UNC proposes cursory master plan review

Just got an info item that will be on the Chapel Hill Town Council's agenda tonight. Apparently the "Innovations Center" is on next week's agenda (1/23/08), but of course the Council needs to know about the plans for Carolina North to understand the context for this first building. So UNC proposes to toss off a presentation about the Carolina North Master Plan at the same meeting and then go on with presenting the concept plan of the Innovations Center.

I would think the Town would need a moment to actually comprehend the plan before trying to understand something that is supposed to fit into it. But of course that would assume that UNC actually wants elected officials, staff, or citizens of Chapel Hill (and Carrboro) to analyze, understand, or respond to anything they're doing.

It sounds like UNC's plan is just to do a quick presentation, and listen to public comment at this meeting - with one week's notice - and then just go along their merry way building the first phase Carolina North without any substantial input from the community.

MEMORANDUM
TO: Town Council
FROM: Roger L. Stancil, Town Manager
SUBJECT: UNC Presentation on Carolina North
DATE: January 14, 2008

As a follow-up to yesterday’s conversation with the University regarding Carolina North, Jack Evans and I are preparing for University staff to present the Carolina North Master Plan as the first item on the January 23 agenda. This topic would then be open for public comment.

The second item on the January 23 agenda will then be the presentation of the concept plan for the Innovations Center. We have taken this approach because of the Council’s interest in hearing the master plan and receiving public comment before discussion of the concept plan. This agenda also has fewer items than many of the subsequent Council meetings. We will proceed on that schedule unless the Council prefers an alternative approach.

I really hope I am misunderstanding this proposal from UNC, because if not, it sounds like we are about to get steamrolled. Even the campus master plan went through much more discussion and collaboration with the Town, and Carolina North promises to impact the entire area even more drastically.

Where have I gone wrong, Fred?

Tags: 

Comments

After you left, Ruby, it was several more speakers extolling the virtues of the new Innovation/Translational center and why it's a great and wonderful opportunity and urgent to have it right away.  I didn't stay through more than about 6-8 more speakers, but it's evident that some worried professional people believe that the Council and the citizens would like to obstruct the project, most likely  out of ignorance about just how needed and marvelous the IC will be. 

Kevin Foy, one more time, said that it wasn't about the particular use of the building -- the University could even change the use of the building, as it had in the past -- but the Town's lookout for now is only the building's impact on the Town. Speakers apparently took that to mean that they had to demonstrate that a Translational Center would be great for the Town's image, to remedy the Town's well-known poor record in welcoming private business and research, and maybe even some recalcitrant rejection of important advances in medical research.

 In other words, despite Kevin Foy's caveat and reiteration of the explanation that this evening was for responses to the current conceptualization of the building and grounds, and that it wasn't an approval process, most speakers were still arguing for Town approval of Alexandria, translational research, professional opportunity, partnered enterprise, and, oh yes, the IC.

Before I left, I only heard one speaker (sorry, too tired to remember exactly which one -- think it was the head of pharmacy) even address the concern about process and/or timing.  He said that those concerned with timing, who claimed that not having a Master Plan yet made assessment difficult, had to recognize that we have seen several versions of a master plan and we already are familiar enough with how thinking about CN is going to deal with the IC. 

(There was one pilot who frothed a bit about closing HWA and displacing AHEC, but all that did was bring out a restatement from the University that they could and would keep HWA open during construction of the IC but that the AHEC operations would have to move and the airport have to be closed before occupancy of the IC.) 

I would have liked to hear someone remind the speakers, again, that approval by the Town wasn't the issue tonight. 

And, for the record, while I have questioned the process and how the pieces are supposed to be fitting here and at what points the University may or may not have surprised the Town, I have no objection whatsoever to the conduct of translational research, am very much in favor of finding cures and treatments for disease, and would certainly be open to sharing the revenue that generates (especially if anyone's will to share a patent). 

To me, all the speakers who chose to continue voicing their support for the Innovation Center were sending a message to the Town Council that they don't want this opportunity to be lost through bureaucratic foot dragging. I interpreted Matt Czajkowski's questions about the process during the Council discussion to concur with those speakers.

I don't recall seeing so much public support for anything the university has brought to the town in many, many years.

Terri, You've been part of many planning processes in our community. You understand their complexities and the fine details. I think you understand why planning is careful and methodical. Why now choose to claim the Town is dragging its feet? Are you saying we should speed up development for everyone? How about lot five? I think you know better. BUT it appears Matt Czajkowski does not. This is a perfect example of why memory and experience is so valuable. I think your comments are divisive and purely political. Citizens should not take them at face value.

