Council Approves North Hills East

Nheast

The City Council today approved the master plan for the North Hills East development. The site directly across Six Forks Road from North Hills will contain a retirement community, 1,800 residential units, 850 hotel rooms, over 500,000 square feet of retail space, and 1.3million square feet of office space.

The meeting revealed some interesting notes. The City Council seems overwhelmingly impressed by developer John Kane’s work with North Hills, even though its hotel project is still in limbo (might a bigger, better hotel plan be in the works for NHE instead of one at North Hills?) Both Mayor Charles Meeker and Councilor Thomas Crowder stated how impressed they are with the North Hills redevelopment. The mayor even went so far as to call North Hills, "North Hills West" – (in my humple opinion) implying an assumption that NHE will be built as planned.

What is absolutely shocking is the plan’s request of zoning approval for buildings along Six Forks Road up to…365 feet! That’s the equivalent of 30-stories, and it is absolutely unfathomable that the planning commission and city council of just 3 years ago denied the proposed 10-story buildings that would have lined the Six Forks Road edge of North Hills.

What’s happened in this city? In just a few years we’ve gone from neighborhood groups shredding Neil Coker’s dense infill ideas to possibly approving something drastically bigger and denser. Russ Stephenson was one of the most vocal "Coker Towers" opponents, yet today, sits on the city council and voted for NHE without verbal reservation. Just a few years ago, North Hills’ resident neighbors to the east were counting birds and documenting nature in the plaza buffer in their last ditch effort to squash Kane’s original plan. Today the NHE project, after having been clearly explained to potential neighbors , has been very well received. Mr. Kane even got a standing ovation at a recent CAC meeting. Amazing.

Have we learned that dense infill can work? Are we full of regret after seeing what eventually sprung up on Coker’s old site? Has the momentum of downtown’s revitalization made those in the burbs want a more urban environment in their own backyards? Has the design of Streets of Southpointe opened people’s eyes about outdoor, walkable retail? Just what is going on?

There will be an enormous traffic impact by the project on I-440, Six Forks Road, and Wake Forest Roads. Raleigh’s Planning Director Mitchell Silver carefully explained that worst-case scenarios have been considered and found to not overwhelm the existing street network. There was a small amount of talk about future mass transit integration into the NHE project. Mr. Kane proclaimed his desire for the North Hills to one day have a transit stop (that is if the TTA can ever get its act together).

To be fair, Mr. Kane was present and explained that he and his team are "just asking for maximums" and have not yet determined the exact market. There has been talk of buildings probably being somewhere in the 15-ish story neighborhood, but this is unprecedented leeway given by this city council. The typical pattern in Raleigh has been to ask for more and build smaller, however some recent projects have actually flowed in reverse.

Only Councilor Thomas Crowder voted against the NHE plan citing concerns about the height given a lack of comprehensive planning for transportation, and uncertainty for how dense we want our regional centers. Mayor Meeker immediately retorted that while he is concerned about 365 feet, Meeker feels that given Mr. Kane’s track record, he will
"figure out how to use this flexibility in a good way".

  • http://www.callcruncher.com/ Call Cruncher

    Thanks for the great article. I look forward to your future work.

  • http://www.callcruncher.com Call Cruncher

    Thanks for the great article. I look forward to your future work.

  • northhillian?

    I agree Raleigh has changed its mindset in just a few years, but I think the NIMBYism you describe is overrated.
    I am a North Hills neighbor and supported the North Hills development. The only people that complained were those that live directly across the street from the project. All of my other neighbors love the new eminities and love the skyrocketing property values!
    Also, I believe Russ Stephenson opposition to Coker Towers was based on the insustainable, insular, non-pedestrian friendly nature of the project…not necessarily its size.
    There was also the concern for Coker Towers meshing with the existing neighborhood. There is little to worry about that for NHE. It is surrounded by I440 and Six Forks on the edges where tall buildings are planned. From what I understand the development will “ease” into the surrounding neighborhoods.
    Good post!

  • northhillian?

