City Votes To Buy Back Reynolds Site
As anticipated the Raleigh City Council voted 5-3 in favor of exercising a buy-back option which will end the current plans of Ted and David Reynolds at 301 Hillsborough Street. The site for the project formerly known as “The Hillsborough” is currently a hole in the ground, and will likely be filled and paved for parking to create revenues while the real estate markets get revived.
Dissenting councilors Isley, West, and Koopman echoed concerns about what happens to the land in the meantime and what the long term plan is for the land. Philip Isley stated that these developers who have done due diligence and come so close to developing a much-anticipated project, deserve the right to a return on their investment.
Isley is also concerned about the precedent set by this measure, as Empire Properties finds itself in a similar position with its planned Lafayette hotel. Isley wants to extend the same courtesy to Empire when time comes to discus about their own extension in the face of a down market.
26 Comments
Make A CommentComments RSS Feed TrackBack URL
February 3rd, 2009 at 6:48 pm
Get rid of Empire today.
What a waste of time and money with these two properties
February 4th, 2009 at 1:04 am
I don’t trust anything Isley says. So, if he is for the Reynold’s project, I am surely against it.
February 4th, 2009 at 9:25 am
Sad, but true… The Hillsborough is officially dead
After removing a building - nothing to write home about, but better than a parking lot - the only thing we can do is go back to the drawing board. I think that Site 4 will be next and Lafayette will head to the same direction. I am sorry about the developers, but we need some companies with deep pockets and outstanding credit to fill up valuable parcels with great projects. Let’s hope the city will not waste this location for small and insignificant buildings. We need some iconic towers that will work as landmarks, so here is a chance. Maybe in another 5 years.
February 4th, 2009 at 9:27 am
Thankfully, not everyone is as anti-Empire as Don. There are a lot of great locations in DTR thanks to them.
February 4th, 2009 at 9:38 am
Good point, TSnow. However with the Lafayette the big problem is that we denied other developers’ proposals for the site. Perhaps they would have their projects in place by now, maybe not. However it isn’t fair to them or the process to keep granting extensions.
Anyone want to debate Trickle-down Economics now? Wealthy people lost a lot of money last year and now our city can offer its pedestrians…a parking lot. Those who are so anti-developer are going to observe now what happens when developers lose money. The quality of life and value of our real estate and our city will suffer greatly.
Also, I wonder if Wake County wants to reassess the value of our properties again after jacking the values up greatly last year. I know of several houses that are not selling for prices at least $150,000 below the tax value.
February 4th, 2009 at 9:52 am
I agree with John: Isley is a joke! This guy is what we call in sales “the order prevention desk”. Nothing but negativity comes out of his mouth. Who are the losers that voted for him. This guy is a speed bump on every issue/project.
February 4th, 2009 at 10:15 am
Al, you do realize that Isley is one of the strongest proponents for these two projects moving forward instead of becoming parking lots? On what projects has he interfered? I’ll bet the answer is the ones that cost taxpayers money.
The jury is actually still out about the convention center’s fiscal standing. They are well short of the revenues planned and it will be a long, long time before we come out ahead of having the old center running this whole time. I didn’t like the place, but facts are facts. The city has lost a ton of money due to the place and several business went under because of its construction.
February 4th, 2009 at 11:10 am
IMO, Isley only seems to care about business. I don’t see how he cares for communities. Through his past actions and positions, I don’t see how care about urban sensibilities either. He only seems to care about the rights of businesses and letting them do whatever they want, where ever they want to to do it.
So, if by chance he finds himself on what others might consider the right side of an issue, I think it may only be by coincidence.
February 4th, 2009 at 12:46 pm
Agree with a few of you on Isley. Isley has no vision (he is “the order prevention desk” - he should be council for a small town in the middle of nowhere). It’s people like him that prevent Raleigh from having a viable downtown with density (we have had some awful people in city council: Coble, Fetzer, the Brigg’s harware boy, etc., but Isley top’s the cake). Time for change that is positive.
February 4th, 2009 at 2:56 pm
I have no issues with Isley. He sometimes seems to be one of the sane ones there. I don’t put him in the same league as Coble/Fetzer and if someone does,they don’t really listen to him. Yes, he sometimes has to play “The right winger” and I don’t care for that position (as well as far left winger) unless it is hockey, but his positions go farther than just “inside the beltline.” Since Raleigh is 85% “outside the beltline”, he represents Raleigh well.
