“Central Park”… Get it? 
3 Likes
I too would really like to see that old home moved to another location rather than torn down. They just don’t build houses like they used to.
3 Likes
Agreed! It’s past time to get rid of parking minimums–not just in downtown but in downtown-adjacent areas as well.
5 Likes
If you get rid of parking minimums…there would be no parking. How’s that suppose to work? None of ya’ll have thought of this small problem?
Developers would still build parking. Just they would build as much as they think they need, not what the city tells them to. Sometimes that might be less, other times it might be more. It gives them the option of, instead of having parking for 100% of the workers in an office building you have parking for 80%. Maybe that pushes some people who are close enough to walk or bike, or some people who live by a bus route to use transit, or some people who live close to co-workers to carpool. Others can use paid offsite parking. Which increases the demand for parking, making it more expensive and thereby pushing others to try alternatives.
Not the apocalypse.
6 Likes
Parking is a waste of money and space. They’ll build parking only to the extent that they must to get tenants. I guarantee that most developers would skimp as much as they think they can get away with without scaring away potential tenants, thus putting the burden of parking on the city. All of your alternatives to cars is wonderful, but this is still a car based city without transportation options for the vast majority of people.
Basically you’re saying if you don’t live in downtown Raleigh, or along a few public transportation routes, then A. Get extorted for paid parking or B. Don’t come to DTR
Guess which most people would choose.
1 Like
Basically everything you have said is correct except that it will keep people from coming downtown.
Tight and/or expensive parking is literally the only thing that will get people to do anything other than drive. Downtown Raleigh will never be any less car oriented than it is right now unless we let parking get tighter than it is now.
I say let the market determine parking, full stop. No maximums, no minimums. If parking gets tight enough and expensive enough then developers will start adding more when they build something. Or private companies will build parking and be able to finance it with parking revenues. No problem there.
11 Likes
Not providing enough parking can also be a double edged sword. If parking demand is high enough, private companies could very well start purchasing properties with the intent of tearing down existing buildings that may or may not have historical/architectural significance for the purpose of building a parking lot.
Thats the point. And its not that you are getting extorted to pay for parking. Its that you are paying a fair market value when minimums are removed. In your sendrio you want your parking subsidized by the tennets of the buildings downtown, wherther they have or drove a car or not.
1 Like
Not exactly apples to apples because the spaces are assigned, but on any given day, State employee parking decks and lots are only about 2/3 full. They State was considering going to a free-for-all approach, but holy hell broke loose at the thought of losing thy assigned parking space. I Digress…I imagine on any given day private office buildings only have some similar % of their employees report to their desks.
Here are the giant parking deck plans:
1 Like
Yeah, I assume they’d alter their multi-million dollar investment plans because some guy on a message board doesn’t want to see another brick building torn down. I personally couldn’t care less about it, and I’m thrilled about the development going on here.
4 Likes
At least there’s ground-level retail? 
Maybe the house can be moved? There has to be a lot somewhere nearby.
2 Likes
Shoot, I’ll let them tear down my house and put it here! I agree, that house should be saved somehow.
2 Likes
Maybe that’s something a petition could help with?
Yeah, exactly - why should developers give a crap about the communities in which they build? They have money to protect and should be allowed to build in any manner they see fit.
Seriously though, you are right. Bitching about an old building on a message board is not going to save it but there are ways to protect these places, however, it doesn’t seem like there is much will for that kind of thing in this town. Other cities are much better protecting their heritage, other cities have preservation and historical review boards, other cities have activist citizens who do care and demand better. Here in Raleigh, its a free for all. Developers are rarely challenged and at some point we are going to look back on our decisions and realize that we could have done better. That maybe we should have saved the warehouses in the warehouse district, that we shouldn’t have allowed so so many old brick structures to be be replaced with cookie cutter apartment buildings, that maybe we should have done somethings to create an environment that our long standing institutions could thrive in.
Old buildings are what makes a city interesting, they serve as reminders of a community’s heritage and the city’s complexity. Old buildings attract people and tourists and provide a warmth and environment that simply cannot be recreated with today’s practices. If you cannot recognize the aesthetic and intrinsic value of preserving history then I simply feel bad for you. Just remember, regret only goes one way.
7 Likes
I understand preserving history, I just don’t think there’s much in Raleigh worth preserving. Certainly not brick buildings.
If you don’t think Raleigh has anything worth preserving then you don’t understand.
And what do you mean by brick buildings? Most historic commercial buildings are made of brick.
9 Likes
I didn’t say there isn’t anything, I said there isn’t much. And I mean buildings made of ugly red brick.