I have been involved in many planning efforts, Brian. And sometimes an opportunity arises that defies the normal process. That's where flexibility, or what used to be called nimble response, comes in. Is this this a case for flexibility? Apparently the folks who were speaking last night thought so. I missed the early part of the presentation so I'm not sure why there is such a rush on the Innovation Center.

I don't understand what you think is divisive in what I wrote so I won't comment. I do think you are jumping to conclusions about Matt, but I suppose that is to be expected since he replaced your friend Cam on the council. Personally, I think "diversity" of thought is a good thing for the community and rather than being divisive, it may just bring more people into the political process.

Terri, I think you know how long processes can take and that we value our community development process. Its not perfect but is much more progressive than other Towns in North Carolina. In this case I think "flexibility" means to some to hell with certain elected officials. The enemy of my enemy is my friend kind of stuff.

My "conclusions" on Matt are based on his own statement of being new and still learning. I take him at his word. If he knows all about about Town governmental process or the history of Carolina North then he sure isn't acting like it.

People who know the details of the relationship of the Town and UNC need to share them with everyone. This relationship hasn't been pretty. We do no one any good by pretending otherwise. If healing and trust is to be built we must have honesty.

I voted for Cam Hill twice. Have met him a few times. But I wouldn't call him a close personal friend. Why must Terri and WillR attempt to slander people by saying we are doing such and such for "our friends"? I'm not receiving any personal benefit from supporting local politicians. I have not traded anything. To suggest otherwise is wrong.

Oh and one more thing. Sixty votes is NOT a mandate.

I agree that there is a lot of support for the IC and I believe, rightfully so. I think the questions that were being asked where not so much as to the intent or relevance or value of the project but more to the building itself. For instance: will it connect well to MLK?; will it stand out as one of the buildings fronting on the main entrance to Carolina North?; what will be the energy savings of the building; would parking be better addressed by a structure? why not use pervious pavement for all of the parking rather than only a small portion?

 

I myself would favor a parking structure or more pervious pavement but I heard an interesting statement that could influence the latter. Someone pointed out that there is benzene contamination of the soil and groundwater (?) at the site. I don't know if it is the IC's site or nearby. I would be interested in hearing from environmental engineers whether pervious pavement would worsen the situation by accelerating the leaching of chemicals into the grounwater. If that is the case then perhaps maintaining the impervious pavement or a parking structure would make more sense.

George, I agree, and what I saw from the presentation is that UNC gets that message and is working on those issues.   A good review process will make the project better and I have no objection whatsoever to that happening.  My support for the center doesn't mean that I want to write anyone a blank check to do whatever they want.    I just think that we will miss some of the most important and positive ways in which this Innovation Center can impact this community if we confine our thinking to simply the "bricks and mortar."    

We can and should look at this project in the context of its ability to further our economic development strategy, one the Council has worked hard on and invested town resources in by hiring a economic development professional.   My respect to the Mayor, but I find it hard to believe that there isn't some way to consider the economic development impacts in their decision making process.    Other communities look at a project's use under economic development initiatives and tie approval to some commitments about use, number of jobs created, amount of investment or spending power created in the community, amount of taxable property created.  etc.   We might have to be creative in order to use our existing guidelines or process, but we are after all a creative group.  

And I agree with Terri, I think the level of support was surprising and should be taken very seriously into consideration.   The people who talked about how they need this project for their work or for their businesses are our neighbors, our kids' soccer coaches, our fellow PTA volunteers.  If a town exists to serve citizen needs,  shouldn't this need, articulated very well by the speakers on Wednesday,  get factored into the overall review? 

 Anita Badrock

 

In spite of the mayor saying this wasn't about what the facility would be used for, I think the spekers who made this point over and over did so for a good reason. Time is critical and the due consideration of the project should reflect a sense of urgency, not rubber stamping, but done fully understanding that every day before opening matters.

The Chancellor made the point recently that in these "baby boomer" aging out days, every university will experience massive number of retirements in the coming years. Which institutions end up with the "best and the brightest" on their faculties might very well be influenced by facilities such as the IC, as well as other key factors. We have a unique opportunity here to help Chapel Hill, not just UNC-CH.

