How to deal with density

Great questions right now. How big is too big? How tall is too tall? There's plenty of opinions out there, but how do we actually measure this stuff? For starters, here are three potential criteria that interest me personally: human scale; vertical walkability; microclimate environmental effects. There are plenty others that will no doubt get an airing too.

The first of my criteria is fairly subjective. For the last couple of thousand years many traditional urban environments, from Brooklyn to Bologna, have topped out at around five or six stories, with exceptions for significant public buildings. Could we make a case for that having become something of a cultural universal?

For the second, I used to work on the fifth floor of an office building in England and voluntarily would take the stairs at least once a day, just for the exercise: fairly manageable for a thirty-something in modest physical condition. It helped that the stair was pleasantly designed with open views at every landing. I don't know if I could have done eight or nine flights on a regular basis.

The third criterion gives the opportunity to get the engineers involved: we can without too much trouble predict shadowing and wind effects of a tall building and thereby gauge potential adverse impact on its neighborhood.

PS - sorry, Ruby,to have focussed on height issues, when your post indicated a need for a wider discussion. But it's one place to start.

Ruby, the Mayor made some great comments about this matter at the State of the Local Economy breakfast. Since Chapel Hill has decided not to expand its footprint outwards, in order to grow it has to expand upwards, and that the Downtown Area is a logical place for this kind of development to be, rather than in the outskirts of the community.

One thing is that if we are going to move to a denser, mixed use development paradigm in the downtown, it has to meet the basic consumer needs of the residents, as well as provide places to work and play.

It seems that we're understanding and providing for the consumer needs in the design with the retail components in the Town's public/private partnership. However, one thing that does concern me about our redevelopment of #2 and #5 is the lack of office space. I know the study indicated that we had "sufficient" office space, but that study is a few years old.

There is also a difference between quantity and quality. I'm not sure it addressed the quality of existing office space downtown. A lot of it is pretty old (no offense to the owners, it's just a fact) and doesn't meet the needs of a high end professional. It's aesthetically not right, and probably practically not right for much of the new type of business that a new kind of urban environment will attract.

I recommend reading the first three chapters of Jane Jacobs's "The Death and Life of Great American Cities" for some insights. She warns against extrapolating her findings about what works in city neighborhoods (of the 1950s and 1960s) and what doesn't to other kinds of communities -- towns, suburbs, small cities, etc. But much of what she has to say in those first three chapters is appropriate for the discussion, I think.

She puts a lot of emphasis on sidewalks and the street. Not their layout -- although interconnectivity is implied -- so much as how they're used. Jacobs argues, convincingly The more a street (I'll use "street" to denote the interplay of streets and sidewalks) is used by pedestrians, strangers and locals alike, the safer they are and, consequently, the more they attract others to the hubub and pulse of what's going on.

This issue of street use -- and, consequently, the "eyes on the street" that she thinks is so important -- is not about promoting commerce as much as it is about promoting a sense of community and "ownership" of the street. A few things she suggests contribute to this dynamic (I'm paraphrasing):

1. Buildings -- residential, commercial, whatever -- can't turn their backs to the street. The street must be the focal point.

2. There must be a clear delineation between public and private space. Many of you may have had the experience of walking down a suburban sidewalk and feeling, vaguely, as if you're walking on someone else's property. A good urban street makes the distinction clear, and that the street is the property of all.

3. Sidewalks must go somewhere. It's not good enough just to build sidewalks that border miles of residential construction. A good urban block tends to be smaller, and is broken up at various points by stores, shops, restaurants, groceries, bars, etc, so that pedestrians don't have to walk too far along without encountering something of interest, or just other people.

4. Abandon the idea that you can plan for every contingency, and that there must be no variation or improvisation. Plan for improvisation, allow the conditions in which improvisation emerges. People who live in the neighborhood know what they need, and should be allowed to do something about those needs within reason and legality.

5. Don't wall off "commerce" from "residential." This might mean -- don't shoot me, now -- opening up parts of the community that have been exclusively residential to some varieties of commercial activity. How great would it be, for instance, if 3 Cups and that sandwich shop place were on your corner, rather than buried in a quasi-suburban mini-mall?

