Triangle Towne Center

[Spatula]

the houses are just old, poorly kept, and have poor climate control. removing the trees around them will not get rid of the humidity that causes mold to grow in them.

Half the trees in the beltline do not need to come down. The only ones that definitely need to go are the ones that need constant pruning by power lines. The pruning causes any rot at the dead core of the tree to be exposed to the air. (Though I would argue the real problem is the power lines, not the tree, but assuming those are staying no matter what...)

[dmccall]

^ Wow. No offense, but there is hardly anything correct in that post!! Yes, mold spores will thrive when HVAC systems are not well designed, but air movement and ground moisture movement is the seed for ground level air humidity.

Ride down St. Marys Street, White Oak Road, and through Country Club Hills and you'll see why those houses have much more mold in them than, say, the houses in the Fairview/Sunrise area near Five Points. Air does not move and fungi in these bogs thrives. You may notice that houses without carpet have less mold. People have removed carpets to get rid of mold. This is the exact same concept, but in more of a macro scale.

[orulz]

I definitely am curious as to how much of an impact trees and brush have on mold growth in homes. Sure they prevent some sunlight from reaching the house, and cooler temperatures can cause water to condense or simply not evaporate. But I don't think they increase the overall amount of moisture in the air appreciably.

I have no problem recognizing that overgrown vegetation probably plays a part in moldy homes, but to single that out as the primary cause seems to be a stretch.

What about improper vapor barriers leading to infiltration, poor ventilation / circulation in attics, crawlspaces, and basements, or foundation problems that allow excessive water seepage?

[dmccall]

I've talked to several housing inspectors and a real estate agents who will attest to just how many houses are having to deal with "mold remediation" as a contingency for sale. The houses here are not unique, yet mold is a much worse problem in this area of the country than others.

I look at houses a lot and you can take two houses in North Hills, for example, that are the same age, same house, etc. One is one a wooded lot, the other has only a few trees, but has some sunlight in the yard. The wooded one is predictable grossly more infested with mold.

I don't mean to go on too much of a tangent, here, but on the subject of clear-cutting, trees are not without their problems. Hopefully these areas that they are terraforming will end up with a healthy number of trees, unlike many older areas of Raleigh. More is not better, past a point.

[Jones_]

Mold became more of a problem when houses became tighter and windows smaller producing the low air flow, limited sunlight problem you note Dana. (carpet...bleh) The neighborhoods you mention are architecturally very different from say Oakwood. I would say the problem is the houses and the extra thick foliage people usually plant all over.

[Spatula]

^ Wow. No offense, but there is hardly anything correct in that post!! Yes, mold spores will thrive when HVAC systems are not well designed, but air movement and ground moisture movement is the seed for ground level air humidity.

Ride down St. Marys Street, White Oak Road, and through Country Club Hills and you'll see why those houses have much more mold in them than, say, the houses in the Fairview/Sunrise area near Five Points. Air does not move and fungi in these bogs thrives. You may notice that houses without carpet have less mold. People have removed carpets to get rid of mold. This is the exact same concept, but in more of a macro scale.

Condescension tends to suggest that someone lacks evidence for their claims. Not that I don't think you've heard about this from someone, potentially some real estate agent covering someone's ass for a poorly-built house, but I wouldn't take it too seriously.

The mold that gets into houses needs a way to get in. Holes in the roof, compromised plumbing, cracks around windows, and it needs an environment it can grow in. Part of the house has to be poorly air-conditioned. Most of the interior of a house is not directly exposed to sunlight, so changing the amount of trees in the yard will not do a thing. This is a humid subtropical climate. It feels like moss outside in the summer, and it's not windy in this region. Taking trees out won't change that, and it doesn't matter either if it's kept cool inside. Considering how slight and meaningless this effect is, I'm curious why you'd be willing to raze half the trees inside the beltline over it. Need a better view of the ugly buildings? Is Raleigh not monotonous and suburban-looking enough? Or is there not enough urban heat island for your tastes?

