I think market-rate. But no reason why you couldn’t build the same building and adjust the interior finishes/fixtures to whatever price point.
I agree. But my guess is that finding a developer to do it is a challenge.
We posed the question of including affordable units in the proposed Kane development on W Cabarrus at one of the neighborhood meetings. The answer was an unequivocal “no” because of financing constraints. So I guess the developer has to be willing to jump through some hoops and seek out financing options that would accommodate such uses.
And we’re not going to find anyone willing to do it cause it basically puts them at an business disadvantage. Why should one developer do it while others don’t?
If the council could get serious about affordable units in new developments, they could at least start discussing the idea of making it a requirement across the board and how the development approval process can equally accommodate this. (rather than make it more complicated leading to significantly higher costs)
Or something else, I’m open to it but we’re in a “sit back and hope” approach to affordable units.
3 Likes
It is my understanding that this 18 story building is an addition to the Cardinal at NH. I also get the impression that this is the premiere senior/retirement community in Raleigh. I am 100% positive this is a pure money maker, and not an altruistic development with affordable units included.
1 Like
With plans starting at $4700 / month, this is by no means affordable to most.
2 Likes
Subsidized housing decisions have always been made within a financial context, since it’s funded with public money. In other words, subsidized housing of all types has typically been pushed to where “the market” was ignoring. In the past, this has meant abandoned/ignored buildings and neighborhoods downtown. Where land and buildings are cheaper, this is where public housing went. This has been true for Raleigh as it has been for cities across the country.
As neighborhoods change, and land/buildings become more valuable, both tension and an opportunity for a win-win arise. If land/buildings that where once “worthless” are now desirable, how can we balance the unleashing of that value, while fueling some of the resulting riches into programs that will support the most needy in our community? If the land that Glenwood Towers occupies is so valuable, how can we funnel money from that sale into a better situation for the seniors at a different location nearby so that the residents don’t lose their community? If the value of the Sir Walter is so great as an iconic hotel for Raleigh, how can we leverage it to the same end?
5 Likes
We can probably add Heritage Park to the list, as well.
The Sir Walter is different from Glenwood Towers and Heritage Park in that it’s owned by a private entity, so I’m not sure how money can be funneled from that other than at the owner’s own altruism. GT and HP are owned by the city, which gives the community an opportunity. I would hope that the city is thinking about land values of these properties and how they might be able to leverage sales at some point to upgrade and replace existing subsidized housing currently located at those locations.
Oh boy - here we go. The social justice warrior arrived. So blinded by indignant liberal moral outrage that you can’t recognize there might be better uses for this building than a flop house.
@Phil Let’s just not let that go anywhere.
As to any sentiment that we are “Putting a bunch of essentially homeless old people” in the Sir Walter or really anywhere, doesn’t matter, means you aren’t understanding the history behind the building and the conditions things were like in the 1960s (or whenever) when the idea to do this came out. See @John’s comment above for pretty much why it is the way it is today.
4 Likes
We’re already seeing this with a big affordable housing project just off the Beltline at Rock Quarry. I’d suspect most future developments will be in that SE Raleigh direction as well.
2 Likes
I’d hope that senior housing developments would take into consideration that a lot of these people do not drive.
2 Likes
I agree with you here – if the Sir Walter were to be converted back to a hotel and the existing residents were not taken care of, the resulting political backlash would be huge, and no developer wants to risk that.
I thought I read that reno work on the top floor was going to take place so im guessing that has started here. Maybe?
3 Likes
Has there been any word on what’s taking the place of the Chikfila?
2 Likes
Yes the demo work has started and I can already hear from my office the demo trash falling into the dumpster early this morning. Has been going on for about a week now.
1 Like
ITBInsider is reporting that Rush Bowls is moving into that location once it’s renovated.
Anyway, I checked out this thread for the first time today because the Sir Walter came up in another thread, and I really can’t believe how eager some people are to kick low-income seniors out of this building in order to turn it into a hotel for rich tourists. (Some of the comments were very thoughtful about how best to strike a balance, but others, wow, I just couldn’t believe.)
I’m very glad that the current arrangement preserves affordable housing for the building’s residents.
1 Like
Nobody wants to ‘kick out poor seniors’ albeit emails & posts probably sound harsher than they should. I think everyone (the vast majority at least) would prefer the Sir Walter be used for for something that enhances downtown and its hard to argue its use for the last 20 years does so, not to mention the cost to Raleigh taxpayers every time someone burns something on a hotplate in that building and RFD has to respond (same with the one on Glenwood) when there are much more economical options in which to house lower-income seniors. NOBODY is suggesting to put these folks on the street. There ARE alternative options that would be better for the residents, the taxpayers as well as the City’s core as a whole.
13 Likes
Yeah, someone on the other thread suggested that kicking out the current residents to make room for rich tourists would be better for the residents themselves. (How convenient!)
But it’s probably worth noting that during the long-running discussions about the sale of the building, the residents were, in fact, largely very concerned about selling the building to a company that would remove all of the affordable housing units. And it’s probably worth considering that the people in the best position to opine about what’s best for the residents might be the residents themselves.
I’m pretty sure the “everyone” in this sentence refers to “everyone in the spectacularly unrepresentative cohort of people who comment frequently on this message board.” Out in the community at large, preserving the affordable housing was actually the priority, such that great effort was expended to ensure that it happened.
And are we taking the position then that providing affordable housing for people to live in does not “enhance downtown”? Because I would argue that providing housing for people to live in and increasing the socioeconomic diversity of the community is a great way to use that space to enhance downtown.
5 Likes
Well I think most of us feel differently. Restore Sir Walter to it’s historical glory as a hotel. Take the money from the sale of it and build a brand new building a few blocks away or so. Maybe make it a bit bigger and provide some new amenities. Seems like a win win to me.
3 Likes
I mean… I might be the bad guy here, but I am advocating kicking the old people out of that building and moving them somewhere else.
The tax dollars from a high end hotel right there would be a huge benefit.
8 Likes