146 replies to this topic

[dwntwnraleigh]

http://www.wral.com/...001/detail.html

[eastsider]

Nice looking project.

[orulz]

The web page for this project is here:
http://www.bloomsburyestates.com/

It includes many renderings as well as a video. I'm a little bit puzzled by why they chose to place the buildings where they did, and I also don't particularly like the surface parking, but on the whole it looks like a great project.

[IBruton]

dwntwnraleigh, on Aug 8 2005, 07:54 PM, said:

http://www.wral.com/...001/detail.html

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I really like the architectural design.  It looks very classy, but it's unfortunate that the prices are so high.  There's got to be a way to make housing in DT affordable to the average family.

As long as I can get 1700 square feet in the suburbs for 140,000, then there's no reason why I'd want to spend 899,000 (even if I qualified) for 2700 square feet.

1700sq ft. home = 82.35 per sq. ft.
2700sq ft. condo in DT = 332.96 per sq. ft.
-------------------------------------------------
NOT WORTH IT and something must be done to make it attractive financially.

Edited by IBruton, 08 August 2005 - 06:35 PM.

[urbanvb]

Aren't the Dawson and other condo projects being built DT somewhat lower priced? Hopefully there will be a mix of decently priced to expensive units built DT so most folks who wish to live there can do so.

[urbanesq]

The offset of the buildings looks odd, and they seem a little fancy-schmancy for that area.  Also, Bloomsbury is the name of another neighborhood inside the beltline, but not where these are proposed.  Technicality, I know.  But anyhow, overall I think it looks like a nice project and I'm happy that it's in the works.  It's cool to see so much mid-rise development going up around the edges of downtown.  Makes for a good, dense city (even if the Bloomsbury isn't the most pedestrian-looking development in the world...   ).

The prices do seem way high, but I imagine it'll take more market saturation to bring anything more affordable downtown.  Or maybe cheaper land, or going very tall?  At any rate, I say if it builds more residential into the downtown fabric, I'm happy somebody can make some money from it.  Good profit margins will encourage more of this type of development, just like they do in the exurbs.

In any event, these will be perfectly situated for the TTA stop; I imagine they won't have any trouble hitting those price points.

[ChiefJoJo]

Quote

I'm a little bit puzzled by why they chose to place the buildings where they did, and I also don't particularly like the surface parking, but on the whole it looks like a great project.

I assume you mean location WITHIN the site, because the site is perfectly located near the TTA DT stop.  I agree about the surface parking--I guess they just wanted to save money rather than build a deck.  Also, when looking at this picture, I think it's clear they wanted to move as far away from the wye as possible, perhaps due to noise, although I live near there, and there's really no getting away from it.

I like the architecture, and the site improvement a lot, so I can live with those minor flaws.

[Jones133]

Prices are comparable to the Dawson, 510 Glenwood, and The Paramount. Amenties make it a little pricier, but remember that top floor units are priced higher than ground floor units of the same design. Second Empire architecture is a little out of place..when Second Empire was en vogue in Raleigh, Boylan Heights was still 30 years from being developed, but oh well.

I blame two developments downtown for taking residential prices beyond middleclass reach, The First Union (Wachovia) and BB&T towers. As soon as those went up, land shot above 1 million per acre downtown and every grandma and family trust owning a lot downtown decided to wait until they got an offer in that range before selling. So all the folks here that want skyline and affordable condos downtown, you are really talking out of both sides of your mouth. That 1.5 million (yeah center city land is more like 1.5 million per acre now) must first be paid off by your 60 condo buyers before brick and mortar, upfit and profit are even considered in pricing these places. But wait the calculator says! 1.5million spread over 60 units, is only $25,000 in land cost per unit..similar to your average surburban lot. With bricks and sticks construction, Ikea kitchens and no amenties, it really should be easy to get 1000 square foot units up for 150,000 per unit. There is profit made on each high-end kitchen cabinet installed and extra layer of paint added, so that is why developers and architects continue to push these expensive units off the assembly line. The volume sold is lower in a finite downtown market, vs. a seemingly infinite surban market where speed of construction is the profit engine.

[NCMike1981]

Imagine downtown Raleigh without the two tallest though...I mean wouldn't the tallest building be the old Progress Energy Tower at 20ish stories? I wonder developers realized when they built the 2 tallest that those buildings would remain the tallest in downtown Raleigh for 15+ yrs (will be even longer if the Reynolds Tower is not approved/built as described). I am actually amazed that they were even approved and built, given the city's height phobia. I bet the nimby's were going wild though...

I like the Bloomsbury architecture, although they are pricey. What's the area surrounding them like? Is the area kind of bad off, historical or in transition?

