Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I can find all kinds of good restaurants and bars up here in Wake Forest or North Raleigh so I don't need to go downtown for that.
I have trouble believing that statement. I have spent a lot of time in Wake Forest and the vast majority of restaurants and bars in Wake Forest are chains and chains do not fit the definition of "good" in the opinion of those who know better. As far as North Raleigh goes, there are actually still some good privately owned restaurants (and bars) so I will give you that one.
It is kind of sad to me that some people seem to shun urbanity and downtown just for the sake of it. Why would anyone have such disdain for the opportunity to see a play, opera, ballet, art exhibit, history lecture, stand-up comic, live music, eat a high quality meal at a good restaurant, etc. all in one compact area? I really don't understand how that is so horrible.
I can't remember the last time I went downtown. I don't have any hatred for the area, but just do not have any interest in it. My interests are elsewhere, as am I. Quite frankly, I don't often even think of downtown for anything....good or bad. It's just another place on the planet.
Funny you mention Detroit as I think Raleigh could take some lessons from Detroit.
Raleigh, and the Triangle in general, can take a lot of lessons from Detroit and its surrounding metro area. The Triangle is spread out and hard to navigate (especially if you wanted to take the train somewhere ). Not nearly as spread out as metro Detroit, but it's going to get there if sprawl keeps sprawling like it has in the recent past.... In the 40's and 50's Detroit advertised itself as the "City of Homeowners" and for a while had the highest per capita homeownership rate in the nation (not sure on exact years), fueled by extradordinary auto industry pay, post-WWII FHA/G.I.Bill homebuilding and mortgage programs, and the Interstate system that made commuting easy. While a super-high homeownership rate might sound good on the surface, the only type of housing Detroit, & many of the suburbs, built for 40-some years was single family. The geographic area that Detroit encompasses is larger than Boston or San Francisco, yet those cities have hundreds of thousands more residents in much more diverse housing stock. When you look at old pictures of Detroit, you see mile after mile of the same style single-family neighborhoods. When you look at Detroit now, you see open fields and miles of abandoned single-family neighborhoods, with a few key areas that have survived and are actually growing in population (downtown core, Corktown and Southwest Detroit neighborhoods specifically). Those areas had a lot of density, diversity, and all the "neighborhood" stuff that many of us might agree make living in or near a downtown enjoyable - markets, parks, bus stops, bars & restaurants, concert and comedy venues, police precincts, post offices, banks, schools and libraries within walking distance, etc. Vast expanses of the rest of the City that were just huge single-family zones are now just huge, empty wastelands. The City, County, regional Chamber and other local power players are now arguing over "right-sizing" the City limits: pulling back the boundaries to more tightly conform to where Detroiters actually live and where the density is, so they can more effectively provide police/fire, water/sewer, trash pick-up, snow plowing, school funding and so on. This has heated up Detroit's "turf mentality" even worse than usual, and nobody wants their neighborhood to get left out - but MI's economic reality is forcing some terrible choices.
There is obviously no 1:1 exact comparison between Raleigh and Detroit, but looking at all the single-family "master planned" sprawl development across North Raleigh, and the lack of anywhere with real sustainable density - other than downtown - makes me wonder what all those single-family subdivisions will look like in 50 years....... Will there be packs of feral dogs hunting pheasants like I've seen all over inside the Detroit city limits?
Another Amen here! I don't live DT (married to a committed suburbanite) but I would love, someday, to live in an urban setting, and Raleigh really, really, needs the support/development.
Frankly, I'm not at all interested in seeing another office building/park out here where I am; I'd much rather see corporate offices downtown. Additionally, I LOVE going to the museums downtown, and love that there are so many in such a small area--my family can make a whole day of it and see at least 2 of them and have a nice lunch too. I love the art/craft festival downtown (forget the name). If there were great open SAFE green spaces, schools, and amenities I might be able to convince hubby to live downtown. I think Raleigh has so much to offer, and the burbs don't need to spread any farther than they have.
The Progress Energy Center IS downtown. Are you thinking about a different venue???
Miami has a people mover too but it's not well used. For now, I am very pleased with the RLine DT circulator bus. It's a start. I would like to see it extended to include Cameron Village. This would allow DT proper residents access to a significant amount of retail without needing a car.
Soon DT Raleigh will have another entertainment venue when the amphitheater is erected this Spring. In a way, I am glad that the activity DT is more spread out. It allows different parts of DT to develop personalities to go along with their brands. It also gives DT more activity which will undoubtedly cause interest in the "spaces between" activity. I'd much rather see DT develop organically this way within a looser neighborhood framework. I think it allows for a more interesting tapestry of activity.
