I can't say I've ever heard verdant used to describe townhouses before, especially not those whose development surely started with a clear-cut and a swarm of bulldozers.
Yes, the system is broken, but it's not just the zoning that's the problem.
A comprehensive plan that designates the Dunn Rd intersection as walkable retail pulling from a one mile? radius is clearly wrong. If you don't understand why, measure the distance from the intersection to the back of Bedford. Or better yet... measure the distance from the intersection to the entrance of Bedford.
NMU, as described by the plan, cannot survive in the outer suburbs. For that matter, NMU, as described, is virtually non-existent in all of Raleigh. Oddly enough, non-specialty grocery stores have one of the smaller draw radiuses. If the intent was to block commercial building in the area, they should have just said that instead of using an inappropriate designation.
Yes the Publix violates the plan. At the same time, it fits perfectly with the zoning habits of Raleigh and Falls of Neuse over the last half decade at least.
Yes, we get it. Everyone becomes against building as soon as they close on their new home in their brand new thousand+ home subdivision. Hypocrites? How dare you even suggest such a thing.
I'd be curious to know why you think Falls had to be widened in the first place? Why a light had to be put in at Dunn in the first place? Talk to people who have lived north of Dunn for decades and ask them how much time that light added to their daily drive, especially pre-widening. I guess it helps your cause to have a city transportation planner living in your development. I remember thinking how odd it was that Mr Lamb had decided a light was going to be necessary before Bedford construction even got started good.
"protect falls"... I'm sorry, but Dunn existed decades before the bulldozers started rolling on these subdivisions. Connecting your subdivision to it doesn't make it yours. If any neighborhood could lay claim to it it would have to be Falls River right? The first to make the connection...
Bottom line, Bedford, Falls River, Oakcroft and the rest are perfect examples the quality of "planning" - and by this I mean the total and complete lack of it, that we have in the city. Area plans are little more than masturbatory aids. Watershed rules? Have they EVER been enforced in this area?
For the record, I'm with you. Don't build the shopping center. Don't cut down another tree north of 540. I'm all for it. -- I'm only here to point fingers at the people who care nothing about the traffic, "feel" or environmental concerns they lay claim to. They're just protecting their daily commute, after, of course, they themselves have moved in and done the same damage to others. And in case anyone wonders if I'm just looking out for myself... I don't live in the area anymore, but I remember Dunn as a crumbly country rd (along with multiple repavings), the forest, and cow pastures as perfect dog-walking areas, and the opening of 540.
So the people of Bedford are complaining? Their neighborhood was much nicer as a forest. I'm sure the original inhabitants of Dunn Rd will agree.
Bulldoze the forest, move in thousands of people, widen Dunn, widen Falls. I'm the last person to condone this incessant sprawl, but at this point, I see no difference between this land and the corner of Falls and Duraleigh. In my mind, the very presence of a clear-cut neighborhood condones the cookie-cutter retail that accompanies them.
And of course, we're still ignoring the watershed protections that were supposed to be in place in the area as well.
Selective enforcement of laws is always problematic.
Well, unless you're an attractive woman, a "respected member of the community", or, I don't know, a corporation that contributes to the right campaigns and retirement funds.
Enforce the law, or get rid of it.
When you have members of the city council using the government as their own personal HOA, you're bound to have others conclude that they can do the same.
It would have been interesting to have pictures of 515 Euclid attached to this article. Ms Wiesner lives in a house that's 500sq/ft larger than the one proposed with the same number of stories. And as for scale, the house was clearly build to the zoning limits of the lot... encroaching not only the side neighbors but the street itself. Yes, the look vaguely matches the neighbors, but at the same time, it's an obvious teardown that doesn't "really" match the look nor feel of the original neighbors. Every single point in Wiesner's quote could be applied to her own house. If she doesn't believe it, perhaps she should take in the view of the big green wall from her neighbor's front porch.
My point is... where's the line? In my view, this house is no less out of place than what's already been built.
My first thought upon seeing the picture is, why are there shears in the shot? Not once, but twice even.
Thanks for warning. I have no use for gimmickry - or inappropriate tools.
All Comments »
Indy Week • 201 W. Main St., Suite 101, Durham, NC 27701 • phone 919-286-1972 • fax 919-286-4274
RSS Feeds | Powered by Foundation