Reader Meetup on Tuesday 2/20!

Fantastic turnout to our meet up!

A post shared by Inbound Raleigh (@inboundraleigh) on

Get this one on your calendars. We’re organizing the next reader meetup for the season. We had so much fun at the Fall 2017 meetup, we just had to do another.

Reader Meetup

Date/Time: Tues., Feb. 20 from 5:30 p.m. to 7:30 p.m.
Tobacco Road Sports Cafe

As an effort to help cross promote and bring new people together, I’m partnering with those behind the Raleigh-transit focused podcast, Inbound Raleigh, as well as the food and retail blog Welcome to Raleighwood. They are all good people that deserve your attention.

We should be back in Tobacco Road’s game room and will be keeping it casual. Come out and say hi!

Similar Posts:

Comments

I have been thinking someone might bring up the recently announced plan to adorn the new Capital Blvd and Peace St bridges with art. Well, I guess that someone can be me.

http://www.newsobserver.com/news/traffic/article197826029.html

According to linked N&O article the city recently approved spending almost $1 million to add art elements to the bridges. I checked out some of the artist’s other work (article provides link to artist’s page) and think the work is pretty cool stuff. I’ve always liked the stone work included on the Glenwood South bridge over Wade Ave but this project looks to be far and above that.

With Capital Blvd being a major gateway into our downtown I’ve always thought of the corridor as being somewhat of an embarrassment (time+light tower notwithstanding). I’m hopeful this new bridge art makes the right statement. Still, a million bucks seems like a lot to spend on bridge art but, then again, this is our home which is certainly something to be proud of. If my math is correct the cost for this art is about 2.7% of total project cost of $37 million. Would I be willing to spend $6,750 to show a real sense of pride in my 250K median priced home by installing some nice wood columns and portico out front instead of going cheap for some faux styrofoam wrapped thingys? Most definitely … Thinking about it this way perhaps cost isn’t that outlandish after all. Still, as always, there are naysayers. In fairness to opposing viewpoints here’s another take on the plan.

http://www.newsobserver.com/news/local/counties/wake-county/article198514874.html

I’ve put in my 2 cents on City-Data Forums about this spend. The city needs to break out of its East German style narrative when it comes to public investment. The reality is that ALL projects will have parts of them that are adornment and aesthetic, and I’m all for it. DT generates more revenue & supports more people per acre of land than any other part of the city and investment into making it a destination is well worth the million bucks. It’s amazing how some people will question art for the public good when they live on the outer edges of the city, but think nothing of the city spending money on extending services to undeveloped land so that they can have what they want. I am sick of these people and their narrative. You know what? I don’t have kids, but I don’t complain about funding schools and play lots for others’ kids. In fact, I am happy to support them because they are the future. Well, DT is a huge part of Raleigh’s future and not supporting it and its success is shortsighted.
Lest anyone forgets, the two bridges included a less expensive option for the bridge at Wade. This was supported by the local DT north community. Do we hear anyone saying thanks for saving that money? No. We only hear people whine about spending money on things that they don’t want.
Can you tell that I have a strong opinion on this one?

John I agree 100%. I feel like it’s the same conservative bloggers that are thrilled about raising our national deficit to give tax cuts to millionaires that complain about public spending on anything. I don’t mean this to start a political discussion, but most issues can have multiple sides but also a common sense approach. You’re completely right. It’s an investment in our downtown and should easily be paid for.

John,
Very well said!!
I am also sick of the whinners.
This $1M is money well spent.
Every corridor into downtown and street in
downtown should have a budget
for: sidewalks on both sides, bike lanes,
pedestrian friendly medians, burying
utilities, street furniture, fountains, decorative
crosswalks, flat panel displays on buildings,
new streetlights, new lamp posts
and art throughout downtown!

My 2 cents:
I am very pleased with the addition of art on these bridges. A city that is well funded, budget wise and has a soul, shall shine ever more as that “shiny city on a hill”. :-)

@John532 – I definitely agree and very well said.. and think this bridge is great and a nice addition to our gateway on the north end. Glad to see the money spent well here.

@Jeff – no need to get political… because there are certainly two sides to your opinion. I am under the assumption this site isn’t for politics.. which is nice considering we can’t go anywhere these days without political opinions in our faces.

A million dollars does seem high to me on it’s face, but it isn’t like they churn these things out on an industrial scale, and like anything bespoke that costs more in time and labor. Plus it isn’t just some metal they’re slapping up there, they are going to be backlit at night, which of course requires more planning and expense. I think it’s well worth the good impression it will make on visitors, especially as more and more people are turning an eye toward Raleigh and the Triangle region recently.

