Prince Hall Historic District

[dtraleigh]

I wanted to write a blog post about the Prince Hall HOD and how it looks like owners, with most likely a desire to develop, are actually eroding the boundaries of the district. What that means, I’m not sure. I always thought a HOD was used to preserve and runs counter to spurring development. Since there are empty lots in the district, how do you encourage new buildings?

This brought me to diving into the recent denied case (at the planning commission) at 423 South Blount. It’s a parking lot right now zoned for up to 3 stories. That makes no sense to me as the lot is two blocks off Fayetteville Street. I feel that zoning and the HOD requirements basically keep this lot frozen in time. I also feel that the same thing is happening to other lots.

Back to the boundaries, you can see the original boundaries in my first post in this topic. Here’s a former map and another I pulled from the rezoning case.

Slowly, property owners are getting out of the district. Shaw had property removed and another, Beginning & Beyond Child Development Center, who actually own a lot of property along Bloodworth, are also out now from the original boundaries.

Again, what does this mean and how can you develop empty land that’s in a historic district? Should it be? I never really followed this one since it was first proposed but the other HODs, like Oakwood or Boylan Heights, make more sense as those areas are more “complete”.

Now the real story could be that there are few structures left in Prince Hall due to historic red lining, racial history, etc. (which I believe all that) and that makes Prince Hall a different HOD case. But I just can’t buy some of these arguments against development here when all we have is dirt and asphalt lots. I mean some of these notes in the rezoning case sound completely backwards to me.

“The removal can be justified if it is part of a comprehensive update of the 2012
boundary. The district’s original boundary included vacant lots and noncontributing
resources that this office recommended excluding in 2011. Subsequent boundary
reductions have removed some vacant lots, as this proposal does, but those
reductions, like this one, were made to avoid regulation rather than create a better
boundary.”

• The rezoning request may present visual impacts to the Prince Hall neighborhood.
• The request would also weaken the protection for this historic area of Raleigh

Look what we’re missing out on year after year as 423 South Blount doesn’t get developed.

[xdavidj]

I’ve closely followed this case and even attended one of the neighborhood meetings regarding 423 South Blount Street, where I spoke to the architect/developer. Although the following opinions are my own and not sourced from those individuals, I wanted to share my thoughts on the matter.

This brought me to diving into the recent denied case (at the planning commission) at 423 South Blount. It’s a parking lot right now zoned for up to 3 stories. That makes no sense to me as the lot is two blocks off Fayetteville Street. I feel that zoning and the HOD requirements basically keep this lot frozen in time. I also feel that the same thing is happening to other lots.

I wholeheartedly agree with this assessment. Take, for instance, the recent sale of 423 S Blount St., which fetched $775,000 for a mere 0.13 acres. It’s reasonable to assume that other owners of empty lots in the Prince Hall district are also aware of this. The land would hold far greater value if it were developed, especially if it could be built to a greater height. As a result, we find ourselves in a deadlock. These properties will remain undeveloped because their owners believe they are not being adequately valued based on their potential.

There is a spokesperson advocating for the preservation of this district, making comparisons to Oakwood and stating that something like this would never happen there. However, the situation in Oakwood is vastly different. Oakwood is predominantly comprised of houses, with very few empty lots, and it is not located in such close proximity to the central business district.

Frankly, it’s disheartening. If the neighborhood had been preserved, it could have become a captivating and historically rich area with stories to tell. An article by WRAL (linked here: WRAL article) aptly captures the essence of this sentiment.

“It was a little neighborhood unto itself. All the houses faced inward. Although the houses that lined Stronachs Alley are no longer standing, the alley pathway remains evident and is an important part of the city’s history,”.

Many individuals have expressed that they don’t merely desire a plaque acknowledging the historical significance of the area. Yet, even that would be far better than the current state of affairs. The Pope House is all that’s left of that area. It needs to be preserved. The empty lots do not.

I’ve posted this video before, and I’ll post it again. It’s as if Livable Raleigh could have written the script:

Parking Lot in Historic Old Town Scottsdale Needs to be Preserved

[Mitch]

@dtraleigh

I mean some of these notes in the rezoning case sound completely backwards to me.

I find this slide confusing too. I think the Reason for Opposed Vote(s) section is actually addressing the opinion of Miller and Rains’ who, it seems, were in opposition of the motion to deny the removal (i.e. they were in favor of allowing the plot to be removed).

What is even more confusing is that after the sentence

furthermore Denial is reasonable and in the public interest because:

… they don’t list any supporting reasoning for the denial at all, not even in the “Reasonableness and Public Interest” section; they only list positives??

[Jake]

Mitch, you’re trying to make sense out of nonsense. Don’t drive yourself crazy! It literally lists all positive aspects, even going as far as to say it’s Consistent with the Future Land Use Map and Consistent with the relevant policies in the Comprehensive Plan, then immediately says Denial is reasonable and in the public interest literally “because” - it’s nonsense, and hopefully the Council completely ignores this BS.

