FMW Real Estate’s Hillsborough Morgan Development Controversy

CtrlBurn
10/25 01:17 PM

They’re going to do something a lot like The Hue, and it’s going to suck.

150
10/25 01:44 PM

I don’t see how this won’t improve the situation at that intersection.

adam!!
10/25 04:23 PM

we are doomed.

Coker Towers
10/25 05:43 PM

They should keep the historic feel of the neighborhood and make everything look abandoned and dirty. Crowder is the definition of a Bloviator and if he really wanted to offer input into the design of the project he would have done so at the Development Committee level. He is just appeasing his Park Dr. constituents who don’t want “those people” walking dogs in “their” park.

alsoconcerned
10/25 08:19 PM

Yeah, We can go from dirty and abandoned to characterless, sterile and abandoned like the Hue. We need old, spacious structures, not just cramped overpriced apartments.

FMW should restore the historic buildings that are there, then raise new buildings that fit in with the neighborhood, not just do a flimsy, fast job in an effort to squeeze every penny possible out of the property.

Joe Tarheel
10/25 08:41 PM

Virtually anything is better than what’s there.

You need to recognize the developers have a financial interest in making this project viable for multiple reasons:

1) tenants: both residential and business.  If they build something ‘crappy’, this impacts them financially

2) the City: If they ever hope to expand beyond this project, they had better do a quality project.  Keep in mind, there are multiple phases to this development.  If Phase I sucks, the Thomas Crowder’s will come out of the woodwork to create opposition for Phase II, III, etc.

JZ
10/25 10:02 PM

Compliments to Acree for writing a brief, balanced and well-constructed analysis of the issues…

10,000 sf of restaurant/retail ain’t nothing.  Imagine 10 little shops like the ones that line the Progress Energy Building from Sosta down to 101 Lounge.  Small stores that, in and of themselves, could be lovely little jewels but do NOTHING to develop the 24hour walkable urbanism that this City deserves.

I guarantee they think that retail at this location cannot compete with Cameron Village….I disagree.  Cameron Village’s high-dollar cost excludes many a retailer that would love to serve downtown residents as well as the students…..

150
10/26 09:20 AM

I don’t follow why anyone would say we “need old, spacious structures” there. Seems that the majority of people complain about sprawl and call for higher density in our downtown.  Wouldn’t this project, in the dead zone between NCSU and downtown, address this?  A couple of smaller shops and increased residential options, which would help bring foot traffic both during the day and in the evening, sounds like a win to me. 

Oh, and perhaps Coker Towers is being sarcastic, but the dog walking comment is just silly.  I’m sure the Park Drive community would welcome that corner being developed, as the current foot traffic leaves something to be desired.

Coker Too
10/26 09:22 AM

Geary did a great job shaping the development at Wade and Oberlin.

Bill
10/26 11:43 AM

FMW…  F&$% My World

Nordy
10/26 11:45 AM

Can you expand on the passage below?  It makes it sound like you want to have it both ways.  How dense is “too dense”?  Would crowding out street traffic be a bad thing if it meant more walkable living space in Raleigh and more usage for public transportation?

“If FMW develops wisely, the area could grow beyond the passing-through point it is now into a destination in its own right. If FMW develops poorly, dense condo structures could crowd out street traffic and beleaguer residents.”

Bill M
10/26 12:25 PM

FMW describes the 222 Building on Glenwood as an example of what will front Morgan.  Townhouses and lower height buildings on Ashe.  150, you make a good point about the nimby-ism of Raleigh downtowners and Cameron Park is among the worst.  Allowing mother-in-law apartments in backyards is an excellent way to increase density and provide lower cost housing in a city but try getting that approved by Cameron Park residents.  The high speed rail issue is another current example in the 5-Points neighborhood.  Meeker is correct - these trains will be way less noise than freight trains, which can run all day long and make noise at all hours of the AM, without restriction. People are all for progress in someone else’s neighborhood.

