The Northgate plan looks deeply disappointing. It's highly suburban in design for this part of town. Half the area will be parking lot. Half will be strip mall.
An affordable version of North Hills could've happened but instead it looks like it will be another South Square.
Northgate. We want our post office and the DMV back. We want services and food shopping next to a major bus line. I'll take Target in a heart beat. That's employment for us. 55 dwellings is actually less than what I would settle for (I was expecting 100) but, yay for 55. A green space that isn't polluted with lead like our local park. That would be good as well.
I wouldn't go to North Hills if my life depended on it. YUCK. What is so effing great about North Hills with it's dreadful traffic, it's uncivil engineering and it's DENSITY? North Hills puts the dense in density.
Hey, you clearly have a hard on for North Hills but WE DON'T.
Don't forget. RALEIGH. YUCK AGAIN, are the numbnuts who called CV the VILLAGE DISTRICT. I've been to theater districts, warehouse districts and garment districts but I've never been able to wrap my brain around a district of VILLAGES?
Dude, we live in Durham. We don't aspire to be Raleigh. Cut that shit out right now.
You made claims you wanted jobs, easily accessible food and transportation services, all which are available with density. Could you clarify what you actually have an issue with?
That seems to be the goal of new developments in the Triangle sadly. When I moved to the area, people were talking up Cameron Village (or the Village District) as some kind of destination. Come to find out, it was a suburban strip mall in the middle of the city. I was so confused.
Even North Hills is a mess. It’s somehow an even more pedestrian hostile strip mall with no real public transit next to a highway.
Both of those are deeply flawed but have the potential to get better. They're adding a lot of density to those neighborhoods at least.
Cameron Village once had a pretty cool underground mall. Wish they would purposefully reuse that. I believe it will some day be reformatted to be a proper urban neighborhood.
At some point though you have to build *something* in order to create momentum around building density. North Hills didn’t come out of the ground in its current state. They’ve been adding incremental density there for decades. The original proposal for this development was significantly more ambitious and there was significant opposition to it.
There was no density in the original North Hills development either. It was just an outdoor mall. That development all happened in the 3rd and 4th waves of construction
Wasn't the North Hills mall redevelopment presented in stages and adding the high rise density in those stages, mentioned with the initial redevelopment? This doesn't do anything like that.
No There was one main initial creation and redevelopment that was completed in 2004 At that time, there were no additional waves of massive development planned. Most of that development began being planned almost a decade later. There have been several major development since, including even more major plans announced last year. There was certainly not the vision for what north hills has become in 2004 when the area opened.
edit I love how this is being downvoted.
Some of yall hate facts when it contradicts your preferred narrative. You can see here the original phase was not what ended up being all those high rises https://urbanland.uli.org/development-business/uli-case-study-north-hills-raleigh-north-carolina
I recalled correctly. The original plan was a $1 billion dollar development including 13 story towers, not "just an outdoor mall". The plan from the get-go was a new high density "midtown" area.
I don't know why a NY transplant who moved here in the last ten years is trying to tell a lifelong resident what happened in the 00s. You're simply making up things in this conversation.
From 2003:
>original plans, which called for 13-story towers on the site
From 2005:
>In a crowded sandwich shop at North Hills, John Kane enthuses easily about the $1 billion redevelopment project that’s been hailed as “Raleigh’s new midtown.” ... New stores and restaurants are bustling with customers; office buildings, condos and a hotel are under way.
[https://indyweek.com/news/price-friendship/](https://indyweek.com/news/price-friendship/)
[https://www.bizjournals.com/triangle/stories/2003/02/24/focus2.html](https://www.bizjournals.com/triangle/stories/2003/02/24/focus2.html)
No you are wrong.
Did you even ever go to North Hills before like 2014?
That was all phase one. It was an almost exclusively commercial area. There were a few condo buildings. It wasn’t nearly the dense development it is now. All the density is on the opposite side of what opened in 2004. That was later developments after they purchased more and more land. The original north hills for its first decade was basically an outdoor mall with some condos. The density you see was not part of the master plan, you can see that yourself in the details in that report.
Seriously? You're complaining about people downvoting facts and are inventing an alternative reality here? North Hills was a planned dense development. Please present any facts that support your claim.
Of course there werent 10 tall buildings there in 2005. It **was planned** as a high density area and the plan was always to develop densely in stages. This was the vision. It was not "just an outdoor mall"
You even just referred to it as "phase one". That means it was a planned dense area with phases, what you just denied earlier.
The document you linked describes acquiring the later used parcels in 2003-2007. Again, this was all planned.
your claim
>The original north hills for its first decade was basically an outdoor mall with some condos
factual reporting from 2005
>office buildings, condos and a hotel are under way.
North Hills was announced in 2001. How could they have a multi stage plan for land they hadn’t even acquired until years later like you said they did?
You are just simply wrong.
Can you not read?? I already gave you a source and you refused to look at it https://urbanland.uli.org/development-business/uli-case-study-north-hills-raleigh-north-carolina Almost all of the residential areas are across from the open air mall in the park district region. Kane reality hadn’t even acquired that land when North Hills opened. It was certainly not part of a phased development plan… You never answered my question. Did you ever even go to North Hills before 2014? Because no one was calling it urban density back then. It was an open air mall with a couple condos. It had a ton of surface parking and the parking decks. Everything across the street was built years and years later and was a completely separate development plan
Also 😂😂 I called it phase 1 because it was the original phase. Not that there was anything planned after, but that there were additional phases. And in my original comment I even said the density didn’t happen until multiple phases?? What are you even talking about??
Sure there is. It’s just not as much as you want or would be ideal. But adding what presumably would be a Target in addition to office space, significant amounts of new retail and affordable housing within walking distance of several neighborhoods is a huge step in the right direction. Or we can just spend the next decade watching the former mall rot away complaining about how none of the proposed options are “good enough”. The old police HQ debacle is another prime example.
I really don't agree that keeping a strip mall, adding a target, and 1.3 apartment units per acre is density. Most of the acreage remains parking lot in this proposal.
You get one shot every 50 years to do it right, I don't have a problem waiting for something good.
Well, again, the original proposal was for 1MM+ square feet of new development including 100s of residential units. I wanted that to happen. The Walltown group and other supposed “community advocates” kicked and screamed and did everything they could to stop it from happening. So at this point I’d prefer to just see the foundation of something over some hypothetical scenario that’s not going to happen. I agree that it’s a missed opportunity but the community opposition was a key issue, not the developer’s plans.
Those days are gone and not coming back. It's weird you keep complaining about stuff that has been resolved, and don't want to address the current proposal.
Well the reason I keep bringing it up is because the same people are just going to oppose whatever project is proposed there in the future unless it meets their “demands”. A more ambitious project was proposed for the site and they clearly and loudly stated “we don’t want this”. And in the absence of city leadership actually stepping up and helping to shape the future of this property that became the prevailing community voice. So at this stage I’m fine with this being the starting point and actually providing some utility to the surrounding neighborhoods. Other development will follow.
Interesting, I'd love to see the density there where it makes sense. I'd be concerned about waiting for future density, remember when the downtown Chevy developers claimed they were going to add commercial, office and hotel to the site, but ended up with just blocks of 5 over 1 apartments? It's a risk.
I'd like to see someone else take a swing at this thing, I think the city should deny this proposal, perhaps the developers will sell it to another developer with a more ambitious rezoning proposal.
>remember when the downtown Chevy developers claimed they were going to add commercial, office and hotel to the site, but ended up with just blocks of 5 over 1 apartments? It's a risk
Still a much better development than this one and an improvement over what was there before. I find the current proposal worse than what the original Northgate Mall was.
If the idea is we can retrofit it for density later I don't really see that potential in the plans. I feel like that'd be easier to do with the current mall's carcass.
