Jump to content

Raleigh's Fayetteville Street


ericurbanite

Recommended Posts

Just like restaurants have a run up time a location like this will need time to grow. I went to Yancy's last night and had a good meal and for a Tuesday night there was a decent handful of people there. Whether the businesses are willing to take that initial hit remains to be seen... If I was in town for a convention and staying at the Marriott there the first place I'd think to go eat would be on F street. I used to go to conferences in San Jose and stay in the hotel attached to the convention center and during that week all of the restaurants that were walking distance from both would be booked solid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Sticker shock imperils downtown plaza.

http://www.newsobserver.com/102/story/572247.html

This is ridiculous.

Like I said before, I have no idea why everyone came out of that meeting thinking everything was hunky dory. You basically have Isley, Craven and Taliaferro against funding it from the get go, and Meeker is out of the picture due to conflict of interest. So, unless I'm mistaken that they still need 5 votes to pass it, and they do not have them, so you have a deadlock situation.

I'm guessing either Russell Allen tries to get creative with the financing or (more likely) the 3 councilors against it are going to try to eliminate the plaza content from the package or leave it whittled down/empty to the point it won't be worth a damn anymore. The city has committed to extending the street, but not to making the street and plaza a quality project.

We've gone through a debacle with Plensa... and now hundreds of thousands of dollars & man hours in planning & design, negotiations several outreach meetings (some in which I participated), etc have gone into this plan, and now it's about to be thrown out the window if something isn't done. If you support downtown, Fayetteville Street, and the Plaza, contact your councilors and tell them you support moving forward with the current plan:

Mayor

Charles Meeker

[email protected]

Council Member, At-Large

Joyce Kekas

[email protected]

Council Member, At-Large

Russ Stephenson

[email protected]

District Council Members

District A

Tommy Craven, Council Member

[email protected]

District B

Jessie Taliaferro, Council Member

[email protected]

District C

James West, Council Member

Mayor Pro Tempore

[email protected]

District D

Thomas Crowder, Council Member

[email protected]

District E

Philip Isley, Council Member

[email protected]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Meeker were for this thing, why would he allow his professional life to get in the way of a chance for this thing to pass?

I think that it is funny that Talieferro now whines about the voters not getting a chance to vote this thing down. Hey Jesse, how about a chance to vote down your proposal to Nazify our water use. (speaking of which, WHO in Raleigh is watering their lawns >3 times a week? Don't they understand that the plants don't want it that way? Don't the Talieferros of the world understand that limiting water usage days does nothing to change the overall amount of water used? In fact, it compels people to water more "while they can". If we want to limit usage, just proposed a graduated usage schedule: the more you consume each month, the more each gallon costs. Put that extra money toward improving the watershed's capacity. If Talieferro wants more water supply, she should have proposed sending some bulldozers out there when the lakes were dried up so that watershed would HOLD MORE WATER. Right now, her arguments just don't. If you want some fun, follow this graph every week. It currently shows a 14" surplus over the normal 365-rainfall. Good time to be proposing freedom distruction).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While I agree with the spirit of your comments, I must take issue with the idea that there is a bountiful surplus of water in Falls Lake. The lake level is above normal, but that is not because of excess water supply, but rather because of conservation at the area reservoirs. The reservoirs have been releasing very little water since last fall, so what little water is flowing into them is largely staying there. Soon the typical spike in demand that occurs in the warm season and the increased loss due to evaporation will result in pretty dramatic drops in the lake levels proving the North American weather pattern holds

Outside of the excessive rain that was received in June, September, and November '06, rainfall has been less than normal. A drought conference call this morning described the situation as troubling since nearly all of the streams and rivers in central NC are at or below 25% of their normal flow.

So many people on this board complain about the lack of leadership or planning when dealing with development issues (too rapid growth, traffic problems, insignificant public transportation) but when there is some discussion of conservation of something as important as water, it seems to get slighted. I have no problems with the proposed water restrictions, they tend to work. I would also support a graduated fee structure based on consumption.

Here's a graph that shows the Falls Lake elevation for the past 7 years or so...

Falls Lake elevation chart

JB

If Meeker were for this thing, why would he allow his professional life to get in the way of a chance for this thing to pass?

I think that it is funny that Talieferro now whines about the voters not getting a chance to vote this thing down. Hey Jesse, how about a chance to vote down your proposal to Nazify our water use. (speaking of which, WHO in Raleigh is watering their lawns >3 times a week? Don't they understand that the plants don't want it that way? Don't the Talieferros of the world understand that limiting water usage days does nothing to change the overall amount of water used? In fact, it compels people to water more "while they can". If we want to limit usage, just proposed a graduated usage schedule: the more you consume each month, the more each gallon costs. Put that extra money toward improving the watershed's capacity. If Talieferro wants more water supply, she should have proposed sending some bulldozers out there when the lakes were dried up so that watershed would HOLD MORE WATER. Right now, her arguments just don't. If you want some fun, follow this graph every week. It currently shows a 14" surplus over the normal 365-rainfall. Good time to be proposing freedom distruction).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While I agree with the spirit of your comments, I must take issue with the idea that there is a bountiful surplus of water in Falls Lake. The lake level is above normal, but that is not because of excess water supply, but rather because of conservation at the area reservoirs. The reservoirs have been releasing very little water since last fall, so what little water is flowing into them is largely staying there. Soon the typical spike in demand that occurs in the warm season and the increased loss due to evaporation will result in pretty dramatic drops in the lake levels proving the North American weather pattern holds

Outside of the excessive rain that was received in June, September, and November '06, rainfall has been less than normal. A drought conference call this morning described the situation as troubling since nearly all of the streams and rivers in central NC are at or below 25% of their normal flow.