I’d like for Raleigh to take the approach of “getting vanilla right.” Bridges, sidewalks, intersections should have a high standard of quality and, dare I say, are delightful to be around and use. We love grand single projects, sure, but the things we interact with dozens of times throughout the year make a more direct impact on our lives.

Hey Leo – I agree. I think/hope Raleigh will be doing that with the whole Peace St. project. I personally think Hillsborough St. has been done right.. I think it looks great with good quality.

Not sure if there are plans for it.. but I hope Raleigh will go in and redo Glenwood South with the high standard and quality you refer to.. maybe even something a little different. I’m assuming the more buildings we have going it will help this.

@TheNightHawk,

Glenwood South road was simply not made to handle it’s current entertainment district traffic so changes will naturally have to be made.

I could see the city building another giant parking structure, remove street parking to expand pedestrian walking ways, make room for bike lanes and probably introduce a traffic calming measure or two since we all know some people like to race/showboat past clubs.

I haven’t fully thought this through but maybe convert the Peace St/Glenwood intersection to a roundabout but that might require buying some property.

I agree 100% with John532. Actually I’ll take it further and say that one bridge adornment is a small fraction of what we should be doing to enhance downtown aesthetics to make it a more attractive place not only for residents and workers but visitors as well. Building a great city will require investment in art and infrastructure.

What are the odds the City might put similar ornamentation on the Western Blvd bridge coming into downtown from South Saunders? Just a thought.

From the article: “The city is paying Scuri $40,000 to design the bridge art and oversee its creation and has budgeted $880,000 for materials and installation, though that figure will go up because it didn’t include the late addition of the grillwork on the abutments.”

So most of the price tag is in materials and install cost.

@Nick From the article: “In 2009, the City Council required that 1/2 percent of the cost of city construction projects be devoted to public art, resulting in sculptures at the Buffalo Road Aquatic Center, the Duke Energy Center for the Performing Arts and Fire Station 12, among other places. In 2016, the council increased the amount to 1 percent.” It seems like there is a chance!

The art on the bridge will be awesome and I am all for it. The only added thought I have is essentially the opposite of “asset management” analysis(negative consequences of inaction)….here we need to consider the impact of that million dollars. If it were being spent on the wall on the inside of a parking garage it would be a terrible, low impact investment. But perched where 10’s of thousands of eyes will see it daily, the location amplifies the value of the display.
RE: Glenwood, it already WAS redone once in the early 2000’s. On the heels of that, mast arm traffic signals were installed also at Hillsborough/Glenwood-Boylan-St Marys. IT could use a re-spiffing but just wanted to remind folks (or point out to newcomers) of that. I’m betting Kane’s Smokey Hollow follow up stuff, has Dillion style public-private parking decks incorporated into the buildings. That would help support the whole area.
RE: a roundabout at Peace/Glenwood, gonna go with hell no. That would be akin to all the 1970’s approaches to getting cars in and out of downtown, the downtown itself be damned. Our transportation problems will be solved by a combination of rail and people actually living in downtown, not gutting intersections and corridors to fit more cars for commuters and bar patrons. To Raleigh’s credit, they have been steadily undoing many of these mistakes (two-waying of streets, Hillsborough remake, about to re-do Person/Blount, new design at Peace/Capital.

@Mark,

A roundabout is a traffic calming device, it might be best for Raleigh to redesign the Glenwood /Wade corridor so that traffic naturally tries to exit onto Wade to the West or Capital Blvd (via Wade) to the East when coming from the North. That way only local traffic is directed further south to the Peace Street intersection.

Just a thought but I would love to here a traffic engineer’s opinion on this. Especially with the massive amount of people we’re going to add in the next 20 years.

The reality is that the south end of Glenwood dead ends at Morgan. If Glenwood was wider and moved heavy traffic through that last mile or two, it would just pile up at the south end more rapidly and cause problems there. Glenwood is not a thru-corridor and shouldn’t be treated as such. I agree with Fran about splitting the traffic coming south at Wade as much as possible. That said, trying to move more traffic through that intersection just opens up another can of worms and could destroy the immediately adjacent neighborhoods.
IMO, the city should just treat that stretch for what it is: a terminus of an artery in an urban neighborhood. They should prioritize sidewalk traffic over cars from Peace Street to Morgan. If it ever becomes unbearable for drivers, then they’ll find another route that will be better. We shouldn’t bend over backward and sacrifice everything for the sake of cars while are trying to create denser urban and walkable neighborhoods.
The state’s position for replacing the Capital bridge over Peace and rebuilding that intersection with a new model was to handle the increased traffic. Let the traffic go over there where it belongs.
@Leo, I agree with getting the foundation of our urban infrastructure right…though I wouldn’t call that being vanilla. I’d call it having good bones. And, in addition, I’d say that we need to focus on having the right bones. In other words, we don’t just need everything to be about roads and cars. It would be like having a leg with only a femur. What good is that?