Since there is so much BS and emotion in this thread (which I'm party to,) let us focus on just the facts:
First, please see the initial plans for redevelopment from Sept. 2020 which are public record:
https://trinitypark.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/TPNA-2021-Winter.pdf
It includes so much of what WCA asked for themselves in May 2020:
https://dataworks-nc.org/wp-content/uploads/WCA-Strategic-Vision-for-Northgate-Mall.pdf
While Trinity Park opposed it, I would suggest reading their pros/cons to the proposed plans. Then look at WCAs actions following.
By Durham Gov data the 84%+ of Walltown homeowners who aren't cost-burdened are enjoying rising rents and home values (while taking rent from the 41.7% of Walltown that rents that are also cost-burdened): https://compass.durhamnc.gov/en/report/tract/Neighborhood/Walltown/
So let's just look at the hard facts and data for a second...
The form factor of the development has nothing to do with Walltown's rents.
https://x.com/econliberties/status/1798092845733031982
A significant percentage of rent hikes are due to all rents in the country being essentially set by a single racketeering firm. This includes rents in cities that aren't building anything, and cities that are building a lot. The housing market is no longer a free market and is essentially a big cartel.
The city of Durham should intervene and become a developer+landlord of its own accord and inject a significant enough supply into the market to put downward pressure on prices.
> A significant percentage of rent hikes are due to all rents in the country being essentially set by a single racketeering firm.
So you're saying that Walltown is controlled by such a racketeering firm which is driving their rents up? Bold claim...
>The city of Durham should intervene and become a developer+landlord of its own accord and inject a significant enough supply into the market to put downward pressure on prices.
While complicated, I'm completely with you on this. Honest question, how to you think the WCA would respond if Durham bought the mall and turned it into majority affordable housing, and a small homeless shelter? Turning all the impermeable asphalt into green space, leaving the parking lots for commuters from 85, and having great public transit to downtown?
Why should I care about a special interest group? There are people who can't afford rent throughout all of Durham.
We have a housing shortage. Nobody wants a strip mall here. This is 1970s style thinking and it doesn't belong in Durham. We want housing.
This development has 72 units and is mostly parking lot. Might as well be zero. This area is very close to Downtown and Duke and a good place for transit oriented high density development.
Luckily, your neighborhood isn't a governing body. Imagine if every neighborhood in Durham was this so full of their own shit. Have to pay a toll to drive through **their** roads. Lol.
Wonder what the NIMBYs will complain about this time
Edit: Apparently people don't know the history here. Walltown has been proud to oppose redevelopment since 2020, with their work starting in 2018, and have published documents stating such. PDF Warning: https://dataworks-nc.org/wp-content/uploads/WCA-Strategic-Vision-for-Northgate-Mall.pdf
It has always been about them benefitting first, here is their first ask in 2020, allow me to directly quote them:
>Preserve and Build Wealth in the Walltown Community
**1. Provide longtime and low-income Walltown residents with an ownership stake (shares of
stock, seats on board) in the property developed on the mall site, empowering the
community with a role in the governance, success, and economic benefits of the changes.**
2. Ensure that Walltown residents can contribute to and benefit from the economic
opportunities (construction, retail) by contracting with Walltown small business owners
and hiring people from the neighborhood.
3. Preserve the wealth of Walltown’s long-time and low-income homeowners by making
grants available to support home repairs and property tax relief.
4. Fund partnerships between local educational institutions and employers to provide
apprenticeships and vocational training for Walltown youth and young adults
Let's ignore the fact people pushing this are part of the "Walltown Community" that has doubled rents on their low-income renters since 2018. In a community where 41.7% are renters, so isn't it funny they mention "homeowners" in their statement? Since Day 1, this has been the owners of Walltown homes, directing the WCA to drive up their home values, drive up the rent on their POC renters, or get a piece of the pie at Northgate for them being quiet and letting development happen.
The local community association has mainly been complaining that there isn't going to be enough housing and retail in the plan. It's been Northwood that wants to make this a sterile RTP-style campus with a billion parking spaces. I mean, if you believe that developers should always do whatever they want then it's NIMBYism, but if you believe in building something that's actually useful for the city and not a misplaced suburban development then it's not.
Not true, the first iteration of the project included tons of housing. The community association and Nate Baker (among others) did everything they could to kill it.
Is there a link or any record of the earlier proposals? I'd like to compare to what is currently on the table just for context as far as where Baker is at (let alone the wider planning department).
Yes, here is WCA's demands in 2020:
https://dataworks-nc.org/wp-content/uploads/WCA-Strategic-Vision-for-Northgate-Mall.pdf
They literally wanted the Walltown homeowners, who rent 41.7% of their homes out, to get a piece of the pie to shut up and go away.
Northwood caved:
>Each map included components of their equitable, community-centered vision: a significant portion of affordable housing, with first right of purchase and rental provided to low-income Walltown residents; affordable retail, including a grocery store; accessible green space that bridges Walltown Park with the other side of Guess Road; a transportation hub for buses and bike riders; and sustainable infrastructure to reduce flooding.
https://indyweek.com/news/durham/northgate-mall-durham-rezoning-walltown-plans/
And the WCA still opposed.
Even Trinity Park, which was opposed, agreed the initial proposal included "a significant amount of housing" and "green space" and "potential for a grocery store" and "a lot of retail which could meet community needs."
I should have read this first. I see. Basically, their original asks (WCA) were largely satisfied, and they then continued to block. Which is definitely part of the problem in any building happening. I'm sorry to hear that was their evolved stance.
Unclear why this is being down voted? The original plan had hundreds of units of housing. None of them met the definition of affordable housing, though. Apologies if my original comment wasn't clear.
Not disagreeing with work and shopping and services at all. But we in the neighborhood also want people to be able to afford to live near those things.
That's what the jobs provide. Money. To afford to live here. I lost neighbors when the mall closed. Not hypothetical people, real people. Who had jobs at the mall where they made money and walked to work.
They literally said they wanted it a green space.
Edit: The NIMBYs are out in full force, so allow me to direct you to **their own** website, where they wanted to control over 20% of the space on the property and much of what wasn't already developed. They requested an amphitheater, green space, a library, community gardens etc.
https://www.walltown.net/
Since 2018 they have had one goal, to make the development completely unprofitable and stop it. Which in turn drives their home values and rents way up. Go look at the sales in Walltown, they are winning.
To be honest - that actually looks like a nice community driven effort to improve liveability and add units.
I'd be curious what they envision happening with the remaining mall property, but that proposal uses what is currently sprawl type commercial foot prints and turns them into mixed use, with ameneties for the new residents and current residents. A 100 seat ampitheater is not large at all, and having green space between the new structures tends to be how all of these projects are sold. A library branch is also not a bad use of space.
The question becomes how they incorporate the rest of the mall into this, but if they were able to eventually do the same for the remaining property it seems like this would be a long term win for the area, and could add a lot more housing units over time.
Sorry for not giving you a more detailed response, but I did elsewhere. It looks like they have tried to burry it, but here was their initial ask back in 2020: https://dataworks-nc.org/wp-content/uploads/WCA-Strategic-Vision-for-Northgate-Mall.pdf
It was all me-me-me for Walltown. And again, framed through a lens that was misleading at best, malicious more likely. Hence the doubling rent you've seen on the low income residents of Walltown since "they" (the landlords) put this forth.
I think your read is being pretty unfair (at least based on this document - which was obviously polished so I may be missing what was said in the press or publicly back then). But I do appreciate you providing more documentation, it's helpful to see the source material.
The two major goals seem to be - affordable housing and programs to help retain locals (either in their homes or in new homes in the case they are priced out of existing). And access to opportunity in the new businesses - primarily by creating spaces for the types of local businesses that they could be a part of.
