area. My comment about the surrounding residential to the west and south are correct, including the 7 story Bloomsbury south of the rezoning request. Jake was confused by the name of the existing Bloomsbury building and was “lmao,” about it which is why a description of the building was directed at him. Maybe you didn’t read all the comments. My initial reply was about the article for the current rezoning and Boylan heights. Sorry for the long reply. It feels like people are constantly half reading comments on here and writing obnoxious reply’s or mansplaining super simple concepts.


I would LOVE to have a mansplaining emoji!!!


I don’t find myself saying this often but I honestly think something shorter here (at the Hargett and Boylan site) would be better. A 6-10 story building would fit in nicely next to the existing Bloomsbury building and would likely be a lot more palatable to nearby residents.


Interesting to hear another opinion!

I’ll argue for 20 - it’s surrounded by development sites, it’s on the Hillsborough axis of bigger buildings, it’s got a nice wide canyon of train tracks between it an the closest suburban-scale neighborhood. It’s a real “if not here, then where?” sort of site for me.

It’ll make the Boylan bridge a real experience - jumping from a historic district right into the city, with the Bloomsbury Estates building as an intermediate step up. Plus I think that building is kind of tacky and don’t mind it being blocked off from a bunch of viewing angles :wink:


I think that 20 stories here wouldn’t be awful, and I do agree that the train tracks do create a pretty big buffer between there and Boylan Heights.

I’d also be lying if I said I didn’t wanna see that view coming over the bridge.

I’m really just happy we’ll likely be seeing something new there in the not too distant future.


But its automatic TOD.

Its kind of amusing to hear that people are complaining about a nice new high rise 3-4 blocks away and over a bridge when their backyard is literally bordered by a maximum security prison.


Others have said it, but I too call bullshit on this being Boylan Heights.


Let’s hear it! Is this development close enough to Boylan Heights for them to have a legitimate gripe? Or is this just “not in my back yard across the bridge and tracks” kind of situation?

  • Yes, this is basically Boylan Heights
  • Far enough away from Boylan Heights

0 voters

10000% yes. Times have changed, the city has grown tenfold since then.


I think 100% of 43 voters is enough to call it.


The discussions I’ve seen on the Boylan Facebook group regarding the BRT on Western (literally in some Boylan residents’ front or back yards) have not been in opposition but more in line with wondering how the design will affect them. Keep in mind that some Boylan Heights properties were seized in their entirety by eminent domain to build Western, so the concern from people who live adjacent is not invalid.

This simply isn’t true. Boylan serves as a connection to Western Blvd. from Hillsborough St. It’s already heavily trafficked for a pedestrian friendly neighborhood. Drivers speed and don’t take the stop signs seriously because they’re in a hurry to get to Western, and I’ve personally almost been hit by people running them recently. Additional traffic between Western and Hillsborough via Boylan directly affects the neighborhood.

Not to mention that once the railroad crossings on Hargett and Cabarrus are closed to vehicles, traffic west of the wye will funnel to Boylan to access Western.

I don’t think it’s unreasonable for Boylan Heights residents to ask for traffic calming on Boylan if this zoning is approved, and even if it’s not. If the property is redeveloped by right (hello, 7-story Texas donut apartments), there will likely be more vehicles traveling on Boylan.


The meeting I went to where residents from Boylan were voicing concern for the developments across the bridge had individuals speaking against BRT, explicitly stating that Raleigh doesnt need it.

And I agree, traffic calming measures are definitely needed. Have ridden in many an Uber down Boylan that rolled through the stop signs.


Deb, you live downtown. There will be traffic. There will be drivers that, being human, sometimes drive poorly. There may even be noise. I’m sorry that this isn’t the sleepy little government town that it used to be but thems the breaks.

If what you really want is a stop sign or a speed bump or whatever then ok great. But when the crux of your request is “limit the residents in my area to reduce the traffic I have to deal with” you are asking the City to allocate resources to your benefit.

So the City would have to weigh more available housing and increased tax base on one hand versus a couple minutes more on your commute on the other. I personally think that the City should assign lots of weight to things like housing supply and tax base because they benefit many people, and should ignore minor inconveniences suffered by a few people.

I’m sorry if I’ve misapprehended what exactly your position here is but it certainly looks like you’re in the “no” camp.


I think her point traffic calming on Boylan is a great one, though. I run in that area a lot, and it always feels like playing chicken with the cars crossing it.


If they try traffic calming, I’d love to point out what’s been done up on Brentwood. I traverse that slalom twice weekly when going to my aikido dojo. And, it’s definitely the most bizarre traffic acid trip that I’ve ever encountered.


I’ll also throw in my agreement. Building housing, offices, retail, whatever, shouldn’t be stopped cause of traffic. WHEN traffic issues arise, we have the tools to address it on the streets themselves.

I would hope that a taller tower here creates more pedestrians so we can start to nudge the streets into a friendlier place for them rather than for vehicles passing through.


So I won’t speak for Deb, but I live in a similar area and I agree with what she is saying.

I don’t agree with the “people are human so you’ll have to deal with almost getting hit by a car multiple times a week when you are in a crosswalk trying to walk your dog because they simply can’t be bothered to stop at stop signs” vibe that your post seems to indicate. Let me know if I’m interpreting that incorrectly, because that’s honestly how it comes across.

There is a spectrum of response to development all the way from “build everything as big as you can as quickly as you can” to “I don’t want anything built at all”. I think most people fall in the middle. People are allowed to be concerned about how things will impact their lives. I don’t have a lot of patience for trying to shut down development for the sake of people’s comfort with things staying exactly how they remember their neighborhood being 10 years ago, but I also don’t have a lot of patience completely discrediting concerns that people have.

There are SO many ways to address issues and concerns. Part of the purpose for these public meetings are to understand what those concerns are so that they can be taken into account for city planning. Maybe it’s just the engineer in me, but I truly believe that there is a solution for everything and I believe that the city has a responsibility to understand the concerns and make appropriate decisions on how to address them (or not in some circumstances). It will never make everyone happy, but that’s how it’s supposed to work. And if the rezone is approved, then hopefully the city has either looked at the existing infrastructure and determined that it can support the influx of that many more people or is willing to invest in the infrastructure so that it can.


I’m sorry about what happened to you and your dog but I don’t think I was saying that. Of course the city should do what it reasonably can to make the streets safer for everyone. If there’s a real traffic issue, let’s find a real traffic solution. But cities are for people to live in, and if your solution is to stop more people from living downtown then I think you’re throwing the baby out with the bathwater. If you limit the street to 40 single family houses then fewer people would run stop signs. If nobody lived there it would be even fewer.

I get it. Honestly. But we also don’t have to assume that everyone is dealing in good faith. Traffic and shadows are clichés for a reason. Doesn’t mean that it’s absolutely never true but too many people have played the boy who cried wolf before. Too often, it’s people in affluent neighborhoods using their outsized influence to keep multifamily developments out for one reason or another. So I’m inclined to be skeptical.

My fault if my first reply was too harsh


Deb didn’t say anything about being against the proposal because of traffic, and she’s a long-time poster in this forum that I’ve never seen express any NIMBY sentiment. I think you should assume she’s responding in good faith, and that goes for anyone else in these forums. All she said was: this proposal affects the neighborhood, and traffic calming is needed regardless of whether or not the rezoning passes. Seems reasonable to me.