After the Wednesday meeting, someone who is fairly new to all of this asked me a question. How does 4,000 or so votes turn a person into a design engineer, architect, landscaper, storm water expert, and transportation engineer. This person thought that given some of the specific comments, some Council members have assumed a role that was beyond their expertise. I'm sure some will disagree, but I think it's a valid question. What is the right balance for our decision makers?

Ruby summarized the most important part of my presentation, that

the amount of housing proposed at CN is token, and that Mark

was right when he first brought it up a year ago. Without more housing,

it is not the mixed-used project that Jack Evans projects. Ruby

asked me to put my powerpoint slides on my post and I will, but,

since they are not on a website now, does this new software

allow me to simply upload the .ppt file, or should I put them on

some website and provide the link to them in the text of my post?

 

First, let me explain that the cynical tone of my post about public testimony on the IC came partly from fatigue and partly from skepticism bred of 15 years watching TownGown interactions. When University (or private-sector) people are telling the Town "it'll be good for the Town," and especially when there's an undertone of "hurry up and get out of the way," I do get nervous. However, the IC does seem to be a potentially valuable resource, and if the spirit of good will and optimism is genuine, I'm delighted to see it. It would, indeed, be a great "foot" to start CN off on.

Now about housing at CN: Was delighted to hear Joe's presentation and hope it will be taken thoroughly to heart. But there's an aspect of the entire issue I'd like a little more explanation about -- student housing.

When they talk about moving the Law School up there, does that include housing for the students? I tend to think that's not been part of the thinking as yet, but what about the whole dynamic of a University that provides only a limited amount of housing for its students, forcing the rest into the community -- and thereby occupying housing that could be available for employees?

Many colleges and universities, in my experience, strive to provide housing for as much of their student body as possible, and/but they wouldn't consider it their look-out to provide employee housing. It would be a great contribution if CN were to incorporate a goal of increasing access to affordable housing for employees, but how do we see student housing fit into the same picture?

Priscilla,

Can you provide a reference for your statement that the University provides only a limited amount of housing for its students? All the reports I have seen say there are empty beds on campus and have been for the past several years. I've also heard from students and other renters that there is an excess of rental property in this community, making it possible to negotiate rental agreements at many of the apartment complexes.

 

No, Terry, I don't have documentation.  Purely an impression based on noting the heavy reliance on Granville Towers and the various apartment complexes and on what students tell me about where they live, and why.  It seemed to me that there wouldn't be enough housing for 100% of all undergrad and grad students on campus, but my impression was apparently wrong.  Thank you for the prompt correction.  Nonetheless, I'm still asking how the student housing fits into thinking about CN, if it does.  The question is still fair. 

I didn't say there was room for 100% of the students to live on campus. Because campus housing must pay for themselves (no state appropriations), they are subject to the same kind of supply and demand factors faced by landlords in town. Building housing sufficient for 100% of all undergrads, only to have much of it sit empty, would be an incredibly expensive proposition.

I regularly ask students why they choose to live off campus and the most common response is that they want to have their car nearby (mostly for getting back and forth to jobs). The second most common response is that living in an apartment feels more "independent" than living in a dorm. However, there are many students who enjoy the convenience of living on campus.

I started following this situation a couple of years ago at one of the master plan updates. I was curious about where the community demand to move students back on campus meshed with the reality of what the students wanted and how the University straddled those two constituencies. Since that time, new apartment type housing has been built that may be in more demand than the high rises since they have kitchens and are air conditioned. I suspect that will be the type of housing construction that will be planned for CN. On the slide showing programming uses, it said 50% of any housing built at CN will be for graduate student.

I also think Joe is on the right track (tract?) because this is a great opportunity to solve several problems at once for grad students and junior faculty. But what would be said if UNC came back with a plan for more housing and it meant that more of the 1,000 acre area would have to be disturbed?

"If you build it they will come" might work for a ball field but in the student housing world, there are many factors that explain why students make the choices they do in deciding where to live. Until there are students who wants to live on campus but can't because of lack of availability, it wouldn't make sense to increase supply.

I remember when our 2d semester freshman daughter came home for dinner one Sunday with her spreadsheet that modeled the on-campus/off-campus financials and her analysis indicated that we would save money letting her get an apartment with a roommate. Why did they teach her how to do that kind of analysis? Like many parents, we just felt her being on campus made us feel better. It ended up that her analysis was right and she spent three years in town.

Fred, that question about elected folks turning into engineers and how to balance that is a good one. To someone else who is disappointed in the many examples of short-sighted, wasteful planning around here, the official who inspired the question was just doing his job: trying to bring out issues he thought were important that were being raised by the engineers on the Town's staff.