[Justin6882]

^ historical...the mayor lives around there.

[ChiefJoJo]

Quote

yeah center city land is more like 1.5 million per acre now

  

222 Glenwood property was around $4mil for 1.5 acres.  Also, beyond the high land costs, there are more design issues and often site remediation (see new Convention Center) that must take place which often complicates things from a cost and time perspective.

[Jones133]

NCMike1981, on Aug 9 2005, 11:22 AM, said:

Imagine downtown Raleigh without the two tallest though...I mean wouldn't the tallest building be the old Progress Energy Tower at 20ish stories? I wonder developers realized when they built the 2 tallest that those buildings would remain the tallest in downtown Raleigh for 15+ yrs (will be even longer if the Reynolds Tower is not approved/built as described). I am actually amazed that they were even approved and built, given the city's height phobia. I bet the nimby's were going wild though...

I like the Bloomsbury architecture, although they are pricey. What's the area surrounding them like? Is the area kind of bad off, historical or in transition?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I like tall buildings too. Raleigh lacks a downtown big enough to support a highrise district and an artsy/bohemian district at one time. Glenwood started out sort of edgy with Lee Hansley, Crooked Beat records, The Rockford and Havana Delux and the Warehouse district was too with Humble Pie, and Legends. But where in bigger cities an artsy district might start out with cheaper, cooler warehouse lofts we all can afford, Raleigh's tight downtown brought the price of everything in central and western downtown up all at once. At the risk of being un-PC, passive racism is all that keeps eastern downtown from matching those prices.  Places us average Joes can afford, condo-wise would be 610 Hillsborough, and Governors Square, and Person Point, all of which feel more like suburban apartments than downtown condos. Martin Place is the closest thing downtown to getting it right, (balanced price and urban feel) although so often White Oak properties and the well-intentioned Roland Gammon, get it only half right.

To this day Raleigh's street grid still suffers from being a center of so many institutions. Peace, St Marys, Central Prison, Dix and converging railroads left the grid only one direction to go...east (about a dozen blocks or so). Then in 1907, grid street development ceased with Boylan Heights and the expansion of a walkable downtown grid ceased.  There was more grid space north and south of downtown (Pre Capital and Dawson/McDowell connector) that has been demolished or reworked as shown in the timeline of aerial photos on the City website. These areas would have worked nicely for affordable middleclass condos and townhomes in the downtown grid if they still existed

The 29 story limit had to do with certain fire codes that make it much more expensive to go above that height.

Sorry so much writing...

[A2]

I love the old world charm of this building....

A2

[ChiefJoJo]

Is it me, or is the Bloomsbury built in the N-S RR right-of-way?

OK--I messed up, it's across from Boylan Ave from where I thought it was--on the west side of Boylan at Hargett St.  There's an old conrete slab there surrounded by fencing right now and it's diagonally across from the Joel Jane house.

Edited by ChiefJoJo, 10 August 2005 - 06:50 AM.

[Subway Scoundrel]

What I like about these buildings is the French Roof.  You see this all over Paris (somewhat like) and it is different than the average condo look.  Plus the porches are some what inset or dont look like a 1955 NY highrise with "Scales" running up and down.  The location is there because it is on a hill so therefore overlooking downtown.  It wil be somewhat noisy but that is living downtown.   I like it and wish I could win the Lotto to buy the Penthouse.   Plus, a Snopy's hot dog is only a few blocks away !!!

[twincity]

nice looking project...very european.

[capitalapts]

nice looking project...for someone pulling in a lot more cash than I do.  

At this point I think it's possible to make the argument that the downtown condo market is rapidly becoming saturated with way higher-end  projects.  Guess how much the cheapest unit asking price is at the Hudson (old Belk buidling)?  $300K +.  Where is the market for that???  

There are condos available around for those of us who don't rake in 6 figures per anum, but those seem to be outnumbered by high-end projects, at least in the immediate downtown area (notwithstanding the condos on Person St. near Davie(?) as well as near Krispy Kreme, etc.  

I live and work downtown, and would like to be able to buy a condo that I could  afford.  There doesn't appear to be much in the way of that on the horizon that I've heard of.

[edit: commenced diatribe before I read IBruton's post, sorry]

Edited by capitalapts, 10 August 2005 - 01:43 PM.

[dmccall]

BE just got approved by the planning commission this morning!!

[ChiefJoJo]

Well, BE actually meets the requirements of the west gateway plan, except for the mixed use part, so very good!

N&O article on Bloomsbury as well as Tucker St.

Edited by ChiefJoJo, 15 February 2006 - 08:15 AM.

[orulz]

Bloomsbury Estates has recieved a green light from City Council. Read the article here.