511 S Bloodworth St townhomes
15 Likes
Listened to it. I guess per the rules, I get it. But damn, its a parking lot on the very edge of the “district”. And it would fix up the main building of the district too. Sometimes we just need common sense. The architect seemed so genuine and thoughtful about the project.
And… this is an example of what is designed by that angry man:
8 Likes
That’s a pretty nicely designed road salt warehouse, I’ve got to say.
3 Likes
Haven’t watched the video or listened to the allegedly cranky architect, but just in response to the dig at this house:
I toured it back in 2012 as part of the AIA Triangle Homes tour… and while it felt way too cold/sterile for my taste, I have to admit it’s very thoughtfully designed and quite creative in many respects, despite the austere front approach. It won the Matsumoto Prize for architecture and an AIA Triangle Award. More photos here.
2 Likes
I’m sure the house is nice. And honestly, don’t mind the look. But when you aggressively belittle another architect for a perceived lack of proportion studies and this is also the exterior look you are presenting. 
It’s almost as if looks are subjective and maybe there should be some flexibilty and common sense about a 13-story hotel in the middle of downtown. Not sure who is negatively impacted by this hotel in a parking lot.
4 Likes
Just saying that I don’t think a pic of this house is some kind of “gotcha” when it’s critically acclaimed by the design community and far more thoughtfully designed than the hotel.
Looks are subjective, but I’d argue that design and urban principles, less so. Any architecture student would’ve gotten absolutely obliterated if they showed up to a freshman-year design crit with this shit, so I have little sympathy for criticism of a real proposal that appears this lazy and sloppy – it’s going to be there for decades to come, and that does impact everyone.
But I’ll have to watch the video later to see if I think the dude’s out of line. Again, I have no context for what he specifically said.
1 Like
I don’t know how anyone gets that he was “belittling” for a “perceived lack of proportion studies.” This developer came requesting a height/footprint that isn’t found in a single other historic district, and he provided next to zero proof/rationale/explanation as to why it should be approved. Proportion studies are provided for rezoning/COA cases allllll the time - it’s not a crazy thing to be looking for, particularly when you’re making an unprecedented ask. This wasn’t in any way a serious application, the developer was willfully unprepared, and it’s absurd to for anyone to claim that the RHDC “wasted his time” when you’re talking about a group of people who are literally volunteering hours and hours of their time with zero reward. It’s up to developers to provide alllllllllll the information that’s needed in order to arrive at an informed decision - and it’s clear that this developer didn’t even come close. Also, if you listen to the entire case - they didn’t deny outright. The developer chose a yes/no decision that night instead of deferring for additional tweaking. It’s a crap design, and those north and east walls are an insult to architecture, downtown, this area, and on and on - my 8-year old could do better. I’d love to arrive at the day when people in this city aren’t so pickme desperate for anything and everything that they don’t care if it’s godawful.
Also, it’s super bizarre to heckle an architect’s design for a house that wasn’t actually constructed in a historic district and didn’t require a Certificate of Appropriateness to build.
1 Like
I live relatively close by to this spot. The board of the COA appears to be filled with architects, so I defer to them as they know a lot about me.
For the record, I don’t think the guy being discussed was grumpy or belittling the architect here. He mentioned a couple of times that he thinks this is an incredibly interesting proposal and wants this particular hotel to be a benchmark and a standard for other buildings that want to develop something in this area.
I think the primary points given are here by the architect:
If I keep going back and forth, I would rather you turn me down tonight…and let me go to city council than to sit here and keep dragging this because this is a very very very expensive process.
He makes a good point in that no other building has to go through the same process and makes a point that it really doesn’t make sense to have these kinds of restrictions in a historic overlay district that appears to be, from my perception, mostly parking lots.
Here’s the perspective from the architect on the COA:
He also makes a good point. He understands that developing in this area is not economically feasible and it will continue to suffer until we can add height. However, he wants to make sure that what is developed there is thoughtful and follows a process that can serve as the benchmark for future plans for other places that attempt to build in this area.
Personally, I agree with both of them. It’s a bit ridiculous that he has to go through all of these things, but it would better serve the community to have a benchmark for others to follow.
The one thing I disagree with him on is that I don’t think this expensive benchmark should be bankrolled by this architect. It should be up to the COA or the City Council to develop a solution that serves as the benchmark of how someone can build in an economically feasible way here.
4 Likes
(EDIT: oops, this was meant as a reply to @Acornz).
I agree. Just watched the videos and, yeah, Rees is super abrasive and doesn’t come across well. But I now understand that he wasn’t critiquing the design at all, nor the proportions of the proposal.
He simply asked for the applicant to show they did the work required of the application. When you are proposing something in a historic district, it is on you to do the analysis to make the case for why it is responsive to and appropriate for its context. As architects, we should be prepared to show rather than tell, and these hearings are not unlike legal cases. You have to provide evidence (in this case diagrams and analyses) that support your case. No one on the commission was asking for anything unreasonable or out of the ordinary.
It was particularly shocking to hear the applicant – when asked about proportion studies – say that he “doesn’t believe in proportion studies.” Not doing him any favors or helping him come across as thoughtful or sensitive to the context he’s building in.