    I agree Raleigh has changed its mindset in just a few years, but I think the NIMBYism you describe is overrated.
    I am a North Hills neighbor and supported the North Hills development. The only people that complained were those that live directly across the street from the project. All of my other neighbors love the new eminities and love the skyrocketing property values!
    Also, I believe Russ Stephenson opposition to Coker Towers was based on the insustainable, insular, non-pedestrian friendly nature of the project…not necessarily its size.
    There was also the concern for Coker Towers meshing with the existing neighborhood. There is little to worry about that for NHE. It is surrounded by I440 and Six Forks on the edges where tall buildings are planned. From what I understand the development will “ease” into the surrounding neighborhoods.
    Good post!

  • John

    I would like to think that the Russ Stephenson has had a change of heart given the obnoxious apartment building that “afronts” the former Coker land. What could have been a much more integrated solution to bridge the Cameron Village neighborhood to Oberlin road and Cameron Village Shopping Center has ended up being as obnoxious as having a big box retailer in the neighborhood. Actually, I have seen executions of big boxes into more urban settings that were more pleasing than what they ended up getting. And, what was the real reason Coker’s project was rejected? Traffic fears. How ironic! In the end, we all need to realize that it’s actually typical suburban sprawl that fuels traffic, not dense development. Traffic is a result of the number of cars travelling and their average amount of distance travelled per trip. As we have suburbanized our cities, we have disproportionally increased the amount of miles driven per car per day (and per trip) as we have disproportionally gobbled up land to the number of citizens (less people per square mile). This has been the major culprit of our traffic problems.
    It would seem that the city has realized this but I am not that optimistic. I am guessing that what they really see is tax revenues. Well, whatever the reason is, I am glad that the government of Raleigh and its citizens are embracing urbanization. We will all be better off for it in the long run by positioning ourselves for growing traffic at a rate slower than the population growth. We will be creating the types of places where people want to be and…who knows? we may even be setting ourselves up for a succesful push toward rapid transit….oh, to dream!

  • John

    I would like to think that the Russ Stephenson has had a change of heart given the obnoxious apartment building that “afronts” the former Coker land. What could have been a much more integrated solution to bridge the Cameron Village neighborhood to Oberlin road and Cameron Village Shopping Center has ended up being as obnoxious as having a big box retailer in the neighborhood. Actually, I have seen executions of big boxes into more urban settings that were more pleasing than what they ended up getting. And, what was the real reason Coker’s project was rejected? Traffic fears. How ironic! In the end, we all need to realize that it’s actually typical suburban sprawl that fuels traffic, not dense development. Traffic is a result of the number of cars travelling and their average amount of distance travelled per trip. As we have suburbanized our cities, we have disproportionally increased the amount of miles driven per car per day (and per trip) as we have disproportionally gobbled up land to the number of citizens (less people per square mile). This has been the major culprit of our traffic problems.
    It would seem that the city has realized this but I am not that optimistic. I am guessing that what they really see is tax revenues. Well, whatever the reason is, I am glad that the government of Raleigh and its citizens are embracing urbanization. We will all be better off for it in the long run by positioning ourselves for growing traffic at a rate slower than the population growth. We will be creating the types of places where people want to be and…who knows? we may even be setting ourselves up for a succesful push toward rapid transit….oh, to dream!

  • Betsy

    I should point out that the Coker project, as built, is one-third the size, and much better designed (yes, even in its current appearance), than what was originally proposed. The exterior materials, architectural detailing, and parking arrangements would have been the same or worse with the original proposal.
    Also, the Coker project at any size *never* was designed either to facilitate transit or to take advantage of transit availability. It was primarily a car-dependent project, and the reduced version that was ultimately built remains so.
    Everyone I know expresses dissatisfaction with the Coker site as built. Trust me, if the original proposal had passed, the shock and dissatisfaction would be more intense by an order of magnitude.
    On the broader topic of urban infill development: a critical element in making infill acceptable to existing neighborhoods is compatible design and scale.
    The infill approval process remains difficult and controversial in Raleigh partly because we have not yet adequately addressed these questions of urban form.
    We also, in Raleigh, remain somewhat confused about appropriate locations for the highest densities; we allow “spikes and speculation” in density through a largely political approval process that can be “gamed” by developers and influential persons.
    A better method of addressing the question of where density should go would be by reference to standards about infrastructure availability, transit availability, and traffic capacity, and by approaching the urban densification challenge in a community-wide, comprehensive approach. This would add predictability and objectivity to a process that has been convulsively political in the recent past, and may continue to be so in the future, requiring both neighbors and development applicants to expend unwarranted time and energy down at City Hall.
    I’m looking forward to the city that Raleigh can be once we have effectively dealt with these issues!