As a science teacher, I am also very interested in this incubator, but I live within 1000 feet of the site and am concerned about excessive traffic and whether more family homes around here will become rentals, as Priscilla mentioned. To me, the housing issue is also a test of whether UNC is serious about CN being a sustainability showcase. Are they serious enough about auto impacts like traffic and emissions to make housing a significant part of the plan?

So I am very glad that we have councilmen who aren't going to be so dazzled by economic prospects that they overlook technical questions that might be out of their area of expertise.

 

Priscilla, I don't think you're entirely wrong. The figure I've heard is that there are enough beds on campus for about 25% of the students. I've also heard that there have been empty beds for the last several years suggesting that the majority of students prefer to live off campus which is, of course, their right to do so.

I believe that the Horace williams Citizens' Committee recommended that CN provide housing for 25% of the students and employees that would be working there. Several members of the Chancellor's Leadership Advisory Committee (LAC) suggested that CN should provide enough housing to accomodate all of the students and employees on CN that needed it. And the University representatives to the LAC said that the University would provide housing but didn't want to commit to a number.

I think Joe C.'s numbers showed that the commitment to housing for the first 15 years of the buildout of CN is low by most standards and would necessitate much more commuting (either local or long-distance) than would be desirable for a proposed state-of-the-art campus. I hope that as the Master Plan for CN evolves the University will reconsider their plan and provide a hefty increase in the proposed housing.

On another point, has anyone else been concerned about the view of scientific research being drummed up by CN leaders?

Science has long had the image of being a fiercely open endeavor in which freely published information was fully debated in public.  The picture painted by local economic boosters is more like a poker game where players keep their cards close to their vests.

Now - without being too fastidious about lost innocence - that's fine if it's private money that builds the lab and does the work. But where is the public interest when public money is either directly or indirectly stimulating the production of information that is used for private gain? Who is making sure that when public money produces breakthroughs in health care research, that the research findings are not sealed away as proprietary intellectual property? The public - private line is being blurred.

Is that the view of science we intend to instill into the "best and brightest" who will eventually take over the reins at UNC?

David,

The situation you describe already exists. For several decades now the federal government has allowed universities to file and hold patents on research funded, even in its entirety, by federal research dollars (NIH, NSF, DOD, etc). Many of those patents have been licensed to private corporations, both large and small, for commercialization. The universities profit from the licensing fees and royalties on sales if the research is successfully commercialized. The inventor (scientist) usually shares in any licensing fees or royalties that the university receives, often (usually) as much as 25% of the total.

As federal research dollars have been drying up, thanks in large part to an administration that has a strong anti-science agenda, most universities (and many scientists) are looking for commercial sources to fund their research. In many cases if money isn't obtained soon you are going to see many cutbacks at the junior faculty level and even in large, more established labs. Those cutbacks will mean the potential loss of not only faculty positions but the ancillary support positions such as lab technicians and administrative assistants. Also, if faculty can't get funding they can't take on graduate students and so this crisis in research funding has the very real possibility of allowing us to lose a whole generation of young scientists.

Unfortunately, as you point out, early licensing of a scientist's research discoveries often brings with it undesired effects such as a requirement for increased secrecy or, in some cases, the inability to continue one's own line of research. Early licensing of discoveries or contract research with large corporations is often the least desirable choice we make. However, in these particularly difficult times it might be the choice between surviving and carrying on or shutting down. I would say I'm hopeful that things might improve a year from now but the deficits that Washington has created will insure that these changes in how academic research is carried out are likely to be long lasting.

All publicly funded research should benefit the whole public. As citizens of Chapel Hill AND the State of North Carolina we should have a significant say in how our funds are used. UNC is a public University right? [Remember that front page artilce in the Indy last year called UNC, Inc.? Its sub-heading was "Ignoring its mission, our university raised tuition as its hospital reduced access for the poor—while rewarding leaders with big bonuses. A professor emeritus investigates."]

This may be a big "No Duh!" moment for many here but I feel it bears repeating. Especially when you consider the tons of negative effects privatization has brought to our PUBLIC mental health care system in North Carolina. How can we better manage corporations use of publicly funded knowledge?

Voting must not be the only way we are involved in this process of governance. It needs to be well thought out and done in a methodical and transparent manner. Completion of a citizen approved master plan is the first step that must be taken.

