Agreed. I think that there is at least a “start of a move” from the largest (NY, LA) cities to the more mid-sized (Raleigh, Durham) cities… 
3 Likes
This was also a trend that’s been going on for the past several years, with people being priced out as housing prices crested in the biggest 24-hr cities. I don’t know anyone yet that’s moved “out” of DTR because of CV, but maybe there’s a few. Our downtown is mostly office and bars which are particularly hit hard right now, more so than the residential. But it will bounce back once someone gets a vaccine widely distributed. May see some of capitalism’s ‘creative destruction’ at work in the meantime though.
1 Like
Now, “THAT” would be a very interesting topic for discussion… 
Not sure where to put this, but this is as good as any. IMO, this is the type of rowhouse development that I’d Ilke to see more often (not the price, but the nature of them). These are all connected in a row across a block. They all address the sidewalk in the same way. They have car access through an alley created in the back.
Though not downtown proper, these units are also positioned with a incredible walk-shed of options.
https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/2323-Clark-Ave-Raleigh-NC-27607/305119644_zpid/
7 Likes
Chappell is taking the cake for trying to push those prices skyhigh with these and the Lynde…
I walk by these a few times a week. They are nice looking and in a good location. One drawback for me, beyond the price, is that from the sidewalk you peer down into a below grade bedroom. And I’ve seen a lot of blowers / fans in those rooms … guessing they have had some moisture issues.
1 Like
Price per square foot on these is lower than the Lynde, and you arguably get a lot more including your own elevator, rooftop deck and private garage + 2 additional covered parking. Not that these are cheap by any imagination, but at least the rooms are sized so that you can actually use them too!
5 Likes
That’s worrisome! I wonder what the deal is?
Just my observation. They could have been in there for some other reason. But, generally, the clay soils in our region don’t bode well for sub-grade living spaces.
1 Like
Hopefully they used a good basement contractor and cast-in-place walls below grade with dampproof coating, drain board, clean gravel, and pvc pipe foundation drains to daylight. That’s a pretty fool-proof system regardless of the soil.
I’m liking these a lot, thanks @John. Honestly price seems spot on - $400 / sf including land and parking. Although this is a great car-less living opportunity - walkable to Harris Teeter, forthcoming medical complex, library, liquor store, restaurants/shopping. If you work from home or are retired, this is a great candidate car-less living environment.
3 Likes
Yeah, that’s a fantasy home in my book. Even the lower level doesn’t bother me. You can always plant some tall, narrow evergreens in there to block peering eyes.
There are very few plans that I’d take as is, and though there are a few things that I’d change if I were designing this myself, it’s really easy to imagine taking it as is, even for the million bucks it’s asking. The cherry on top is its walkscore of 94.
3 Likes
DTR Community. I bring this post forward to show you a real world example of the UDO and Raleigh city taxes at work. The screenshot below is the 2nd round review from planning/zoning for a tear-down rebuild ITB that is subject to the infill development rules. This is the 2nd round of review – Check out the 2nd to last comment pointing out that we must create a minimum 4’ x 10’ articulation in the left wall of the project because a staircase extends within 15’ of the property line. This was not caught or discussed by the first submittal/review. Granted, it is plainly stated in the UDO that this is the ordinance, it makes zero sense in the real world of tight infill residential parcels, especially if details like cantilevered porches and staircases in the setback trigger the ordinance.
Admittedly we are not replacing a SFH for a duplex or gently increasing density. (we are replacing a dilapidated SFH that would require an extensive hazmat reno with a new home.) Imagine if we were trying to create a side-by-side duplex on this narrow lot - we would definitely have to include these aesthetic articulations in side walls which drives up construction costs (more outside corners, more complex roof lines and eaves).
Also please note we are stressing about fractions of a foot for elevation points between architectural and site-plan notes. This level of analysis by architects, contractors, and surveyors before we have a building permit drives up the cost of housing in addition to creating lots of delays between revisions, resubmittals, reviews, and repeat. Delays equal cost.
I certainly understand the need to regulate what the built environment looks like to prevent really egregious violations by money hungry developers, but this is beyond overkill and is driving up the cost of new residential construction.
3 Likes
I think that I understand what you are describing, but can you show us what the issue is that the city identified? If I understand what you’re saying, you either have to lose 40 square feet of house, or add 40 square feet of house? Is that correct?