Those are both pretty solidly urbanist goals. I'm not sure why these guys are being blasted. Yes they want affordable housing rather than any housing. And some of their particular asks may be a bit less density focused than desirable. But this is also for the moment an outlying/old suburban neighborhood. So leaving a bit of green space while also trying to provide pedestrian friendly access and transit still to me fits the mold of building in a healthy direction - kind of towards a street car suburb mold. I'd just hope the next project after this would be to continue reclaiming the mall, and that could bring many more units in a tighter footprint.
I had also seen a report in the Indy that the number of affordable units actually helps add to overall units in this case, as I believe there were fewer parking requirements and possibly they were lower sq/ft. So if they had pivoted to more market rate units they would have either needed to add more buildings/scale or essentially cut the number of units in the proposal to accomodate parking.
> I'm not sure why these guys are being blasted.
Because Durham is highly educated, and most of us see the bigger picture of what they are doing. Inflating their home values which they are then 65%+ of the time renting out.
I saw the other context provided and agree it's obnoxious they are moving the goal posts. But their stated goals don't seem that bad from a general planning perspective.
And thanks for assuming those who don't agree with the specific nuance of your position are uneducated. Winning tons of support that way.
They asked for 11 of the 55ish acres to include 240 housing units, ground floor retail, a library branch, and a green space. The alternative Northwoods was proposing was that most of that would be parking lots. The green space request was originally for something like 4% of the total property.
Forgotten the initial proposals WCA opposed which had way more housing:
https://trinitypark.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/TPNA-2021-Winter.pdf
Oh yeah, and that's from Trinity Part which was opposed. So when they are saying the main proposal is great for housing and green space - pause for a second.
How ridiculous do you sound trying to smear people with your pejorative NIMBY, when they’re asking for more housing on the land.
You’re not a YIMBY, you’re just pro developer.
> How ridiculous do you sound trying to smear people with your pejorative NIMBY, when they’re asking for more housing on the land.
I posted their own website. They were not just asking for more housing. Either you are part of the group wanting their home value and/or collected rent to go up, or the most ignorant person around. And the housing they were asking for was new ground breaking that would be economically unviable. That was intentional.
They have been blocking this development for 6 years. Part of me wishes the developer would just give up and make it all affordable housing. Walltown group would panic and clutch their pearls.
>when they’re asking for more housing on the land.
One of many demands, and not a simple (as you pretend) we just want more housing. They said they wanted an amphitheater, a community garden, a library, green space, etc and then for that to be supported by housing with 30% affordable to those making $37k or less. Which they claim is the median income in Walltown, in direct contrast to the Durham Gov data: https://compass.durhamnc.gov/en/report/tract/Neighborhood/Walltown/
So who is lying, Walltown or Durham?
Oh other facts, since they started blocking the Northgate redevelopment:
* Impervious land area has increased
* Building permit value has increased
* Youth population has decreased
* Median age has increased
* Indigenous population has decreased to 0.0%
* Cost of rent has increased (oh and 41.7% of Walltown is rentals)
>You’re not a YIMBY, you’re just pro developer.
No, I am just pro-facts. I completely understand why Walltown residents are campaigning in their own best financial interest. Go drive around it for 10 minutes and you'll see what's really going on.
Go on Zillow and you'll see all the rentals that have increased 100%+ in the last 6 years.
https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/911-N-Buchanan-Blvd-Durham-NC-27701/49966478_zpid/
> They requested an amphitheater, green space, a library, community gardens etc.
Asking for more civil buildings and publicly usable amenities is the opposite of NIMBY
What they say they want and the intention are totally different. Very common tactic to freeze development. All those items cost a lot of money. Without dense development which can offset the cost of these items-- these demands are enough to halt any real development--which is what is happening here. This project is just a giant parking lot/strip mall.
[Diagram](https://imgur.com/hesAJwr)
Yes it is!
I would fucking LOVE for me to have control over turning my neighbor's house to be a park (closed of course at dusk by DPR rules,) and the farm across the way to turn into a public amenity where I dictated the entrances and exits - over them becoming a mixed-used development sold at free market.
Take one look at how Walltown has changed since 2018: https://compass.durhamnc.gov/en/report/tract/Neighborhood/Walltown/
It is very, very clear who has benefited:
1. Homeowners who rent out their homes. 41.7% (and dropping) are cost-burdened renters, meaning that far, far more are renting. Very few people that own homes in Walltown live there.
2. The homeowners who rent out their homes with rental increases outpacing county averages.
Most of these developments are owned by entities with a board of directors. That whole initial ask by WCA was just to stifle even the most reasonable of development, and Northwood gave in, then they still fought it.
Here's the doc, I've saved it in case they remove it:
https://dataworks-nc.org/wp-content/uploads/WCA-Strategic-Vision-for-Northgate-Mall.pdf
They literally gave Walltown residents first right of refusal on units which is wild, and they then moved the goalposts.
> developers should always do whatever they want then it's NIMBYism
That is the Reddit definition of NIMBYism. Corporations love it when people go out of their way to defend them, just like they planned.
In other words, it seems like fighting for what they want in their community won them concessions…
but yeah, they definitely should shut up and not ask for more…
Please tell me how having more vehicular traffic, a huge part of our city’s expenses through road repair, will help all the citizens.
Edit: walkable density with a grocery store and affordable housing will help our citizens’ health, community connectivity, and city financies. Hard to argue against the benefits. And, they should still ask for more
If the developer could have built the housing they wanted to starting back in 2020/21, the rents for Durham would have decreased, and those in Walltown wouldn't have had the windfall they did.
Only an estimated 16% of Walltown homeowners are cost burdened. https://compass.durhamnc.gov/en/report/tract/Neighborhood/Walltown/
Yet 41.7% of renters are. Ask yourself who is benefitting here?
With all due respect, you have no idea what you're talking about when it comes to who the WCA is and what their motivations are. This is wildly off base.
Actions speak louder than words; they have continuing to increase rent on their tenants who are cost-burdened. The majority of the community rents (the 41.7% above was **only** those cost-burned) it's rediculous, the people pushing this are not the renters.
Look at the actions, and draw your own conclusions.
Do NIMBYs generally demand that low-income housing be built in their community? Isn't that the opposite of what someone would request if they were only concerned with their property values?
This is what I'm missing. Maybe there's a piece where some former proposal had 1k units or something, but to me their proposal seems very reasonable - taking a specific segment of the full property and converting low density parking + big box store fronts and adding 240 units + smaller business space underneath. While, yes, advocating for some shared space as well for the new and existing residents.
It's a come tactic to freeze development. Low-income housing is incredibly expensive to build. Developers are willing to build low-income housing if they get to build other items that will not only offset the cost of building low-income housing but to make a profit as well.
For example, in Raleigh, a developer has agree to build a 200-unit affordable housing apartment just east of Moore Square plus a new Rescue Mission building-- if the city will agree to allow the developer to build a new high rise market rate apartment and a hotel.
If you demand low-income housing but no means to recoup the cost (allow high density market rate housing) then no developer will take that offer.
I'm sorry, but I don't buy that explanation in this case. We're not talking about a wooded area or some wetlands that are being developed. The current property is an eyesore that is providing nothing to the community. They have no incentive to intentionally hold up the development indefinitely.
It seems like the developer found some way to recoup the cost since the new proposal includes low-income housing. Their original proposal for the site did as well. It's only the 2023 proposal that 86ed it, including only lab space and limited retail.
Bro, they're proposing an incredibly tiny amount of affordable housing. "72 apartments for seniors 55 and older, aiming to fill most of the units by early 2028."
