…Dare I say he’s being blatantly racist with this rhetoric and who, specifically, it’s being directed at?
3 Likes
Their tagline should be “We support new development that we fully control”
1 Like
Since this is next door and on the same block I will put this here from the Triangle Biz Journal.
"Raleigh City Council recently approved a rezoning for a property at 423 S. Blount St… The original rezoning request was for 12 stories, but City Council only approved 68 feet above the first three stories, equating to about seven stories.
Al-Awar, with Blount Property Partners, said he is “excited to revitalize this part of downtown,” and make the hotel fit in with the rest of the neighborhood in a way that honors the history of the area.The hotel he plans to build will include approximately 90 rooms, along with retail and restaurant spaces on the ground floor. He plans to start construction next summer and open in either late 2026 or early 2027. Al-Awar has been vetting hotel management companies for the past year and a half. He said the design of the new hotel will have a “more European, modern aesthetic.”"
New Downtown Raleigh hotel with restaurant coming to Blount Street - Triangle Business Journal (bizjournals.com)
12 Likes
Thanks for the article!
Here’s the thread you’re looking for: Prince Hall Historic District - #303 by John
2 Likes
Intriguing! (emphasis mine)
Fake news. If the emphasis was yours, it would be in ALL CAPS!
I will add that this was all in the original plan, but I’d have to imagine that the plans changed as a result of the downgrading to 7 stories. There’s no way they’ll be able to do 90 rooms now. Will probably be more like 40-60, depending on how many floors are dedicated to things that aren’t rooms (barring a substantial change in the design of the building). The original plan had 10 rooms per floor and 3 floors not dedicated to bedrooms, which is where the 90 number came from.
16 Likes
I do not have a sub but this headline looks appropriately scare mongering for the N&O
https://www.newsobserver.com/news/local/article291483375.html
1 Like
If anything, I’m annoyed that they took away half the height of the hotel. A taller, skinny-ish hotel with its unique design would stand out nicely there. I couldn’t care less about some boarded up brick building with a sketchy convenience store with barred windows, much less the adjacent gravel lot. I hate what some people in this city think historic means.
8 Likes
Plus they’re redoing that brick building as part of the project, it’s a win if you DO care about it, too.
1 Like
Yeah and that’s the other thing. When I learned about that, I’m like… This is a slam dunk! Historical preservation isn’t supposed to be letting everything in an area fall into ruin and remain untouched, so you can say, hey that used to be something. It’s about keeping the structures, keeping them relevant and useful, but also incorporating them into an active city.
4 Likes
People that keep saying that the area needs to be protected should actually look into the recommendations when the overlay was added. As I’ve mentioned earlier, the NC Department of Natural and Cultural Resources recommended to NOT include the vacant lots in the Prince Hall.
The overlay district effectively put a hold on the area. The only ones that were able to do anything were only able to do so because they got themselves removed from the overlay. I don’t believe a single lot went forward with construction while in the overlay district.
3 Likes
The article was full of quotes that are just as bad as you imagine, building looming over the PHMH, the city doesn’t care about black history, etc. It does appear that the Mason’s building is not part of the project, they do want to support it, and have applied for a federal grant to help the PH Masons out, but it will not be restored as part of the project.
1 Like
One of the most ridiculous things I keep seeing about this is the talk that the proposed new hotel would be significantly taller than anything in the area. But the height of the building was scaled down to match the height of the apartment/hotel development going up just down the street. The discourse from the historical preservation society keeps making it sound like this thing is going to tower over everything in the area.
I get that there are extenuating circumstances in some cases, but the development of any vacant lots that are sitting in a city’s downtown core should be seen as a big win.