Coker Towers
10/26 03:07 PM

I’m confused. Is this outrageous redevelopment effort happening near where the kid got beaten to an inch of his life or near the site of the recent rape by knife-point. Although the aesthetics of this redevelopment are not to the liking of everybody, it surely beats what is there now and will make the area much safer. Unless, that is, FMW uses EFIS in which case the whole area is going to turn into a Ghetto where people are strung out on Meow Meow and leaving their Four Loco cans in the Park.

150
10/27 10:40 AM

I think I misinterpreted Coker Towers’s original point, so to be clear…

I think this project will be a huge positive for that intersection.  As it stands now, the intersection and immediate surroundings are not positive.  If I’m in Cameron Park, I support this, because it gives more foot traffic than what is there now.  Having neighbors and retail will be an improvement.

150
10/27 10:42 AM

Also…
What “rape by knife-point”, Coker?  I didn’t hear about that.  Where exactly was it?

Coker Towers
10/27 11:03 AM

Below is a link to the rape I referenced. To be fair, there is no mention of where on Park Ave. this occurred or whether it was a random act of violence or if there is a connection between the suspect and victim. But my overall point, as 150 alludes to, is that you can get caught up in the minutia of aesthetics and traffic counts and lose sight of the overall positive results the redevelopment will bring to the area.

http://www.newsobserver.com/2010/10/26/760570/johnston-man-charged-in-rape.html#storylink=misearch

TVD
10/27 11:06 AM

Intersting that ‘Acree’ used secondary sources only for his bloggeration.  the actual zoning case, Z-11-10, is available ont he City of Raleigh Planning Department web site.  If he/she had read it, it would reveal numerous references to open space, building scale and stepbacks, materials, active uses at street level on all streets, public realm improvements like new sidewalks and street trees, first district in the City to prohibit drive thrus, the list goes on.

Concerning the late breaking ‘concept plan’ request, At the June Hillborough CAC meeting, (yes, June) the development team offered to share preliminary development plans with the group to better illustrate the relationship between zoning conditions and the preliminary design scheme for phase one. The estimable Mr. Geary, along with several others, insisted that this was inappropriate, and it was decided that the gourp would not view the plans. 

This was well and good, the case was about land use-  industrial and other mish mosh of zonings left over from our 40 + year old code- or dense mixed use residenial and retail with numerous development controls and restrictions. 

So, are we to understand that ‘Acree’, Mr. Geary, Mr. Crowder, and others were suggesting that the previous uses and complete lack of regulation on the site-  open landfill, outdoor firing range, heavy manufacturing, adult establishment were allowable- was preferable to eliminating these uses unless they were given the opportunity to engage in an 11th hour design critique, which in fact Mr. Geary rightly declared in June had no place or bearing in a land use case?  What was going on here, exactly?

Re-Zoning is not glamourous or easy to grasp- it is a complicated legal transaction that in this case was necessary to allow for the kind of compact, walkable, and transit friendly development that we all seem to want in Raleigh- as long as it is not too close to our own homes, apparently.  So, seeing the larger view, the Planning Commission, 6 out of 7 members of the City Council, and yes, many neighbors strongly support this first step in enabling change for the better in this neglected area.

Let’s gtive FMW a chance and reserve our judgement of whether the develoopment will be a ‘behemoth’ for when an actual design is submitted for review in the coming months.

Bill M
10/27 11:14 AM

I agree with you, Mr. Van Dyke.  And to be fair, I think Crowder is usually a blowhard that just loves to hear himself talk and force others to hear it. He seems compelled to remind his constituents, at all possible moments, he is an architect.  Sometimes he should just keep quiet and wear a Frank Lloyd Wright cape and beret, and we’ll all remember.  Lastly, as citizens we should have been informed that this would prevent future adult establishments and outdoor firing ranges.  Why is this surfacing now?

150
10/27 12:07 PM

@Coker Towers:
According to NC Wanted website, it looks like it was on the 100 block, behind the YMCA.

http://spotcrime.com/crime/13346309-d8ca3ed21cf997dedcb91bcb3b297e7a

Bob Geary
10/27 12:34 PM

As usual, there is a germ of truth in TVD’s statements. He might’ve noted that he is a paid consultant to FMW, but never mind. Rezonings ARE complicated, he got that right.