Brian, at the Chamber's Annual Meeting today, UNC-CH's Mark Crowell showed a few slides on the IC. One of them indicated that they are aware of 40 businesses that have been spun off from the work of faculty members --- only three are currently located in Orange County. To me, that's seepage to the max and we ought to be able to do better! Think NC State and SAS, for example.

The ownership of intellectual property is just not as simple as just saying " All publicly funded research should benefit the whole public." Money comes from many sources and so the world of academic research is much more complicated.

George,

I haven't seen the housing numbers this year (and it may be too early for them) which would include the more than 900 new beds at Ram Village, which opened in fall 2006. But prior to Ram Village, we were housing over 50 percent of our undergrads on campus, and if you added Granville (private but requires that you be a Carolina student) and Greek housing, it was close to 65 percent. I think this is the more relevant number as it reflects the off-campus students who are living in apartment complexes and single-family homes, although some of them are in Durham (The Verge), Chatham, etc. For a long time, we have housed a higher percentage of undergrads than most of our peer institutions.

I've lived here 29 years now and have never seen so many For Rent and Vacancy signs out as there were this year and last. I'm not sure that everyone shares the belief that the Univeristy providing more housing for undergraduate students on campus would be good for the community right now.

Linda C.

Actually was thinking a bit more about grad/professional student housing at CN.  And is "employee" housing generally understood to include faculty?

Priscilla,

Yes, the expectation is that housing would be for graduate/professional students, faculty and staff.

Linda

Linda C

The increase in For Rent and Vacancy signs is not necessarily welcomed by families who see their neighborhood shifting to a more transient, less kid-friendly place.

We saw a similar trend near our previous home in Corvallis, OR, when family or retiree homes were bought by developers and either converted into multi-unit rentals, or just leased/sublet to groups of Oregon State students who can't care for property well, and get pretty noisy next to neighbors with newborns. 

There must be many benefits to UNC to minimize on-campus housing when space is tight as it is on its main campus. But encouraging students to live off-campus, even indirectly, must contribute to high housing prices and less quality of life in our neighborhoods.

<>Here's a summary of what I presented last Weds night, and which all the

councilmembers who referenced it agreed with.

 

At the five year mark, CN will contain a total of 685K sq ft of buildings, which

includes 100K of housing, for both faculty and grad students.

<>Roger Perry said two weeks ago that the housing units would be larger

<> than 1K sq ft so I divided the 100K by 1250 sq ft to yield 80 housing units.

I divided the remaining size (585K) by 325 sq ft per employee to

calculate 1800 employees. The 325 figure is mid-range of standard planner

space for office workers, and of course this figure could be challenged

somewhat in either direction. Assuming one CN employee per housing

<>unit (also can be challenged), another division yields UNC providing housing on site for 4.4 pct of CN employees.

At the fifteen year mark, the numbers are 2475K total space, of which

500K is for housing. The same math yields 6077 employees and

400 housing units, a 6.6 pct housing provision. Conclusion: this

is not a mixed-use project, it is rather, as Jim Ward said, a commute-in

commute-out project.

<>My second major point was that Jack Evans has said on several

<>occasions that many of the CN employees would not be new employees,

<>rather would be current employees now working in rented space

<>salted througout Chapel Hill and Carrboro. His point here, I think,

<>is that the impact of CN won't be as great as we might believe from

<>inspecting the numbers.

<>UNC's viewpoint is a narrow but valid one, for their task is to

<>to plan for their own employees. But the towns don't have the

<>luxury of this narrow viewpoint, for the number of new employees in

<>town(s) will equal the employees at CN<>, and here's why:

<><>Consider the Bank of America

<>building in the middle of downtown CH. It houses several hundred

<>UNC employees, mostly working for the School of Public Health.

<>Should they all move to CN, (professionally a good idea, likely)

<>the building won't remain empty. Employees of a mix of organizations

<>will move in to fill the space. Ditto for the Europa Center, the

<>building behind Armadillo Grill, etc.

<>My final point was my dream that UNC would sell the building at

<>440 W. Franklin to a commercial developer to help with our west-end

<>redevelopment and to get it onto the tax roles.

 

 

Priscilla, Jack Evans said that there would be a total of 100K sq ft

and 500K sq ft of housing at the 5 and 15 year marks. It will be for

grad students, faculty and staff, but no decision has been made

on the allocation among these classes. He also said that there will

be no undergrad housing at CN.

