Looks like The Madison is in flux. Folks behind the project already eliminated one of the two buildings and said construction depends on future interest rates.
Blue Ridge Realty had originally planned to start
construction on an 11-story residential tower and 12-story
office tower in 2022, with an opening date in 2024. But the
seven lots for the project, including the site of Cornerstone
Tavern, sit unchanged.
Blue Ridge Realty President Joe Meir
said that not only has the project
changed but the Raleigh company is also in a holding
pattern due to the current status of the financial market for
commercial real estate.
Meir said the company has eliminated the project’s office
component. This changed the development from two
adjoining towers to a single 12-story residential tower with
ground-floor retail and a parking deck.
That’s unsurprising. Given the office market, an office tower in GS felt like an odd play. Hopefully if they do get things moving the parking deck isn’t too monstrous.
Not happy but not surprised. I was looking forward to this being part of a growing up and diversification for GloSo. But instead it went the other way and now is trash bar party central. I blame the pandemic for the office portion, and maybe Putin for the interest rates. Why not. Apparently can’t blame the Baptists anymore…
I am actually Vladimir Putin and a lot of people dont know this, but I was raised as a Baptist. I am very offended by your post. Post flagged to the KGB.
Back to the original topic, the article says “The project is on 1.4 acres at 603, 605, 607, 609 Glenwood Ave. and 608, 610, and 612 W. Johnson St” so im guessing the whole property (603 included) will be one large residential building and they increased units? Didnt see it explicitly mentioned. Also of note, height is down to 9 floors instead of 11.
Oh, you can bet your pretty lil ass it will absolutely be a monstrous, hideous, completely unobstructed parking deck with a lil bit of building on top!
Getting more residential into the neighborhood is a win in my book. Density of residents drives demand for neighborhood retail, and neighborhood retail in high density residential areas reduces trips that require a car. A yin&yang with the Paramount would make a lot of sense to me, and having all residential would make for better design and experiences between the two buildings since the quality of life for the residents of the new building would be more considered for units that face the Paramount than it would have been for office workers.
As a Paramount resident (I don’t face this property), and as someone who doesn’t think that views should be protected, I am also someone who thinks that there does need to be a balance in quality of life for all residents of both buildings and slamming them up against each other where folks look into each others’ homes at a very short distance is bordering ridiculous. Just because a developer has a right to build up to the property line doesn’t make it the right thing to do. I don’t know if this is the new proposal or the original one, but why oh why is the lowered section on the corner of Glenwood and Johnston and not between the proposed building and the Paramount?
Even worse, and almost Houston-like, if that tall section against the Paramount on Johnson St. is a garage, then
Yeah, I empathize with your predicament, John. I’m not a resident of the Paramount myself, but I could imagine the discomfort of waking up one day to find a giant structure engulfing the view I became familiar with for years. The way has this engulfs the entire complex looks almost comical.
I also find myself in a difficult position when it comes to the question of protecting views. As far as I’m aware, Raleigh doesn’t allow for the sale of air rights, unlike New York, and I must confess, I’m a bit relieved by this. I’ve always held the view that if one invests in a property for its view, then they should ensure they’ve financially accounted for that aspect as well.
However, understanding all this doesn’t make it any less challenging to swallow the reality for those affected, especially for the residents on that side of the building. My heart genuinely goes out to them in this situation. It’s a tough spot to be in and their concerns are entirely valid.
Let me be clear, I am not saying that I think views should be protected. I am just saying that we shouldn’t be slamming buildings up against other residential buildings without considering context of existing buildings. It’s one thing to protect a view, but it’s a completely different thing to not want to look out your windows into your neighbor’s bedroom or into a parking deck or a blank wall that’s just a few feet/yards away.
Since the Paramount and many other buildings were built, a new UDO was established and rezonings have occurred and continue to occur. These existing buildings and their residents have now been put into a contentious positions with future developers and the city.
If we want to have buildings abut each other, then we shouldn’t allow those abutted property sides to have picture windows and balconies that will just end up being covered up by the building next door, and we shouldn’t be ignoring the context of such buildings that predate the new UDO and rezonings when new buildings are proposed.
Like I’ve said before in other posts/threads, I do think that there is room to compromise and I am NOT in the camp of saying that nothing tall can be built next to an existing building, I am just saying that context and design decisions should be required to properly address their neighbors.
How 615 Peace addresses the north side of the Paramount is a good example of what sort of result can be achieved, but that result required the Paramount owners to cough up money for an attorney. This is not how this should go down. The city should address this issue IMO.
It’s definitely a part of becoming a bigger city - I’m sure they’ll figure it out (can we just crib whatever laws cities like Chicago or Atlanta have?), but I wonder if they’ll be able to draft up rules in time for the Paramount homeowners.
I said I also, as in addition to since it was a direct reply to your post where you acknowledged you’re not in favor not protecting views. Again, I’d recommend reading my entire response before seeing the word ‘View’’ and assuming I disagree with you. I 100% agreed with you in my post and I think you’d understand that if you read it.
