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.
The City of Raleigh has been reviewing plans to replace the Peace St. McDonalds with a new one. As you may or may not know, this specific location is affected by the Peace St. Streetscape and neighborhood plans that are intended to elevate the appearance of the street and increase its walkable nature as a natural extension (on the northern boundary) of the Glenwood South neighborhood.
Well, anyway, I have been paying close attention to what the owners are proposing in that location and have been VERY disappointed in what I have seen. Essentially, there's really nothing urban about their proposal with the site plan being all about the drive thru and not the pedestrian. Fortunately, the city was disappointed too and stopped the proposal in its tracks.
What I'd like to do is find others (maybe miamiblue?) who live in the area to help make "noise" and push for a neighborhood conforming solution that will allow the franchiser to succeed while staying within the guidelines the city has developed for the neighborhood.
For other Miamians on this forum that are familiar with Southbeach, I'd like to push for something more on the order of the McDonalds at Alton/16th or the Burger King at Alton/17th. Both of these restaurants address the sidewalk and neighborhood in an urban way yet both of them retain their drive-thru's but not at the expense of the pedestrian.
This Peace St. location is key to the successful redevelopment of the neighborhood and sets the standard for development that will follow it. The city cannot afford to make a mistake here. Whatever ends up getting built is likely to be there for 2 decades or longer.
If anyone wants to join in on being an activist for this issue, send me a direct message and we can figure out what to do next. I have tons of collateral assembled from web page links to pdf's and a Powerpoint that I can share with anyone interested in joining this discussion.
Thanks for the consideration!
Can't walkers just come inside for some good ol Mickey Dee's iced tea?
Hope we don't start getting like other areas and trying to nitpick our businesses to death in Raleigh.
That Mickey's looks normal for a McDonald's and the area has many other businesses that seem a bit rougher anyway.
Well, let me reiterate that I am looking to help shape a solution that will allow them to succeed while staying within the city's guidelines. Nowhere did I say I wanted to nitpick them to death. If enough of us use our collective knowledge and come to the table with examples that conform to the requirements, we can actually help the owner by doing the research for them. Who knows, their design team may be grabbing at straws as they seek ways to conform.
The owners and their designers had full access to the city requirements and they basically ignored them with their proposal that was essentially all about the automobile. The drive thru pattern completely encircled the building. In order to "meet" the city requirements, the proposal included a false front facing Peace St. that was supposed to look like the property was actually addressing the pedestrian appropriately when it wasn't. Specifically, the city requires a wide sidewalk with a nice planted streetscape and direct access to businesses from it.....You know, like a real city (only nicer). They don't require but encourage al fresco dining on the street (like Mellow Mushroom, I suppose) to bring life to the neighborhood.
In the end, the Glenwood South neighborhood is arguably the only place in the city of Raleigh that is currently successfully developing itself into a sustaining urban neighborhood. The current amount of housing available is being augmented by several new projects that will bring hundreds of new residents in the next year and a half to our walkable community. The city badly needs a successful urban neighborhood model in order to encourage future urban development and establish nodes that can be served well by public transportation. However, this model cannot come to life without solutions that more appropriately use the land resources. We must think outside the box and realize that we can do better than a building plunked down in a sea of parking. To that end, let's use our collective knowledge and creativity to help make that happen.
I am familiar with this location. Is information about their proposed plans online? I am curious about what they proposed and what the City was hoping for.
I think impriving that part of Peace Street is smart idea.
While I can't remember the Micky D's and Burger King on Alton in Miami Beach because I don't really eat fast food and thus never took notice of them, I did find a blog post about the urban McDonald's in Toronto that shows a good example of an urban McDonald's that conforms to certain pedestrian standards, yet retains all the elements of a McDonald's as we know them: Moderator cut: url removed
Something like this design looks perfect for the Peace St. location. The Toronto site is even on a corner much like the corner of Peace and Boylan. It retains the drive-thru and a parking lot, but the juxtaposition of these elements keeps the cars with cars and allows pedestrians safer and more appealing access to the restaurant. It allows for the wide sidewalk, although no al fresco tables seem present. Personally, I would be more attracted to dining at the Toronto McDonald's than the current iteration on Peace St, which I have never actually eaten at even though I live down the street.
Last edited by autumngal; 04-28-2008 at 11:08 AM..
Reason: no blogs please
The City of Raleigh has been reviewing plans to replace the Peace St. McDonalds with a new one. As you may or may not know, this specific location is affected by the Peace St. Streetscape and neighborhood plans that are intended to elevate the appearance of the street and increase its walkable nature as a natural extension (on the northern boundary) of the Glenwood South neighborhood.
Well, anyway, I have been paying close attention to what the owners are proposing in that location and have been VERY disappointed in what I have seen. Essentially, there's really nothing urban about their proposal with the site plan being all about the drive thru and not the pedestrian. Fortunately, the city was disappointed too and stopped the proposal in its tracks.