  • Betsy

    I should point out that the Coker project, as built, is one-third the size, and much better designed (yes, even in its current appearance), than what was originally proposed. The exterior materials, architectural detailing, and parking arrangements would have been the same or worse with the original proposal.
    Also, the Coker project at any size *never* was designed either to facilitate transit or to take advantage of transit availability. It was primarily a car-dependent project, and the reduced version that was ultimately built remains so.
    Everyone I know expresses dissatisfaction with the Coker site as built. Trust me, if the original proposal had passed, the shock and dissatisfaction would be more intense by an order of magnitude.
    On the broader topic of urban infill development: a critical element in making infill acceptable to existing neighborhoods is compatible design and scale.
    The infill approval process remains difficult and controversial in Raleigh partly because we have not yet adequately addressed these questions of urban form.
    We also, in Raleigh, remain somewhat confused about appropriate locations for the highest densities; we allow “spikes and speculation” in density through a largely political approval process that can be “gamed” by developers and influential persons.
    A better method of addressing the question of where density should go would be by reference to standards about infrastructure availability, transit availability, and traffic capacity, and by approaching the urban densification challenge in a community-wide, comprehensive approach. This would add predictability and objectivity to a process that has been convulsively political in the recent past, and may continue to be so in the future, requiring both neighbors and development applicants to expend unwarranted time and energy down at City Hall.
    I’m looking forward to the city that Raleigh can be once we have effectively dealt with these issues!

  • John

    I live near Cameron Village and was keenly interested as the Coker project was discussed and debated. I was even strongly considering buying one of the condos. However, I don’t have the same recollection of the proposal as do some of the others who have posted comments. The project as proposed did have some height to it as does NHE and (to me) had a feel much like the existing NH project. Yes, it’s true that parking had to be a consideration based on what the city demands a developer to provide. And, while it’s true that people would drive there, I think it’s also true that they would have been doing so from shorter distances within the greater immediate community. On the other hand, others would have walked or biked there from nearby neighborhoods and others would have also been living there. This key piece of land would have been a community gathering place in a way that would have been more human and pedestrian friendly than the current Cameron Village (which was built to accomodate “drive up and park in front of the store” shopping post WWII). Instead of tossing the baby out with the bathwater, which is what I think the nimby’s did, they could have worked with the city and Coker to allay their concerns. But, that’s all water under the bridge now.
    In the end, where I thought the city really blew it was their inability to see how the proposed project could have been accomodated in another nearby location: namely the old Devereux Meadows ball field where the city currently stores its garbage trucks. Imagine the impact of such a project, inclusive of vertical height, at the corner of Capital and Peace! It could have been a brilliant bridge to downtown. The city is wasting prime land for garbage trucks and sitting on a gold mine opportunity.

  • John

    I live near Cameron Village and was keenly interested as the Coker project was discussed and debated. I was even strongly considering buying one of the condos. However, I don’t have the same recollection of the proposal as do some of the others who have posted comments. The project as proposed did have some height to it as does NHE and (to me) had a feel much like the existing NH project. Yes, it’s true that parking had to be a consideration based on what the city demands a developer to provide. And, while it’s true that people would drive there, I think it’s also true that they would have been doing so from shorter distances within the greater immediate community. On the other hand, others would have walked or biked there from nearby neighborhoods and others would have also been living there. This key piece of land would have been a community gathering place in a way that would have been more human and pedestrian friendly than the current Cameron Village (which was built to accomodate “drive up and park in front of the store” shopping post WWII). Instead of tossing the baby out with the bathwater, which is what I think the nimby’s did, they could have worked with the city and Coker to allay their concerns. But, that’s all water under the bridge now.
    In the end, where I thought the city really blew it was their inability to see how the proposed project could have been accomodated in another nearby location: namely the old Devereux Meadows ball field where the city currently stores its garbage trucks. Imagine the impact of such a project, inclusive of vertical height, at the corner of Capital and Peace! It could have been a brilliant bridge to downtown. The city is wasting prime land for garbage trucks and sitting on a gold mine opportunity.