[xdavidj]

Not sure if they listed the denial in the paper. I watched the deliberation myself. The only reason for denial is that they were no longer comfortable pulling more lots out of the Prince Hall district. Based on conversations from both them and the council, they would prefer to make a decision on the Prince Hall district as a whole.

I don’t think the council will accept or deny this case until they’ve had a deeper conversation about the empty lots sitting in the Prince Hall district. I think this outright denial could be a blessing in disguise. The North Carolina Department of Natural and Cultural Resources themselves claimed that their recommendation was to NOT include vacant lots in the original Prince Hall historic district.

[thehappysmith]

I do believe the entire district needs to be reconsidered, perhaps radically, but this specific case is such a loss. The developer wanted to assist in preserving one of the only actual historic properties left in the district, a building that could serve as an anchor for the neighborhood and that is likely to suffer catastrophic decline in the short term if nothing is done to it. Worrying about a vacant lot because of the potential precedent it sets could very well ultimately cost the district one of its few genuinely valuable historic properties.

The city absolutely must expedite whatever reconsideration of the Prince Hall District they want to while they have an interested developer still holding on to that property. That building literally gave the district its name. Its loss would leave the district essentially meaningless. The city council should empanel a Prince Hall committee to propose a vision for the district’s future on a very short timetable (like, by the end of q3) and figure out a way to adjust the district’s definition to allow said vision to be put in place.

[John]

Let’s preserve all those historic surface parking lots. needs a place to park.

[John]

Back to serious conversation from my sarcastic diversion about surface parking lots…

From a historic preservation perspective, what exactly is the desired outcome, and is there agreement among a variety of players about that outcome?
Is the vision to preserve buildings in place?
Is the vision to see the land itself as hallowed ground like it is with cemeteries or some legacy churches that have been abandoned by their congregations?
What is the strategy to preserve and/or restore the buildings?
Is the vision to recreate buildings that have long since been torn down in service of parking?
What are we actually trying to do here?
If we are trying to preserve buildings and tell a story with them, why can’t they be consolidated and fill in some of these empty lots and parking?
If we are going to prevent building on this land and leave it as is, then call it what it is and label it as such in our city maps. Don’t pretend that someone has the right to build something of a certain scale. This of course will deflate the value of the land since it can’t be developed to its potential and that might not sit well with the property owners.
Usually an outsider can visit a historic district, and while maybe not knowing the story of the district, they may know that they are in a historic district: not just an old weathered neighborhood with missing buildings. I’m not sure that a random visitor to this district would perceive that there’s a story to learn by what they see.

[Boltman]

We actually agree on this. The perception from an outsider is that this is a rundown section of the city. Raleigh caters to to the whims of any vocal minority and nothing has a chance to improve for the greater good.

[oakcityyimby]

100% agree with you and @Boltman. It feels like it was made a full historic district more out of equity than actually being a cohesive district full of historic buildings. Just blanket preserve anything built before 1960 and free the vacant lots to be built up like the rest of downtown. Hell, see if you can do something cool with Stronach’s Alley, and people will actually notice it, versus feeling like a sad parking lot access driveway.

[John]

Personally, I’d consolidate the historic structures to the core of the district and then restore them and the neighborhood to create an identity for the district. Use revenues from the sale of the remaining developable properties in the district to make it happen.
It’s not like Raleigh hasn’t moved historic buildings to new locations or had a strategy around doing so (e.g., further north on Blount).
Don’t just virtue signal, do something!!!

[dtraleigh]

Sounds like we may ideas for a new district type. It’s not a historic overlay and it’s not quite an improvement district but something in-between.

I guess when you look at the planning tools, HOD was the closest thing they could think of. Perhaps a new planning tool is needed here.

[trueurbanist]

Based on my limited knowledge, a community land trust could be beneficial to those trying to preserve the neighborhood while preventing gentrification.

Here are a few links with information about CLTs in Boston and Massachusetts:

• https://www.bnclt.org/

• Greater Boston CLT Network — DSNI

•Massachusetts CLTs - Schumacher Center for a New Economics

I’ve mentioned this before but this allows the community to collectively own land in their neighborhood and be able to somewhat control the amount of market rate housing that can be produced… I may be wrong so don’t hold me to that statement. Regardless, this seems like a plausible option for those concerned about the area being forgotten or what not.

[Kanatenah]

And that McDonalds!!

[John]

Don’t even get me started with downtown’s 2 McDonald’s. Both are drive-thru site planned disasters & NOT what should be downtown in that format IMO.

[xdavidj]

I’m always fucking nervous turning that corner right in front of the drive through at that mcdonalds. It’s so poorly designed and looks incredibly dangerous.

[John]

I think that downtown shouldn’t have drive-thru businesses.

[Boltman]

Ever been in that particular McDonald’s? Better use the drive thru unless you want a fentanyl contact high. Ready for the down vote …

[dtraleigh]

Almost finished.

[xdavidj]

Everyone’s favorite Single Family House has garage door/windows now