I wish the city would turn the 3 miles of Wade Ave that is basically residential into a proper thoroughfare. It already has the traffic, but the congestion, tight turns, narrow lanes, etc. are terrible now. I can’t imagine in it 10 years. Not everyone is going to ride bikes or buses in a city this spread out.

The Peace/Glenwood intersection did have a slightly different configuration before the bridge was rebuilt about 15 years ago. The right hand northbound Glenwood lane had to yield to Wade traffic…Wade west bound had one of those free flowing lanes onto Glenwood like over at the airport exit from 40 to Aviation and 64/Cary Parkway. But so many people on Glenwood ran through the blinking warning/yield sign (it said, yield when flashing) that they abandoned the whole thing finally in favor of the traffic signal. My point is that Glenwood/Wade/Capital was indeed an intended route in and out of downtown proper, and greater Glenwood South (south of Wade) was trying to be shielded from all of that traffic. With the latest project, a Fairview bridge replacement and some crazy redesigns of Wade/Capital were on the table for a while…some of which made West into a major corridor into downtown from Fairview or Wade, but all of that was quietly removed from consideration. I am not sure if it’ll be a later project or not, but the Fairview Bridge has exposed rebar, so surely something has to happen soon. All of that to say there is still a chance we could see a Fairview/West connection (not sure how they’d get past Wade now though) which would alleviate some traffic on Capital and Glenwood. As an aside, a now dead proposal from the 80’s, had Wade flying over Capital and connecting to Halifax. That idea has been floated from time to time has a pedestrian connection as well.

Crap..I meant Wade/Glenwood in that first line.

I’ll chime in on this topic, as it’s always been an interest of mine. As a Five-Points (“Six-Points,” my OCD self wants to point out) resident, I’ve always wanted a roundabout there.

That intersection, as it’s currently configured, is ugly, confusing (different set of right-of-way rules for each street), and downright dangerous for pedestrians. A few things I notice:

-Glenwood traffic is usually speeding, not looking for pedestrians.
-There’s an awkward stalemate between Whitaker Mill and Fairview traffic for those that don’t know who has right-of-way. (Yes, I know there are signs, but those unfamiliar with the intersection somehow always get confused).
-Whitaker Mill traffic often has to sit through 3-4 red lights to get through because of oncoming Fairview traffic.
-I’ve seen several near-misses where Whitaker Mill left-turning traffic is looking for oncoming cars on Fairview and almost hit people in Glenwood crosswalk.

IMO, a roundabout there would have several positives:
-Safety: reduced car speed = more walkable neighborhood
-Aesthetics: bury lines, eliminate traffic lights, install natural area (planting/trees/whatever) in the middle.
-Reopen East Fairview to two-way traffic; create a new pathway from Capital all the way to Oberlin.
-If people don’t like the two-lane roundabout a la Hillsborough St., bring Glenwood down to one lane in front of Lilly’s and the Rialto (make right lane dedicated for parking around the clock instead of just afterhours).
-Roundabout would create a nice “gateway” aesthetic for southbound Glenwood traffic.

I’m sure people are going to clamor about traffic flow and speed, but that’s precisely the problem in my book. As another has already posted, Glenwood isn’t supposed to be a pass-through; it terminates just a few blocks further south anyway. Plus this is a neighborhood with so many cool businesses that should be accessible by foot! It would be great to enjoy them without having to play Frogger.

@Will, a properly sized roundabout cannot possibly fit in the five-points area. It’s just not feasible.