  • CarnifeX

    I think that the city has lost its focus in recent past, with so much good going up downtown, we have allowed our skyline to become sparse and misplaced. Highrises outside of the beltline??? Not exactly a unified “downtown”…i guess it all comes down to the almighty $$$ and is not an issue of quality. Quite a shame.

  • CarnifeX

    I think that the city has lost its focus in recent past, with so much good going up downtown, we have allowed our skyline to become sparse and misplaced. Highrises outside of the beltline??? Not exactly a unified “downtown”…i guess it all comes down to the almighty $$$ and is not an issue of quality. Quite a shame.

  • Javier

    I have no problems with high rises outside of downtown. Most major cities have skyscrapers outside of downtown.

  • Javier

    I have no problems with high rises outside of downtown. Most major cities have skyscrapers outside of downtown.

  • Subway Scoundrel

    One things really pops out when I compare “The Oberlin” (not Coker Towers) and North Hills East is the underground parking. Either the first or 2nd rendition of The Oberlin had underground parking, just as NHE is planning (although with a $75M envelope). I am not for the $75M hand out or against but when I see that parking structure now off Wade Ave/Oberlin Road, I really hope Kane puts the parking underground.
    That being said, the first Coker proposal was meant to be oversized so it could be worked to be smaller but he asked for more than he could have ever built and the neghborhood groups. wanna-be future politicians kill the whole thing instead of coming together as a “group”. Now many of them are CC menbers, planning commision members and even in the State Senate. Guess they got what they wanted and the rest of the city did not. What a shame !!! What a shame !!

  • Subway Scoundrel

    One things really pops out when I compare “The Oberlin” (not Coker Towers) and North Hills East is the underground parking. Either the first or 2nd rendition of The Oberlin had underground parking, just as NHE is planning (although with a $75M envelope). I am not for the $75M hand out or against but when I see that parking structure now off Wade Ave/Oberlin Road, I really hope Kane puts the parking underground.
    That being said, the first Coker proposal was meant to be oversized so it could be worked to be smaller but he asked for more than he could have ever built and the neghborhood groups. wanna-be future politicians kill the whole thing instead of coming together as a “group”. Now many of them are CC menbers, planning commision members and even in the State Senate. Guess they got what they wanted and the rest of the city did not. What a shame !!! What a shame !!

  • Jerry

    With the excitement at North Hills/North Hills East, it is depressing driving by the “Coker Towers” site and wondering what could have been if folks had just worked together. I don’t begrudge the developer for doing what they can with the site today, but I would love to see one of our local papers present a “what could have been” piece with some hard questions to the “No Coker Towers” folks.

  • Jerry

    With the excitement at North Hills/North Hills East, it is depressing driving by the “Coker Towers” site and wondering what could have been if folks had just worked together. I don’t begrudge the developer for doing what they can with the site today, but I would love to see one of our local papers present a “what could have been” piece with some hard questions to the “No Coker Towers” folks.

  • Jerry

    With the excitement at North Hills/North Hills East, it is depressing driving by the “Coker Towers” site and wondering what could have been if folks had just worked together. I don’t begrudge the developer for doing what they can with the site today, but I would love to see one of our local papers present a “what could have been” piece with some hard questions to the “No Coker Towers” folks.

  • Jerry

    With the excitement at North Hills/North Hills East, it is depressing driving by the “Coker Towers” site and wondering what could have been if folks had just worked together. I don’t begrudge the developer for doing what they can with the site today, but I would love to see one of our local papers present a “what could have been” piece with some hard questions to the “No Coker Towers” folks.

  • Beth Y.

    Since this post has been revived a bit, I am wondering….does anyone know what hotel is going in? They have started construction recently. I have heard possibly a Renaissance?

  • Beth Y.

    Since this post has been revived a bit, I am wondering….does anyone know what hotel is going in? They have started construction recently. I have heard possibly a Renaissance?