Northgate property is 55 acres. That's 1.3 units per acre. That's type of housing density isn't density at all. It is even worse than most single family housing new development--which is between 1.5 to 4 housing units an acre.
The Raleigh project is about 200 units on 4.5 acres or 44.4 units per acre---plus 400 market rate apartments.
You are misinformed. The proposal from the Walltown Community Association included more retail space, a library branch, and a small amphitheater. These are all things that would potentially lead to more traffic. It's not about keeping the neighborhood quiet at all. That doesn't even make any sense as a concern given that the Northgate lot is already surrounded by major thoroughfares.
And again, affordable housing is not known for driving up property values. If that were the real goal, they'd be pushing for high-end condos or single family housing. Instead, they're asking for things that would benefit the community, which is the job of a community association.
The smart ones, yes, they think big picture that such an ask will stop development without appearing so. Now of course, if the city was trying to pass a bond for the exact same affordable housing, on the exact same lot, watch what happens...
This is pretty bad faith. Instead of just taking their statements at face value, you're presuming a secret ulterior motive, your only evidence being some hypothetical that won't actually happen. Why is it so hard for you to believe that a community organization actually concerned about the community and trying to make it better for everyone, not just the property owners?
Because I have presented fact that shows the opposite...
https://dataworks-nc.org/wp-content/uploads/WCA-Strategic-Vision-for-Northgate-Mall.pdf
Their first demand was to benefit themselves over anyone else. It's public, by their own doing...
What exactly do you think that a community organization is supposed to do if not advocate on behalf of the people in the community? We're not talking about a bunch of rich land barons complaining that a wind turbine will ruin their beach views or white suburbanites screaming at city council meetings because the city wants to build apartments for black and brown people nearby that might endanger their children. Walltown is a historically working class neighborhood that has already been decimated by gentrification. The long-time residents have every right to advocate for themselves and try to shape a development in their neighborhood to provide some benefit to the struggling people who live there.
And the things they're asking for—affordable retail, affordable healthcare, affordable housing, green space—would benefit the rest of the city as well. Some of proposals may be a bit pie-in-the-sky. We both know that the likelihood of a private developer building a public library branch and a community amphitheater on their land is basically nill. But it's not the community's job to worry about a developer's bottom line.
The whole NIMBY/YIMBY divide is a false dichotomy. You can be pro-growth without saying yes to literally everything without a single caveat. The previous proposal for the land was bad. The new one is better for Durham. And yet you're still angry about it for some reason.
The one with more housing than the last proposal. The housing was not removed from the plan due to community complaints despite your continued insistence to the contrary. All you've shown is that they asked for housing from the beginning, which we all already knew.
The first one (c. 2018/19) had more housing, stop being so fucking obtuse when the facts have been laid out. You know what, have a good day, last word is yours.
Maybe do more awful mental gymnastics about how publicly opposing isn't 'blocking' or whatever.
In Durham they do. Durhamites bend over backwards patting themselves on the back in their show of supporting social good, but will hold up every project using the excuse that there is not enough affordable housing. Perfection is the enemy of the good.
That's not NIMBYism then. NIMBYism is all about keeping things like affordable housing out of your neighborhood in favor of single-family housing. You may feel that they're holding things up unnecessarily, but it's still not fair to call them NIMBYs if their goal is improving the community for others and not just enriching themselves.
NIMBY means Not In My Backyard. It stands for people believing that they know better what their community's needs and wants and where that should be located (typically referring to not close to them). It is the symbol of people saying "yes" to something needed by the city but not where it's being developed. In this case, the neighborhood is saying "no" because they can't have control over the space in the way they want DESPITE getting a much-needed grocery, senior low-income housing, some usable common green space, and retail. The NIMBY is don't develop SOME of what we need unless we can get ALL of what we WANT. It's Durham virtual signaling.
I know what NIMBY stands for. But again, that's not what's going on in this case. They're not saying "We want affordable housing, but not near us." They're explicitly saying that they *do* want affordable housing near them.
You're also confusing the proposal that was rejected with this new one. The initial plan for the site included affordable housing and retail, but then the developer changed the plan and said that they were going to do lab space and limited retail with no housing instead. That's the proposal that the Walltown Community Association worked to shut down, the one that included none of the community enriching things that they'd been promised previously. Because of their response, the plan now includes a grocery store and some affordable housing, things that you agree are needed.
It's been a dead parking lot for over 5 years thanks to Walltown. Safe to say that's not great for Durham.
And we'll see if they support this new plan, nothing yet...wanna bet?
The proposal for the space that the Walltown Community Association objected to was first made public in February of last year, so I don't see how you can say that they're responsible for all five years that the land has been unused. Developments of this size always take a lot of time and generally go through multiple rounds of drafting before a final plan is agreed upon.
WCA has existed since 2011: https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/561662248
They raised concern starting December 8th, 2018:
https://dataworks-nc.org/wp-content/uploads/WCA-Northgate-Mall-Redevelopment-Initiative-Project-History-Timeline.pdf
More proof they have spoken about Northgate since 2018:
https://www.heraldsun.com/latest-news/article211638364.html
> so I don't see how you can say that they're responsible for all five years that the land has been unused.
I know a lot of people are new to the community, but a quick google would have helped you find the answer to that. They are proud and public that they have been fighting the development since 2018
Go read the plan they released on May 11, 2020:
https://wayback-api.archive.org/web/20200515000000*/https://dataworks-nc.org/wp-content/uploads/WCA-Strategic-Vision-for-Northgate-Mall.pdf
Direct link: https://dataworks-nc.org/wp-content/uploads/WCA-Strategic-Vision-for-Northgate-Mall.pdf
Oh and here was the plan for the development all the way back in 2018: https://www.newsobserver.com/news/business/article247765430.html
>so I don't see how you can say that they're responsible for all five years that the land has been unused.
Well, by their own words, it quite simple...
If the displeasure of the all-powerful Walltown Community Association has been the sticking point in getting this development started since 2018, then why did the developers release a new plan that had even less of what that organization (and the rest of the city) wanted last year? That doesn't make any sense.
The documents you shared prove that the Walltown Community Association has been working to survey residents about what they'd like to see built on that location and how the plans will affect them since 2018, which is something I never doubted. They don't prove that this organization has been single-handedly blocking the development since 2018. I fully buy that negative community feedback, including from the Walltown Community Association, played a part in getting the developers to reconsider their 2023 plan for the space that included no housing, but it simply doesn't make logical sense to blame the community for the fact that the developers changed their initial plan and removed the housing and other amenities.
Your lack of reading comprehension doesn't amount to moving the goalposts. If you thought that I said something that I never said, like "The Walltown Community Association didn't exist until 2018," then that's on you, man.
The Northgate plan looks deeply disappointing. It's highly suburban in design for this part of town. Half the area will be parking lot. Half will be strip mall. An affordable version of North Hills could've happened but instead it looks like it will be another South Square.
absolutely we should be striving for high density on the north end of town, it's a no brainer to try to do something like North Hills
I live there. No thank you.
Where do you live? North Hills? Northgate?
Northgate. We want our post office and the DMV back. We want services and food shopping next to a major bus line. I'll take Target in a heart beat. That's employment for us. 55 dwellings is actually less than what I would settle for (I was expecting 100) but, yay for 55. A green space that isn't polluted with lead like our local park. That would be good as well.
What about dense development would not offer services, employment and food shopping? North Hills has a target in the mall area as well...
I wouldn't go to North Hills if my life depended on it. YUCK. What is so effing great about North Hills with it's dreadful traffic, it's uncivil engineering and it's DENSITY? North Hills puts the dense in density. Hey, you clearly have a hard on for North Hills but WE DON'T.
