Okay but couldn’t that just be merged in with the planning commission that kinda echos that.
I have never seen the appearance commission make a building worse. I have only ever seen them force developers to do better, so I don’t understand why you think we’d see better proposals without one.
The appearance commission is in part responsible for this monstrosity not being built mere blocks from our state Capitol
and ultimately getting replaced by the Pendo tower.
6 Likes
You’re about to trigger some folx into getting exzited about ‘new’ construx, LoLs…
Never seen this rendering before lol. It gives me a headache to look at it and figure out what all’s happening.
1 Like
lol. Can’t get past the paywall now, but I distinctly remember this N&O article that went something along the lines of “Two tales of proposed towers on Hillsborough St.” It compared 400H vs 301H’s reception by the appearance commission, the former: a thoughtful presentation with designers that told the story of how the tower was rooted in place and responded to neighboring context and the UDO, the latter: a total piece of shit 
.
I think it went in front of/was trashed by the Appearance Commission twice before the owner sold to another developer. I think it was a great example of the process working as it should.
6 Likes
its like cabrini green was placed on top
1 Like
Here’s a question - If the appearance commission can pull the plug on said monstrosity, why can they not also say “We prefer the appearance of this old building you want to tear down so you need to incorporate it into this development or else sell the land to someone who will “do better?””
The argument is always that we can’t tell anyone what to do with their private property but we have an appearance commission, a zoning board, a planning commision, and a 561 page UDO who’s sole purpose is to quite literally tell people what they can and cannot do with their private property. Why are historic buildings left out of the mix? Don’t we also have some type of historic review board?
I feel like the precedent is set to say no to developers but council always acts like their hands are tied and there is nothing to be done. They own the property so they can “develop by right.”
Anyways, its encouraging to know that the appearance commission actually did some good in this case because there are far too many who would applaud this type of stuff. After all, something is better than nothing 
3 Likes
Even though Raleigh has an appearance committee, zoning board, planning committee and UDO, none of them can arbitrarily force a developer to keep buildings on their property unless they are already designated historical. Unless it’s coded in the law it’s illegal for them to even try. Most developers will work with committees to come up with a design that works with the community and within existing laws/ ordnances, but as long as the project is within such building code, there isn’t much they can do to stop these tear downs.
2 Likes
If I understand correctly, they can’t even force a developer to keep buildings on their property EVEN IF they are designated historical. The only remedy, which isn’t even one tbh, is that they can delay it for a year.
1 Like
Solution - CODE IT INTO LAW!!!
If we can enforce setbacks and parking minimums, ban corner stores, impose height restrictions, dictate signage, or any number of ridiculous rules and regulations that developers have to abide then surely we can protect our historic assets. It doesn’t have to be arbitrary.
4 Likes
Unfortunately this is correct… from page 82 of the Historic District and Landmarks :
“Demolition of significant buildings, structures, sites, archaeological resources,
objects, or trees is discouraged. Given the irreversible nature of demolition, full
deliberation of all alternatives before action is essential. State enabling
legislation and city ordinances provide that an application for a certificate of
appropriateness authorizing demolition of a building, structure, or site may not
be denied, unless the State Historic Preservation Officer has made a
determination that the property has statewide significance. However, the
authorization date of such a certificate may be delayed by the commission for up
to 365 days from the date of approval. The purpose of this delay period is to
give the commission adequate time to explore every alternative to the
destruction of the historic resource. Because the commission and the City
Council take the loss of resources in the historic districts and proposed historic
districts very seriously, use of the delay time is extremely important in reviewing
all possibilities for saving a threatened structure. During the delay, it is
important that the building is protected so that it does not deteriorate.”
3 Likes
Again, someone will have to correct me if I’m wrong, but if remember correctly, the State doesn’t allow this. I could be wrong, though, and am happy to be corrected, but I don’t think it’s as simple as “code it into law”. Getting things done in the legislature is much much more difficult than at the city council table.
3 Likes
Land is just too valuable. It is a shame to lose our history but there really are no brakes except the 1 year delay. Too bad for some of those iconic places. But such is progress and if you don’t own it, you don’t control it.
I don’t see why this would be a state issue. How is it done in places like Charleston or Savannah?
As Chad was saying, I believe this is state law in NC. Savannah and Charleston obviously are in different states which may have completely different laws. And as we all know, getting the legislature here to do anything reasonable is almost impossible.
4 Likes
I was told while doing a historic preservation research project elsewhere in eastern NC that the one exception to the one year demolition delay guideline is in New Bern, where the local historic preservation commission can apparently indefinitely delay demolition of a historic property. I wasn’t able to confirm this in the state statutes but this would be a nice option for other jurisdictions to have.
5 Likes
31 Likes
Great shots. This one has been hard to get from ground level.
6 Likes
When could we see the first floor