Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

jlblaes

Oberlin Court Phase II

52 posts in this topic


I can't believe how much those places rent for, you might as well buy an apartment downtown for that price.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't believe how much those places rent for, you might as well buy an apartment downtown for that price.

No kidding, those are mad expensive. Has anyone been in one to check them out? It would be one thing if they were 1,200 sf with lots of ammenities, but $1200 rent for a one-bedroom place? Wow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Two words for Oberlin Village: missed opportunity. The project that's getting built now seems nice, until you think about what was missed out on. IMO, Coker's project was superior. That was a really nice, really urban project with plenty of retail and lots of dense residential that related well to the street. It didn't have to be 10 stories; Coker reduced it to 6 before throwing in the towel. I guess the folks who came out against it just wanted to maintain the area's 1960s-era suburban character. Compared to Coker's plans, Oberlin Village is a mediocre, overpriced suburban apartment complex with a (ugly) parking garage and an attached strip mall.

What gets me is how everybody - and I mean everybody holds that up as a shining example of a David-beats-Goliath Cinderella story where the good guy triumphs over the evil developer. They had a legitimate point about the scale of the original (10 story) development, but the undertones of some other arguments presented are far more disturbing. Arguments were often based on F.U.D. ("Raleigh has never seen a project like this before,") and continued (unsuccessful) opposition to Crosland's proposal contained a surprising amount of fear and prejudice against people who rent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Two words for Oberlin Village: missed opportunity. The project that's getting built now seems nice, until you think about what was missed out on. IMO, Coker's project was superior. That was a really nice, really urban project with plenty of retail and lots of dense residential that related well to the street. It didn't have to be 10 stories; Coker reduced it to 6 before throwing in the towel. I guess the folks who came out against it just wanted to maintain the area's 1960s-era suburban character. Compared to Coker's plans, Oberlin Village is a mediocre, overpriced suburban apartment complex with a (ugly) parking garage and an attached strip mall.

What gets me is how everybody - and I mean everybody holds that up as a shining example of a David-beats-Goliath Cinderella story where the good guy triumphs over the evil developer. They had a legitimate point about the scale of the original (10 story) development, but the undertones of some other arguments presented are far more disturbing. Arguments were often based on F.U.D. ("Raleigh has never seen a project like this before,") and continued (unsuccessful) opposition to Crosland's proposal contained a surprising amount of fear and prejudice against people who rent.

I agree Orulz. Those people who fought it deserved a rendering plant to be put in, especially given the way they acted. Seriously, I wonder how happy over there are with the final OC. I hardly see how it improves property values in the immediate area. Coker would have been incredible for the area.

To me OC is perfect in that area of missed opportunities. I lived over there for 3 years and honestly don't see what's so great about it. There are blocks and blocks of $200/sq ft uncharming post-war ranch houses. :sick:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I actually live in Oberlin Court. It is really nice. The best part though is the central courtyard and pool.

You can't see it unless you come into the building. I also like that several Hurricane players live there. GO CANES!

I also looked at North Hills, but those apartments felt really cheap on the inside.

Although I think more retail would have been great, the renderings they have in the club for phase II look really cool. It has a village feel to it with apartments over the retail.

It is hard to imagine 10 stories. The current project is 4 stories along Wade. To think Coker would have been 10 is a little hard to imagine. 250% taller?

Oh yea, the deck while not fancy on the outside is awesome on the inside. A ton of natural light and very little vertical beams. It doesn't feel at all dangerous at night like some of the other ones around town. There just aren't any dark spaces. The developer said he copied the deck from Lowe's Home Improvement's headquaters in Charlotte.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I actually don't see 10 stories as out of place for that area. If this was Charlotte, it would have went through with little opposition. I'll give Raleigh another ten years before the Nimbyism fizzle out. By 2030 we'll be the boston of NC. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I actually don't see 10 stories as out of place for that area. If this was Charlotte, it would have went through with little opposition. I'll give Raleigh another ten years before the Nimbyism fizzle out. By 2030 we'll be the boston of NC. :D

Hope you are right. But the NIMBYs sure are prevolent today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


I thought the big gripe regarding the first Oberlin proposal was the loss of several houses in and around the area. While I'm definitely not a fan of old houses (unless it has been completely gutted and modernized), I realize this has been an ongoing struggle in Raleigh. More often than not, it comes down to old houses vs. new development.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm kinda pissed off about this project. I drove by there yesterday and the setbacks along Oberlin Rd are way too far back. They have a little parking strip in front of the building. I thought at least this was going to be an urban project (in form), if not an exciting one, and it's not even that. I *really* hope it wasn't a city requirement, because we need to get away from that type of development especially so close to the city center, where there actually are pedestrians and bicyclists who might want to walk up and visit the shops there. The thing that's really screwed up is that they have a parking deck in the plan and it's even for the retail space, but Crosland still decided that they had to turn an urban project into an auto-centric suburban "strip retail center". <_<

Folks, I may just be beotching about a small detail that seems insignificant, but this is a prime example of what you get when you don't demand much from developers. If you don't demand it, you won't get it.