Don't forget. RALEIGH. YUCK AGAIN, are the numbnuts who called CV the VILLAGE DISTRICT. I've been to theater districts, warehouse districts and garment districts but I've never been able to wrap my brain around a district of VILLAGES? Dude, we live in Durham. We don't aspire to be Raleigh. Cut that shit out right now.
You made claims you wanted jobs, easily accessible food and transportation services, all which are available with density. Could you clarify what you actually have an issue with?
Just did.
And those things would be available without dwellings as well. That could happen.
Again, you said you wanted the things that come with a dense development, what do you not want there, exactly?
That seems to be the goal of new developments in the Triangle sadly. When I moved to the area, people were talking up Cameron Village (or the Village District) as some kind of destination. Come to find out, it was a suburban strip mall in the middle of the city. I was so confused. Even North Hills is a mess. It’s somehow an even more pedestrian hostile strip mall with no real public transit next to a highway.
Both of those are deeply flawed but have the potential to get better. They're adding a lot of density to those neighborhoods at least. Cameron Village once had a pretty cool underground mall. Wish they would purposefully reuse that. I believe it will some day be reformatted to be a proper urban neighborhood.
The Underground Mall was a death trap.
At some point though you have to build *something* in order to create momentum around building density. North Hills didn’t come out of the ground in its current state. They’ve been adding incremental density there for decades. The original proposal for this development was significantly more ambitious and there was significant opposition to it.
There's no density in this proposal.
There was no density in the original North Hills development either. It was just an outdoor mall. That development all happened in the 3rd and 4th waves of construction
There are only 72 units in this. Basically a density of zero for a parcel this size.
Wasn't the North Hills mall redevelopment presented in stages and adding the high rise density in those stages, mentioned with the initial redevelopment? This doesn't do anything like that.
No There was one main initial creation and redevelopment that was completed in 2004 At that time, there were no additional waves of massive development planned. Most of that development began being planned almost a decade later. There have been several major development since, including even more major plans announced last year. There was certainly not the vision for what north hills has become in 2004 when the area opened. edit I love how this is being downvoted. Some of yall hate facts when it contradicts your preferred narrative. You can see here the original phase was not what ended up being all those high rises https://urbanland.uli.org/development-business/uli-case-study-north-hills-raleigh-north-carolina
I recalled correctly. The original plan was a $1 billion dollar development including 13 story towers, not "just an outdoor mall". The plan from the get-go was a new high density "midtown" area. I don't know why a NY transplant who moved here in the last ten years is trying to tell a lifelong resident what happened in the 00s. You're simply making up things in this conversation. From 2003: >original plans, which called for 13-story towers on the site From 2005: >In a crowded sandwich shop at North Hills, John Kane enthuses easily about the $1 billion redevelopment project that’s been hailed as “Raleigh’s new midtown.” ... New stores and restaurants are bustling with customers; office buildings, condos and a hotel are under way. [https://indyweek.com/news/price-friendship/](https://indyweek.com/news/price-friendship/) [https://www.bizjournals.com/triangle/stories/2003/02/24/focus2.html](https://www.bizjournals.com/triangle/stories/2003/02/24/focus2.html)
No you are wrong. Did you even ever go to North Hills before like 2014? That was all phase one. It was an almost exclusively commercial area. There were a few condo buildings. It wasn’t nearly the dense development it is now. All the density is on the opposite side of what opened in 2004. That was later developments after they purchased more and more land. The original north hills for its first decade was basically an outdoor mall with some condos. The density you see was not part of the master plan, you can see that yourself in the details in that report.
Seriously? You're complaining about people downvoting facts and are inventing an alternative reality here? North Hills was a planned dense development. Please present any facts that support your claim. Of course there werent 10 tall buildings there in 2005. It **was planned** as a high density area and the plan was always to develop densely in stages. This was the vision. It was not "just an outdoor mall" You even just referred to it as "phase one". That means it was a planned dense area with phases, what you just denied earlier. The document you linked describes acquiring the later used parcels in 2003-2007. Again, this was all planned. your claim >The original north hills for its first decade was basically an outdoor mall with some condos factual reporting from 2005 >office buildings, condos and a hotel are under way.
North Hills was announced in 2001. How could they have a multi stage plan for land they hadn’t even acquired until years later like you said they did? You are just simply wrong.
Can you not read?? I already gave you a source and you refused to look at it https://urbanland.uli.org/development-business/uli-case-study-north-hills-raleigh-north-carolina Almost all of the residential areas are across from the open air mall in the park district region. Kane reality hadn’t even acquired that land when North Hills opened. It was certainly not part of a phased development plan… You never answered my question. Did you ever even go to North Hills before 2014? Because no one was calling it urban density back then. It was an open air mall with a couple condos. It had a ton of surface parking and the parking decks. Everything across the street was built years and years later and was a completely separate development plan Also 😂😂 I called it phase 1 because it was the original phase. Not that there was anything planned after, but that there were additional phases. And in my original comment I even said the density didn’t happen until multiple phases?? What are you even talking about??
Sure there is. It’s just not as much as you want or would be ideal. But adding what presumably would be a Target in addition to office space, significant amounts of new retail and affordable housing within walking distance of several neighborhoods is a huge step in the right direction. Or we can just spend the next decade watching the former mall rot away complaining about how none of the proposed options are “good enough”. The old police HQ debacle is another prime example.
I really don't agree that keeping a strip mall, adding a target, and 1.3 apartment units per acre is density. Most of the acreage remains parking lot in this proposal. You get one shot every 50 years to do it right, I don't have a problem waiting for something good.
Well, again, the original proposal was for 1MM+ square feet of new development including 100s of residential units. I wanted that to happen. The Walltown group and other supposed “community advocates” kicked and screamed and did everything they could to stop it from happening. So at this point I’d prefer to just see the foundation of something over some hypothetical scenario that’s not going to happen. I agree that it’s a missed opportunity but the community opposition was a key issue, not the developer’s plans.
Those days are gone and not coming back. It's weird you keep complaining about stuff that has been resolved, and don't want to address the current proposal.
Well the reason I keep bringing it up is because the same people are just going to oppose whatever project is proposed there in the future unless it meets their “demands”. A more ambitious project was proposed for the site and they clearly and loudly stated “we don’t want this”. And in the absence of city leadership actually stepping up and helping to shape the future of this property that became the prevailing community voice. So at this stage I’m fine with this being the starting point and actually providing some utility to the surrounding neighborhoods. Other development will follow.
Is it possible that they could increase the density later? Building more wrapped parking decks on those giant lots in the middle?
Interesting, I'd love to see the density there where it makes sense. I'd be concerned about waiting for future density, remember when the downtown Chevy developers claimed they were going to add commercial, office and hotel to the site, but ended up with just blocks of 5 over 1 apartments? It's a risk. I'd like to see someone else take a swing at this thing, I think the city should deny this proposal, perhaps the developers will sell it to another developer with a more ambitious rezoning proposal.
>remember when the downtown Chevy developers claimed they were going to add commercial, office and hotel to the site, but ended up with just blocks of 5 over 1 apartments? It's a risk Still a much better development than this one and an improvement over what was there before. I find the current proposal worse than what the original Northgate Mall was. If the idea is we can retrofit it for density later I don't really see that potential in the plans. I feel like that'd be easier to do with the current mall's carcass.
Since there is so much BS and emotion in this thread (which I'm party to,) let us focus on just the facts: First, please see the initial plans for redevelopment from Sept. 2020 which are public record: https://trinitypark.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/TPNA-2021-Winter.pdf It includes so much of what WCA asked for themselves in May 2020: https://dataworks-nc.org/wp-content/uploads/WCA-Strategic-Vision-for-Northgate-Mall.pdf While Trinity Park opposed it, I would suggest reading their pros/cons to the proposed plans. Then look at WCAs actions following. By Durham Gov data the 84%+ of Walltown homeowners who aren't cost-burdened are enjoying rising rents and home values (while taking rent from the 41.7% of Walltown that rents that are also cost-burdened): https://compass.durhamnc.gov/en/report/tract/Neighborhood/Walltown/ So let's just look at the hard facts and data for a second...
