Business interests have gotten pretty much whatever they want from Council since at least the 1980s. Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose. Why change now, when it has worked so well?
Don’t get married to this rendering. It’s a placeholder. They will not necessarily look like this.
It will be a five over one.
3 Likes
yah, no. that’s not gonna happen.
In the world of local government, and rezoning in particular, one side is always going to be less than happy. Take thy marbles and go home kinda thing. The job of the City Council is to get around the noise, the emotion, the drama, and the me, me, me and get to what is best for the community. In this case, IMHO, that is what happened. Good planning is about good development for the future. Bottom line - we need the density. We need affordable housing money. We got conditions placed on the rezoning because the developers had to listen to the opposing side in order to get this cases to a point where the Council could say “yes”.
It is human nature to shy away from change. But change is inevitable. And you either get good planning, or you get bad planning. But at the end of the day, if you don’t own the land, you won’t stop it from being developed. Why not have a really great project the City can be proud of rather than some hodge podge nothing or some parking lot? That is what has always amazed me. The lack of willingness to compromise. It’s an all or nothing. Win or lose. Yes or no. And when that happens, you become bitter when you"lose" because you didn’t really understand the process of government in the first place. Which is for the overall good. The overall welfare. The overall big picture. And when you say all or nothing you don’t get the input you could maybe have had to make the project even better. Just my two cents.
20 Likes
A post was merged into an existing topic: Community Potpourri
Cowell walks the walk when it comes to housing affordability. When renovating her home on South St (right next to the pit), she made the unusual decision to preserve an ADU. And her views on new development are refreshing, (especially for a Boylan Heights resident): “The home’s on the edge of this historic neighborhood, right up against the growth and change that’s happening across Raleigh…I know that eventually I’ll be next to some apartments.”
12 Likes
Enjoyable article. Thanks for sharing it!
I knew it. @dtraleigh’s influence has fully infiltrated the local government…
10 Likes
Just look at that shadow from the painting!
6 Likes
Looks like the NIMBYs have lawyered up.
4 Likes
Imagine a 30-story high-rise that replaces a horizon. If it were built right now, it would be the third-tallest, and almost certainly the longest, building in the City
Lmao entirely inaccurate and just pathetically desperate. They know damn well how tall they want to build to and that it won’t be anywhere near as tall as our current Big 3 (and soon to be Big 4). This “lawsuit” is DOA. I can’t wait to watch this fail spectacularly. Hopefully it bankrupts their “organization” in the process.
6 Likes
In fact, I’ll go a step further. And yes, I genuinely mean this: I hope some of the homeowners put up enough of their own capital and thus lose enough of their own money on this that they have to sell their homes and f**king move. Wouldn’t that just be poetry?? 
8 Likes
-
There is no precedent for this rezoning at all. You can’t find a single high-rise this close to a historic district across the state. They don’t do this in Charlotte, Greensboro, Durham, or anywhere else in Raleigh. Our neighborhood is becoming a landmark for poor city planning.
There’s literally a 51-story tower (the Vue) that is IN the 4th ward historic district in Charlotte.
A 24-story building (Kingston South End) across the street from Dilworth historic district.
23-story building (110 East) a block away from Dilworth historic district.
And that just looking at google maps for 3 minutes…
18 Likes
Never mind that this neighborhood has received preferential treatment from the city when it comes to evening parking restrictions on oftentimes barricaded public streets to protect themselves from late-night downtown activity.
8 Likes
Not to mention that single family homes on Fuller St. are right behind The Weld. I suppose that those people don’t matter because their houses aren’t designated?
6 Likes
I think they fail to grasp that it is the City Council’s prerogative to approve or deny rezonings, and without concrete proof of some type of malfeasance or illegal conduct, any lawsuit is frivolous. The City can choose to ignore any policies or guidelines it has in place; they are the arbiters of what is passed or rejected.
7 Likes
I can’t help but wonder if/how they are going to try to drag Jane Harrison into this.
Also - I assume they meant to say residential historic district… because even in Raleigh… Moore Square HOD, Capitol Square HOD, North Boylan HOD, Prince Hall HOD, … all next to downtown towers or even 40-story zonings.
5 Likes
“Malfeasance or illegal conduct” is rather strong phrasing, and I don’t believe the North Carolina courts have set the bar that high. People bring suit against municipalities and counties over zoning disputes from time to time. In some cases the suits are tossed out because the plaintiffs don’t have standing, but in other cases they are litigated and sometimes the plantiffs win. An example is Schooldev East, LLC v. Town of Wake Forest, which the NC Supreme Court decided in January. Wake Forest lost.
1 Like