Please. The aesthetic value of all the old trees in these old neighborhoods trumps any slight negative effects they could potentially cause.

[ChiefJoJo]

I had not visited this area of Raleigh in quite some time until recently. I have got to say that the TTC area of Raleigh in and around US 1 & I-540 rivals Brier Creek for the biggest pile of crap development in Raleigh's recent history. The entire experience, from driving there, to struggling to find what I was looking for in the out-parcel strip malls, made me never want to go there again. I just kept thinking about Kunstler's "The Geography of Nowhere."

The only good thing about this area is that is will get redeveloped, hopefully ASAP, into something resembling a mixed use, walkable activity center.

[Gard]

^

I completely agree about the strip malls. Sad thing is there are even more planned (most notably the one with a super wal-mart across from the Super Target) to add to the chaos. The good thing is though that there is plenty of room for infill without having to tear things down and make more of a mess. TTC has more than enough room on its property for hotels, condos/apartments and other things that people need. That property could really boom with some people living on it. Another thing that really needs to be done is a pedestrian bridge across Sumner and designing some type of connection between TTC and Poyner Place behind it. Some way to accommodate pedestrians going across Capital would be essential as well. Overall, the area is a mess, but it is not at the point of no return. There is a ton of potential to make this part of the city a vibrant and thriving development node. The city can really start by stopping the approval of all these crazy shopping centers. They are being their own worst enemy on that.

[dmccall]

I had not visited this area of Raleigh in quite some time until recently. I have got to say that the TTC area of Raleigh in and around US 1 & I-540 rivals Brier Creek for the biggest pile of crap development in Raleigh's recent history.

I agree with you, but remember that this whole area was PLANNED that way, by the city. It was intensely studied by the planning department and designed for the "feeder" roads that would free traffic flow. They made a big whoopdy doo deal about it back when they were planning it, as well as the Raleigh Grand area on Glenwood. It was a new era for planning in Raleigh, and both are a miserable flop. TTC is just that whole South Square mess all over again. Even worse, though, is that Plantation Inn property where BJ's is. It all makes Brier Creek look charming.

Don't feel bad, though. Even Williamsburg, VA is trying its hardest to screw up its outskirts, too.

[Jones_]

I am not sure if its the streets or the fact it always has fewer people, but TTC has always been relatively easy to get into compared to Crabtree or strip areas like Plantation. It sounds ridiculous indeed, but planning roads *in* an area vs. planning roads simply *to* an area probably was forward thinking for Raleigh. Know of course having the cahonas do things like set maximum numbers of parking spaces, dictate location and types of transit (I know our options are meager), or even force mixed use parceling of the area in some manner would be some real forward thinking steps.

[ChiefJoJo]

Here's what the TTC Small Area Plan called for (among other things) as generated from a series of public meetings in 2000:

"Instead of contributing to a pattern of suburban sprawl, congested roadways, polluted air and a deteriorating environment, it was envisioned that the development of this Regional Center could become a model of efficient development, based on sound environmental and community design principles. The urban center that can emerge here is characterized by mixed-use development, strong pedestrian corridors, utilization of environmental features to shape the pattern of development, and a greatly improved relationship between the use of the land and the transportation systems that serve those uses."

We got none of that. The mall was built in 2002, and likely planned & permitted 2-3 years prior, so it's either a failure of leadership by the city council at that time to call for better development, or a failure of establishing the proper mixed use zoning that would allow such development to take place. I would think the developer could have used the city's planned development district zoning (for master planned neighborhoods), that North Hills used around the same time frame (99/00), but didn't. If you elect short term tax-base chasing leaders who rubber stamp whatever out-of-town mall developer X wants, then you tend get crap like TTC, unless they are one of the rare good ones. And for those who think that we should always let the market decide what goes where, the dying (or dead) malls littering the country today stand in opposition to that kind of thinking. Because the community must live with the long term consequences of these decisions, they should be equal participants in a process with land owners, in deciding how the community should develop.