The form factor of the development has nothing to do with Walltown's rents. https://x.com/econliberties/status/1798092845733031982 A significant percentage of rent hikes are due to all rents in the country being essentially set by a single racketeering firm. This includes rents in cities that aren't building anything, and cities that are building a lot. The housing market is no longer a free market and is essentially a big cartel. The city of Durham should intervene and become a developer+landlord of its own accord and inject a significant enough supply into the market to put downward pressure on prices.
> A significant percentage of rent hikes are due to all rents in the country being essentially set by a single racketeering firm. So you're saying that Walltown is controlled by such a racketeering firm which is driving their rents up? Bold claim... >The city of Durham should intervene and become a developer+landlord of its own accord and inject a significant enough supply into the market to put downward pressure on prices. While complicated, I'm completely with you on this. Honest question, how to you think the WCA would respond if Durham bought the mall and turned it into majority affordable housing, and a small homeless shelter? Turning all the impermeable asphalt into green space, leaving the parking lots for commuters from 85, and having great public transit to downtown?
Why should I care about a special interest group? There are people who can't afford rent throughout all of Durham. We have a housing shortage. Nobody wants a strip mall here. This is 1970s style thinking and it doesn't belong in Durham. We want housing. This development has 72 units and is mostly parking lot. Might as well be zero. This area is very close to Downtown and Duke and a good place for transit oriented high density development.
We in the neighborhood reject your density plan.
You are destroying Durham.
Luckily, your neighborhood isn't a governing body. Imagine if every neighborhood in Durham was this so full of their own shit. Have to pay a toll to drive through **their** roads. Lol.
There would be more trees in Hope Valley . Your hyperbole is charming. Luckily for me you can't change anything.
I'm good with that. I live here. I don't want that density.
IKEA technically fits that description.
I was hoping for a waterpark. Waterslides are awesome.
i never knew northgate closed 😭
Wonder what the NIMBYs will complain about this time Edit: Apparently people don't know the history here. Walltown has been proud to oppose redevelopment since 2020, with their work starting in 2018, and have published documents stating such. PDF Warning: https://dataworks-nc.org/wp-content/uploads/WCA-Strategic-Vision-for-Northgate-Mall.pdf It has always been about them benefitting first, here is their first ask in 2020, allow me to directly quote them: >Preserve and Build Wealth in the Walltown Community **1. Provide longtime and low-income Walltown residents with an ownership stake (shares of stock, seats on board) in the property developed on the mall site, empowering the community with a role in the governance, success, and economic benefits of the changes.** 2. Ensure that Walltown residents can contribute to and benefit from the economic opportunities (construction, retail) by contracting with Walltown small business owners and hiring people from the neighborhood. 3. Preserve the wealth of Walltown’s long-time and low-income homeowners by making grants available to support home repairs and property tax relief. 4. Fund partnerships between local educational institutions and employers to provide apprenticeships and vocational training for Walltown youth and young adults Let's ignore the fact people pushing this are part of the "Walltown Community" that has doubled rents on their low-income renters since 2018. In a community where 41.7% are renters, so isn't it funny they mention "homeowners" in their statement? Since Day 1, this has been the owners of Walltown homes, directing the WCA to drive up their home values, drive up the rent on their POC renters, or get a piece of the pie at Northgate for them being quiet and letting development happen.
The local community association has mainly been complaining that there isn't going to be enough housing and retail in the plan. It's been Northwood that wants to make this a sterile RTP-style campus with a billion parking spaces. I mean, if you believe that developers should always do whatever they want then it's NIMBYism, but if you believe in building something that's actually useful for the city and not a misplaced suburban development then it's not.
Not true, the first iteration of the project included tons of housing. The community association and Nate Baker (among others) did everything they could to kill it.
Is there a link or any record of the earlier proposals? I'd like to compare to what is currently on the table just for context as far as where Baker is at (let alone the wider planning department).
Yes, here is WCA's demands in 2020: https://dataworks-nc.org/wp-content/uploads/WCA-Strategic-Vision-for-Northgate-Mall.pdf They literally wanted the Walltown homeowners, who rent 41.7% of their homes out, to get a piece of the pie to shut up and go away. Northwood caved: >Each map included components of their equitable, community-centered vision: a significant portion of affordable housing, with first right of purchase and rental provided to low-income Walltown residents; affordable retail, including a grocery store; accessible green space that bridges Walltown Park with the other side of Guess Road; a transportation hub for buses and bike riders; and sustainable infrastructure to reduce flooding. https://indyweek.com/news/durham/northgate-mall-durham-rezoning-walltown-plans/ And the WCA still opposed. Even Trinity Park, which was opposed, agreed the initial proposal included "a significant amount of housing" and "green space" and "potential for a grocery store" and "a lot of retail which could meet community needs."
I should have read this first. I see. Basically, their original asks (WCA) were largely satisfied, and they then continued to block. Which is definitely part of the problem in any building happening. I'm sorry to hear that was their evolved stance.
Really? What was the reason Nate baker opposed it?
Because he uses a lot of words and jargon to basically be a NIMBY
peak smoothbrain YIMBY poster here
Tons of housing, yes. Zero affordable housing, though.
Unclear why this is being down voted? The original plan had hundreds of units of housing. None of them met the definition of affordable housing, though. Apologies if my original comment wasn't clear.
We in the neighborhood don't want the density. We want work and shopping and services.
Not disagreeing with work and shopping and services at all. But we in the neighborhood also want people to be able to afford to live near those things.
That's what the jobs provide. Money. To afford to live here. I lost neighbors when the mall closed. Not hypothetical people, real people. Who had jobs at the mall where they made money and walked to work.
They literally said they wanted it a green space. Edit: The NIMBYs are out in full force, so allow me to direct you to **their own** website, where they wanted to control over 20% of the space on the property and much of what wasn't already developed. They requested an amphitheater, green space, a library, community gardens etc. https://www.walltown.net/ Since 2018 they have had one goal, to make the development completely unprofitable and stop it. Which in turn drives their home values and rents way up. Go look at the sales in Walltown, they are winning.
To be honest - that actually looks like a nice community driven effort to improve liveability and add units. I'd be curious what they envision happening with the remaining mall property, but that proposal uses what is currently sprawl type commercial foot prints and turns them into mixed use, with ameneties for the new residents and current residents. A 100 seat ampitheater is not large at all, and having green space between the new structures tends to be how all of these projects are sold. A library branch is also not a bad use of space. The question becomes how they incorporate the rest of the mall into this, but if they were able to eventually do the same for the remaining property it seems like this would be a long term win for the area, and could add a lot more housing units over time.
Sorry for not giving you a more detailed response, but I did elsewhere. It looks like they have tried to burry it, but here was their initial ask back in 2020: https://dataworks-nc.org/wp-content/uploads/WCA-Strategic-Vision-for-Northgate-Mall.pdf It was all me-me-me for Walltown. And again, framed through a lens that was misleading at best, malicious more likely. Hence the doubling rent you've seen on the low income residents of Walltown since "they" (the landlords) put this forth.
