Update: Chancellory DOA?
From a post on the Trinity Park listserv, it appears that the Chancellory project may be nearing an untimely end. Quoting the post:
The developer's final offer was for an 80,000+ net square feet (with a total footprint of 100,000+ square feet), 48-unit, 4.5 story building, with 4 stories on Lamond and the Lamond/Watts corner. Apart from the number of stories and the distribution of the condo units, this configuration is unchanged from the design submitted to the BoA and does not contain any mechanism to address what materials would be used and how the building would look. Other possible configurations and approaches that would result in reductions in height and density have been suggested to the developers, but those have been rejected. The developer has not shared drawings or alternative renderings for TPNA to react to.
Based upon the Board's understanding of the BoA's concerns/directives expressed at the February hearing and, in conjunction with a tremendous amount of feedback from neighbors, the TPNA Board was unanimous in believing that the developer's final parameters did not adequately address the concerns of the BoA and the majority of the neighborhood.
While I think the developer brought this on himself by losing the trust of the neighborhood early in the game, I think it's unfortunate that the neighborhood would reject a 4.5 story building, as the 7 story height seemed to be the major objection. It is also the height of other early 20th century apartment buildings in the neighborhood, albeit with more units.
I'll reiterate that I believe dense development 2 blocks from Brightleaf is appropriate = I'd much rather see development on an asphalt lot in town than sprawling out into the hinterland. And I can't imagine that anyone is going to build single family homes on this spot. One does need to be careful to appropriately protect the historic properties in the neighborhood, so that tear-down fever doesn't strike (as chronicled recently in the N&O with regard to Raleigh) but infill is a good (and necessary) thing.
Perhaps another developer will come along with a project the neighborhood approves of - but the risk in this game is that 1) Most likely, most developers are going to steer clear of this parcel, given the climate, and 2) Those that are interested may see fit to simply build the lousiest thing they can get away with under the current regulatory setup.
Of course, the project could still be approved by the DDRT on July 24, with variances for the 7 story height and density; I agree with the neighborhood that 7 stories is a tall building for this block. We'll see how it all shakes out.
Posts
7 comments:
It would be a real shame if that lot sits vacant for another 5, 10, 15 years. I don't think 4 stories fronting Lamond and Watts is out of character with the neighborhood at all. As you point out, there are several apartment buildings well within Trinity Park that are that height.
I understand the neighborhood's concerns about the architecture complimenting the neighborhood and the desire to have quality materials used. But I don't know. I might be going out on a limb here, but I get the impression that many (most?) of the people in TP have a "Not In My Backyard Attitude" and don't want to see anything there. I hope I am wrong about that. Like you said, the developers didn't help themselves out either. It's the same story that has played out a thousand times in wealthy, liberal historic neighborhoods adjacent to universities. Not sure how this one is going to end.
The key is to find a developer who is willing to create some value for the community -- a neighborhood center, a performance space, a pocket park -- something that people can USE. The height and density will be a lot more palatable if the neighbors have bought into the whole project. Not easy to do, though. TP has to be careful not to get that NIMBY rep.
I felt like Lou was giving plenty to the neighborhood: he moved the nurse's quarters at his own expense. Plus TP would have gotten a hotel, bar, and restaurant! Speaking for myself, I'd use that a lot more often than another park (given that there is plenty of green space across the street).
I am a Trinity Park northsider - nowhere near the proposed project. I attended a couple of meetings about the project and monitored the chat on the list serve until I became completely disgusted with the tenor of the discussion - from both sides, and abandoned ship.
Sorry to beat a dead horse, but I feel a bit compelled to defend my neighbors, who have done nothing more than rally to protect one of their own. In my opinion NIMBY-ism had little to do with this project running aground. I think a lot of the immediate neighbors on Lamond were actually quite vocal supporters of the 7 story proposal, and people north of approximately Markham Street mostly didn't care about it.
I think the developers made a huge mistake when they sold off the hotel site without obtaining ironclad commitments from the buyer. That move completely screwed over the Isleys, who live right next door to the hotel site on what was a fairly rough block of Watts Street less than five years ago. After Nathan Isley (a trained architect and urban planner) stood up at the City Council meeting in favor of the initial rezoning - voluntarily giving up a huge buffer next to his house - the hotel parcel was sold off and the project was completely changed. He can now look forward to seeing a giant parking garage from the bedroom window of his beautifully restored historic home.
While I don't think the developers intended this to happen, the end result is the same, and it was all completely avoidable. To the Isley's and their south side TP neighbors' credit, they stuck together and demanded that the developers make more detailed and ironclad commitments about the project before they would support any variances.
I don't necessarily agree that the developers gave something to the neighborhood by moving the nurse's home, nor were they really obligated to. They were however requesting several variances from the development ordinance, and thus the burden was theirs to demonstrate to the City, the BOA, and most importantly the neighbors that the project would not negatively impact them. They failed to do this, and that's why the project is (I hope) as Gary says DOA - at least in its present form.
RWE -- Would you mind describing what you mean by a "rough block" of Watts?
Joe -
I probably should have said "relatively rough" - as in compared with the rest of that part of Trinity Park. A lot of the structures at this end of Watts were neglected rental properties just a few years ago. Even the (now beautifully restored) brick and granite home at 204 Watts was abandoned and completely overgrown. Many of the houses on Lamond were also in very poor shape, although they are now some of the most luxurious in the neighborhood. Take a look at the houses immediatly north and west of the former Trailways site on Albemarle. These are rough by any standard.
My point is that the edges of any neighborhood (even leafy Trinity Park) are subject to erosion when the transitions to commercial aren't carefully considered. The investments that people like the Isleys and their neighbors have made in edge properties need to be protected.
All one has to do is drive further up Watts and Buchanan towards Club Boulevard where the double whammy of heavy traffic and commercial squalor (Checks Cashed!)has caused a domino effect of decline.
Would the homes at the south end of Watts have been preserved and restored if they were next door to a huge parking garage or a pawn shop, or would they have sat vacant or been chopped up into rental units until they were finally torn down and replaced with new construction?
RWE is right about the edge of TP. It was only a few years ago when one of HPSD's "Renovate This" program had a house just across from the Isley's. It is the brick mission style home and it is absolutely beautiful now, but it wasn't when I first saw it.
Thanks for all the background info on the proceedings. I'm glad it's not a case of NIMBYism for most. Hopefully all the shenanigans with the developer are over and they can develop a quality project that transitions well between TP and downtown. The thought of a parking deck behind the proposed hotel across the street sends shivers down my spine. Does anybody know where that project stands at this point?
Post a Comment