North Hills is a pretty good example of a how a local developer (John Kane) engaged the community and came up with a plan that residents generally supported and is mostly good for the community. Win-win. We need to provide more incentives for good mixed use infill to take place, and discourage/prevent the TTC's of the world.

[beyonce245]

Here's what the TTC Small Area Plan called for (among other things) as generated from a series of public meetings in 2000:

"Instead of contributing to a pattern of suburban sprawl, congested roadways, polluted air and a deteriorating environment, it was envisioned that the development of this Regional Center could become a model of efficient development, based on sound environmental and community design principles. The urban center that can emerge here is characterized by mixed-use development, strong pedestrian corridors, utilization of environmental features to shape the pattern of development, and a greatly improved relationship between the use of the land and the transportation systems that serve those uses."

We got none of that. The mall was built in 2002, and likely planned & permitted 2-3 years prior, so it's either a failure of leadership by the city council at that time to call for better development, or a failure of establishing the proper mixed use zoning that would allow such development to take place. I would think the developer could have used the city's planned development district zoning (for master planned neighborhoods), that North Hills used around the same time frame (99/00), but didn't. If you elect short term tax-base chasing leaders who rubber stamp whatever out-of-town mall developer X wants, then you tend get crap like TTC, unless they are one of the rare good ones. And for those who think that we should always let the market decide what goes where, the dying (or dead) malls littering the country today stand in opposition to that kind of thinking. Because the community must live with the long term consequences of these decisions, they should be equal participants in a process with land owners, in deciding how the community should develop.

North Hills is a pretty good example of a how a local developer (John Kane) engaged the community and came up with a plan that residents generally supported and is mostly good for the community. Win-win. We need to provide more incentives for good mixed use infill to take place, and discourage/prevent the TTC's of the world.

I think North Hills is horrible...a cluster f*** if there ever was one. It's still not pedestrian friendly...or even vehicular friendly for that matter. Speaking of Metro Magazine, it had an article awhile back where someone was talking about Raleigh and how it was becoming more and more like Manhattan because people don't have to use there cars to get to places as much. He cited North Hills as his reasoning...I had a good chuckle. Raleigh = Manhattan...I think not nor will it ever be.

[JeffC]

I think North Hills is horrible...a cluster f*** if there ever was one. It's still not pedestrian friendly...or even vehicular friendly for that matter. Speaking of Metro Magazine, it had an article awhile back where someone was talking about Raleigh and how it was becoming more and more like Manhattan because people don't have to use there cars to get to places as much. He cited North Hills as his reasoning...I had a good chuckle. Raleigh = Manhattan...I think not nor will it ever be.

It might not be perfect, but North Hills is a darn sight better than the confusing and auto-centric maze of strip malls around TTC...

[dmccall]

I think North Hills is horrible...a cluster f*** if there ever was one. It's still not pedestrian friendly...or even vehicular friendly for that matter.

What are you talking about? Walking from any point in the complex to any other is as safe as any other retail cluster in North Carolina. How is it unfriendly to vehicles? They struck the perfect balance of being able to be passed through in a car, but easily parked without walking a country mile, too (unlike Southpoint)....and all on a tiny piece of land.

In fact, the retail, restaurant, and entertainment businesses in that complex are faring much better than even Chapel Hill's Franklin St., which in the face of an extremely thorough, FREE bus system, is still falling on its face with rapid turnover and multiple business failures. Franklin St. is the perfect example of how "New Yorky" kind of stuff (easier to navigate by foot/transit than by car) has always, and will always fail in North Carolina. People want convenience, and the closer you get to areas with scant parking in Chapel Hill, the more turnover you are seeing in businesses. Chapel Hill is most likely the densest accumulation of environmentalists and transit-savy people in North Carolina, and still those people opt for living/working/playing in the burbs over trying to go to nice restaurants and entertainment venues (two failed theaters) near the Franklin and Columbia (where parking is very difficult).