Site Plan:

2971545930098570895S600x600Q85.jpg

Rendering:

phase2revised.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Coker is looking like the man more and more all the time. He demonstrated he could build a building with great urban form at 510 Glenwood....admittedly though I can't remember what Coker Towers had in it exactly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree about the setback, but I can't get over why they didn't bury the power lines :sick: ! And while I'm on it, I wish they could have hidden the parking deck of phase I.... okay, end of rant :wacko: .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I used to agree with ChiefJoJo but I asked about it 6 months ago.

I know these guys at Crosland and yes it was a requirement they set back off Oberlin Road for the building they are constructing now. The City wanted the building heights to not overshadow the church and homes across the street. They said they could only be 1-2 stories if they were up on the street.

The Crosland guys laughed though when I asked about it as they said they hear constant complaining about how tall the building is along Wade Avenue and that it should be set much further back. They reminded me that the Coker project (which they would have loved to develop apparantly) would have had 4 levels of parking and then the 8 story buildings over that. SO the complaining over the 4 story building out there now is pretty confusing when people ask for the old plan instead.

They also said they tried to purchase the remaining office buildings along Wade Ave but those owners would not sell because their property values were drastically higher now because of Oberlin Court. But if they were redeveloped to reasonable urban heights you would never see the parking decks towards the middle of the site.

Interesting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

dukedoc...nc state engineer here....the people asking for the old plan are not the ones complaining about the current 4 story building up on Wade....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doesn't look bad. I understand the need for the parking lot. Its not a huge parking lot so I think it's ok considering the necessity for being appropriate in the setting. These are very large buidings compared to the neighborhood just across the street. The parking lot acts a buffer. The development is still urbanesque, and two phases of one development won't make the area any more urban, but its a step in a right direction. Any looking past the actual development and the criticisms you might have, in concept its very good in-fill, and this area still has tons of potential.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


I know these guys at Crosland and yes it was a requirement they set back off Oberlin Road for the building they are constructing now. The City wanted the building heights to not overshadow the church and homes across the street. They said they could only be 1-2 stories if they were up on the street.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After the first round of opposition, I think that Coker did in fact scale his plans down to something in the 8 story range. However, if you ask the neighborhood, he was not very cooperative and in fact quite arrogant through the whole process. And for that reason, the neighborhood was damn sure not to let Coker build anything there at all. I wasn't there so I can't say for sure whether it's really true or not, but maybe if he had been more receptive to the neighborhood concerns from the outset, he would have been able to build something smaller but still nice - and we wouldn't be left with the awkward proportions of Oberlin Village instead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why couldn't they have designed it for 1-2 stories on Oberlin (with buried power lines!) and then stepped the height up as it stepped back from Oberlin?

This could put the stores on the street and a plaza/outdoor seating for the second story on the roof of the "streetfront" stores, and then residential behind/above that. Or even put outdoor parking there, like PE II and RBC Plaza, instead of the existing pedestrian disconnect.

I'm sure the neighborhood and church would have found something else wrong with that too...

The Coker plan were rumored to have at one time or another a movie theater and senior housing combined with senior medical care offices. The Oberlin elevation is a story or two higher than the Wade eleveation, which gives the effect of "burying" parking without digging. It does suck that the parcels on Wade couldn't be combined... it will look like a silly hole for decades.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This thing is finally moving along. It seemed like forever for them to get that first floor cast. They've framed the building behind it up to the level of the concrete, and they've started framing the floors above the concrete. This thing will start taking shape quickly now. Webguy, I agree, why in the hell didn't they bury those power lines?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This thing is finally moving along. It seemed like forever for them to get that first floor cast. They've framed the building behind it up to the level of the concrete, and they've started framing the floors above the concrete. This thing will start taking shape quickly now. Webguy, I agree, why in the hell didn't they bury those power lines?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So people were actually upset about the scale along Wade? I don't get that at all. It's considerably shorter than the building to the east (the old Occidental, I think?), which has been there for over 50 years...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No kidding, those are mad expensive. Has anyone been in one to check them out? It would be one thing if they were 1,200 sf with lots of ammenities, but $1200 rent for a one-bedroom place? Wow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Across the street from me here in NYC, they are putting the finishing touches on another new apartment complex. It's similar to the 100 or so new rental highrises in Manhattan and is not ultra luxurious, nor is it targeting the very wealthy.

The studios start at $3,100 a month, and I think one of the 1BR units is $5,295 per month and there is a 2BR with a terrace for $7,200 per month.

www.chelsealandmark.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think phase II is looking pretty good. Two more stories to go.

Any word on the retail mix?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After reading through all the comments on this project, it seems like the pedestrian experience (or lack of) was highly criticized. Having driven by the building numerous times I don't forsee any problems for pedestrians, in fact, I think the developer did a great job promoting the walkability with the cross walk across Oberlin with flashing lights and median refuge. While the building would have created a more "urban" feel without the setback from the street and definitely an easier walk along the sidewalk to enter the shops, you have to ask yourself, where are you going to walk from? The Wade Ave bridge? The abandoned buildings along Oberlin? The only current and immediate pedestrian movement is from across Oberlin and I think they have handled that well. This development is not in an urban setting, so I do not think it is unreasonable to ask the 20% of patrons (if that) that will walk here to cross 60' of pavement and to provide parking for the other 80% of consumers.

I was really just curious if anyone knew of the retail tenants?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.