Dec
30

Glenwood Hampton Inn Gets Site Plan

abbeycarpet[1] After about a year and a half of latency, it looks like the Hampton Inn project in Glenwood South is moving forward. A Site Plan (.pdf) for the project, slated for the NW corner of Glenwood and Johnson, has been posted to the city’s site. The shoebox-shaped project will actually face Hi-5 on Johnson Street, and feature 950’ of unrelated retail space on its Glenwood Avenue street-level facade. The City of Raleigh requires 145 parking spaces for the building, but the plan is currently unclear about how those will be offered.

The project once showed 157 rooms planned, but now appears to be 126 units. The hotel will not have any special terracing or setback from the Glenwood Avenue sidewalk, but will only rise 5 stories on that face of the building.

Thanks, Chris!

map it

9 Comments

Make A Comment
  • Derrick Minor Said:

    I have been told that the parking requirement for the Hampton will be fulfilled with an agreement for spaces at the parking deck at 510 Glenwood.

  • John Said:

    You are correct Derrick. The requirement is being fulfilled by 510. I wonder if the R-Line will be re-routed to Johnson St. from Tucker when the hotel is finished? I think one of the main reasons for the route is to take conventioneers to all the DT districts for dining and entertainment. Conversely, I am also supposing that they want the conventioneers to be able to get to the Convention Center from their hotels as well. There is a stop on West St. near the corner of Johnson but it’s a butt-ugly drop location for guests of our city.

  • John Said:

    After reviewing the pdf (that finally linked after trying several times over 12 hours), I am bit concerned about the previous promise not to have thru-wall A/C units on this hotel. While the elevations don’t necessarily show the units, there is this nebulous area below each window that looks suspiciously like a thru-wall location. I sure hope that the city is on top of this and assures that the neighborhood doesn’t end up with another “suburban” model solution like the McDonald’s on the corner of Peace and Boylan.

  • Dana Said:

    Interesting point, John.

  • whoknowswhatinraleigh Said:

    The City caused the McDonald’s disaster on Peace. Let’s hope they (Crowder and Stephenson) stay detached from this one!

  • Ron Davis Said:

    What is wrong with the McDonalds? It seems clean and well lit. What is the problem?

  • John Said:

    Ron, the problem with the McDonalds is that it does not conform to the promised Peace St. Neighborhood plan that supposedly required an urban model McDonalds against Peace St. with an emphasis on pedestrians. What is there now is certainly new and clean and too well lit IMO, but it is nothing but a suburban model that’s been dropped into a key site in the middle of a neighborhood zone. It’s an afront to the neighbors and NOT what was promised. Oh, btw whoknows…, Crowder and Stephenson tried their best to push for an appropriate solution. It was the pro-development crowd (read into that what you will) that pushed for the piece of crap that’s there now.

  • CX Said:

    City Planners have admitted to the mistakes made with the Peace Street McDonald’s and have mentioned making changes in future situations. I can agree with John in that the pro-development crowd pushes for crap (mostly). The biggest conflict with the Peace Street location is that it has a very strong drive through volume. I haven’t seen many good urban drive throughs. Companies like to keep configurations that work, unless proven otherwise.

    If you feel strongly about something, I urge you to make your voice heard to the City of Raleigh, specific companies, developers, and advocate groups like DLA.

  • Dana Said:

    John and others have mentioned the suburban design of this store numerous times. I still don’t understand, though, what you all specifically mean. This was a set-back store flanked with parking on both sides and a drive-thru. As CX said, the drive-thru at this site is in high demand, so the new design HAD to include a drive-thru or replacement of the old structure would not have made sense.

    What would have made more sense? Wrapping the drive-thru around the right and rear sides of the building and exiting that line right onto Boylan? (this would have put the building right on the curbs, with no setback from the Peace/Boylan intersection, for an uninterrupted pedestrian access). Is that more of what you were hoping for?

Comments RSS Feed   TrackBack URL

Leave a comment

top -->