With all due respect, I’d rather see NOTHING for another 5 years than this excuse of a project. If Gregg – for whom I have a tremendous amount of respect – gets a lot of pressure to build something, then here is my suggestion: Build one 12 story building on one of the Blount Str corners and leave the rest of the available space for later use; that way we save a few existing businesses from having to relocate. Second option is to build a couple of 8-10 story buildings – along the Blount Str end.

I am sorry, but I hope this new incarnation doesn’t happen. The sale of Block B was done with other things in mind, even though the economy went South since then. Hopefully, something will happen to make Gregg reconsider, before he associates his name with yet-another disappointment for those of us who see DT Raleigh as something more than just a collection of random projects.

My take on this proposal is not black and white. First of all, count me among those who would always trade towers for street life. In my opinion, it’s the street life that really counts when one is trying to extend the life of an urban core from a 9-5/M-F situation to a 7 day a week, 18 hour a day future. Putting residents downtown is key to this future and I welcome every opportunity to make this happen. Right now, the only way this happens is through rentals. The beauty of rentals is that the property can be re-developed in the future into something else. So, while I am not “excited” by the specific plans for the site, I am elated that it means hundreds of new residents DT…many of which will likely be the young creative class employees that the city wants to attract to its core.

As we march forward DT, there needs to be symbiotic relationship among the various types of development. These types include housing, retail, entertainment and business. The key now is to find the way to grow them in support of each other. While all 4 types exist in DT now, there definitely are some that are more lacking than others. With the state government, et al, we do have a base of “business” downtown. We also have a rapidly growing entertainment base DT with all the new restaurants, bars and clubs that augment what was already there. We are sorely lacking in both retail and residents. But, to get the retail, you are going to have to get the residents there first before anyone is going to make the retail investment in a more substantial way than the one-off sort of way that retail has sluggishly and organically grown so far. So, to that end, I am glad to see the empty lot become housing for now.

If Raleigh’s city center doesn’t aggressively pursue housing, it will risk being left out of future retail investment by Glenwood South: which has 3 significant rental projects moving through the system now. These new residences along with the existing ones at West, 222, 510 Glenwood, The Cotton Mill, The Paramount and others will draw retail attention to DT but not to the Fayetteville St./Moore Square Districts.

In the end, any apartments that are built on that land can be demolished 10 or 20 years from now. That’s the beauty of apartments. They don’t require a vote by the homeowners to change land use direction when the time comes.

UC, I’m with you on the poor architectural state of Raleigh. When we are bemoaning the loss of a building like the one Balantine’s, was in, and the one across from it, I think we’ve completely lost our way.

John, Great points on getting warm bodies downtown and about apts being more flexible for redevelopment down the road. What I said in the article goes along with what we talked about 5 years ago; I think that West at North is way too big, and would rather have seen those condo units developed across the many empty lots and trash buildings that flank it for several blocks. Much like that, I’d rather see whatever demand we have for downtown going toward filling empty lots than waiting for signature projects. You mentioned replacement of this is 10 to 20 years…think 50. We have so many empty lots in downtown Raleigh that even if we continued the impressive growth rate of the previous decade, it would take us 40 years to fill in downtown with low rise development. I don’t think that the demand for this land would be appreciable again until at least 2060. So this does need to be a decent building, hopefully more appealing than The Hue.

Apartments are definitely the right way to go. Empty nesters’ demand for downtown is now satisfied, and people in the “creative class” don’t seem the least bit interested in ownership opportunities or long-term investments (which means banks wouldn’t give them loans anyway).

I would just love to see the area between The Walt and Dorothea Dix be redeveloped with row houses and low-rise apartments.

Ernest,
To be clear, I am not a fan of the design I have seen for these apartments but I also know that they are not in their final form. I am less bothered by the 6 stories than you are. I would hope that a developer would have the vision to bring a better piece of architecture to this minimized project than he/’she has. I’d rather have them take cues from the Progress Energy building than provide us with another “same ole, same ole” building. But, that decision does not lie in my hands. The city is going to have to take a stand and now cower to the developers as if they have to beg for something to happen downtown. The developers wouldn’t even propose this project if they didn’t have a sound financial model. It’s a delicate dance that needs to take place so that the finished product will be an improvement over what’s currently proposed.

I disagree that the city needs to develop in a tower model to successfully support transit. After all, take a look at Paris. It’s a city of 6-7 story buildings that’s denser than anything we can ever hope to be. Yet Paris feels human and engaging via its network of neighborhoods that stress a sense of place. With all of the available land DT, Raleigh has a real opportunity to make headway in that model while bringing tens of thousands of people to the city center. If and when the city is successful in drawing the young and talented downtown, it will have the drawing card it needs to attract corporate presence too.