As for walkability, that's subjective. My place DT is near the north end of Glenwood South and I walk to Fayetteville St., the Warehouse District, the emerging restaurant row on Wilmington St. and even Cameron Village. But, then again, I am a big walker. Of course, I would like to see more.
Yeah, sorry I meant to say The Time Warner Cable Music Pavilion. (Not Progress Energy Center.)
As far as the walking is concerned, I am mainly talking about nighttime walks. During the day I have no problem walking anywhere from downtown to NC State if needed, but at night I would not do that.
For instance, I would not walk from Goodnights after a show back to the Moore Square area or even from Goodnights to the middle of Glenwood South. Too much riff-raff hanging out in the areas in-between for my tastes. In addition, a friend of mine was robbed at knifepoint only 2 blocks from Goodnights after a show so that had an impact on me, too.
I have trouble believing that statement. I have spent a lot of time in Wake Forest and the vast majority of restaurants and bars in Wake Forest are chains and chains do not fit the definition of "good" in the opinion of those who know better. As far as North Raleigh goes, there are actually still some good privately owned restaurants (and bars) so I will give you that one.
Mike
Well one that we like a lot is the Carolina Ale House. I don't consider that to be a chain even though they have several locations in Raleigh. To me, a Chain is a national/non-locally owned place such as Chilis, Applebees, etc.
I agree North Raleigh still has more options but we like several places in Wake Forest such as the Ale House, Shuckers, Blue-Fin, etc.
Raleigh, and the Triangle in general, can take a lot of lessons from Detroit and its surrounding metro area. The Triangle is spread out and hard to navigate (especially if you wanted to take the train somewhere ). Not nearly as spread out as metro Detroit, but it's going to get there if sprawl keeps sprawling like it has in the recent past.... In the 40's and 50's Detroit advertised itself as the "City of Homeowners" and for a while had the highest per capita homeownership rate in the nation (not sure on exact years), fueled by extradordinary auto industry pay, post-WWII FHA/G.I.Bill homebuilding and mortgage programs, and the Interstate system that made commuting easy. While a super-high homeownership rate might sound good on the surface, the only type of housing Detroit, & many of the suburbs, built for 40-some years was single family. The geographic area that Detroit encompasses is larger than Boston or San Francisco, yet those cities have hundreds of thousands more residents in much more diverse housing stock. When you look at old pictures of Detroit, you see mile after mile of the same style single-family neighborhoods. When you look at Detroit now, you see open fields and miles of abandoned single-family neighborhoods, with a few key areas that have survived and are actually growing in population (downtown core, Corktown and Southwest Detroit neighborhoods specifically). Those areas had a lot of density, diversity, and all the "neighborhood" stuff that many of us might agree make living in or near a downtown enjoyable - markets, parks, bus stops, bars & restaurants, concert and comedy venues, police precincts, post offices, banks, schools and libraries within walking distance, etc. Vast expanses of the rest of the City that were just huge single-family zones are now just huge, empty wastelands. The City, County, regional Chamber and other local power players are now arguing over "right-sizing" the City limits: pulling back the boundaries to more tightly conform to where Detroiters actually live and where the density is, so they can more effectively provide police/fire, water/sewer, trash pick-up, snow plowing, school funding and so on. This has heated up Detroit's "turf mentality" even worse than usual, and nobody wants their neighborhood to get left out - but MI's economic reality is forcing some terrible choices.
There is obviously no 1:1 exact comparison between Raleigh and Detroit, but looking at all the single-family "master planned" sprawl development across North Raleigh, and the lack of anywhere with real sustainable density - other than downtown - makes me wonder what all those single-family subdivisions will look like in 50 years....... Will there be packs of feral dogs hunting pheasants like I've seen all over inside the Detroit city limits?
I want Raleigh to develop a lively and vibrant downtown for many of the reasons you stated above. If a city has a central core that people want to live near and "play" in that will make the overall area including the suburbs healthier in my opinion. That is why, back to the original poster's question, I am 100% behind anything we can do to make downtown better. (Even though I live in Wake Forest.)
I have no issue with growth, but I believe Raleigh is getting worse (not better) because we aren't planning for it properly. There is no desire to be near downtown because it doesn't offer enough right now so people just sprawl out all over the place.
I lived here until '98, moved away, and returned in '07. It was amazing how Raleigh changed in those 9 years I was away. I used to live in the "Mini-City" area off Capital/Millbrook and boy has that area gone downhill FAST. The north Raleigh areas along Millbrook and Spring Forest used to be the place to be but now those areas look old and unkept and everyone is now north of I-540.