Isley is the only current CC member that has talked about the next Raleigh arena and starting to play for that. If it were Coble or Fetzer, they would be trashing the idea.
JMHO
February 4th, 2009 at 3:01 pm
Isley is a pathetic representation of our city: Did anyone watch yesterday’s council meeting. He had his hair greased back like the “Fonz” and was wearing “White Framed” sunglasses around his neck during the meeting. This guy is a erogant you know what. He is wasting tax payers money (replace him)
February 4th, 2009 at 3:10 pm
AL Isley is not a “speed bump on every issue.” That would be Crowder. The guy who votes NO on most issues so he can stand out in the crowd.
I did not vote from him since I am not in his district, but I would have. So next time we run into each other, call me a looser to my face. Been called a lot of things but don’t think I have ever been called a looser.
February 4th, 2009 at 4:10 pm
Subway Scoundrel summed it up pretty well. Those of you who enjoy bashing Isley should spend a little time talking with him instead of providing your own interpretations of what he says. Quite frankly, he provides a lot of common sense when discussions go downhill by the usual suspects, who love to listen to their own voice. If you like the idea of our city wasting a ton of tax dollars, then you have many good reasons to go against Isley, I guess.
Also, let me remind some of you when downtown actually got some nightlife - pre-Meeker era. When did we get DRA, The Warehouse District and Glenwood South? Yes, that is right, before Meeker, so please stop bashing people and focus on the issues. Mayors in the past didn’t have the ground paved for them and downtown was a tough sell. We should be talking about what Dana brought up earlier, and that is the loss of money by those who actually make things happen. Not all developers are negative forces to our city’s urban future. Sure, our city can go into debt to ensure some momentum, but that is not responsible behavior.
February 4th, 2009 at 11:50 pm
Isley was the ring leader for the non-conforming new McDonald’s on Peace St. And, while it may be a fine suburban McDonald’s, it’s not the right McDonald’s for an urban area and it DOES NOT conform to the Peace Street Streetscape plan that the city put in place 5 years ago. It’s site plan is completely about the automobile, not the pedestrian. This is the kind of “vision” that the likes of Isley brings to the table. I spoke to the city planner on the job and he shared sketches that Crowder offered to the owner of the property so that it would conform. That’s right, Crowder gave free professional advice to the owner so that the property would be developed in accordance with the city’s guidelines. Isley, on the other hand, fought to give the owner exactly what he wanted: the new stock suburban McD’s model to be the centerpiece property of Peace Street.
Crowder voted against this approval as the proper steward of the CITY’S OWN PLAN. Isley, who obviously doesn’t give a crap about urban neighborhoods, is the one who pushed for the council’s approval of the wrong solution in the wrong place.
February 5th, 2009 at 9:46 am
What I have learned from this discussion:
(1) Developers who have tons of money and Bank funding are just jumping at the chance to build in Downtown Raleigh, but that Empire and The Reynolds’ are blocking this because all the banks are just picking on them just because they are small.
(2) Philip Isley votes no on everything because he hates all things Urban.
(3) McDonalds Corp are jerks because they won’t listen to a no name architect from Raleigh when it comes to streamlining design for one individual store.
We’ll I’ve got news for you. All developers are being squeezed because of excess inventory and lack of credit from banks. Philip Isley votes based on sound principles of conserving rather than spending freely which got our economy in this mess. And McDonalds, one of a few companies making money now, is a Franchise and depends on all stores matching a standard design for economies of scale and maintenance concerns.
February 5th, 2009 at 9:49 am
Are you serious, John? Isley’s position on the new McDonald is the problem we have now? Is this a way to measure someone’s effectiveness as a council member? What about the many times Crowder worked as a negative factor - even in the design of City Plaza - wasting time on details that either didn’t matter, or were not to be discussed at that moment. Is Isley the only one to bring different viewpoints to the table?
