Kidd's Hill/Crabtree area development

[Rufus]

http://www.raleighpublicrecord.org/news/transit/2012/04/02/crabtree-valley-causing-headache-for-city-planners/

Didn't know where exactly to put this since the Crabtree Valley Mall thread is more about the mall itself and not the area around it.

What I don't get is Bowers wanting to redone the area to be less dense office space, and then in the next thought says he wants people to be able to live around and walk to the mall? Am I missing something or do the two ideas counter each other?

I did like that the mindset changed to transit ideas and not a case about the roads in the area.

[orulz]

The former Kidd Hill Plaza site has been proposed to be built as a 336 unit apartment complex called Crabtree Commons. This will occupy about 2/3 of the Kidd Hill Plaza site directly across the bridge from the mall parking deck, leaving 1/3 of the site without a site plan filed. Therefore, if any retail is included, it will be on that 1/3 of the lot closest to the Creedmoor Extension.

[ctl]

Wow, I didn't know the plan involved relocating Crabtree Valley Avenue up the hill. This will impact bus routes that serve the mall, and I wonder if it will draw opposition from the homeowners on Edwards Mill.

Presumably the new junction of Crabtree Valley and Creedmoor will have a traffic light.

As long as they preserve the bridge from Edwards Mill (currently) to the Crabtree parking deck, I'm ok with it.

[Jones_]

I don't quite follow....I see where it is called out as re-designed crabtree valley avenue but I don't see anything indicating the existing crabtree valley avenue is being abandoned. It's more like they are realigning Edwards Mill and just named it wrong on the sheet...

[orulz]

The Crabtree Valley Transportation Study had shown the existing Crabtree Valley Avenue being abandoned west of its intersection with Edwards Mill. After the Crabtree Valley realignment, the old portion will serve very little purpose - Might as well get rid of it altogether. I would suggest selling it for development but it floods often, so turn it into a sort of linear park or something.

[Jones_]

Good idea I'd say....the greenway is there already....just bulb out a little area for picnics and such....or even put in a a mini outdoor exercise obstacle course thingy...those hold up fine in flood conditions...

[orulz]

Lots of large apartment projects/proposals in the Crabtree Valley area lately.

Woodfield Apartments - 359 units (under construction)

Charles Dr : Facing Glenwood - 200 units, 140,000sf retail

Charles Dr : Facing Lead Mine - 533 units, 7500sf retail

Crabtree Village : Homewood Banks/Blue Ridge/Crabtree Valley block - 525 units, 60,000sf retail, 250,000sf office

Crabtree Commons : Kidd's Hill, across the bridge from the Crabtree Valley Mall parking deck - 336 units

Glenwood Place : Womans Club Dr - 290 units

 

That's 2243 total units proposed - wow. Not really sure what it will all look like when done, but the area will certainly look different.

 

The Charles Dr project facing Glenwood has some interesting conditions associated with its rezoning: a new street connection from Charles Dr to Glenwood Avenue (at Mariott Drive), and a pedestrian bridge across Glenwood to the mall's parking deck must be built. It also seems like it may have some sort of streetscape improvements along Glenwood.

[Jones_]

I'm going to go out on a limb and say developers are overestimating how many people want to live along a choking boa constrictor of a road adjacent to a mall. When these places don't fill up there will be a call that the market is saturated and banks will start to question loans to projects that are actually well thought out. Just me...

[ctl]

I don't think those apartments will have difficulty finding residents. Raleigh continues to grow in population despite no annexation, although the numbers that the N&O printed yesterday show that Raleigh continues to grow at a slower rate than Wake County overall does. 

 

People who live in those new Charles Dr apartments won't find the Crabtree mess much of a problem if they work at the Six Forks/Strickland focus area, for example. Likewise people who live in the new apartments on the south side of Glenwood won't find much of a problem if they work at NCSU, Wade Avenue, etc. There really are only two significant problems at Crabtree. One is crossing between the north side of Glenwood and the south side (or vice versa). The other is getting onto Glenwood headed into downtown. But if somebody can get to work or school without having to do either of those, it's doable. 

 

Urban doesn't necessarily mean downtown. Ask Atlanta about Buckhead, which in the early 1970s looked a lot like Crabtree does now. 

Edited May 24, 2013 by ctl

[Euphorius]

If they were building condos, I would tend to agree with Jones, but I don't think they will have a tough sell as apartments. People can move after the lease is up if they don't like it.

[Jones_]

I still think urban is a split defined term and I will refer to one (and the one I prefer and support) as "proper" urban. Historical downtowns generally conform to "proper" urban in my mind so long as they have sufficient small parks, transit and mixed use blocks and buildings among other things. Crabtree certainly is urban to newspapers  and census definitions but suffers from that  north/south axis problem ctl mentioned. This is because  the urban "blocks" are either huge or non-existent. Transit is limited to a quasi-bus terminal that orients along the rear of the mall property and some TTA buses passing through. While the areas north and south (or east and west depending  how you want to look at it) do retain lower density and as such, some pleasantness, this really isn't enough to command the high rents that downtown (or any other area that is "proper" urban) can. If they fill up, it will be because there really is no where else to live as you also note ctl, but like other areas initially touted as luxury, the drag that high-density suburban layouts exerts coupled with the lack anything "proper" urban  will result in either these not leasing fully for long if rents are maintained at a high level, or a lowering of luxury status (and rent) in order to fill them up (Several apartments along Six Forks between Millbrook and Strickland come to mind). I am assuming these  are going to be "luxury" or else there is no real chance of the numbers even working on paper with the demo of existing apartments and the high cost of the real estate in this area. 