So many people on this board complain about the lack of leadership or planning when dealing with development issues (too rapid growth, traffic problems, insignificant public transportation) but when there is some discussion of conservation of something as important as water, it seems to get slighted. I have no problems with the proposed water restrictions, they tend to work. I would also support a graduated fee structure based on consumption.

Here's a graph that shows the Falls Lake elevation for the past 7 years or so...

Falls Lake elevation chart

JB

no offense, and with all due respect, isn't this thread about Fayetteville Street?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a feeling the "it will be more expensive to upgrade the infrastructure under the plaza later " argument will, in the end, carry the day. Look for the Repubs on the Council to strip all the aesthetics out of the plan, though...

Link to comment
Share on other sites


FYI, the council agenda item for tomorrow:

4. City Plaza Development - Financing

During the May 1, 2007 Council meeting the City Council took several actions including the extending of Fayetteville Street, approval of the design development drawings and authorizing Kimley-Horn and Associates to complete construction drawings for the City Plaza and Fayetteville Street Phase 2 Public Spaces, etc. It was directed that the item be placed on this agenda to consider financing of the City Plaza.

I heard it may have the votes to pass FWIW, but I could see some plaza elements biting the dust in the process. I'm assuming they still need 5 to pass, even though the Mayor has recused himself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I watched the very end before the vote, so I'm sure I missed 90% of the discussion...

They clearly did not have the votes to fund all $21.3M, so they approved a reduction of the original budget of $21M to $16M. They directed the manager to recommend what plaza/street/ped elements should be implemented as a priority for the project to be built this fall, and the remainder would be funded either by private gifts (Isley mentioned Goodman's name), a potential funding tie-in with the site 2/3 sale, or potentially looking at next year's budget... either way, it's basically what I thought would happen: the budget was reduced by $5.3M and the remainder must come from other sources or a future council.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was there too and from my view and from the "hall discussion" afterwards, the take was that Isley's statement started by saying that he wanted to see it built as the design was approved, but simply couldn't feel comfortable with the City financing over $15 million. So, I believe the charge to the City Manager was to move forward wtih the current design, but only financing $15 million. I agree he suggested other sources such as private donations, sale of Site 2 and 3, etc. Russell stated pretty clearly in the meeting that he thought he could the financing down to $16-ish. I quess we will see what they will be able to come up with. At the meeting, Russell did a very good job of explaining that the only part of the design that was could even possibly be removed was the fountains. (To not install the lights or bollards, etc. would mean a redesign, since the power, water, etc. all underground, go to the current towers and bollards. They are designed to not only light the plaza, but allow functions to take place (get power, etc. to vendors, bands, etc). You can't just stick in cheap street lights, as Jessie T. was suggesting, and do the same thing. )

It will be interesting to see how this is played in the press tomorrow. They were there in force. It will be more interesting to see what we hear from City staff and the UDC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Isley must think money grows on trees. There is no way Jim Goodman is going to give money for this. He was PO'ed at the Council for what they did with the Plensa project.

Why doesn't Isley put up some of his own bucks if he wants private donations?

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Isley must think money grows on trees. There is no way Jim Goodman is going to give money for this. He was PO'ed at the Council for what they did with the Plensa project.

Why doesn't Isley put up some of his own bucks if he wants private donations?

It doesn't seem like a bad idea to me for Progress Energy, RBC, and the other corporate entities which have offices along FS to donate some cash, since their employees and customers will be the primary users of the plaza on a day-to-day basis.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It doesn't seem like a bad idea to me for Progress Energy, RBC, and the other corporate entities which have offices along FS to donate some cash, since their employees and customers will be the primary users of the plaza on a day-to-day basis.

Except that they've already given buckets of cash to fix up fayetteville street, glenwood avenue, PEIII, davie street.... the list goes on. How many times are we going to go back to PE or RBC and ask them to shell out? Its a cop out to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^This is true but the street needs action 24/7/365 otherwise its just a street where they have southern-fried hick fests 3 times a year y'all.

Ouch.. do i sense a yankee in the house? Anyways, I think festivals like this are great, but I do agree that more street activity is needed. Is there any update on potentially new stores, etc. I haven't heard any news on the Mint, F-street Tavern expansion or other restaurants, retail lately. I saw a sign for the eye care center in the space next to Crema..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^Actually I'm a southerner. I just think this novelty act of turning F-Street into the State Fairgrounds does nothing to improve the economic viability of DT Raleigh. Meeker/Council should be focusing on how to recruit business/corporate offices to this area.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.