Again, maybe you should talk to him in person and find out what he wants to see in Raleigh in terms of urban development. Maybe then you will see that he is more of a realist and less of a dreamer. At least I have spoken to him and I know that he is far from the monster, anti-urbanity person you make him to be. He is definitely someone who sticks to his guns, much like any other council member, but he is not against good urban guidelines. He is against wasting time on trying to alter a project when it complies with the EXISTING guidelines. Time is money, especially today.
By the way, have you driven around to see idiotic, un-urban projects popping up as the result of the current urban guidelines? We need to stop all development and raise our standards, but until then we cannot expect developers to do the right thing and waste their time, and then blame Isley when we get inferior projects. He is only one person and carries one vote.
February 5th, 2009 at 9:52 am
Amen to that, steelcity36!!! Glad to see that some people actually get it
February 5th, 2009 at 12:11 pm
Steelcity36,
Let me respond to one of your assertions regarding standardized McDonald’s and operation. Your assertion is simply not true. McDonald’s operate around the globe in urban enviroment with a variety of urban models. Those urban models range from ones in Manhattan where they are shoved into a larger building without a drive-thru or on site parking. Other urban examples exist in more moderately urban areas (those in which most that still have a car). I can think of several examples of McDonald’s and other fast food outlets that exist in these sorts of environments. They successfully address the urban design requirements of their neighborhoods while accommodating cars and drive-thru’s. This is the sort of model that was both a requirement of the city’s plan for Peace St. and a model that Crowder was trying to help the franchise owner (not corp) achieve.
When I assert that Isley doesn’t care about neighborhoods, the example this McDonald’s is the one I used because I know most about it. Through his actions, it’s obvious to me that his position is to be solely on the side of an individual property/business owner without consideration for the immediate neighbhors or the city’s approved plan for Peace St that everyone in the neighborhood should expect to will be followed.
February 6th, 2009 at 9:07 am
John, let’s hope that the new urban guidelines will help Raleigh avoid the mistakes of the past, or at least rid us of all the codes that encourage suburban developments. Without strong urban guidelines that will be followed to the letter, we are doomed to continue along the same lines. I think that most of us here agree on the guidelines and the need to create an urban form that will match that of traditional urban cities. Until then, we should be working with the developers, not discourage them.
Regarding McDonalds - and not only - there are many great examples we can point to. NYC is a great one, I think. The existing urban fabric dictates that McDonalds, and any such venue, must operate within strong urban guidelines. Likewise, in DT Raleigh, we have a couple of Subway locations (in City Market and Salisbury Str) and a Chick-fil-A (Fayetteville Str) that are as urban as anything you see in big cities. The problem is with new development, which I hope to see addressed in the Raleigh 2030 Comprehensive Plan.
In the rare cases that I find myself in agreement with councilman Crowder, I liked his proposal to build the Clarence Lightner Public Safety Center at the 301-309 Hillsborough parcel. It would have made sense, and given the LEED standards that will be used, this project would stand just as tall as The Hillsborough. The city could then sell the land of the existing RPD HQ to some serious - I hope - developer. I am sure this won’t happen, but it was a good proposal.
February 6th, 2009 at 9:18 am
Show me a developer with deep pockets, great experience and credit and I’ll show you a developer who’s smart enough to not flood the market with speculative office/ retail and residential space.
It’s not necesaarily dead, is it? As the market rebounds they can get back in line for the project.
Man, I’m craving a Egg Mcmuffin now.
February 6th, 2009 at 4:00 pm
Whoa, did I stumble into a NewRaleigh.com whinefest?
February 6th, 2009 at 5:20 pm
Jason, there are a lot of developers with deep pockets - not necessarily endless cash flow - and good credit, but I don’t necessarily mean companies and individuals who can built 60-story buildings as early as tomorrow. Highwoods Properties, John Kane and Gregg Sandreuter are good examples. They are silent and modest, which is a plus.