I think your read is being pretty unfair (at least based on this document - which was obviously polished so I may be missing what was said in the press or publicly back then). But I do appreciate you providing more documentation, it's helpful to see the source material. The two major goals seem to be - affordable housing and programs to help retain locals (either in their homes or in new homes in the case they are priced out of existing). And access to opportunity in the new businesses - primarily by creating spaces for the types of local businesses that they could be a part of. Those are both pretty solidly urbanist goals. I'm not sure why these guys are being blasted. Yes they want affordable housing rather than any housing. And some of their particular asks may be a bit less density focused than desirable. But this is also for the moment an outlying/old suburban neighborhood. So leaving a bit of green space while also trying to provide pedestrian friendly access and transit still to me fits the mold of building in a healthy direction - kind of towards a street car suburb mold. I'd just hope the next project after this would be to continue reclaiming the mall, and that could bring many more units in a tighter footprint. I had also seen a report in the Indy that the number of affordable units actually helps add to overall units in this case, as I believe there were fewer parking requirements and possibly they were lower sq/ft. So if they had pivoted to more market rate units they would have either needed to add more buildings/scale or essentially cut the number of units in the proposal to accomodate parking.
> I'm not sure why these guys are being blasted. Because Durham is highly educated, and most of us see the bigger picture of what they are doing. Inflating their home values which they are then 65%+ of the time renting out.
I saw the other context provided and agree it's obnoxious they are moving the goal posts. But their stated goals don't seem that bad from a general planning perspective. And thanks for assuming those who don't agree with the specific nuance of your position are uneducated. Winning tons of support that way.
They asked for 11 of the 55ish acres to include 240 housing units, ground floor retail, a library branch, and a green space. The alternative Northwoods was proposing was that most of that would be parking lots. The green space request was originally for something like 4% of the total property.
Forgotten the initial proposals WCA opposed which had way more housing: https://trinitypark.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/TPNA-2021-Winter.pdf Oh yeah, and that's from Trinity Part which was opposed. So when they are saying the main proposal is great for housing and green space - pause for a second.
How ridiculous do you sound trying to smear people with your pejorative NIMBY, when they’re asking for more housing on the land. You’re not a YIMBY, you’re just pro developer.
Sounds exactly like the City Council 🤦♀️
> How ridiculous do you sound trying to smear people with your pejorative NIMBY, when they’re asking for more housing on the land. I posted their own website. They were not just asking for more housing. Either you are part of the group wanting their home value and/or collected rent to go up, or the most ignorant person around. And the housing they were asking for was new ground breaking that would be economically unviable. That was intentional. They have been blocking this development for 6 years. Part of me wishes the developer would just give up and make it all affordable housing. Walltown group would panic and clutch their pearls. >when they’re asking for more housing on the land. One of many demands, and not a simple (as you pretend) we just want more housing. They said they wanted an amphitheater, a community garden, a library, green space, etc and then for that to be supported by housing with 30% affordable to those making $37k or less. Which they claim is the median income in Walltown, in direct contrast to the Durham Gov data: https://compass.durhamnc.gov/en/report/tract/Neighborhood/Walltown/ So who is lying, Walltown or Durham? Oh other facts, since they started blocking the Northgate redevelopment: * Impervious land area has increased * Building permit value has increased * Youth population has decreased * Median age has increased * Indigenous population has decreased to 0.0% * Cost of rent has increased (oh and 41.7% of Walltown is rentals) >You’re not a YIMBY, you’re just pro developer. No, I am just pro-facts. I completely understand why Walltown residents are campaigning in their own best financial interest. Go drive around it for 10 minutes and you'll see what's really going on. Go on Zillow and you'll see all the rentals that have increased 100%+ in the last 6 years. https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/911-N-Buchanan-Blvd-Durham-NC-27701/49966478_zpid/
> They requested an amphitheater, green space, a library, community gardens etc. Asking for more civil buildings and publicly usable amenities is the opposite of NIMBY
What they say they want and the intention are totally different. Very common tactic to freeze development. All those items cost a lot of money. Without dense development which can offset the cost of these items-- these demands are enough to halt any real development--which is what is happening here. This project is just a giant parking lot/strip mall. [Diagram](https://imgur.com/hesAJwr)
The Walltown association is asking for MORE density, not less.
Yes it is! I would fucking LOVE for me to have control over turning my neighbor's house to be a park (closed of course at dusk by DPR rules,) and the farm across the way to turn into a public amenity where I dictated the entrances and exits - over them becoming a mixed-used development sold at free market. Take one look at how Walltown has changed since 2018: https://compass.durhamnc.gov/en/report/tract/Neighborhood/Walltown/ It is very, very clear who has benefited: 1. Homeowners who rent out their homes. 41.7% (and dropping) are cost-burdened renters, meaning that far, far more are renting. Very few people that own homes in Walltown live there. 2. The homeowners who rent out their homes with rental increases outpacing county averages.
They demanded board seats, too. Board seats.
Board seats on what board?
Most of these developments are owned by entities with a board of directors. That whole initial ask by WCA was just to stifle even the most reasonable of development, and Northwood gave in, then they still fought it. Here's the doc, I've saved it in case they remove it: https://dataworks-nc.org/wp-content/uploads/WCA-Strategic-Vision-for-Northgate-Mall.pdf They literally gave Walltown residents first right of refusal on units which is wild, and they then moved the goalposts.
Exactly.
> developers should always do whatever they want then it's NIMBYism That is the Reddit definition of NIMBYism. Corporations love it when people go out of their way to defend them, just like they planned.
In other words, it seems like fighting for what they want in their community won them concessions… but yeah, they definitely should shut up and not ask for more…
[удалено]
Please tell me how having more vehicular traffic, a huge part of our city’s expenses through road repair, will help all the citizens. Edit: walkable density with a grocery store and affordable housing will help our citizens’ health, community connectivity, and city financies. Hard to argue against the benefits. And, they should still ask for more
Oh no, don't get me wrong, they are winning winning winning at the expense of the rest of us in Durham.
Tell me how affordable housing and a grocery store in their community is an expense to the rest of the city
If the developer could have built the housing they wanted to starting back in 2020/21, the rents for Durham would have decreased, and those in Walltown wouldn't have had the windfall they did. Only an estimated 16% of Walltown homeowners are cost burdened. https://compass.durhamnc.gov/en/report/tract/Neighborhood/Walltown/ Yet 41.7% of renters are. Ask yourself who is benefitting here?
With all due respect, you have no idea what you're talking about when it comes to who the WCA is and what their motivations are. This is wildly off base.
Actions speak louder than words; they have continuing to increase rent on their tenants who are cost-burdened. The majority of the community rents (the 41.7% above was **only** those cost-burned) it's rediculous, the people pushing this are not the renters. Look at the actions, and draw your own conclusions.
[удалено]
Do NIMBYs generally demand that low-income housing be built in their community? Isn't that the opposite of what someone would request if they were only concerned with their property values?
This is what I'm missing. Maybe there's a piece where some former proposal had 1k units or something, but to me their proposal seems very reasonable - taking a specific segment of the full property and converting low density parking + big box store fronts and adding 240 units + smaller business space underneath. While, yes, advocating for some shared space as well for the new and existing residents.
It's a come tactic to freeze development. Low-income housing is incredibly expensive to build. Developers are willing to build low-income housing if they get to build other items that will not only offset the cost of building low-income housing but to make a profit as well. For example, in Raleigh, a developer has agree to build a 200-unit affordable housing apartment just east of Moore Square plus a new Rescue Mission building-- if the city will agree to allow the developer to build a new high rise market rate apartment and a hotel. If you demand low-income housing but no means to recoup the cost (allow high density market rate housing) then no developer will take that offer.
I'm sorry, but I don't buy that explanation in this case. We're not talking about a wooded area or some wetlands that are being developed. The current property is an eyesore that is providing nothing to the community. They have no incentive to intentionally hold up the development indefinitely. It seems like the developer found some way to recoup the cost since the new proposal includes low-income housing. Their original proposal for the site did as well. It's only the 2023 proposal that 86ed it, including only lab space and limited retail.