What I'd like to do is find others (maybe miamiblue?) who live in the area to help make "noise" and push for a neighborhood conforming solution that will allow the franchiser to succeed while staying within the guidelines the city has developed for the neighborhood.
For other Miamians on this forum that are familiar with Southbeach, I'd like to push for something more on the order of the McDonalds at Alton/16th or the Burger King at Alton/17th. Both of these restaurants address the sidewalk and neighborhood in an urban way yet both of them retain their drive-thru's but not at the expense of the pedestrian.
This Peace St. location is key to the successful redevelopment of the neighborhood and sets the standard for development that will follow it. The city cannot afford to make a mistake here. Whatever ends up getting built is likely to be there for 2 decades or longer.
If anyone wants to join in on being an activist for this issue, send me a direct message and we can figure out what to do next. I have tons of collateral assembled from web page links to pdf's and a Powerpoint that I can share with anyone interested in joining this discussion.
Thanks for the consideration!
I guess you already know this, but I just saw this in the N&O today.
"In September, Crowder held up the approval of a new McDonald's restaurant on Peace Street because he thought the design could be more pedestrian-friendly. A McDonald's representative said only stores in New York had the characteristics Crowder was seeking. Crowder said he had seen them in Tennessee. The council approved the project, with Stephenson and Crowder voting against it."
Hope we don't start getting like other areas and trying to nitpick our businesses to death in Raleigh.
That Mickey's looks normal for a McDonald's and the area has many other businesses that seem a bit rougher anyway.
I absolutely agree! It seems to me McDonald's was willing to make a few changes for the new street plan - the residents should be thrilled they would make a single change. They have agreed to spend their money and alter their business to make the location better suited for the streetscape plan! It's their land, their business, their money, and they've been at that location much, much longer than many of the residents that have recently moved in around them. It should be up to them to decide whether to be "urban" or to retain the qualities that makes their business successful.
I can understand their hesitation... after all the "urban" street-side McD's on Hillsborough failed... and the owners of this particular franchise would worry about a similar situation.
I guess you already know this, but I just saw this in the N&O today.
"In September, Crowder held up the approval of a new McDonald's restaurant on Peace Street because he thought the design could be more pedestrian-friendly. A McDonald's representative said only stores in New York had the characteristics Crowder was seeking. Crowder said he had seen them in Tennessee. The council approved the project, with Stephenson and Crowder voting against it."
Not approving something because it is not pedestrian friendly has nothing to do with aesthetics and everything to do with function and safety, so the title of the N&O's article is off. Furthermore, common sense would suggest stone to be a superior building material to synthetic stucco (in the Marriott scenario), thus creating better structural integrity.
If you have seen the side of the parking deck of 222 Glenwood that faces 518, you will understand why someone needs to be held accountable for what people are forced to look at when it comes to parking decks. The developer could have contracted an artist to paint an awesome mural that reflected something of the community on that horrid blank wall, but instead they chose to merely paint blocks of bland color that attempt to mimic the open side of the deck. If there are reasonable ways to avoid an eyesore, I think developers should be held responsible for doing so.
IMHO, those examples actually support Crowder's and Stephenson's stances in each case rather than the opposition, in that they seem to be looking out for the community's best interest (which I think is what their job is if I'm not mistaken).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bartman
I absolutely agree! It seems to me McDonald's was willing to make a few changes for the new street plan - the residents should be thrilled they would make a single change. They have agreed to spend their money and alter their business to make the location better suited for the streetscape plan! It's their land, their business, their money, and they've been at that location much, much longer than many of the residents that have recently moved in around them. It should be up to them to decide whether to be "urban" or to retain the qualities that makes their business successful.
I can understand their hesitation... after all the "urban" street-side McD's on Hillsborough failed... and the owners of this particular franchise would worry about a similar situation.
I think that this particular McD's is going to be sorry if they don't adopt a more pedestrian friendly model, because this particular area will be undergoing enough changes in the near future to make the current car-centric model, with its very pedestrian un-friendly parking lot, obsolete. With all the residential units within walking distance coming online over the next few years, there will be a LOT more foot traffic. I just don't understand what is so bad about having the parking lot behind the building and making the building more safely accessible for people approaching on foot.
Sure they can do whatever they want, but it seems as though McD's only wants to spend the least amount of money necessary, and not necessarily consider the way the area is changing. I could be wrong, but a more pedestrian friendly design for this location seems like a smart investment. I don't own the business, so I guess I don't really care whether the new design is successful or not.
Hey you know what I think,They should knock down the peace inspection center,and build something wery nice,for the pulbic to enjoy.There is alot auto inspection center around.They don't need that one there.I hate going to mellow mushroom sitting outside,eating then you look up and see cars,going in and out of a garage.Let's push them out,and put something nicer.
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.