@Will, I love the idea of a roundabout at Five (Six) Points.
By the time Glenwood gets to Five Points, it’s clearly an urban neighborhood road and not the boulevard artery that it is starting at Oberlin and heading northwest. The area in between is a transition area and the fact that speed is reduced to 35 is a strong indicator that the city agrees with that premise. Slowing traffic at Five Points changes the dynamic of the entire southern stretch of Glenwood and positions it where it needs to be.
Of course, people will bitch and resist such a change like they did with Hillsborough, but IMO the results of their transformation puts an exclamation point on decision to put roundabouts there.
The buildings at 5Points are all significantly pulled back from their respective “points” such that there’s room for roundabout to be constructed to carry the traffic. The center of the roundabout could be an opportunity for a fountain or some other piece of public art, if we didn’t hear people bitching about “wasting” money and wanting that important intersection to devoid of any style.
I used mapfrappe to overlay the Hillsborough roundabout at the current intersection and it looks totally possible to make it easily happen.

@John532 thanks for the comments! I’ve spoken to others about it and have gotten mixed reactions. I also love the idea for a fountain or public art! Maybe a permanent home for the New Years Eve acorn haha! The idea in my mind is that of Monument Ave in Richmond, a gorgeous stretch of roundabouts with statues inside (although I think the days of those kinds of statues are kinda past us at this point).

I also agree about the comparison with Hillsborough. Now that it’s been there awhile, I don’t hear any complaints like when it was first installed. I think if anything, it’s opened up the area, making it more “airy” and I certainly don’t miss the power poles and wires/lights!

@Will I totally agree about the Five Points roundabout. While we’re on roundabouts I’ll throw out my idea for the Avent Ferry and Western Blvd intersection. I think a large roundabout with a grassy park area or fountain in the middle would help tremendously to handle the increasing pedestrian and bike traffic between the two NCSU campuses. I’m thinking of Dupont Circle in DC. There appears to be a lot of room at that intersection and the traffic light is horrific anyway so why not a roundabout. Some State alum could put a big wolfpack fountain in the middle and it could be more of an entryway to both campuses and make the suburban shopping center there a little more walkable.

@Glen,

Western and Avent Ferry are meant for high traffic loads. Roundabout not designed for that amount of traffic. A pedestrian tunnel with bike lanes would be better.

So I just drove through Five Points, and my creative juices are flowing. What about an oak tree in the island, would be so cool to see it full of lights during the Holidays! Especially once it’s grown up! Maybe some of those lit-up Christmas balls? That area would truly be a stunner…talk about a gateway statement feature for people entering town from the NW!

For anyone who wants to better imagine a specific thing being in another place, go to mapfrappe.com There you can trace the outline of one place and virtually put it into another place.

Put me down absolutely for a nice big roundabout at Five Points! After a couple of years and a couple tweaks, we have all gotten confortable with the big “Bell Tower Roundabout” at Hillsborough and Pullen, and it really does add something special to that location. I’d love to see a similar effect on Five Points..and a big classical fountain or a giant oak tree festooned with lights inside the circle – sounds awesome to me. City designers: go to it!

@Fran I don’t disagree with the high traffic loads but those stop lights holding for pedestrians crossing Western do not help traffic flow. Dupont Circle in DC handles far more traffic than Western Blvd and there are beautiful examples of large circles in great cities around the world… one of the best is in Berlin. Anyway, just dreaming and I know it won’t happen.

I hope everyone is aware Five Points used to have a roundabout….?
https://localwiki.org/raleigh/Five_Points_Traffic_Circle

Mark, thanks for the pics, those are so cool!

Thanks Mark, very interesting! From overhead view it seems this traffic circle is barely a circle at all as it relates to Glenwood Ave. Drivers heading towards town especially were able to blow right through without having to slow down to navigate the “circle”. This must have lead to problems for drivers turning onto Glenwood from Fairview Rd. Perhaps this is why it was taken out. I’m doubtful a modern day circle would work here.

The solution for the roundabout at Five Points is similar to Dupont Circle. Four lanes of Glenwood (2 each direction) tunneled under the intersection for thru traffic. Ramps up from Glenwood to the roundabout at grade level that now only handles local traffic. Much lower volume and speeds for a local and pedestrian feel while also handling the majority thru traffic volume. Existing elevations work pretty well. Alexander Rd: 306′, Five Points intersection: 320′, Harvey St: 288′. (intersection already sits up on a hill)

Mike you hit my big idea right on the head (other circles in DC do this too, such as Thomas I think). I proposed such an idea over on Urbanplanet over a year ago. Glad to see someone else thinking along those lines. The I would even back up the northern entry to around northern Circle intersection since you wouldn’t have to mess with the medians at all (neighborhood loves them, as do I).

@Mike as awesome as that sounds, would it be cost-prohibitive? I’d love to see something (anything really) like that happen though…anything to make those cool businesses more accessible and to make life better for our neighborhood’s dog walkers, stroller-pushers, and bike riders.