6. As a corollary to #5, having places that attract people to your neighborhood is not a bad thing, for the reasons Jacobs outlines in her "eyes on the street" argument. (And, provided, there are places for people to walk.) Shopowners, for one, are typically interested in the safety and well-being of the neighborhood where they're trying to make a living, so they keep an eye out. And, the more people on the street in a neighborhood (again, pedestrians), the safer and more vital that street tends to be. Little shops and so on can be rallying points for a neighborhood, and need not be a burden at all.

7. Ancillary to #6, Jacobs also found that neighborhoods with that nice mix of residential and commercial street life that _also_ had some establishments -- restaurants, bars, groceries, etc -- that were open into the late hours past midnight were also neighborhoods that had a low incidence of crime. Again, it's the "eyes on the street" concept -- that the more people who are around and watching, the less you have to worry about. But this requires that the neighborhood be arranged in such a way that everything is oriented toward the street, so that people's eyes (and ears) _are_ oriented to the street. It also requires a general sense of "ownership" over the street.

There's much more. And I'll grant that Jacobs's ideas were formed in the 1950s and 1960s, and that urban planning has evolved since then. But I still think most of what she has to say is valid. In the neighborhood I'm living in in New Orleans (Marigny, just on the edge of Bywater, http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&q=2819+N.+Rampart+Street,+New+Orle... ) I can see many of these principles in action. Everyone faces the street. There are little groceries, bars, cafes, knitting shops, garden shops, hardware stores, on corners throughout the neighborhood. Although I wish more streetlights were working, it's an emminently walkable place (although many ride bikes). Sidewalks everywhere. The housing stock is old -- 120 years old and more, in most cases -- but lovely.

Too bad city fathers are enamored of top-down planning as they think about rebuilding the city. They don't often come down here to this neighborhood very often, and they certainly don't talk about it as an example for the future, even though the neighborhood has the highest occupancy rate in the city right now and is flourishing as much as any neighborhood can "flourish" in this city right now. Like Boston's North End, which Jacobs used as a case study, this neighborhood is considered "sketchy" by Uptowners, even though it's working and quite pleasant.

My two cents.

I really want to see this trend toward urbanization succeed, so how should we approach these proposals in a way that allows for critical analysis of a whole new mode of development?

On the transportation side, there are complaints, some founded, some unfounded- of any in-town development in Chapel Hill/Carrboro making traffic worse.

Most traffic engineering manuals are designed to fit suburban sprawl scenarios (i.e. big box at a new highway interchange) and are poorly equipped to deal with denser downtown areas and infill development. The trip generation standards are often gathered in the summer, in Florida, in areas with no bike lanes and no transit service.

One of the more useful tools in addressing the concerns would be a local trip generation study. For example, this type of study would determine how many people arrive at Weaver St. Market or Open Eye or IP3 by which modes of transportation.

By doing a trip generation study, we could get a baseline of the types of trips that are made in the core of Chapel Hill/Carrboro, and then craft transportation demand management policies for development that would make going car-free or car-lite easier, and reduce the traffic impact of new development in our downtowns.

An example of an outcome policy would be to find a way to support carsharing through a company like ZIPCAR.

300 E Main's group has said that they would make the residential for rent, not for sale. If they included a fee of $10-15 per unit per month, that would go a long way to having a zipcar onsite at the ArtsCenter redevelopment, and reduce the need for car ownership among residents.

...the Mayor made some great comments about this matter at the State of the Local Economy breakfast. Since Chapel Hill has decided not to expand its footprint outwards, in order to grow it has to expand upwards, and that the Downtown Area is a logical place for this kind of development to be, rather than in the outskirts of the community.

Is there any evidence to support the notion that by increasing density, you are reducing growth on the outskirts? Asked another way, does higher density growth in the city lessen the demand for development in the county and surrounding counties?

Marvelous discussion - random thoughts:

I appreciate the Jane Jacobs primer. I don't know if the book is written as clearly as Duncan's commentary, but it should be. I love the points about sidewalks having to go somewhere.

Do you ever grimace when you see the orphan sidewalks we often require of new developments . . . little bandaids of concrete starting and going nowhere? I know the rationale for them . . . that someday somehow they'll connect places people want to walk. That seems mostly unlikely to me.

It seems that a fair amount of density is required to deliver the sufficient number of "eyes" that Duncan talks about. Which means I'm generally in favor of packing it in where packing it in makes sense. Along transportion corridors and in downtown.

Electric carts. Are there communities that have already shifted their transportion infrastructures to accommodate golf carts? I could go almost anywhere I need to (as an aging old guy) if I had a golf cart. Right now I walk or bicycle, but I don't predict that will last another 20 years. I'd be 99% oil and gas free if I could use an electric cart.

