If this entire block is developed as low rise housing with a maximum height of 4 floors, then I think it dooms the perception of downtown ever extending its footprint southward into the Cargill site. There will simply be too much low rise housing separating the core of the city from Cargill. That said, it’s not to say that it damages the possibility of future development at Cargill. I just think that Cargill will be perceived more like Cameron Village’s relationship to downtown: more of an urban neighborhood that’s adjacent to downtown, rather than in downtown.
3 Likes
I’m genuinely curious, how do you feel about this? I’m convinced the MLK/Western divide will be like 277 in Charlotte, where Uptown and the South End have distinctive identities. Granted, South End has its own branding and advocacy. I wouldn’t mind a partnership that branded the area between 40 and MLK as something distinctive.
I personally feel like downtown has to have an actual border and cutting it off at MLK doesn’t seem like a bad thing.
2 Likes
Agreed. Clearly MLK/Western acts like a boundary like no other boundary in DT Raleigh. I’d add that McDowell/S.Saunders further bifurcates “south of MLK” into two distinct districts. That said, the MLK side doesn’t act like a highway barrier like the stretch that includes the bridge across McDowell and toward the west. It’s the fact that the south side of MLK immediately becomes low rise residential with mostly SFHs that makes one feel disconnected from downtown proper. This is the same experience that happens when one crosses Peace Street and St. Mary’s in the Glenwood South district. You cross those streets and you are now in residential neighborhoods that are downtown adjacent.
On a similar note, It’s yet to be seen how the future Lake Wheeler/S.Saunders development will impact the western side of this area’s connection to DT proper through the underpass along S. Saunders.
1 Like
I think this residential form is a welcome addition to the greater downtown area. Much better than the single family rebuilds peppering the east side of DT. This is an approachable increase in density, and I think if successful could result in a version of density that could be supported even in “historic” single family areas, because the scale (height) is similar. We need more of this in my opinion.
You get 12 units (up to 3 br) in the same land consumption of 6 townhomes or 3 single family homes. Roughly 20 du/acre which equates to about 25,000 pp/sqmi. We need this all over our residential districts.
3 Likes
Merging this with the bigger South Park thread.
1 Like
These are similar designed condos (2 story on top of 2 story) by the builder in Northern Virginia. I imagine this is similar to what we can expect on this property.
https://www.stanleymartin.com/our-communities/projectdetail.asp?ProjectGroupID=MQ&MetroAreaID=1000
I just looked at those plans. If you have an upper floor unit, you have to climb two sets of internal, snaking stairs just to get to your main level. Imagine moving furniture up them. Yikes!!! Even after being settled in, I imagine that daily trek from either the garage or the front door would get really old, really quickly.
Blount St Commons used the same 4 story, stacked 2 floor condo configuration as well.
Also done by Stanley Martin.
2 Likes
Not much different than living on the 3rd floor of an apartment building as the vast majority do not have elevators. I lived in a few way back when and I never even thought about it. But I think these might be worth it just for the roof deck (if they have them).
4 Likes
I live on the 3rd/4th floor of a set of the ones in Blount St Commons. Take dogs out 3 times a day. You get used to it, but everyone who visits makes a big ordeal about it the first time they come over.
4 Likes
From the rendering I take it that the entrance for the upper units are on the backside of the building? (opposite of lower units)
Exactly lol I currently live on the 3rd floor and everyone that comes over for the first times act like they’re going to die 
3 Likes
Free gym membership included
2 Likes
The big difference, in the case of the linked site with the example, is that the stairs snake as they go up internally bounded by walls on all sides. They are also narrower than one might expect from an apartment building’s public stairs with typical long landings before the next flight up.
The worst situation for stairs like this is moving. The second worst is carrying things up and down. I understand that people will get used to it, but I doubt that anyone loves it.
If I were designing these condos, I’d figure out how to incorporate an elevator to the 3rd floors that’s shared between two units that sit side by side. After all, look at all the real estate that’s used on each floor for that winding staircase. You can have one elevator and one exit stair that shares the same first and 3rd floor landings for two units. Then you can put the front doors to the units on the 3rd floor landing, and the garage access on the first floor landing.
2 Likes
The main entrance is on the front, in fact uses the same front door as the lower unit. You enter into a vestibule of sorts and there are 2 locking doors that open to the separate units.
I’m not sure the additional expense and complexity is worth it. The upper units just wont be attractive to all buyers and that’s ok.
I never understood the reference ‘sad, walk-up apartment’ until now.
If that’s the density for this, should we assume this will be like an 80 DU development?
I’m interested to see how long the lot across Blount St goes undeveloped if this works out.
1 Like
Depending on how they lay it out, they could get as many as 120 du on the block.
Gotta say, some people (like me) actually don’t want to be in a ground floor unit. People walking by your windows all the time can get old fast.
5 Likes