We will be much better off in the long run if we in this area will embrace the car the right way. I'd rather have 40 North Hillses in the Triangle than that garbage out Capital Blvd or rail nodes that nobody can afford to live near.

[Gard]

I think North Hills is horrible...a cluster f*** if there ever was one. It's still not pedestrian friendly...or even vehicular friendly for that matter. Speaking of Metro Magazine, it had an article awhile back where someone was talking about Raleigh and how it was becoming more and more like Manhattan because people don't have to use there cars to get to places as much. He cited North Hills as his reasoning...I had a good chuckle. Raleigh = Manhattan...I think not nor will it ever be.

I've never had a problem walking, or parking for that matter, at North Hills...

North Hills is about as good as I've seen in the Triangle. Trying to walk around the TTC area like you would North Hills would be asking to die, be it of exhaustion from walking through the Sahara Desert of parking lots or being hit by a crazy driver going 50+ mph through the area.

[beyonce245]

I suppose I should've added that I'm also not a fan of TTC. I'm just not a North Hills fan either.

[RALNATIVE]

I suppose I should've added that I'm also not a fan of TTC. I'm just not a North Hills fan either.

You should have also added that you're from Greensboro, which might explain your attitude towards Raleigh and its developments.

Don't you guys have anything going on that you can discuss in that thread?

[beyonce245]

You should have also added that you're from Greensboro, which might explain your attitude towards Raleigh and its developments.

Don't you guys have anything going on that you can discuss in that thread?

You're right. I am from Greensboro. But I live in Durham, have been for the last two years (South Square) while attending school.

[blueheronNC]

Maybe I'm an old-school guy or something, but my wife and I both assumed that Triangle Town Center was considered the best mall in the Triangle (before finding out that locals somehow preferred Crabtree and Southpoint more). I've not been out that way enough to really experience the out strip malls, but the central building itself seems nice architecturally speaking (plush carpeted interiors and nice sight and light lines), and a good mix of retailers and seem to in general carry higher-quality merchandise than the ones that Southpoint. I don't know if that's the Saks influence spilling over to the other retailers, but that's the vibe I've always gotten there.

Most towns would love to have a development the quality of TTC. I think maybe Raleigh has too much of a good thing? I never hear people complaining about Southpoint and surrounds, and that's a maze of sprawley development if I've ever seen one, without the substance of TTC.

[RALNATIVE]

You're right. I am from Greensboro. But I live in Durham, have been for the last two years (South Square) while attending school.

That would definitely explain it!

[Jones_]

Maybe I'm an old-school guy or something, but my wife and I both assumed that Triangle Town Center was considered the best mall in the Triangle (before finding out that locals somehow preferred Crabtree and Southpoint more). I've not been out that way enough to really experience the out strip malls, but the central building itself seems nice architecturally speaking (plush carpeted interiors and nice sight and light lines), and a good mix of retailers and seem to in general carry higher-quality merchandise than the ones that Southpoint. I don't know if that's the Saks influence spilling over to the other retailers, but that's the vibe I've always gotten there.

Most towns would love to have a development the quality of TTC. I think maybe Raleigh has too much of a good thing? I never hear people complaining about Southpoint and surrounds, and that's a maze of sprawley development if I've ever seen one, without the substance of TTC.

Other than Saks, TTC is about as much of an "off the shelf" mall as you can get. I still think being surrounded by 4-lane roads on all sides is its best feature...which is not saying much. The outdoor area feels like an afterthought. The carpet is a cost cutting measure (tile is probably twice as expensive I am guessing). My guess on why Saks chose it was they were blinded by the location of a brand new interstate next door, adjacent "high end" retail in teh works, and booming Wake Forest with Heritage as the poster child development. They seem to have missed the obvious outflow of failed businesses coming north on Capital, the array of used car lots and car related establishments backfilling in the run down real estate and the crime map being heavily weighted towards Capital Blvd. Highwoods sold off its office buildings in its signature development for these very same reasons. Raleigh thinks its solid waste department will go unnoticed in this part of town (its moving off Westinghouse).