Neighborhood retail. Sometimes I long for a little store right on the corner of my street . . . a store like the one I frequent near my son's apartment on the lower east side in Manhattan. That would be illegal in my neighborhood. I'm not saying it would be viable. I'm not saying I'm ready to open such an establishment. I'm just saying it would be illegal.

I agree with Ed. Everything that is done to make the downtowns more attractive and more livable will also make the community as a whole more desirable for those who like living in an exclusive community. And the county's land use revisions (downzoning--less dense) around our perimeter could easily have the effect of boxing us in (further) with mansions/estates.

For anyone who was watching/listening to last night's BOA (Carrboro) meeting, Joal Broun was right on the money IMHO. We need commercial development, and we need it now--and please, something other than just retail. Whatever barriers are in the way, whether that be a questionable marketing survey of downtown Chapel Hill or the floating zone concept of small area plan in Carrboro, need to be knocked down or revised pronto.

Wait wait wait. How does density (land becomes more scarce no matter how high you build it) *help* the shortage of affordable housing? That doesn't make any sense at all unless I'm missing something.

That's not to belittle any of the other numerous and significant benefits that come with in-fill rather than sprawl.

I agree Chris. Urbanization so far has meant giving up our historical supply of affordable housing to inflation and then trying to make up for the loss by legislating the creation of new inventory (supply) through zoning negotiations. That's supply side economics--kind of funny for our 'progressive' community, donchathink?

Chris Cameron,

Increased density provides the opportunity for more homes which provides the opportunity for more affordable homes IF, and here's the catch, developers are mandated to provide affordable homes as part of their mix. Unfortunately, as we so often observe of late in this area, affordable is a relative term. By limiting size as part of the affordable definition we've managed to provide $300 K homes in communities of $600 K homes. The smaller homes might be affordable in comparison but they hardly serve the function of providing housing to lower income groups to foster diversity. We need to fix the system and CH and carrboro are certainly working to do so. But density does give the developers the financial incentive to work with government to provide a more reasonable mix.

I agree Chris. Urbanization so far has meant giving up our historical supply of affordable housing to inflation and then trying to make up for the loss by legislating the creation of new inventory (supply) through zoning negotiations. That's supply side economics–kind of funny for our ‘progressive' community, donchathink?

Terri, I agree with you in part and disagree in part.

I agree that housing is becoming less affordable in Orange County because property values are inflating much faster than incomes are growing. However, infill development (what I think you mean by urbanization in this case) is not the force that is inflating housing prices. The forces of supply and demand are the primary drivers of the affordable housing issue here.

Many more people want to live in Orange County (and specifically, Chapel Hill/Carrboro, and more specifically, close to the University and the two downtowns) than there are housing units in which to live. This demand often expresses itself by lower-income citizens who work in Orange County moving to Alamance County.

Here's a map (800K PDF) I created showing census block groups from 2000 in Orange and Alamance. Look at the exurban explosion that occurs the moment you cross the Alamance County line. People aren't moving here for a booming job market or because they like the long commute.

http://www.unc.edu/~patrick1/alamance.pdf

This is where many UNC staff members live because Orange County is out of their budget. Keep in mind that the data in this map is now 5 years old. Five years ago, there were no downtown redevelopment projects of significant size such as Greenbridge, Parking lots 2 and 5, or 300 E Main on the drawing board.

The forces driving up housing prices are large and have been in place for some time. Southern Orange County is home to a highly concentrated employment base in UNC, the Hospital, and the CHC school system. People want short, easy commutes. The county is also home to the 1st and 4th-best funded school systems in the state. (someone correct me if I'm wrong) Demand to live here is very high. The supply of dwelling units is limited and is growing at a much slower rate than the rest of the Triangle.

So, to Chris' question, what does infill or increased density have to do with affordable housing? If we do not add additional units to the housing mix, inflation continues to drive up the cost of housing units.

By adding housing units, even without dedicating units to a worthy program like OCHLT, we at least mitigate the demand/supply somewhat issue by increasing the amount of filtering that can take place in the market.

If you put 150 rental units in at the ArtsCenter property in downtown Carrboro, there is no doubt they will command high market rents. However, a reasonable number of the people who move in will relocate from other locations close to downtown Carrboro, because those people are currently living further away from downtown than they would like to be. When they do so, their units open up.

