Jump to content

The Dillon: Kane's first downtown mixed use project


RALNATIVE

Recommended Posts

All developers in Raleigh should be held to high architectural standards...period!

 

That's the main reason why there is so much scrutiny over downtown developments these days. The standards have been lax to say the least.

 

Agreed. Frankly I'd send the Charter Square folks back to the drawing board for their North Tower, were it up to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Stuff like this annoys me.  This is downtown, are you kidding me?  Do you even realize where you live?  There's a bar in your own building!

 

There are actually 2 bars in the bldg. Both have outside seating with patrons hanging out and chatting until the wee hours of the morning. I have not once heard any residents in our bldg. complaining about noise or sleep deprivation. This guy (Kolkin) is simply a tool being used by those who seek to derail this project, short and simple.

Edited by RALNATIVE
Link to comment
Share on other sites

People just need to wait until Kane releases the updated version.  The speculation over all this 'what if' is very counterproductive.

 

Focus should remain on the main points:  creating active uses on the majority all sides, hiding the parking deck, and blending with warehouse architecture as best as possible.

The problem is, I think Kane wants the rezoning approved before the updated version is released.

Developers have a long and time-honored tradition of bait-and-switch. Release spectacular renderings to get zoning approval, then "value engineer" it to "make the numbers work" but still fit within the bare minimum of the letter of the law written in the zoning conditions. But once the zoning is approved, your leverage is gone. Zoning approval is legislative - council has significant leeway to make demands. But anything after that (such as site plan approval) is required by law to be "quasi-judicial" - based only on evidence and strictly applying the letter of the law.

Kane appears genuine in his desire to deliver a high-quality project. Even if I don't think he would intentionally PLAN to bait-and-switch, I would nevertheless say he (or any other developer for that matter) would be willing and capable of value-engineering a project to save money, increase profitability, or make it possible or easier to finance.

So therefore I'm all for putting stringent (but realistic!) requirements in the zoning conditions. The three conditions you mention are spot-on, and need to be firmly written into the rezoning. I would also like a provision demanding quality materials, aka no EIFS. I'm not really a fan of stepbacks as such, but some massing and articulation requirements so we don't wind up with a bland wall-to-wall 10 story box would be fine with me too, as long as they're not too restrictive. To me, this is not a NIMBY tactic; it's just demanding quality development.

You can spot a NIMBY a mile away. When you're talking about downtown, any opposition based on density, height, or traffic is a dead giveaway and should be ignored outright. NIMBYs will try to fit in with those making reasonable demands over quality - "I'm not opposed to development; I just want the RIGHT development here." They will try to pass height-based concerns off as "context sensitivity", or traffic concerns based on "quality of life", or density based on "neighborhood character". But don't listen to them. They want to hold Raleigh back.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

N&O has an article about an agreement between Kane and Crowder. Kane is in the somewhat unenviable position of having 3 council members recuse themselves, so he basically has no choice other than to reach an agreement with her.

Most of the conditions actually do seem to yield a better project: no bars or nightclubs, meaning nowhere that is dead during daylight hours - restaurants that have bars and stay open late are fine; more retail space; more active uses and entrances along West Street, no EIFS, and a commitment to preserve portions of the Dillon Supply facade. He also agreed to cap the tower to 17 stories, which I personally don't feel is an improvement, but honestly it doesn't bother me at all either.

 

 

 

Edited by orulz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

N&O has an article about an agreement between Kane and Crowder. Kane is in the somewhat unenviable position of having 3 council members recuse themselves, so he basically has no choice other than to reach an agreement with her.

Most of the conditions actually do seem to yield a better project: no bars or nightclubs, meaning nowhere that is dead during daylight hours - restaurants that have bars and stay open late are fine; more retail space; more active uses and entrances along West Street, no EIFS, and a commitment to preserve portions of the Dillon Supply facade. He also agreed to cap the tower to 17 stories, which I personally don't feel is an improvement, but honestly it doesn't bother me at all either.

 

 

 

Seriously, what is the advantage of a 17 story tower over an 18 story tower? Some people on this city council seem to love splitting hairs over the most meaningless things when there are so many more important issues in Raleigh that need their focus.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure what she is so concerned about with one story. It's funny he is spending his money and building a huge development that is helping downtown and she is dictating what he can build? Not to mention he is willing to build a parking deck with 850 spaces that will aid the city's parking shortage. Just wondering if the 17 stories will sit on top of the deck, will the deck be included in the 17 stories? A deck with that many spaces on that block will be huge won't it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think what you may be doing is confusing Kane's verbal statements about what he wanted to build, and the rendering that was released, with the actual text of the zoning conditions. Crowder's main point was that he can show us great renderings and tell us whatever he wants, but he hasn't COMMITTED to anything until it's written into the conditions. I agree wholeheartedly with her statement to the effect of "I think this can be a great project, but I want the greatness to be written into the conditions."

