There are many more factors involved besides the scale of tear-down redevelopments. Obviously, opposite sides can’t agree on the tear-down discussion. That said, I am going to quickly propose a development integrity rating system to evaluate whole developments or single tear-down-rebuilds. To give you an idea, (1) is extremely poor, (5) is excellent, and Meadowmont would probably be the closest thing to a 5 in this area. Our guinea pig: The Oaks at Fallon Park.
Social. (2)
The Oaks at Fallon Park represents a large-scale tear-down effort of Whitaker Park Apartments. These apartments were the most accessible rentals units in the Five Points/Hayes Barton area, and the displaced members of the community are mostly younger people in a low income bracket. This redevelopment reduces the mix of incomes in the neighborhood, which makes the community less sustainable and more dependent on outsiderhome-buyers. In a sense this is a gentrifying development.
Environmental. (3)
The developer’s attitude towards the site is mixed. He saves much effort and resources by utilizing the existing paved infrastructure. Much of the site, however, has been heavily regraded and several very large oak trees have been felled. The houses being built appear to attempt some environmental responsibility, but seriously, isn’t that the LEAST you can do? From the alley image below, you can see how much green space is actually left over. The ratio of pervious to impervious surface is awful. Where will all the water go? (It doesn’t soak into asphalt or concrete.)
Planning. (4)
This developer gets the most points here. The best design move of this entire venture is the use of alleyways to channel vehicular traffic, leaving house fronts to communicate human inhabitation towards the street. Big plus. This creates a better sense of community within the development and a different level of neighborly interaction. The animal becomes
suburban. On the down side, there is no mix of uses here, and everyone will probably drive to go somewhere, but hey, were evaluating suburbs here.
Architecture. (3)
Again, these houses are oriented to the street. There is good variation from house to house, and several different builders are involved in the project. This variation contributes with the alley ways to some sense of place. The major downfalls here are the scale and proportion of these new houses. They are HUGE and awkward. The alleyways save face because the developer has to pay attention to the “back” of the house now. The proximity of each house to the next is a bit awkward; it’s almost as if the houses want to connect to one another with courtyards in between. The developer’s attempt at historicism is poor and uninformed, but not overzealous—it’s more of a marketing attempt than anything else.
Appropriateness. (2)
This development disregards its surroundings. The houses are clumsily out of scale for where they have been sited. The overhaul of housing type from duplex-rental to single-family-owned is drastic and somewhat egocentric.
Overall (2.8) out of 5
In my opinion the developer took some very positive steps here in terms of planning and configuring these houses. Good job. The biggest weaknesses are the utter disregard for context, selfish attitude towards scale and proportion, and poor attention towards many environmental factors. This could be an interesting precedent and contributing case study for the zoning setback discussion taking place with the planning commission and city council.
Welcome to New Raleigh. We welcome your participation in the ongoing discussion. Before posting we ask that you read our Comment Policy and we invite you to register with our site. If you want to keep up with the news on our blog, subscribe to the RSS feed or get emailed every time we post.