When these other near-downtown units open up, they will lose some of their previous “location premium” because they are no longer the closest units to downtown. New people will move into those units, and the filtering process continues.

Does this mean the rents in the vacated inner-ring units will fall? I doubt it, but it is likely that the gap between the housing price growth rate and the income growth rate will narrow, and that will certainly shrink the number of people who are priced out of the Orange County housing market each year.

"Electric carts. Are there communities that have already shifted their transportion infrastructures to accommodate golf carts?"

The physical infrastructure already exists to accommodate golf carts, and bicycles, and a plethora of existing but uncommon light motorized vehicles, and horse drawn carriages. However, unlike bicycles, the legal infrastructure does not support golf carts. If you really wanted to use one, go ahead and just do it. You'll get arrested, but that could be a watershed moment to challenge the silliness of banning them.

Wayne

In response to Jim Protzman's question and Wayne's response:

Cary already allows golf carts on some of its roads and is preparing to enlarge the number on which it allows them to be used. You can read the article "More Cary roads to be open to golf carts" from February 10th at: http://www.newsobserver.com/268/story/398437.html

I was aware of Cary's golf cart allowances. Limiting them to streets less than 30 mph renders them largely useless for meaningful travel, and exploits the superstition of slow traffic being a hazard. If slow traffic was a hazard, wouldn't stopped vehicles be rear-ended all the time? It's really a matter of opposing slow traffic because of the selfish reason of potentially being delayed behind one. Opposing them on the grounds of opening "a Pandora's box of enforcement issues" is simply a rationalization.

Slow traffic in urban areas is good. It forces speeding traffic to go slower between lights. (Sequestering bicyclists behind bike lane stripes removes this effect since the bicyclist is out of the way.)

Given that the average travel speed on Chapel Hill's thoroughfares is 25 mph, at best, no matter how much one speeds between signals, any delay from slow traffic is inconsequential to overall travel time to destination. If all Town and in-town UNC vehicles (busses, trucks, cars) had governors to restrict speed to 25 mph, it would go a long way to calming other traffic, saving fuel and wear and tear. How about signs on the back of the vehicles saying: PACE VEHICLE: This vehicle operates at a maximum 25 mph.

Wayne

I'm tempted to take Wayne's civil-disobedience challenge and get a golf cart for 90% of my around town activities. It's like a moped . . . only with four wheels.

Mopeds are legal, right?

Does anyone want to join the party? Maybe we can get a deal on a dozen EZ Go Electrics and change the world!

Hey council members and board of alderpersons . . . what say you to being the first North Carolina municipalities to legalize electric carts anywhere inside the town limits?

Patrick,

I don't disagree with you that there are factors other than infill (urbanization) inflating housing prices. The schools alone are primary drivers of our population growth.

However, I don't understand how you can separate infill from the issue of supply and demand for housing. You said in reference to the ArtsCenter "However, a reasonable number of the people who move in will relocate from other locations close to downtown Carrboro, because those people are currently living further away from downtown than they would like to be. When they do so, their units open up." That may be so, but the units that open up will be sold at inflated prices, even if they were purchased at affordable prices.

When in-town lots are subdivided (increased supply in response to demand), those new residences drive up the price (and taxes) of the surrounding homes, even when those homes are falling apart. 900 sq foot houses are selling for more than $200,000, without central air even!

Carrboro is the field of dreams--if you put it on the market, they will come. The unfortunate caveat is that urbanization is pushing out long term residents who thought this was just a field of corn.

James,
I'm inclined to think that a lot of our Councilpersons and Alderpersons might agree with you and hop on the bandwagon (or cart as it might be) and join you in tooling around town in your EZ-Go. But it's the NCDOT that you need to fear. Not only do they have an issue with working WITH the public to solve their transportation issues but I strongly suspect that they park their sense of humor at home when they leave for the office. The idea that someone might demonstrate that you could actually effectively navigate about town in a vehicle that is several times more energy efficient (and cost effective) than the traditional surburban SUV would probably be their worse nightmare.

We have been attempting to live car-free for over a month (live in Carrboro, work at UNC). For the most part, it is possible. However, don't try to travel on the weekends or when students leave. Case in point:

http://tinyurl.com/kgz3v

I love the bus system, but it focuses too strongly on students. I wonder if having more people living downtown will create what needs to happen to fix this.