Also, I can understand the point of the UDO for long runs on the side of a house. I watched a YouTube earlier called (something like) The Worst Built House in America, where a home inspector took us through a construction site to show shotty work. In that house, there was a massively long, flat side elevation that I certainly wouldn’t want next door to me.
1 Like
Yes, without providing any project specific details.
I totally understand the intention of breaking up long walls if they are very visible to the neighbor, or street. However, the code is out of touch with reality in the definitional criteria that triggers the ordinance. The first review point above: “Avg. grade is determined by calculating the avg. of the highest and lowest elevation along pre-development grade or improved grade (whichever is more restrictive) along each building elevation and averaging all elevations.” In our situation, pre-development grade is more restrictive because it’s a basement lot (slopes quite a bit from the street), so that 22’ tall wall is easily met if we only look at predevelopment grade. It doesn’t matter to the city that we will backfill against the new structure and minimize that visible wall height as much as possible.
You’ll have to trust me when I say that what the city is asking for is ridiculous in this specific case. The house (7 figures as you might guess) has a desirable aesthetic on all 4 sides. The only options to meet the UDO without completely redesigning the house are not attractive… (1) Put a steeper pitch on half of a gable and drop the eaves much lower on the back and side portion of the house which effectively shortens the wall by lowering the plate and increasing roof area. This means one of the main architectural elements on the back of the house, a gable end, will have 2 different roof pitches on it instead of symmetry. or (2) chop that gable up and step the top portion of the wall back into the 2nd story space adding a small water table at 1st floor ceiling and another eave at top of 2nd floor. Not only are both options less attractive, but they increase construction cost and provide more opportunities for building envelope failures with increase roof joints. The 2nd option creates a massive roof load point that loads atop the middle of a screened porch, requiring a structural beam whereas the symmetrical gable of the original design loads perfectly down to the foundation.
It’s a great example of policy intention not aligning with reality. There needs to be flexibility in the code. Another fun fact about the infill development rules, the builder or developer has to send an unsealed, stamped, and pre-addressed envelope to city staff for every property owner within 100’ of the subject property. In our case we are literally mailing 9 prestamped envelopes to the city so they can notify all the adjacent property owners, LOL. This would be a good opportunity for flexibility in the code - let the neighbors decide if this specific wall articulation rule should apply in this case. I would bet most neighbors would agree that the original design is better than, or minimum not worse than, the prescribed fixes to bring it in compliance.
4 Likes
Was it a Matt Risinger episode? I saw that too. This is what happens when people only consider price per square foot. They only care that its new, big, and affordable.
1 Like
Yes. It was one of his episodes.
This is true. As someone who works on “standards” for my company, it became apparent over time that one has to have a relief mechanism, or a way to have a review process in place that goes beyond the absolutes identified in the standards. I feel your pain.
3 Likes
I’m sure in this instance we could apply for a variance to deviate from the prescriptive code, but from my experience they only do variance hearings sparsely, like maybe quarterly. and when we’re waiting for a building permit we can’t wait for a variance that’s potentially two or three months away. There has to be some power in the plan reviewers hands to make variances when the circumstances suggests so
3 Likes
I think that this as good a place as any for these videos. These are a quick watch and lay out the basic math as to why everyone should want to see more urban style development.
10 Likes
From the Feb 16 city council agenda, this is something I’m interested in and look forward to the report. I wonder which current open spaces are not up to the “current best practices”?
http://go.boarddocs.com/nc/raleigh/Board.nsf/goto?open&id=BXQSVH740135
Open Amenity Area standards in the Downtown Mixed Use (DX) district have presented challenges to many development projects in the Downtown Mixed Use districts, while not producing desired high-quality amenity areas as envisioned by the Comprehensive Plan and the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO). Current Open Amenity Area standards in the DX district do not promote the current best urban design and architectural practices.
Staff recommends a Text Amendment to revise current standards and create revised and new standards that will facilitate high-quality design in Downtown Raleigh. The staff memorandum included with the agenda materials recommends 13 short-term changes and one (1) long-term change related to the following categories of design:
Covered Open Amenity Area
Streetscape and Open Amenity Area overlap
Amenity Area on upper floors
GSI in Open Amenity Areas
Open Amenity Areas and adverse impacts
Equitable Transit-Oriented Development and Open Amenity Area
4 Likes