While highrise living is certainly glamourous and a holy grail of sorts, it is not necessarily the path to Raleigh’s succcess. I see towers as two occupancy types: office and hotel. To Dana’s point, I would have rather seen a 17 story hotel where the West Condo stands with mid rise housing and retail on its peripheral. Instead we have a highrise condo that is essentially “extruded” midrise/lowrise architecture. It doesn’t work.

I am excited by the way that Glenwood South is beginning to address housing. Midrise rentals that house a few hundred residents on an acre or so of land is good in my book. Frankly, there are going to be more apartments in these new projects than there are condos in the RBC building. Speaking of bad architecture!!!! I cringe everytime I see Raleigh’s tallest building with those stupid (non integrated) terraces hanging off the side of it like lifeboats on a cruise ship. In the end, I think that in cities the size of Raleigh, let’s let building types house the appropriate occupancy and drive to the best architecture for each type. Let’s encourage the city with our voices to have the strength to drive to its 2030 vision.

John,

Maybe I didn’t make my point clear, so I apologize for it. No, we don’t need to have towers everywhere, but if we can’t have them downtown then where can we? The whole density discussion can go either way, and since I have been to Paris and other European cities, AND I grew up in a European country, I can assure you that many Europeans would praise our model instead of their own.

As for public transit, I don’t claim that towers is the only answer, but think about it… Would you rather have ~300 units in one third of the block, or have 500 units, 200 hotel rooms and maybe 500-1000 people working in the same amount of space? Transit is not only for those who live in one area, but also those who work. I want to be able to hop on the light rail and work downtown, but without higher densities AND office destinations this is simply harder to accomplish, unless you want to put in place a “money pit” kind of transit system.

You hit it on the nail about the pace of the development… Yes, we can put in place smaller scale projects and bring more residents. If this is our goal, then we have plenty of room for 4-8 story buildings. My problem is not with the number of rental units Gregg is proposing… Not at all. My problem is with the sprawling nature of the building he is proposing. Not to mention that the adjacent parking deck will tower above the apartments. The height will not be addressed, and I am willing to bet that a taller structure would have helped a very different, more appealing architecture, but that is my opinion. So, give me a 12-15-story building with the same amount of units and use the rest of the parcel for later. How doesn’t this help us increase density, especially across the central bus station.

Now, I will agree with you about the Glenwood South growth and the poor architecture of most buildings in Raleigh. Glenwood South will be a great model for redeveloping mixed-use areas and I have high hopes for it. I would not place limits on heights East of Glenwood Ave, though, but I would like to see some attractive row houses, especially along St Mary’s Str. As for architecture, don’t even get me started about RBC Plaza. Its top was clearly an afterthought and very poorly executed The views from the balconies are definitely worth it, something that no low-rise can match, but the architecture is where RBC Plaza falls short.

Another area where Raleigh falls short is urban townhomes, brownstones and row houses… My goodness!!! Why can’t we get some quality development in this category. The Blount Street Commons – Gregg’s project would probably fit better there – is another disaster and whoever approved the plan needs to be jailed… The fronts of the homes face the backs of other homes. When they build the last “row” of houses across from Krispy Kreme this effect will be more evident. If we can’t get low-rise development right, how in the Earth can we expect quality high-rise development? Let’s hope that the 2030 plan can help us prevent such garbage in the future.

John,

I agree, most of us are very close regarding what we wish to see in our downtown. Street-level experience, safety, attractive streetscapes, 24/7 options, useful retail, good entertainment destinations, tourist attractions, green areas, good connectivity with the rest of the city via reliable public transit – that isn’t yet-another money pit – and many other cultural and non-cultural amenities.

Before I get to my concerns – it is more interesting to talk about the things we have in common – I want to say that I totally agree with your state government comments. I am a state employee, and I will be until Nov 30, since my position was eliminated, so I can tell you from experience that the way state government has planned its “urban” presence is simply PATHETIC. Look what they approved for Blount Street Commons and you will vomit These people know NOTHING about good urban planning and it shows. Unfortunately, the city leaders cannot do much to influence the state’s decisions. One exception is the Green Square project, even though it could have been done better, IMO, simply by consolidating both buildings into one, or placing the office building to the West above the parking deck. Too late now.

At this point in time, the two trends for new DT Raleigh development point to hospitality and rental units. I have little doubt that these trends will dominate the landscape for the next 5 years, at least, but I have some concerns. This is not an 100% accurate statement, but it seems to be the norm. Low-rise hotels are usually unattractive, in terms of architecture. Low-rises don’t require the type of material used in larger structures and tend to be less efficient. The good thing is, they are easier to replace 20-30 years down the road. The bad news is, they take up valuable space and drive real estate prices up – small supply. As for the rental units, I have a feeling that some of the proposed apartment buildings will be converted to condos in the future. Sure, they may become affordable, but the construction quality will not be comparable to those units that were meant to be condos. Not 100% the case, but the probability is very high.