5 Likes
I live literally on the other side of the road from the east boundary of Prince Hall District. There’s hardly anything left that is remotely historic left. The most historically significant structure here is maybe the church and Estey Hall and Lincoln Theatre aren’t even in the boundary. It’s mostly parking lots and some single family homes–I would say the majority of people that now live in this area are wealthy and white. So what historic preservation does an empty lot need?
It’s almost like a scheme to prevent development than to preserve anything.
14 Likes
It feels more like certain residents in Historic Oakwood uses this district as a buffer to protect their designation as a Historic Overlay district. I’ve seen a lot of the arguments against developing in the Prince Hall district, removing properties from the overlay district, and even rezoning in areas near the overlay district come directly from this group of people.
Anyone that has walked through the Prince Hall historic overlay knows that the vast majority of the historic structures here have been torn down. It’s ridiculously stupid. To Rees’s point, it’s not economically viable to develop to the standards that the overlay district has in place. We need to give potential developers a plan to follow that will allow them to build in an economically viable way in this area or the parking lots will remain.
7 Likes
That’s a separate argument and I don’t disagree.
But ok, you feel that this shouldn’t be a historic district. Did you expect the commission to dissolve the historic district for this applicant? Or make a special exception? That would open them up to any number of legal challenges.
There is a process in place. Maybe we think the process is stupid, but all I see in the video is the commission asking the applicant to do the standard work required of everyone else. The suggestion that they’re trying to prevent development in this specific instance seems unsubstantiated to me.
I could justify the scrutiny if any of the Historic District even looked cohesive, attractive, vibrant, or anything besides a slum. It’s a dump, who are we kidding, and to act like this isn’t already in its early stages miles ahead of anything else in the district, is a joke.
The funny part is we continue to act like this is an isolated instance or that other developers don’t keep tabs on these applications. Who the hell wants to go through this crap, and instead just try their hand with the town of Zebulon or Knightdale.
6 Likes
I just don’t think doing the bare minimum is the huge deal that y’all are making it out to be. We do more than this level of study for any old client presentation. It’s really not that complicated. Maybe the developer should’ve hired a competent architect who can read the rules for submission, and you know, actually do the job he was paid to do. 
2 Likes
Ah, if there’s one thing this board that can be counted on, it’s that all of Raleigh’s armchair experts are right here. I mean, this is quite a gaggle - “There’s hardly anything left that is remotely historic left,” and “it’s a dump.” I guess the only history that’s “real history” for ya’ll is the fancy white people’s history - cause it’s definitely not the people who were forcibly contained in certain sections of the city that everyone now wants to develop. I mean, the tears on here about Goodnight’s and the Berkley alone. Whew.
Y’all act like this neighborhood being a historic district was pulled out of a hat or tapped with a fairy wand. I went on a walking tour a few years ago and read up on it afterward - it’s actually pretty cool. I learned more about it when I was following the Shaw case. The city actually hired real experts to write a pretty long, interesting report that’s easily available online for anyone to consult without having to pull out personal opinion presented as “facts” out of thin air.
At the end of the day, everyone shit all over this design a few weeks back and virtually nothing changed between then and last week. It’s awful. Leaving height out of the conversation - the north and east walls are an absolute joke. This was not a serious application by a serious developer trying to make even minimal effort to go through the exact same process that scores and scores of people have to go through. I mean, this dude - this “designer” who isn’t even an actual architect - couldn’t even provide basic info, and then has the audacity to whine about “how expensive” this is. It’s hysterical that people on here are crying and commiserating over a developer spending 3/4 mil 1.5 years ago on a small vacant lot while fully knowing it was in a regulated historic district and now wahhhhhh can’t slam-dunk his atrocious building in a historic Black neighborhood.
Not to interject and pretend I know as much as actual experts, but as I specified earlier:
It was the recommendation of the North Carolina Department of Natural and Cultural Resources to not include empty lots in the original historic map. And they did it anyways. As you can see, it’s caused quite a few problems. Notably, the fact that the historic district has had issues in finding economically viable ways to develop those properties.
One of the most historic streets in the whole place is Stronachs Alley, which is nothing more than a shell of what it used to be.
I mean, this dude - this “designer” who isn’t even an actual architect
He is an actual architect and has designed many buildings. He also sought out $750k in funding for the masonic temple next door that is boarded up and has worked with them every week for the last year. Check yourself.
5 Likes
I just realized who this guy is. Not to be too pedantic, but he’s actually not an architect – you have to be licensed to legally call yourself one, and he isn’t. He did go to school for architecture though.
He has developed other things locally (most notably The Saint Townhomes) but the actual designer of those was one of my classmates who worked for him for a few years. If he’s still doing things the same way, he uses cheap inexperienced labor for design work and then turns it over to a licensed architect for construction documents.
Feel free to take another 3 years off from here if it’s too much for you. Thanks for implying we’re all a bunch of racists because we disagree with you. That’s a nice touch.
Unrelated, but it’s spelled "y’all.”
2 Likes
Homie, I’m pretty sure most anyone on here would be just as mad as we (most of us) were about the Berkely building, or the Goodnights building, if we had received news that the Prince Hall Masonic Lodge or Lincoln Theatre (originally a movie theater for black folks), for example, were slated to be demolished. You’re speaking ill of an entire group of unique individuals on a discussion forum because of the words of one guy. Relax.
3 Likes
Thanks for the callout. I was unaware. He had been introduced as the architect to me in the neighborhood meeting regarding the deal. I assume he actually said head of the architecture firm and I misinterpreted it.