I mean it’s very public because there was a series of contentious Zoning hearings about the owner’s intent to redevelop the property. The NIMBYs in the neighborhood made their own signs about it
And anyways when I rented, I never expected that I had a right to stay there longer than the term on my lease. Maybe that’s just me but that’s kind of the whole point. I’m sure there are some property managers that sell the whole community, stay forever, everything is sunshine and rainbows line, but in my experience it’s the vast minority
And 78 bike spaces. This location is not super super walkable, but it is a pretty easy bike ride into downtown so I hope this adds to bike traffic along Wake Forest / Blount / Person.
New ASR for an 8-story apartment building at the very tip-top of Woodcrest, right next to the Greenway entrance on Crabtree. Great location next to Gateway Plaza.
Great news. I worked in that old office building that’s there in the early 2000s. Awful place. A file room in the ground floor had to get a bunch of dehumidifiers because mold started coming in. Glad to see it go!
There was an article in N&O about the Woodcrest neighborhood having a legal battle over some townhouses being proposed on Barksdale. Hopefully that drama will not spill over to this site.
If they allow the neighborhood residents to tear down a historic house that needs a remodel, while using “neighborhood character” to block somewhat nearby midrises, then the whole thing is a joke.
Do we know what the intent of the applicant is? The previous tear-downs to the immediate north of this property just resulted in a row of faux-historic SFHs. The owner doesn’t have to build multifamily on the lot, but it would be interesting if that’s the intent and the immediate neighbors are attempting to block it.
Applicant wanted to build a 3 story addition in the back and preserve the historic portion of the house. Neighbors got together and spoke against it at a RHDC meeting in May. This is what the applicant wanted to do:
The applicant claimed that most of the addition would not have been visible directly from the closest sidewalk. The opposition claimed that the view point was wrong and it should have been taken from the median of Glenwood ave. Also the usual neighbor claiming that it’s too tall too big “it is directly impacting my home, my light, my airflow” (can’t make that stuff up!!!).
First meeting (starts 31 minutes)
Second meeting for demolition hearing (starts at 48 minutes)
After that, the owner claimed that he tried to contact neighbors and have meeting with them but none responded so he re-submitted to ask for demolition. They could not deny it but he has to wait 365 days now before proceeding. He claimed that it didn’t make sense financially to pursue renovation + addition considering that he had already spent $70k on various fees (lawyers, architects, etc).
Not sure if the historic committee will have a word to say once he applies for a new build from scratch. You can be sure he will use any possibility offered by the UDO to go as close to the setbacks and maximum height as possible. After all that’s what all the neighbors are doing including 805 Glenwood ave that spoke against the project and you cannot really say that her house fits in the style of a 1920’s neighborhood ;-).
So, to Hell with the idea that these neighbors are at all concerned about historic preservation? They seem to really only care about themselves. The city needs to establish a self preservation committee because that would be more honest.
On the one hand, that’s a really unattractive addition that doesn’t fit at all with the original house. On the other hand, it’s one heck of a lot better than tearing down the house entirely. Woof.
I love the addition idea and think it looks great. But is the ‘not being able to see it from the sidewalk’ a requirement?? If so, that’s a dumb rule.
That cross section is very misleading, with a hip roof, you would be able to see it from all along the sidewalk. But again, that seems like a dumb rule to have.
It’s a very common one in historic districts - It’s a big deal for a lot of NYC rooftop additions. The district stays historic-looking from the ground, while adding the ability to adapt and grow to a certain extent.
That neighborhood is a HOD-S, definition as follow:
“Streetside HOD (HOD-S) only regulates what can be seen from the street (as defined in the Unified Development Ordinance [UDO] and explained in the “What is typically regulated?” section of this page).”
They would probably have had more chance if they didn’t go as big and as modern but no guarantee either.
As the applicant pointed out there are other modern additions with flat roofs in the district.
In the end everybody looses except the lawyer and architects.
It feels icky to me that all the post about this riling people up are not mentioning anything about these plans for the addition. I saw the Old Raleigh FB post about this a few days ago and I am assuming everyone commenting thought it was just a tear down application out of the blue (like I did). Seems really disingenuous to not mention the first application.
Exactly, someone posted about it in the Five Points CAC mailing list on how everyone should go to the meeting to oppose it and I watched the meeting by curiosity and that’s when I learned about the first application and all the opposition.
I’ve stayed in a hotel with one of those additions in CHS and it’s fantastic. They work really well in older districts where the real estate value is high enough that they pencil out.
Glenwood-Brooklyn is nice enough it should still count, but it sounds like the neighbors were disingenuous or waffle-y about where the viewpoint for the addition should be.
Glad to see it go!