David,

My observation has been that as the amount of student housing on-campus has increased in the past several years, places that were previously rented by students, either in apartment complexes or neighborhoods, are advertising vacancies now. I am only pointing out anecdotally that it seems that as UNC provides more on-campus housing, the new on-campus housing has a ripple effect in the community.

Linda Convissor

Over the years Chapel Hill and Carrboro have built an economy around the housing market. Anything that disrupts that market is going to have consequences that we may not be willing to suffer through. Adding 10,000 residences to CN, as has been proposed, may solve some problems, but it will undoubtedly create others. We need economic models that look at all aspects of this problem before pursuing a solution like forcing the university into housing the faculty and staff of CN on site.

Terri - the 10,000 homes figure must refer to the 50 year build-out, right? which gives some time for the market to adjust.

And I didn't think anyone would be "forcing" UNC to be a landlord - only hoping for this to be a true mixed use project, since that is what UNC is calling it. Besides, I can't imagine that the new homes would be bought by and sold to only faculty and staff. How would that work anyway? - by deed restrictions similar to Land Trust properties?

 

David, I don't think the University can sell state property. They may be able to set up something like the land trust but all the discussions I've heard have restricted ownership of the dwellings on CN to UNC employees. The equity from owning the structure only will be negligible; if you look at the land trust restrictions, equity is capped in order to maintain affordability of the structure. That kind of deal will undoubtedly help some, but as the land trust and EmPOWERment have found, it also places a heavier facilities management burden on the trust itself. To me affordable housing is something different from low-income housing, and too often, it seems like the two terms are used interchangeably.

For a little history on this topic, see:

http://orangepolitics.org/2006/10/the-housing-gap-at-carolina-north/

Several years ago I was surprised to learn that UNC houses a higher percentage of undergraduates than similar institutions (Michigan, Wisconsin, etc.). These schools are in larger towns than Chapel Hill so the impact of students coming off campus in search of housing is not as great. What we forget about Chapel Hill is how small a town it was very recently. In 1960 the population was 12,573; it doubled in the next ten years to 26,199 and by 2003 it doubled again to 51,485. I suspect that the numbers in Carrboro are possibly more dramatic. I also suspect that the numbers of students living off campus is ahead of this curve. So MOST of the housing here has been built in the last 30 years. Students living off campus use traditionally "work force" housing, places where carpenters, wait people, retail clerks, etc. might live. Students also pay more for the same spaces than the former blue collar residents did. This is why Northside and similar neighborhoods have had a large influx of students in the last 20 years. It is profitable to rent to students so a lot of housing that would have been "owner occupied" in the past is now owned by landlords and rented out. Witness Cameron Ave in the last 20 years. When I moved there in 1978 it was 90% "owner occupied", now it is 20% at best. This has put a great deal of pressure on our community's "affordable/low income" housing stock.  

It has become clear to me that UNC is only reluctantly considering housing at CN. Their current proposal is token at best. I understand this, UNC is not in the housing business, at least as it is being considered at CN. Like a lot of the aspects of CN, mitigation would not necessarily have to occur at CN. Suppose UNC were to build enough dorms to house all their freshman and sophomores and UNC then required them to live on campus. This would, in the words of Bill Friday, "strengthen the undergraduate experience". It would also reduce the number of cars in Chapel Hill (because dorm dwellers are not supposed to have cars) and free up some housing for something other than student rentals.

As far as the effect that this would have on the housing/rental market, it might slow the rate of price escalation down for a short time and actually take some housing from the rental market and make it available for sale to people who might live in it. 

If UNC wanted to they could have the dorms built and operated by private developers as has been done on other campuses. 

The efforts that Chapel Hill and Carrboro have made to create "affordable" housing are recognized nationally as "cutting edge". They are still a drop in the bucket. The biggest challenge we face in our community (IMHO) is that we are becoming too homogenous, too rich, too white. The people that made this an attractive place to live can no longer afford to live here.

Bleeeccch...  

Are there any public universities out there that require all freshmen and sophomores to live on campus? If so, what has been the impact on applications, etc.? I'm aware of some schools that have a freshman year policy and no cars allowed (hard to enforce in both cases) but not a two year requirement.

The University has stated on several recent occasions that one of the driving forces behind CN and the IC is the fact that their faculty are aging and the University thus needs to recruit young up-and-coming faculty from a highly competitive pool. One of the great tools they have to do that, if they choose to use it, is to provide affordable housing for their young faculty. Home prices in this area have been rising so rapidly of late that recruiting a young faculty member is going to be faced with some of the same issues that confront universities in Boston, San Francisco Bay area, San Diego, Miami, etc.