It is also possible I am just very different in my preferences....I would almost prefer to jump into the Grand Canyon than live in any apartment near Crabtree. 

[ctl]

Apartments can and sometimes do degrade over time -- even in downtowns, as older cities have experienced. Downtown Raleigh apartments, or at least the ones people on this forum think about, are so new that we haven't had a chance to see how they will hold up over time.

 

One can say it's value that drives up the market prices of downtown apartments, but one can also say that the market value reflects cost of construction. Both perspectives are right, so long as supply and demand are in balance. That said, the number of apartments in downtown, even if downtown is broadly defined to mean anything within 2 miles of the state capitol, remains microscopic compared to the number of apartments elsewhere in Raleigh -- and new complexes continue to sprout OTB, so it's unclear to me that the percentage in downtown is growing much. 

[ctl]

Meanwhile it appears the proverbial crap has hit the fan with respect to the Kidds Hill site.

http://raleighpublicrecord.org/news/city-council/2013/06/12/developer-says-it-can-no-longer-build-sues-city/

[orulz]

It seems like the city's comprehensive planning committee wants to downzone a significant portion of the Crabtree Valley area due to traffic concerns at the Glenwood/Lead Mine intersection. The downzoning would remove the "regional mixed use" designation from all but the mall itself and a couple surrounding properties ("Crabtree Plaza" and "Crabtree Village" aka Kidd Hill), which basically has the effect of significantly restricting the amount of retail that can be developed. Office, medium to high density residential, and much more restrictive amounts of retail would be allowed under the new proposed zoning for the other properties.

[Jones_]

I'm going to go out on a limb and say developers are overestimating how many people want to live along a choking boa constrictor of a road adjacent to a mall. When these places don't fill up there will be a call that the market is saturated and banks will start to question loans to projects that are actually well thought out. Just me...

Not to toot my own horn, but my mind isn't the only one questioning the livability of of the Crabtree area. 

Edited June 18, 2013 by Jones133

[orulz]

Apparently Crabtree Village is underway. Haven't seen it with my own two eyes but I'm sure the article is right.

http://www.bizjournals.com/triangle/blog/2013/07/crabtree-area-mixed-use-project.html

[Transplant]

The first thing the city should do is eliminate the left turn from north bound Glenwood into the parking deck by pf. changs. Force drivers to go to Creedmoor. The parking deck can not handle enough inbound traffic, and causes major backups. The Creedmoor Rd entrance is much better designed to handle the traffic.

 

This should be minimal cost, and would remove that traffic light.

[ctl]

I have never been a fan of that light. If I remember correctly, it preceded construction of the parking deck and its original function was simply to connect the Marriott (and the adjacent office building) built in 1982 to/from eastbound Glenwood. When the deck was built circa 1990, the upper deck entrance was aligned with the light.

 

Did anything come out of last night's public hearing that is "in between" doing nothing (other than restricting future retail development) and the mega-projects of $100M+ that stand very little chance of being funded? The consulting firm Louis Berger Group studied the traffic situation from every conceivable perspective in 2010 and filed a massive report (http://www.raleighnc.gov/content/PWksTranServices/Documents/TransportationPlanning/CVTSDocuments/CVTSFinalStudyDocs/CrabtreeValleyReportFINAL.pdf), but none of the in-between recommendations were ever acted upon.

Edited July 17, 2013 by ctl

[Jones_]

I have stared at the google map of the area for hours and have come up with nothing easy. This is simply among the worst planned areas in this city. So much gets pumped through this one point with no alternatives. The geology and location of a destination further complicate it all. Maybe double deck Glenwood from the 440 exits to past Creedmoor? Give folks trying to get past the mall the upper deck...

[ctl]

Jones133 is right, it's an awful situation with no easy answer. The city and NCDOT have already eaten all the low-hanging fruit for incremental improvement. I would quibble, though, with calling it "among the worst planned areas". In my mind Crabtree was absolutely unplanned relative to what has eventuated. Very few people imagined in 1965-1980 that Raleigh would grow in population to over 400,000. Consequently the city has been playing catch-up at Crabtree for 30 years now, but they've never been able to get ahead of the curve. If Raleigh's population had stabilized at 200,000, Crabtree would be doing fine -- aside from the tendency of the mall to flood, but that's just a combination of incompetent engineering and developer greed.

[Gard]

A developer has bought the Kidds Hill Plaza site and got the green light for construction of luxury apartments:

 

http://www.bizjournals.com/triangle/blog/2014/06/fein-buys-kidds-hill-plaza-land-for-new-apartments.html

[ctl]

It's the same developer who sued the city a year ago. Apparently the dispute has been settled. 

[InitialD]

Hilton Garden Inn Crabtree. Source

[orulz]

Massive fail of a site plan for the second phase of Crabtree Commons (aka Kidd Hill.) A single-story, single-use, 8420 square foot restaurant building surrounded by a moat of surface parking.

[Jones_]

Not sure what the current owner paid for the lot, but I'm surprised it's even feasible to build so little if it was a recent purchase. I had it in my head that mid-size office buildings would be a good fit on the fringes of the mall. The planning fail thread seems to apply more so to other parts of the City than downtown. I see no problem at all with forcing developers to front buildings to streets in areas such as this. And stormwater? Not sure the elevation above bank here, but there is a large fail again here regarding stormwater quantity and quality management.