On a slightly related note. Why don't the crosswalk lights in downtown Carrboro automatically change like the ones at Franklin and Columbia? Why do I have to risk my life darting across the West Franklin Street dragstrip? Is money allocated with regards to the Lot 5 to improve the crosswalk near Aveda?

I'm already looking forward to "Golf Carts Share the Road" Critical Mass rides :)

This thread opened with the observation of "... how ill-equipped we are to analyze and understand projects that are attempting to utilize urban forms...In Carrboro, this is played out in the debate over limiting building heights (3-story vs. 5-story can't really be the most important issue downtown)..."

Let's back up and consider-- Is building height a relevant measuring marker for evaluating the impact a development will have on the surrounding area? I think so.

This is playing out in Chapel Hilll with a proposed 9- story building on Parking Lot 5.

See Scott Maitland's article in Wed, March 15 CH News at:
www.chapelhillnews.com/opinion/my_view/story/2912293p-9363374c.html

Laura
laura at butter1234flites.com

I hadn't really been following the Parking Lot 5 development process very closely but Mr. Maitland's article certainly raises some interesting questions. Maybe I missed something, but there doesn't seem to have been a very energetic attempt by the council to get opinions from community factions who may not feel same way they do about the project.

As a matter of fact, if you compare the Lot 5 development to Carolina North, it appears that UNC is trying a lot harder to get diverse input than the council has. Also, it seems to me now that the council members have also become developers, their ability to choose which projects get the nod or the ax in the future may well be comprimised by their interests in their own project.

Finally, I find it puzzling that the council is so suspicious of UNC's methods for seeking input on CN when they themselves seem to have assumed from the very beginning that their way was the best way to reshape downtown.

Anyone agree?

Steve S.-

The CH Town Council's subcommitee held numerous meetings to discuss options for Lots #2 and #5 and the Wallace Deck over the year or so prior to their issuing, first a RFQ (request for qualification) and then a RFP (request for proposal) last spring. All of these meetings were well-attended by Council members, not only those on the subcommittee but others as well. All of the meetings were also open to the public and several were held in the Council Chamber. Information that was generated by the Town's consultant was available both on the web and at the meetings. Each meeting included a time for public comment and several members of the general public, as well as members of Town advisory boards, availed themselves of the opportunity to offer public comment. If my memory serves me correctly, Mr. Maitland did indeed offer comments at one of those meetings. Also members of the media were at many, if not all, of these meetings.

Unfortunately, as so often happens, it is only when projects get into the latter stages of planning that people begin to really take notice and make their concerns known. That may be a reflection of human nature that we have to deal with but the Town Council should not criticized for not giving citizens an opportunity to weigh in on these projects. I believe that they did so in a responsible manner and are now offering citizens the opportunity to offer their opinions at the concept plan review (March 2oth). Furthermore, when this project comes back again as a SUP (special use permit) application citizens will have the opportunity to offer comments not only to the Council but to all of the Town advisory boards that will review it as well.

Terri, the phenomenon you detail above does not require infill to raise housing prices in town. The exact same effect occurs any time a pre-existing home is re-sold.

Case in point- 103 Dillard St in Carrboro sold recently. It was first listed at $219,000. The seller later reduced to $209,000, and then took it off the MLS and put it in the CH News a few weeks back for $199,500.

By the time I called the number in the paper 3 days later to inquire about it, it was under contract. I assume it was sold within 10-15k of the asking price. The house was previously sold on 4/7/2003 and the tax value in the online database is listed at $115,477.

So let's say it sold for $185,000. (local realtors, can you confirm?) Now there's a $185k comp about 3/4 of a mile from downtown Carrboro for a 850 sq foot house (in good shape) that was valued at $115k in 2003. That's 60% appreciation in 3 years. No infill, no subdivision, no increased density.

From my reading, it seems that your concern should not apply merely to infill development, but to the sale of ANY real estate, period-- with the primary objection being that the selling of homes that have appreciated in value raises the valuations of nearby properties and makes them less affordable (from a tax point of view) for those who already live in the buildings. I struggle to see how we could enact a policy that would prevent the appreciation of home values or home sales, and I also wonder whether or not that would be a good thing. If you have a policy approach in mind, I'd be interested to hear how you think it would work.