Affordable housing is a key issue for a young faculty recruit who is often also beginning to start a family. UNC has a key advantage in luring potential recruits: because it owns the land on CN it can insure that a young faculty member can not only afford to live in comfortable housing but also have many of the other very desirable amenities such as free public transit, great schools, and recreational facilities. Building equity in their home is not going to be the primary concern of a young faculty recruit. Their primary concern is going to be building equity in their career. A young faculty member has a limited number of years to establish their careeer or then they will need to move on. If they are successful in establishing their career they will have all the opportunity they need to go out into the community and buy a house that they can build equity in.

If the University really believes that faculty recruitment is a very important reason for building CN then they should be considering a more serious commitment to providing affordable faculty housing than that what has been presented thus far. And although it may not seem obvious to some, faculty get their jobs done thanks to the many staff that assist them so it would be prudent to provide incentives for those valuable members to work at the University as well.

As someone not all that far beyond the years of being a undergrad in the dorms, I have a problem with the cattle-herding mentality of some otherwise well-meaning folks in the affordable housing arena. Not to be accusatory here, but I just want to put out a few thoughts before we devolve to that state. Perhaps, rather than conceptualizing a plan in which UNC forces students to live on campus, we instead should be focusing on actually making on campus housing appealing as compared to of campus options.

 

Put yourself in the shoes of a student briefly. Unless the benefits of dorm life are that great to you, why would you want to share a small room that is generally in worse condition than similar apartments, generally more expensive, lacking in several basic amenities, that you are forced to leave several times a year during holidays you may or may not celebrate, all while sharing a bathroom with perhaps dozens of other people that often reeks of vomit and garbage that someone was too lazy to take all the way outside because no one is willing to take ownership of common property, and at least in my case, a kitchen that consisted of a single oven, microwave, and table in an unoccupied bedroom to be shared with the entire building. In my opinion, this is a completely undignified way to expect adults to live in. Obviously, not everyone begins their undergraduate experience ready to take on the responsibilities of taking care of themselves and their property, and to be respectful of their neighbors. But that's exactly the point - you can't take any sizable group of people and offer them a single solution and expect it to work for everyone. It's the very same problem that causes our housing crunch in the first place; you can't build one-size-fits-all housing and expect to attract a diverse population.

 

I fully support seeing UNC put in a sizable housing stock at CN, but not simply more of the same tired stuff they've already got. While it's unlikely we'd want to see UNC compete to the point where they're flooding the market and private landlords are unable to fill their rooms, I don't think we're anywhere close to that yet. If we are, it probably has less to do with some great evil UNC is up to than a mistake in what <i>kind</i> of private development we've allowed to go up in the past decade or two.

I completely agree, Jason. It's been 15 years since I graduated from UNC, but I still remember quite well why I only lived on campus for 3 semesters. Students want and need indepdendent living situations befitting their adult status, without having to push out the working people who live in the dwindling affordable housing near town/campus.

Jason, Ruby,

Seems like this is where affluence meets living lightly. I lived in dorms throughout my 70's college career because of the expense and convenience- no commuting, stocking a kitchen, no utility bills, etc. I guess student expectations and means are higher now, and we'll live as well as we can - also may be that Resident Advisors and college admin were less permissive in their oversight back then so dorm life wasn't quite as crazy.

But what are the consequences of having students spread out in off campus apts? Have you tried to compare the eco-footprints of students in these different living situations? If the town is going to improve walkability, isn't that going to require changes in our expectations about what "befitting our adult status" means?

Then there's the whole "melting pot" question: do we, in our affluence, just walk away from the business of learning how to get along with others?

David,

In terms of eco-footprint, you're absolutely right. Dorm living takes up significantly less space, and probably quite a few less resources in general. I'd love it if everyone chose to live on a smaller footprint. But if that's our goal, let's see the town enact a 2,000 square foot limit on new single family homes. To me, it's a question of equity. It's completely unfair to force one segment of the population to bear the burden so the rest of the population can feel slightly less guilty about their overall impact, when in fact the majority of ecological impact in our community is probably coming from single family homes on large lots, not compact townhomes and apartments. It's not all that different from an argument I had on the Transportation Board last year when we were considering parking at the new Lot 5 development, in which one side of the board was in favor of removing subsidies for parking for the affordable housing units, because "don't we want to encourage walking anyway?" My argument, which fortunately won, was that while I don't like cars either, it's unfair to use an environmental argument against one segment of the population (in this case, disadvantaged low income people) while not holding those who have spare time and money in their lives to at least as high of a standard.