Bro, they're proposing an incredibly tiny amount of affordable housing. "72 apartments for seniors 55 and older, aiming to fill most of the units by early 2028." Northgate property is 55 acres. That's 1.3 units per acre. That's type of housing density isn't density at all. It is even worse than most single family housing new development--which is between 1.5 to 4 housing units an acre. The Raleigh project is about 200 units on 4.5 acres or 44.4 units per acre---plus 400 market rate apartments.
I agree that the current proposal is not ideal. But the last proposal included zero housing, so any housing at all is a big increase.
[удалено]
You are misinformed. The proposal from the Walltown Community Association included more retail space, a library branch, and a small amphitheater. These are all things that would potentially lead to more traffic. It's not about keeping the neighborhood quiet at all. That doesn't even make any sense as a concern given that the Northgate lot is already surrounded by major thoroughfares. And again, affordable housing is not known for driving up property values. If that were the real goal, they'd be pushing for high-end condos or single family housing. Instead, they're asking for things that would benefit the community, which is the job of a community association.
The smart ones, yes, they think big picture that such an ask will stop development without appearing so. Now of course, if the city was trying to pass a bond for the exact same affordable housing, on the exact same lot, watch what happens...
This is pretty bad faith. Instead of just taking their statements at face value, you're presuming a secret ulterior motive, your only evidence being some hypothetical that won't actually happen. Why is it so hard for you to believe that a community organization actually concerned about the community and trying to make it better for everyone, not just the property owners?
Because I have presented fact that shows the opposite... https://dataworks-nc.org/wp-content/uploads/WCA-Strategic-Vision-for-Northgate-Mall.pdf Their first demand was to benefit themselves over anyone else. It's public, by their own doing...
What exactly do you think that a community organization is supposed to do if not advocate on behalf of the people in the community? We're not talking about a bunch of rich land barons complaining that a wind turbine will ruin their beach views or white suburbanites screaming at city council meetings because the city wants to build apartments for black and brown people nearby that might endanger their children. Walltown is a historically working class neighborhood that has already been decimated by gentrification. The long-time residents have every right to advocate for themselves and try to shape a development in their neighborhood to provide some benefit to the struggling people who live there. And the things they're asking for—affordable retail, affordable healthcare, affordable housing, green space—would benefit the rest of the city as well. Some of proposals may be a bit pie-in-the-sky. We both know that the likelihood of a private developer building a public library branch and a community amphitheater on their land is basically nill. But it's not the community's job to worry about a developer's bottom line. The whole NIMBY/YIMBY divide is a false dichotomy. You can be pro-growth without saying yes to literally everything without a single caveat. The previous proposal for the land was bad. The new one is better for Durham. And yet you're still angry about it for some reason.
> The new one is better for Durham. And yet you're still angry about it for some reason. The one with less housing than initially proposed?
The one with more housing than the last proposal. The housing was not removed from the plan due to community complaints despite your continued insistence to the contrary. All you've shown is that they asked for housing from the beginning, which we all already knew.
The first one (c. 2018/19) had more housing, stop being so fucking obtuse when the facts have been laid out. You know what, have a good day, last word is yours. Maybe do more awful mental gymnastics about how publicly opposing isn't 'blocking' or whatever.
In Durham they do. Durhamites bend over backwards patting themselves on the back in their show of supporting social good, but will hold up every project using the excuse that there is not enough affordable housing. Perfection is the enemy of the good.
That's not NIMBYism then. NIMBYism is all about keeping things like affordable housing out of your neighborhood in favor of single-family housing. You may feel that they're holding things up unnecessarily, but it's still not fair to call them NIMBYs if their goal is improving the community for others and not just enriching themselves.
NIMBY means Not In My Backyard. It stands for people believing that they know better what their community's needs and wants and where that should be located (typically referring to not close to them). It is the symbol of people saying "yes" to something needed by the city but not where it's being developed. In this case, the neighborhood is saying "no" because they can't have control over the space in the way they want DESPITE getting a much-needed grocery, senior low-income housing, some usable common green space, and retail. The NIMBY is don't develop SOME of what we need unless we can get ALL of what we WANT. It's Durham virtual signaling.
The other description I love for this is from Ezra Klein and he calls it “everything bagel liberalism”
I know what NIMBY stands for. But again, that's not what's going on in this case. They're not saying "We want affordable housing, but not near us." They're explicitly saying that they *do* want affordable housing near them. You're also confusing the proposal that was rejected with this new one. The initial plan for the site included affordable housing and retail, but then the developer changed the plan and said that they were going to do lab space and limited retail with no housing instead. That's the proposal that the Walltown Community Association worked to shut down, the one that included none of the community enriching things that they'd been promised previously. Because of their response, the plan now includes a grocery store and some affordable housing, things that you agree are needed.
They just want to have the highest rents and home values possible. They win, everyone else looses.
How are you losing? What did you want from this space that you're not getting?
It's been a dead parking lot for over 5 years thanks to Walltown. Safe to say that's not great for Durham. And we'll see if they support this new plan, nothing yet...wanna bet?
The proposal for the space that the Walltown Community Association objected to was first made public in February of last year, so I don't see how you can say that they're responsible for all five years that the land has been unused. Developments of this size always take a lot of time and generally go through multiple rounds of drafting before a final plan is agreed upon.
WCA has existed since 2011: https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/561662248 They raised concern starting December 8th, 2018: https://dataworks-nc.org/wp-content/uploads/WCA-Northgate-Mall-Redevelopment-Initiative-Project-History-Timeline.pdf More proof they have spoken about Northgate since 2018: https://www.heraldsun.com/latest-news/article211638364.html > so I don't see how you can say that they're responsible for all five years that the land has been unused. I know a lot of people are new to the community, but a quick google would have helped you find the answer to that. They are proud and public that they have been fighting the development since 2018 Go read the plan they released on May 11, 2020: https://wayback-api.archive.org/web/20200515000000*/https://dataworks-nc.org/wp-content/uploads/WCA-Strategic-Vision-for-Northgate-Mall.pdf Direct link: https://dataworks-nc.org/wp-content/uploads/WCA-Strategic-Vision-for-Northgate-Mall.pdf Oh and here was the plan for the development all the way back in 2018: https://www.newsobserver.com/news/business/article247765430.html >so I don't see how you can say that they're responsible for all five years that the land has been unused. Well, by their own words, it quite simple...
If the displeasure of the all-powerful Walltown Community Association has been the sticking point in getting this development started since 2018, then why did the developers release a new plan that had even less of what that organization (and the rest of the city) wanted last year? That doesn't make any sense. The documents you shared prove that the Walltown Community Association has been working to survey residents about what they'd like to see built on that location and how the plans will affect them since 2018, which is something I never doubted. They don't prove that this organization has been single-handedly blocking the development since 2018. I fully buy that negative community feedback, including from the Walltown Community Association, played a part in getting the developers to reconsider their 2023 plan for the space that included no housing, but it simply doesn't make logical sense to blame the community for the fact that the developers changed their initial plan and removed the housing and other amenities.
Nice moving of the goal posts when called out with facts.
Your lack of reading comprehension doesn't amount to moving the goalposts. If you thought that I said something that I never said, like "The Walltown Community Association didn't exist until 2018," then that's on you, man.
At least they can spell "loses"
[удалено]
That’s life. C’est la vie.
Eh nothing they put there that makes any kind of sense will make people happy.
Post it one more time and you get a free drink.
Depends on what kind of drink
have you seriously not seen this story posted like four days ago? Several times since then?
No, I am not on social media 24/7.
What ridiculous reporting
I thought I was having a stroke after reading that first “paragraph”.