Back to TTC...architecturally I do like the huge windows in the food court though the food court itself has about half the restaurants Crabtree has. Of the three major malls, TTC stands the greatest chance of being an empty shell in 20, 30 40 years or so.

To be clear...I consider the entire corridor of Capital from 440 to 540 a single entity that beats the same heartbeat, though the 401 interchange does carve it in two sort of...

[StevenRocks]

Architecturally, TTC does almost nothing for me. It's a product of its era: lots of goofy pastiche masquerading as "character" in the vain attempt to conceal the fact it is a standard issue regional mall with a token outdoor area. The stream motif is kind of cute, as is the "street fair lighting" in the corridor leading to the outdoor area and the eye-shaped center court area, but things drop off considerably once you leave the signature features.

I've always felt Saks chose the wrong mall, but the store appears to have staked its own claim to the marketplace, though there's little shopper spillover to the mall proper.

Generally, Crabtree's exterior is bland and its interior, though classy, fades into the background, but for the vast majority of its shoppers, none of that really matters as long as their favorite stores are there. The leasing remains sharper than the competition and the location can't be beat for regional shopping. That will keep the place afloat for at least another generation if it continues.

The exterior of Southpoint almost falls into the same category as TTC, but the designers wisely chose dark brick, which doesn't eradicate flaws, but masks them enough that you don't notice them as much. The interior however, despite the overabundance of cutsey "town" storefronts, doesn't offend and remains neutral enough that it won't feel dated for a while. Leasing is strong here too, and the location remains its greatest asset.

[Jones_]

as is the "street fair lighting" in the corridor leading to the outdoor

I forgot about this, and like it very much. Its a nice entry to Barnes and Noble.

[ChiefJoJo]

Maybe I'm an old-school guy or something, but my wife and I both assumed that Triangle Town Center was considered the best mall in the Triangle (before finding out that locals somehow preferred Crabtree and Southpoint more). I've not been out that way enough to really experience the out strip malls, but the central building itself seems nice architecturally speaking (plush carpeted interiors and nice sight and light lines), and a good mix of retailers and seem to in general carry higher-quality merchandise than the ones that Southpoint. I don't know if that's the Saks influence spilling over to the other retailers, but that's the vibe I've always gotten there.

Most towns would love to have a development the quality of TTC. I think maybe Raleigh has too much of a good thing? I never hear people complaining about Southpoint and surrounds, and that's a maze of sprawley development if I've ever seen one, without the substance of TTC.

I was questioning the existence of a sprawling, auto-dependent, single use, stand-alone mall (with numerous ancillary strip mall out parcels) in that location (or really any other for that matter), not whether the retail makeup is right or not. Again, area residents called out for a higher quality, walkable mixed use development as I noted above, and we got a huge pile of garbage that will arguably need to be made over within 10-15 years of it's inception.

I'm sure that Southpoint could fit in this category as well, though TTC is probably more of cluster****. At least Crabtree is sort of compact (hemmed in by the creek and US 70), so that you don't have to walk a 1/2 mile through a sea of asphalt to get in there, plus it's not too far from a number of other activity centers in Raleigh. Because of it's location near the core of the city (Uptown?), Crabtree probably won't be too far behind TTC for an extreme makeover.

[Gard]

Looks like this part of town is going to be getting another hotel. A developer has announced that they have secured financing and will be building a Courtyard Marriott at TTC. The hotel will be 4 stories with 109 rooms and located in the parking lot of TTC it looks like, adjacent to Chilis and Macaroni Grill. A small step in the right direction IMO, lets hope that it attracts other things when the economy gets better.

http://www.newsobserver.com/business/story/1675991.html