To that point, she actually got a *3* story concession from Kane, rather than *1* story. Previously there was nothing in the zoning conditions regarding floor count, so even if he released the most beautiful renderings in the world of an 18 story tower, there would be nothing to prevent him from building the DX-20 maximum of 20 stories. Of course, I still think that a 3 story reduction is pretty silly/pointless and does nothing to improve the greatness of the building. At the same time, perseveration over height is pointless. This 3-story reduction doesn't really bother me; what makes for a great city is not the height of its buildings (whether tall - as stated by folks on this board, or short - as desired by neighborhood activitsts and the Dawson residents) but rather density, design, and street-level use. 

Crowder has required no concession from Kane in terms of density, and the other design- and street-level use-related details that have been added I think are an unambiguous benefit to the city and the community. For example, if Kane showed us a rendering that's all natural stone and masonry, and even if he verbally says before council that those are the materials he intends to use, there was nothing at all that could have legally prevented him from doing some "Value Engineering" to cut costs later and building a giant blob of EIFS. Now, we are guaranteed  to have no EIFS anywhere on this project. With the exception of the height restriction, which again I think is pointless, this is exactly the type of smart negotiation that the city should be doing more of with developers to get higher quality projects. If we had done more of this with the developers of the Convention Center Marriott, for example, maybe we could have gotten retail spaces along Salisbury and less (or no?) EIFS.

And regarding the extra parking spaces; I wouldn't really call this a gift to the city per se; the city will be buying (or leasing, not sure) these parking spaces from Kane. He will certainly do this in order to break even on the transaction and maybe even profit a little bit.

 

 

Edited by orulz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Raleigh doesn't need maximum height restrictions downtown, it needs minimum height restrictions. Really, the only sort of restriction I'd support is that x percent of ground floor space in all developments must be set aside for retail. For example I'd require that 50% of all ground floor space of parking decks must be used for retail. All this dictating developments and restricting sidewalk alcohol makes me want to vote out this nimby, nitpicking city council.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All this dictating developments and restricting sidewalk alcohol makes me want to vote out this nimby, nitpicking city council.

To be honest, that is the right course of action. It's time that Raleigh has a city council that is more reflective of the population. Most of the councilors are from days gone by, and I'm afraid that they are woefully out of step with the current direction that Raleigh is headed.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

The Site plan for this project is up for review on the city's website.

So far, no complaints. It seems they have removed substantialy all of the non-active uses from all four sides of the project, to the greatest degree likely possible.

My admittedly extremely unscientific measurement indicates that there is about 23,000 square feet of contiguous retail facing Martin Street (partitioned into three separate spaces) and possibly about another 15,000 spread around elsewhere on site, plus indoor ground-level amenity space above and beyond that. The largest single retail space depicted on the plan seems to be somewhere in the neighborhood of 12~15ksf which is a little on the small side for a full service grocer, if that is the plan as some have speculated. However, a loft configuration like the HT at North Hills would probably make it doable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm a fan of the two story apartments too. Quite a few complexes downtown have them, and I think it does make a difference to the street experience. 

I wonder what the plan is for the tracks currently inside the building....I didn't see a "to be removed" note or anything else indicating what might become of them. Left in place might be hard to do and still be seen but I guess they could be reinstalled in places....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

A cyclops with an underbite is all I see....

It's not bad. Sort of a Quorum meets a restrained SECU HQ. 

 

Also, I can't help but notice that neither of the apartment building renderings has shown up yet on the north end of the project. I kind of think these are just as, if not more important than the office component since we keep getting beige mega block buildings lately. 

Edited by Jones_
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like it, except, much like Kane's towers at NH this is so gosh darn bulky.  Also, I wish a hotel had been incorporated with this project, esp over the residential portion.  That would have been amazing. But, this is probably the best designed project in the pipeline for downtown. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Jones_ said:

Also, I can't help but notice that neither of the apartment building renderings has shown up yet on the north end of the project. I kind of think these are just as, if not more important than the office component since we keep getting beige mega block buildings lately. 

The smaller residential building on the south side of Hargett is shown in this rendering. You can also see the tip top of the second residential building on the other side of Hargett in this rendering. It looks like they are both the same style, which is kind of lame.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Euphorius said:

The smaller residential building on the south side of Hargett is shown in this rendering. You can also see the tip top of the second residential building on the other side of Hargett in this rendering. It looks like they are both the same style, which is kind of lame.

Oh, right....I guess at a glance I assumed that was just parking deck with some masking panels attached, but looking closer, they are 6 stories pictured....lame indeed...5 sticks on a pedestal again...

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess that the architect is trying to match up the brick/color of the building with the rest of the warehouse district? I'm "ok" with keeping the first floor brick but I think that the design of the SECU building would have been a better design for this area...but hey, who knows, maybe the next project in the Warehouse district will come closer? At least it's not just a square building. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The 17 story tower...  is the parking taking all of levels 2-8 on the southern half?  I was hoping that at least the Martin St elevation would have office space along the entire elevation instead of exposed parking behind a screen wall, but that's how it looks in the rendering.  Kinda looks like only 9 floors of office on top of 7 floors of parking on top of the ground floor retail.  If that is the case, it will look much uglier and cold from the sidewalk than depicted in the rendering.  Basically you will look up and see mainly a screened parking deck.  (like Red Hat along Davie St or both North Hills East towers)

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.