On the one assertion he makes about me that is presented as fact rather than opinion, TVD misstates what I said. Yes, he offered to “show” a plan for Phase 1. I said we should look at it only if FMW was presenting it as part of their case—in other words, the plan would bear some legal relationship to what FMW’s application actually said. No, TVD answered, of course they weren’t going to be tied to doing what they’d be showing.

How many times in Raleigh has a rezoning applicant shown pictures of some fictional project in order to be approved for something completely different? And then everyone’s surprised when the thing that’s built (Coker Junior, for example) isn’t nearly as sweet as the pictures they saw. After many years of letting this slide, the Planning Department has lately taken the position that showing pictures that are not an official part of a rezoning case—not what will be built, that is—isn’t allowed in the rezoning process.

Which is what I said, and which I know TVD remembers but can’t quite manage to relate.

I have my fingers crossed on the FMW project because, like everyone else, I think this is a great location for urban development. Whether urban development will result from the picture-less FMW rezoning, though, is anyone’s guess.

As for Coker Junior, yes, it’s not good. I didn’t support it. If the point is that the original Coker project would’ve been better, I believe anyone taking that position is probably remembering the fake pictures that the developer showed of a neat-o project that, unfortunately, bore little relationship to what he actually had in mind.

Opponents of Coker Towers—the original scheme—worked for a year to inform the public that what they were being shown was fictional and that the real project was a) undefined except as to the allowable scale ,and b) potentially much, much bigger than what the site could hold from a traffic standpoint.

Finally, we took up a collection, got an architect to depict the potential scale of the development as proposed, and showed the real deal in an ad in the N&O. The application immediately collapsed.

Put it this way—if you don’t like Coker Junior, the original Coker was the same project times four, with traffic generation numbers that were off the charts because of a large shopping center built on top of a three-level parking deck. To say nothing of the number of apartments that would’ve been allowed.

I doubt you’d have liked it better.

—Bob Geary

Coker Too
10/27 01:49 PM

I think the opposition to the Coker project went home when they’d felt they won the war and abandoned all the relevant issues like, well, not allowing the development to be a big piece of shit.  What happened to the concerns about pedestrian friendly features and integration of public transit options?  They didn’t matter anymore because NIMBY restricted the size and then went home.  The same thing happened when the Stop Cameron Village Tower movement lost.  They immediately disappeared instead of pressuring the developers to shape the look and features of the building.

NIMBY lost in this case but neighbors can still work to demand that the project isn’t crap.

TVD
10/28 11:15 AM

Bob,

Thanks for your post, and yes I should clarify that I helped represent the case for the past several months.

Glad to serve as a source for Acree on this topic in future if needed.  Best,

Ted Van Dyk (TVD)
New City Design Group

WILLNCSU
10/28 11:51 AM

Old buildings are stupid, inefficient and ugly.  Tear them down and build something new and shiny.  I with there was something like what is proposed near State when I went there.

fedupwithpolicy
10/28 03:12 PM

In response to “Coker Too” no one has “disappeared” from what you refer to as a “movement” in your post above. Everyone is still living here and still playing frogger in the neighborhood.

Unfortunately the ones who do care feel disenfranchised by the City Council and quite frankly can’t face the fight this apparently takes.  Who gives a flip about how the building “looks”? Does anyone care about what it WILL DO to the infrastructure of an already crumbling neighborhood?

Sorry to disappoint you Coker Too but this isn’t about politics for us…

ncmyk
10/31 11:40 AM

the article says we are now at the mercy of fmw now that it has been rezoned - wrong - mr. crowder still has plenty of more chances to hold the project up in site plan approval, etc.  (which he will try and do)

oh, and if raleigh had fixed the intersection at daniels and wade (probably the worst designed and most dangerous in raleigh) the ‘coker’ property could have handled the traffic.

it still needs to be fixed - right in and right out only on daniels and a roundabout on wade at st. mary’s.  would have been a better use than those terribly designed roundabouts on hillsborough.