Which brings us back to supply and demand. Wake County is 832 square miles, and Orange County is about 400 square miles. If you look at the average annual number of building permits from 2000 to 2004, you'll see that Wake County annually issued 13.5 permits per square mile and Orange County issued 2.9 permits per square mile. (source: http://censtats.census.gov/bldg/bldgprmt.shtml) When you look at the last 5 years of data (source: zillow.com), property values have appreciated 17% in Wake County, and 57% in Orange County.

The outcomes:

Wake permitted 4.6 times as many housing units.
Orange home prices appreciated 3.4 times as fast as Wake home prices during the same period.

In closing, let me clearly state that I am not recommending that Orange County look to Wake County as a model for how to develop. That said, the two counties share several attributes- they are both counties in one of the fastest-growing metro regions in the US with a strong knowledge-based economy, and both counties have high quality public school systems. Demand for living in both areas is high, and the differing approaches to managing housing supply produce clear differences on the speed at which property rates appreciate.

In previous conversations, Terri – I know you have been (commendably) concerned about the effects of gentrification on our local socioeconomic diversity. I agree with you that it is worth worrying about and discussing as the towns and County consider approaches to affordable housing. Nevertheless, I think that there is strong evidence that if we never build another unit in Carrboro or Chapel Hill, gentrification pressure will be even higher than if we do build new units. That pressure is already here and very visible within the existing home sales market.

Adding new units to both towns' housing markets in a thoughtful way that is consistent with the towns' planning goals is part of the solution to the affordable housing crunch.

Patrick, you stated
"The house was previously sold on 4/7/2003 and the tax value in the online database is listed at $115,477.
So let's say it sold for $185,000. (local realtors, can you confirm?) Now there's a $185k comp about 3/4 of a mile from downtown Carrboro for a 850 sq foot house (in good shape) that was valued at $115k in 2003. That's 60% appreciation in 3 years. No infill, no subdivision, no increased density."

I'm sure that you know that the tax value rarely equals the market value so I'm not sure that your 60% appreciation figure is accurate. Tax assessors usually use more conservative estimates since they realize that market values can vary depending on general economic conditions. You really need to know what the 2003 selling price was of the home that you used as an example to get a more accurate reflection of the appreciation.

Cary's golf cart program was authorized by the General Assembly in 2001
http://www.ncleg.net/Sessions/2001/Bills/Senate/HTML/S603v4.html
SECTION 3. Notwithstanding the provisions of G.S. 20‑50 and G.S. 20‑54, the Town of Cary may, by ordinance, regulate the operation of electric golf carts on any public street or road within the Town. By ordinance, the Town may require the registration of golf carts, specify the persons authorized to operate golf carts, and specify required equipment, load limits, and the hours and methods of operation of the golf carts.

George- good point, and it is well taken. I find the figures from Zillow much more persuasive than one house, but I just worked with the figures available on 103 Dillard to create a local example.

Let's say the house sold for $150k in 2003 and $185 this year. That's still 23% over three years, and maybe 41-44% if you extended the appreciation rate to 5 years. This still seems to make good sense in light of the Orange County average.

Gerry's note about golf carts suggests interesting possibilities . . . and clear precedent for innovation, despite what DOT might think.

Notwithstanding the provisions of G.S. 20‑50 and G.S. 20‑54, the Town of Cary may, by ordinance, regulate the operation of electric golf carts on any public street or road within the Town. By ordinance, the Town may require the registration of golf carts, specify the persons authorized to operate golf carts, and specify required equipment, load limits, and the hours and methods of operation of the golf carts.

Seems like something Carrboro and Chapel Hill might want to consider sooner than later, just to get the option on the table. Having the option doesn't necessarily mean exercising it. But not having definitely means not exercising it.

(Sorry for one more post away from the core 'density' discussion. Maybe we need a golf cart thread!)

James,

I actually like including the golf cart idea in this discussion of density. Increasing the density of development might allow us to cut down the dependence on motor vehicles for our daily transportation needs in many cases but it doesn't work all the time for all citizens. For example, I've heard several retirees talk about the difficulty for some people to walk up and down the hills of Southern Village. In such a situation a golf cart might make sense and allow more citizens to consider these types of communities. We do have to keep in mind though that even golf carts are not necessarily a totally innocuous means of transportation - either for users or bystanders.

I'm for zipwires, myself. No offense to the golf cart crowd.

You could set up a zipwire from Lot 5 to Weaver Street, and so long as you've got the proper slope, you could hook up and zip from downtown Chapel Hill to Carrboro in, like seconds. I'd love to come into town and see people zipping back and forth on overhead cables! Very futuristic, very Le Corbusier, and yet so simple!