I lived here until '98, moved away, and returned in '07. It was amazing how Raleigh changed in those 9 years I was away. I used to live in the "Mini-City" area off Capital/Millbrook and boy has that area gone downhill FAST. The north Raleigh areas along Millbrook and Spring Forest used to be the place to be but now those areas look old and unkept and everyone is now north of I-540.
I just finished reading "Suburban Nation:the rise of sprawl and the decline of the American Dream" and it touches on the situation you described above. In the suburban model that we have been following so far in the Triangle, this is a very predictable scenario. The inner rings of the suburbs will lose residents and business to the "fresher" outer rings or what is also known as the "new suburban edge". All of the above will continue to occur even while the downtown areas are revitalized. Check out the book, it is a good read, a great resource, and it is definitely an eye-opener.
That is why, back to the original poster's question, I am 100% behind anything we can do to make downtown better. (Even though I live in Wake Forest.)
I agree. In MI, we lived in an older small town with an old-time downtown "village" sort of feel, like I've seen in Wake Forest, but most of the people were rooting for DT Detroit in some way or another. Driving between home and DT for work, you passed through miles of 70's, 80's, and 90's sprawl that's all going downhill fast. Wake Forest proper reminds me of smaller midwestern towns, surrounded by sprawl but holding its own. To the original post, places like WF, Apex, Garner and so on will immensely benefit from greater density in the "big" downtown. In part, it helps protect what many people like most about the smaller towns. Even the "I hate people" folks can find something to like about DT development!
Therefore, the city of Raleigh and Wake Co. are getting tax revenues on over 29 million dollars of RE for that one acre of land. That money is used to support the infrastructure across the entire city. Essentially, you can say that tax revenues from urban development subsidizes less urban areas of the city whose residential RE typically generates much less revenue per acre.
I am very pro density and would LOVE to see Raleigh grow upwards and feel more like a metropolitan downtown. I see the genesis but it's not there yet.
In regards to tax revenues per square acre, does the City of Raleigh or Wake Co give any tax abatements for certain areas of downtown? If so that can eat into your theory.
In Portland the warehouse district (now The Pearl) was "revitalized" into urban lofts and that area has had outrageous tax exemptions for 20 plus years. Needless to say, even in the down economy one does not have a hard time selling in The Pearl. It always bugged me that my property tax bill was several times more than multi million dollar lofts, even though my home was not in that value bracket.
My point is, that I hope Raleigh Leaders don't loose sight during the redevelopment and that they can avoid some of these pitfalls that other cities have fallen victim too.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
). Not nearly as spread out as metro Detroit, but it's going to get there if sprawl keeps sprawling like it has in the recent past.... In the 40's and 50's Detroit advertised itself as the "City of Homeowners" and for a while had the highest per capita homeownership rate in the nation (not sure on exact years), fueled by extradordinary auto industry pay, post-WWII FHA/G.I.Bill homebuilding and mortgage programs, and the Interstate system that made commuting easy. While a super-high homeownership rate might sound good on the surface, the only type of housing Detroit, & many of the suburbs, built for 40-some years was single family. The geographic area that Detroit encompasses is larger than Boston or San Francisco, yet those cities have hundreds of thousands more residents in much more diverse housing stock. When you look at old pictures of Detroit, you see mile after mile of the same style single-family neighborhoods. When you look at Detroit now, you see open fields and miles of abandoned single-family neighborhoods, with a few key areas that have survived and are actually growing in population (downtown core, Corktown and Southwest Detroit neighborhoods specifically). Those areas had a lot of density, diversity, and all the "neighborhood" stuff that many of us might agree make living in or near a downtown enjoyable - markets, parks, bus stops, bars & restaurants, concert and comedy venues, police precincts, post offices, banks, schools and libraries within walking distance, etc. Vast expanses of the rest of the City that were just huge single-family zones are now just huge, empty wastelands. The City, County, regional Chamber and other local power players are now arguing over "right-sizing" the City limits: pulling back the boundaries to more tightly conform to where Detroiters actually live and where the density is, so they can more effectively provide police/fire, water/sewer, trash pick-up, snow plowing, school funding and so on. This has heated up Detroit's "turf mentality" even worse than usual, and nobody wants their neighborhood to get left out - but MI's economic reality is forcing some terrible choices. 
In a way, I am glad that the activity DT is more spread out. It allows different parts of DT to develop personalities to go along with their brands. It also gives DT more activity which will undoubtedly cause interest in the "spaces between" activity. I'd much rather see DT develop organically this way within a looser neighborhood framework. I think it allows for a more interesting tapestry of activity.