7 Likes
Apparently a shadow by any other name…
Hi there - there have actually been significant changes to properties within the district (including vacant lots) since the district took effect in 2012. The Ten at Person, the relocation and rehabilitation of three structures that would have otherwise been demolished to S. Bloodworth, including the Guest House, and new houses on the 200-blocks of E. Cabarrus and E. Lenoir, as well as the 300-block of E. Davie were all once vacant lots that were developed within the confines of the historic district. Of the 39 vacant lots that existed upon designation, ten have since been infilled since 2012. More than two dozen houses/commercial buildings have been rehabilitated since the district was designated in 2012 - far more activity than what occurred in the years prior to designation. A local historic district does not preserve a specific area in amber; it’s a mechanism to sensitively guide change that’s compatible with the historically, architecturally, or culturally significant resources that surrounds it.
Not counting last week’s decision, 24 parcels have been removed from the district since the first three were taken out in 2015. While plans might be in the works, not a single one of those lots have been “redeveloped” so far, including the proposed hotel adjacent to McDonald’s. Exactly zero lots have gone forward with construction since their removal from the historic district.
5 Likes
I was strictly referring to vacant lots, not ones with existing structures. Additionally, the Acorn was originally in the district, removed, and then developed, so you can’t say that none of the lots removed were developed.
Do you happen to know which original vacant lots were built? The only one that comes to mind is a single family home near the Acorn. It’s possible that other single family homes were constructed, but I’d argue that the design of a single family home makes a lot less sense on Blount Street.
So, strictly referring to vacant lots, ten of the 39 have been redeveloped over the course of 12 years. The Acorn was never within the adopted district’s boundaries, so it was not “removed.” When the City hired a historic preservation consultant to prepare a “proposed historic district” report with recommended boundaries in 2011, the lot that stretched from S. Person to S. Blount (the old Sanders Ford lot, half of which is now the Acorn) was recommended to be included in the district - as well as the huge block that includes the Lincoln, Pope House, etc. However, early on - almost at the outset - those two giant chunks were taken out. So, I stand by my statement that none of the lots that were adopted as part of the district by City Council in 2012 - and subsequently removed - have been developed.
As far as where the infill is located - besides the cool new house on the 200-block of E. Cabarrus, there are infill houses at 324 E. Davie and 219 E. Lenoir. You might not have noticed them before because they “fit” perfectly within the district. The site of the Ten at Person included numerous vacant lots…every single one of these projects were designed within the confines of the Certificate of Appropriateness process. The houses at 420, 422, and 432 S. Bloodworth were all vacant lots in 2012 that subsequently received historic houses that would have otherwise been demolished - also a COA process.
4 Likes
Went back through and you are correct in that the Acorn wasn’t part of the district. However, one thing that I’ll also add is that only 3 parcels were removed a while ago that haven’t been redeveloped back in 2015. The other parcels that were removed were all removed in the last 2 years (2022 and 2023). I know you mentioned that new parcels had been removed, but I felt it was important to highlight as that isn’t really enough evidence to make me thing nothing is or will happen to those lots yet.
Additionally, a unique problem of the district, the vast majority of the owners that responded the survey want the HOD removed from their property. This is not something you’d see in any of the other historic neighborhoods in downtown Raleigh. To what end should we continue to apply the unique restrictions of an HOD on unwilling participants, which is appears is likely to be the case?
Not to be a debbie downer, but this rendering is not binding. With rezonings, they pretty much never are.
While there are some conditions, there is quite a lot of room for the developer to “value engineer” it down. Given that they have been forced to downsize the project, that they have to bankroll restoration of the Prince Hall building, and that the conditions do give them latitude to go for something more basic, I would be extremely surprised if they don’t.
The relevant conditions from the adopted rezoning are:
Note:
- Only the first floor has the material restriction. Even then, it says “metal” which presumably could include cheap metal panels.
- “Compatible” is a highly subjective term with a lot of wiggle room. Most likely if the developer can get their architect to say it’s “compatible” then that’s all that will be needed.
In addition to aesthetics, being chopped down to 7 stories often involves a downgrade in construction quality, from poured concrete or heavy steel, to something more like 5+1, or in the case of hotels, light steel frame construction. Along with the less robust structural aspects come limits in the exterior treatments that are possible.
So while the rendering looks fantastic, in the end this building is probably going to look somewhat worse. It is likely to look pretty much indistinguishable from every other seven story hotel or apartment building in this city.
2 Likes