We could walk, too. Ride a bike maybe.

Ruby -

You said above:

"While public participation has sometimes been disappointing, the Town cannot be expected to sit on its plans and wait for people to come to them asking for visionary proposals. By then it will be too late."

Too late for what?

Ruby-

If more people on LESS land was cheaper than more people on more land, then it would happen naturally without the town needing to encourage it.

We can't change the more people part of the equation, so keep basic economics in mind when talking about affordable housing.

That said, I approve of ziplines. That'd be a lot of fun. Though you'd need escaltors to get back uphill...

Short haul transit drains the pool of pedestrians and bicyclists, converting both into "motorists" that consume essentially the same amount of fuel as conventional motorists. This is especially true with "free" transit. Further, as a bicyclist I'd rather interact with other people in private vehicles than have to stop behind busses pulled over for access and egress.

Wayne

Zip wires? Golf carts? I would not want to be traveling by one of those devices when the bus won't stop. Accidnets happen. They are not all reported but they happen. Population density is going to make this worse long before we get to some DC comics futuristic untopia. Zip wires, why not jetpacks?

Interesting article on urban density // sprawl

From The New Yorker, October 18, 2004
Green Manhattan by David Owen

http://www.walkablestreets.com/manhattan.htm

Laura
laura at butter1234flites dot com (without the numbers)

Chris, what the town can do to get more people on less land is simply to allow it. Presently the town doesn't allow new duplexes to be built. They look askance at high rise buildings, although they seem to be aproving them more often as of late.

I don't suggest that these are wise choices. Frankly, people who'd like to live in a town that looks like Atlanta already live in Atlanta; or perhaps Greensboro. Like many people I believe Chapel Hill reached it's optimal population on August 8, 1991, at 2:00 am. That's when I came to town. Every one who came after me is sprawl. Some think I'm wrong, that I myself am sprawl.

Zoning rules by definition are not free market birds. They ought not be. They are by nature command economics. That might well irk you. Houston Tx, is a town without zoning laws. It's a polluted urban cesspool; abet with a a more free market then we have here. I gladly sacrifice some small part of my property rights in return for the liberty of not living text to an oil refinery.

Laura, thanks for referring us back to David Owen's New Yorker article. Anyone who is involved, or thinks they are involved, with the quest for sane energy policy and practice in this country (read: a sustainable future for the human species), should probably reread it about once a week.

Clark--

The reason the town is limiting duplexes right now is to prevent the "studentization" of traditionally less expensive neighborhoods. Developers were buying homes, tearing them down, and building duplexes that would house four students on each side. I'm surprised you didn't remember that. It is part of the whole "neighborhood preservation" thing. Seems to be achieving it's goal--though I'm ambivalent about it. If a neighborhod is ZONED for duplexes, seems a property owner ought to be allowed to build one...

Personally--I think the University should have more dorms--it would take pressure of the rental market. Oh, yeah, that's what Carolina North is supposed to help do, isn't it? But we are all supposed to hate CN...'tis a puzzlement.

As to when the area reached optimal population--it was August of 1982. That's when I moved in. Of course, our two homes were built pre-1970, purchased from people who moved out-of town--so I'm not certain we contributed to the sprawl at all!

melanie

"Personally–I think the University should have more dorms–it would take pressure of the rental market. Oh, yeah, that's what Carolina North is supposed to help do, isn't it?"

I think many of us on OP will agree to that, Melanie. It would be great if UNC would use CN to offset some of the affordable housing problem. The problem is that there hasn't been much evidence that affordable housing is actually part of their plan up to this point.

I'd love to be able to live in a University provided building. But the truth is, for me and thousands of others, the free market prevails. Even with as many complaints as I have with the prices here (I pay about $100 more a month for a nearly identical apartment to one in my hometown of Asheville, and still think of it as a good deal), the market is still able to provide me with a larger dwelling space, with fewer restrictions, in better condition, more free services, and is able to do so cheaper than the University. When UNC decides to build adequate housing and rent it at a competative price, I'll be back on campus. Maybe I can live in one of those nice multi-family dwellings the Village Project proposes for my post-grad work. :)

Melanie,

We're not all supposed to hate Carolina North. Also, the concept of neighborhood preservation is widely misunderstood. It's about land use, not neighbors.