Back to the topics where we disagree – respectfully, of course A few years ago I did my own little research regarding parcels that could be used for skyscraper development. Please bear with me for a little more… Those who either like or don’t mind low-rise developments in DT Raleigh have lots to be happy about. What happens with us, skyscraper enthusiasts? What are the options? Quite frankly, there are no more than 5-6 spots where skyscrapers could go? God forbid they pass the whole Union Station plan, which would restrict heights in and around Warehouse District in the most stupid way. I would not mind seeing a 30-40 story tower in the Warehouse District, but it won’t happen. The CBD has a very small number of lots that could get something above 40 stories, and I don’t mean something that sticks out like a sore thumb. Sites 2, 3, 4 and 5 cannot host a skyscraper, for various reasons – mostly due to their transitional nature. What’s left? Unless we extend the CBD all the way to West Str, our chances for skyscrapers get smaller and smaller.

Now, don’t get me wrong, there will be opportunities in the future, but will require loss of existing buildings that I pretty much see tough to get approved, or simply too costly. I don’t want to get into the details of my little “research”, so let me get back to The Edison. I am afraid that your calculation regarding the height of the 6-story building is not right. Even if the apartments reach the same height as the parking deck, it will still be a crappy proposition. Unlike the Park & Market apartments at North Hills East, this will project will not offer any kind of variation in the facade. Just look at how “sad” the nearby Palladium Plaza looks, and it is smaller in length than the Edison apartments will be. This project will not be a big-city kind of apartment cluster, where you may have multiple buildings, different in design and size, built adjacent to each other. This is going to be a monolithic structure, void of personality and strictly to “blind” city leaders and lenders… No, Gregg is not such a bad person, but he is a businessman and has to look after his company and his staff. This is a good business decision for him, but not the best one for our city. I don’t want him to fail, but I do hope that the city sends him back to the drawing board. Again, encourage him to build those rental units into a single mid-rise and keep the rest of the parcel for future development. After all, this is also best for the city, for tax purposes 😉

Thanks for bearing with me…

John,

Good morning, and thanks for replying… We have started quiet a dialogue here… A good one, in my opinion You are right, though, this is a good conversation that we could have over cocktails or coffee.

Also, I want to thank you for your supportive words, although I am afraid we will disagree over one thing: My job loss wasn’t because of the legislation… We are up against a real threat as a state and we need to deal with it. Excessive fat needs to be trimmed, and that is what I am at this point My position could have been saved if projects were managed better in the past, but management decisions affect the little guys. Hell, even my manager is not immune to bad decisions. And because I am [still] working for an agency that deals with budget and grants, I can see the problems that have been created long before the legislative body was forced to ask for tough decisions. After all, taxpayers money should be managed better, IMO.

Back to the urbanity/skyline discussion… Back in the days when the city leaders made a decision regarding Site 1, I contacted one of the companies that lost the bid. They were very receptive and the president of the company – based in Atlanta – wanted to hear more about the opportunities outside Site 1. So, I created a document (which I never completed) showing available parcels, information about the owners, photos of the existing conditions and general information. I sent her what I had, as a start and she was thrilled. She even called me at work to talk more about DT Raleigh. Shortly afterward I got a new job and I focused on other things, but those were the pre-Hue, pre-RBC Plaza days. Today, there are only a few parcels that a developer could potentially develop into skyscrapers, but that would be a face-to-face discussion, although emails could work well, too (you can contact me at raleighmsa AT gmail.com).

In the past, I mentioned in some forums my idea of what Raleigh could be, at least in the downtown area. The city I would model Raleigh after is Portland, OR. Yes, there is some grit that I would gladly leave out, but I don’t like to see Disneyland, either. However, I place a lot of importance – not excessive, though – on image. Raleigh’s skyline is simply pathetic and doesn’t do much. For a city its size, Raleigh needs to make a much stronger statement. No need for a major corporate image, but I would like to see a couple of corporations calling DT Raleigh their home. Usually, they bring thousands of employees and many such entities are also good corporate citizens, making donations and buying naming rights… We need that. Red Hat is a good start, and I know that they will bring with them dozens of other technology companies of all sizes. DT Raleigh can be a technology hub if we play our cards right. This is how small and large buildings will come to life, not to mention the economic impact on the small businesses that depend on a larger employee base.

We can go on and on about this. The idea is to create a downtown area that has a little bit for everyone. While we may never have a skyline like Dallas’, Houston’s, Seattle’s, we can get one like Austin’s The latter is more of what I call ideal, but I would also love to have something like Charlotte’s Tryon Str (that is a Hell of a nice big city venue, but it needs more retail) and Greensboro’s Elm Str (a great combination of historic and modern buildings).

Thanks for reading…

PS: Don’t underestimate the crappy situation we are in. Public investment is not feasible when our debt rises. Which is why I “insist” that we need a few larger corporations to participate, as they normally do. Sorry, but I don’t believe in spending taxpayers’ money in the name of “investment”. There are private entities (i.e. Greg Hatem’s Empire Properties) that could undertake such projects successfully 😉