As for The Hillsborough, it is as dead as Disco. Once the city buys back the 309 Hillsborough lot, it will be officially over. It sounds like the developers are also determined to cut their losses and get rid of a headache. Unfortunately, we do not have many solid developers who could potentially take over and build something great on that section of downtown. On the top, and this is probably the biggest problem, the banks do not have money to loan, and if they do they have a lot of competing customers. Enough to demand large sums of down payments and offer incredibly high interest rates. If RBC was a little larger, they could have stepped up to the plate and “save” some of these projects, but it won’t happen any time soon
February 7th, 2009 at 9:32 am
The comparison of Lafayette and Hillsborough are not analogous. Reynolds Co. has been working on that tower for almost a decade, while Empire has been at it for roughly 3 years after wining thru an RPF process. IMO, Reynolds screwed themselves back in late ‘06 when they pushed to add multiple floors of speculative office space in the project (31 stories) hoping to lure a tenant like RBC. When they failed, they feigned ignorance (Ted’s N&O quote) and had to resubmit a new design with only hotel and condos, delaying the project again (the council went along… again). They got greedy and lost, and all along the way the city has bent over backwards for many years to work with them. David Reynolds seems like a great guy and they have done some great things for downtown, but please do not make them the victims here. Risk is inherent in the business of being a developer. Still, if the city wants to open up site 4 to others, I have no problem with it. A contract is a contract.
“We should get rid of Empire…” Hmmm, get rid of the developer who has done as much or more for the vibrancy of the city than any other. I’m glad you aren’t on the city council.
The Peace St McDonalds should not have been approved in it’s current form, and the attitude that McD’s “is a franchise and depends on all stores matching a standard design for economies of scale and maintenance concerns” is the type of laissez-faire attitude that leads to a lousy city. Let’s just let every developer do what he wants to do based on “economies of scale,” communities be damned. No thanks.
Have we not learned from the economic meltdown that maybe the unfettered free market isn’t always right? I hate that there is a generation that has come to believe that sensible oversight and regulation is the enemy of economic development.
Anyway, I doubt we’ll see any spec towers for quite a while, and that’s a good thing.
February 9th, 2009 at 11:40 am
The current economic conditions should never be an excuse for more government, and have nothing to do with a lawyer or ex-marine deciding where McDonald’s should put their drive-thru. What was the advice of the Planning Commission on the McDonald’s design?
Government “fettering” isn’t always right, either (City Market, Fayetteville Street Mall, the Civic Center, Terminal A). There are plenty of economists who feel that FDR prolonged the depression.
February 11th, 2009 at 12:01 am
If, by “more government” you mean following the plan the city adopted and prescribed for the Peace streetscape (that the McDonalds ignores), then there’s never a bad time. Heck, forget city plans, just walk down there and see if that McDonalds looks like it is befitting of a redeveloping pedestrian street.
Developers will continue to disregard well-conceived planning if it suits them, and the citizens will continue to get the shaft until we start saying no. Why even spend the time and money on a comp plan when it’s often not followed by those who claim to represent the best interest of the city?
February 11th, 2009 at 9:23 am
I am not sure what we can expect from McDonalds. Honestly, I do not believe it is a destination where nearby residents will walk by and make a stop, let alone sit down and enjoy a fine meal. The pedestrian activity of McDonalds locations in larger cities can justify a more urban design. Here, McDonalds is more of a drive-by place and less of an urban “destination”. Sure, there are many ways to create a pedestrian-friendly design, but it would require redevelopment of the entire site - maybe a nice 10-story residential building with underground parking and a drive-thru path well hidden from the pedestrians. That would be expensive, and I can see some nearby NIMBYs screaming about a larger building blocking the sun
Concerning the “more government” comment, I am 100% with Dana. If anybody thinks there are decent guidelines in place for developers to follow, that person needs to take a good look around, and not only downtown. There are many examples where the cost of bad urban design is far costlier to our city. North Raleigh is not the only place, but since most activity takes place there it will serve as a good example.
Here is one: Remember John Kane’s proposed mid-rises for the big lot facing Six Forks, at his New North Hills? They crucified the man for wanting to bring the buildings closer to the street… The idiots in the city told him that he had to build 130+ feet from the street!!! That is insane, by any measure. He shelved these mid-rises until better urban guidelines are in place. As a result, we now have to look at that stupid parking lot, although the latter serves a purpose for now.
Again, bring the good urban guidelines, make it faster and easier to build - time is money - and then we can talk about forcing developers to do the right thing. Not with this city council, though. We need leadership that understands good urban guidelines just as much as economics. Plus, we need a full-time city council to deal with the growing pains.