I think that the better example of a roundabout at Five Points tunnels pedestrian paths under the intersection. The very center can also be submerged to give daylight to penetrate to the walkways and allow for the centerpiece art/tree/fountain to ascend through the layers. While this sounds very expensive, I walked one of these marvelous intersections in the suburbs of Helsinki, Finland. It really wasn’t as complicated as it sounds.
To lessen the amount of cars that need access the actual roundabout, I’d design 3 right turns outside of the actual circle. First, I’d have southbound Glenwood exit to westbound Fairview before hitting the circle by cutting through that weird parking lot on the corner next to Hayes Barton Cafe. Essentially, I’d tuck that short exit near the building. Second, I’d have eastbound Glenn Ave turn right onto Glenwood right after the circle by cutting the corner of the service station. The right southbound lane of Glenwood after the circle could be a free flow lane for Glenn traffic while the left southbound lane of Glenwood could be the thru-lane for traffic exiting the circle. Of course, street parking on that stretch would have to be eliminated.
Third, the westbound traffic on Whitaker Mill could exit onto northbound Glenwood in the same way without having to access the actual circle. This one would be like the northbound Pullen traffic to eastbound Hillsborough St., except it too could have its own free flow lane on the right side of northbound Glenwood while the left northbound lane is dedicated to the circle traffic.
In all cases, the parking on approach to the roundabout from Glenwood, either northbound or southbound could remain to calm and funnel the traffic on approach.
The two businesses that would possibly be most impacted are the two service stations. But, let’s be real, are these two gas stations really more important than that intersection?
Did I confuse anyone??? :-)

John,

I would hope that any realignment/redevelopment of Five Points, would include redevelopment of the existing businesses as well. I think the gas stations would be prime spots. Also, I would love to see the Rite Aid shopping center reoriented to intersection.

No use spending the money unless we go whole hog.

@John532 I couldn’t agree more, and I love those suggestions. Having the turn lanes “outside” of the roundabout seems to work well @ Hillsborough St. Also, the “free-flowing” lanes exiting the roundabout and the parking lanes entering it make perfect sense for traffic calming.

@John, I have PLENTY of ideas of what I’d change there. My biggest gripe is all of the CONCRETE IN FRONT of every building! The old Audio Buys building, the gas station, the bank, even the bricks in front of the church. There’s so much dead space in front that could be available to a roundabout…or at least something better looking.

Yeah sounds great.. but if we are using our imaginations… why not have a light rail running above the road… or below the road… or there are always flying cars…

@TheNightHawk – LOL. Flying cars are years away still …

On a more serious note why is this intersection/area called Five-points? Looking at a current map I see Glenwood Ave. and Fairview Rd. crossing through along with Whitaker Mill terminating at intersection. This makes 5 points but what about Glenn Ave? Does this not make 6 points?

Looking at an old soils map from 1914 I can see that Glenn Ave. didn’t exist at the time so it must have been built with the Hayes Barton neighborhood later. Mystery solved except that the 1914 map shows White Oak Rd. terminating at the intersection. Now we’re back to 6 points again. It must be that map wasn’t drawn correctly at the time. Had White Oak actually been moved away from the intersection in the past there would today be a bend in the road but it’s just as straight as it can be all the way to Glenwood Ave. Five-points it is then.

http://dc.lib.unc.edu/cdm/singleitem/collection/ncmaps/id/301/rec/26
https://web.archive.org/web/20141023075824/http://rhdc.org/five-points-historic-neighborhoods

TBJ reporting a Chicago firm buys 3 acres in heart of Glenwood South
“A Chicago investor and developer has swooped into downtown Raleigh’s Glenwood South neighborhood and purchased four parcels totaling 3.3 acres.”

I’m excited to see what plans they have. wish the article wasn’t locked.

Whoa, that rendering of 505 Oberlin (on the North Pond website) is pretty cool. Anyone have details?

Tbj is a joke. No one is paying a hundred bucks for their news. If someone has info as to what’s going on there feel free to share. Otherwise I guess we’ll wait till a normal news site posts

Yep the business journal is dying a slow death. They act like they have some sort of “inside scoop’ on news releases that are in the N&O and other news outlets by the afternoon. Don’t need to pay for news readily available on other news outlets…

I actually have access/am a subscriber to TBJ. Unfortunately, the Chicago firm that just purchased these 3 acres in Glenwood South have no immediate plans in place. Sorry friends, no there there, so to speak. I guess that the real news is that a “Chicago” firm has entered the downtown market. A wider audience for space, office & otherwise…imho.