I wish I had your experience from the 70s. I moved out of the dorms after my freshman year because it was cheaper, even after utilities, to live off campus. If I had shared a room, like on campus, it would have been less than half the cost. And stocking my kitchen to cook was significantly cheaper than eating out on Franklin Street, or in the overpriced and anti-labor cafeterias. Commuting was free, via my own two feet, my bike, or the bus system, all of which I would have used anyway (though, notably, I was then double taxed for transit, which is both a student fee and tax no doubt passed down through my landlord).

As for the melting pot thing, I agree, we ought to learn how to get along. But I don't think it applies any differently to students than to their off-campus neighbors.

Equity is a good point, Jason, but I was thinking more about Cam's comment: "Students living off campus use traditionally "work force" housing, places where carpenters, wait people, retail clerks, etc. might live." Sounds true, tho I'm not sure how to check it. Seems that should figure into a policy somewhere, too; but until then, we're really stuck with a market-driven system, and right now it looks like students (and their parents) are able to drive it in a way that pushes out teachers and carpenters. I hope you will into office and work to tame the inequities of the market.

FYI

This is not really relevant to the topic, but just so you know: when I moved off campus it was to a shared apartment at Old Well (now known as Abbey Court) in Carrboro. Definitely cheaper than the dorms, or couldn't have done it. (I only bother to mention this because there are some recurring misconceptions about my personal finances, and I want to nip tose ideas in the bud.)

Also, when I lived on campus, the only place to eat real food was in the cafeterias which did not serve healthy nor vegetarian food, ie: not that great for the environment. At Old Well I was able to get to campus by bus until 11pm at night and sometimes rode my bike, albeit not as much as when I lived on campus.

Linda Convissor is right, at least in the near-to-campus Westwood

neighborhood. There are rental units going begging, something that

never happend until two years ago. It is the result, I believe of two

things; a fare-free bus system that makes walk-to-campus housing

less attractive than before, and a significant increase in new, more

attractive on-campus housing. I doubt if Jason's vivid but

<>accurate description of dorm life is valid for the new housing along Manning and Mason

Farm.

<>A student can now vote with his feet and pocketbook where to live, and

many are choosing to live on campus. Yes choosing, not fullfilling a requiement.<> I'm not near a DTH, but there was an article today that

<>described the very high number of applications for next year for the

<>RAM-? (I forget the exact name) housing near the DeanDome.

<>Like many universities, the UNC housing people seem to finally learned

<>how to build good housing.

<>

I think Ram Village is a step in the right direction, though its siting seems to be a cause of many problems. I'm taking a couple of graduate planning courses this semester, and it's faster to walk to class in New East from my house in Northside, which is far enough west that it's almost to Carrboro, than it would be to walk from Ram Village. And my house doesn't require walking up a hill to get there. Despite the sidewalks on Rosemary, it's considerably safer, too, and has more frequent bus service.

And while I certainly wish that my comments above didn't apply to Ram Village, my fiancée's roommate, who lived there last year, has almost as many horror stories as I did in a traditional dorm setting. Like I said, I think it's a good first step. Having options like the green themed housing in Morrison Dorm help too. But in a lot of ways, UNC still just isn't competing with the private housing market. This isn't to say they shouldn't - in fact, I think they should - but the fact of the matter is they aren't.  There's nothing wrong with dorms, but to be competative, they need to cut costs, improve quality and diversify significantly.
The DTH article that Joe mentions is called Ram Village application due and its by Megan Hannay. (Giving cred where its due.)

here is a good quote:
"(Living in Ram Village) is just really convenient," said junior Bryan Ching who recontracted in Ram Village for next year. "We were contemplating living off-campus, but it's easier to keep in touch with friends here."
The people I met the first two semesters of college where my closest friends the whole time I was in school. Living in dorms and being able to walk to classes quick is also a HUGE plus. MORE on campus housing sounds like its not only a good idea but one desired by students. I also remember friends who went to Virginia Tech were required to live on campus their freshman year.

Pages

 

Community Guidelines

By using this site, you agree to our community guidelines. Inappropriate or disruptive behavior will result in moderation or eviction.

 

Content license

By contributing to OrangePolitics, you agree to license your contributions under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 United States License.

Creative Commons License

 
Zircon - This is a contributing Drupal Theme
Design by WeebPal.