@john532 the city doesn’t extend services to undeveloped land. Any development that submits pans inside the ETJ pays the complete cost to extend any services as there is no charge to taxpayers or existing service payers to extend. Then they request annexation. The city just accepts the project and pays for the future maintenance & providing services and in return City gets new taxpayers.

As for Glenwood Avenue there most likely won’t be any roundabouts as the trolley tracks are still in Glenwood to Bloomsbury Park from early 1900. There are plans to remove some as they are prohibiting maintenance/rebuild of road and in the way for other utilities. Shame Raleigh didn’t have the vision to keep them as New Orleans & San Fran.

@BC, does the police patrol new development within the city limits? Aren’t they a city service? Is the city not responsible for maintaining public infrastructure once it’s put in place? Does this not cost money to do so? Does the suburban development provide enough property tax revenues over time to take care of itself?

A lot of the trolley tracks under Glenwood at Five Points were removed in the last major resurfacing project 8 or 9 years ago. I have a piece. Would be small potatoes if they were going to tunnel/roundabout the intersection anyway. One more thing about this idea… Glenwood is a state road here, so maybe the city and the state would share the funding.

Looks like that Northpond website has a very different rendering of 400 Hillsborough- or as they have it on the website “404 Hillsborough”

You can read TBJ for free at any of your local Wake County libraries. A new issue comes out every week, I believe.

@Jake. Thanks for that reference. Though there’s really nothing to learn from their website with regard to starting construction, it’s good to see it remain published as a project.

@John532 I also happen to like this new rendering a lot more than what has previously been released!

@Jake, Maybe my eyes are playing a trick on me, but I think that I had already seen this rendering. Regardless, it’s more interesting and promising than some other buildings, 300 Hillsborough, cough, cough, that have been proposed.

At this point, it’s fair to say 301 H is dead completely. 400 H might still actually happen.

I’m still overlooking the FNB tower site and nothing is happening. Come on now! Do something! Have some construction workers stay around or something. Haha.

Unrelated, but here’s the construction cam for Moore Square.

http://www.workzonecam.com/projects/americansouthhandm/mooresquare/workzonecam

The FNB tower is in the building permit review process. It has been basically approved, but the permits have not been issued yet.

Yeah most of the tracks in front of the Rialto were taken out. Also tracks have been taken out easily in front of St Mary’s and along Hargett between West and Harrington for sewer expansions.
Interestingly, I live along a former trolley route in east downtown and regularly find spikes and pins in my yard. I’ve been hanging on to them, in case anyone puts together a trolley exhibit or something. Mike Legeros took an existing map that showed the trolley lines, and highlighted it for ease of use. http://www.legeros.com/ralwake/photos/weblog/images/2010-06-06-map2.jpg

Did anyone attend or have a record of what was discussed at the Tuesday meeting about the new City Hall complex?

@ Fran , I did not attend the meeting but at least 2 council members wants to see if there are other options to this project that would save money . I am like 100% for this central complex & I have already email this support to council . It seems , reading between the lines , that David Cox & Stef Mendell are for looking at other options , this is just my opinion on this !

I’m already sick of those two

Of course there are other options to this project that would save money. There always are. The question is one of whether you want the project to be a utilitarian eyesore that displays a lack of confidence and vision on the part of city leadership, or you want to build a beautiful flagship building that represents the present strengths and future aspirations of the city. They should also be asked whether they want to waste more precious time going back to the drawing board, along with the extra money in rent, utility costs, and operational inefficiency being burned by the handful in the city office pool’s current dispersed and unorganized state.

To clarify, when I said “you,” I wasn’t referring to anyone here. Just lots of built up frustration. The equivalent of a Lightner Center or some other alternative should’ve been up and running years ago. Other cities seem to be able to make straightforward decisions about these things. Raleigh, for whatever reason, has a lot of trouble. Along those lines, in my opinion, It’ll be another 10 years before we see an actual park at Dix.

It’s Moore Square all over again. A decade or more to figure out how to move some trees and grass around…

But based on the fact they believe Bezos would prefer to spend most of his time there.

Zerohedge article says HQ2 going to DC, tipped off by web traffic from HQ1. We can only pray it’s true.

RE: HQ2. It would be great if Raleigh won out, but I would opine that Northern Virginia makes the most sense when taking in all factors.

Sorry, comments have been archived. Please continue the discussion on the DTRaleigh Community.

Blog Post Topics