First, related to golf carts. Some of you know that I drive
an electric Chevy S-10 truck -- and it's beautiful, especially
to be able to to Exxon-Mobil to kiss off. It costs about
3.5 cents per mile in fuel to drive, about 1/3 that to drive
on gasoline. The range is the rub, of course, limited
to about 40 miles per charge.

There are commercially made street-legal EV's. They look like
glorified gold carts, but have full cabins, lights, horns,
brakes, etc., and a top speed of about 35 mph. They are
called "Neighborhood Electric Vehicles". They cost about
$10K each , but there are substantial fed and state
rebates (weak in NC, however) that reduce the purchase
price greatly. These are fully street legal without any
special bills in the general assembly. The most popular
NEV is the GEM, made by a North Dakota company that
was recently purchased by Daimler-Chrysler, in an attempt
to reduce its fleet milage figures.

Several years ago I talked with UNC Associate Vice Chacellors
Bruce Runberg and Carolyn Elfland about providing priority
parking for electric vehicles, as some places in the U.S.
have done. I figured that if UNC provided on-campus
parking for EVs, a lot of people would buy them simply
to get a good parking spot. UNC was not receptive to the
idea, however, so we don't see any NEVs in Chapel Hill.

A detail is that it cost $9.10 to get my truck inspected last week -- there is no emissions test.

Turning to more on-campus dorm/apartment housing.
Last academic year, for the first time ever, there was
rental housing remaining vacant in the Westwood
neighborhood. The current academic year shows even
more vacancies. It's a combination of new UNC on-campus
housing, the bus system now making walk-to-campus
housing somewhat less attractive, and that apartment
complexes can provide amenities (pool, exercise room, etc)
that private landlords can't.

Melanie,

The university has made a major construction effort on student housing over the past couple of years and within the next year or so, there should be sufficient space for anyone who wants to live on campus. On top of that they are currently planning a workforce housing project out on property along Homestead in Carrboro.

One of the primary tasks of the new CN Leadership (?) group is to come up with proposals on how to achieve fiscal equity on Carolina North. Under current law, the university is not required to pay property taxes so if they build more housing without a fiscal equity agreement in place, it's the town residents who will bear the burden of the town services for those residences. Given all the complaints of inadequate police and fire protection, I'm sure we can all agree that would not be acceptable.

I feel quite ambivalent about the university becoming a housing developer. Didn't the concept of a company town create a lot of problems for people in mill and mining towns?

Terri

Catherine--

I'm sorry--but I distinctly remember the town meetings about limiting duplexes to allow Northside to get it's neighbohood preservation status in place. And the students got mentioned. Frequently. Perhaps it IS about land use--technically--but I contend that most 4 BR/4 bath housing is built with students in mind. As to all of us hating CN--I was being tounge-in-cheek.

Terri--I worry about fiscal equity. BUT--since the property belongs to the university, since it has belonged to UNC for a very long time--I'm not certain what to do about it. They own it, they get to develop it.

Unless UNC starts paying it's workers in scrip--redeemable only at company stores--I don't think we need to worry TOO much about a "company town." And lets face facts, in many ways, Chapel Hill is much LESS a company town than it was, say 20-30 years ago. I remember when the city schools used to time their SPring Break to coincide with UNC's Spring Break.

melanie

I seem to remember UNC proposing a couple dozen affordable homes to be developed for our staff and faculty (I forget exactly where in town). As I recall, the town raised a huge stink about impervious surfaces and some other stuff. Hard to make affordable housing that's useful without a parking lot.

Let's just all face facts and be honest with ourselves -- Chapel Hill doesn't want affordable housing. It would just be bad politics to say you don't want poor (or middle class) people living in your town. Chapel Hill needs to stop trying to talk the talk if they're not willing to try to walk the walk.

Thanks for the good direction, Joe.

And look what I found!

Amazing little cars!

Ruby,

I must agree with Steve S. What is the problem of simply doing nothing with Lot 5? We don't have to do anything at all.

We surely don't need to subject ourselves to 9 story buildings simply because that is what it takes to make the project work (which by the way, would explain the frustration of other developers in this town...why doesn't the town's typical high standards apply to this particular project...can you imagine the hysteria if Joe Riddle asked to build a nine story building at University Chrysler?)

Setting that aside, my concern about the process surrounding Lot 5 is that it has always had an administrative feel and the whole concept of doing anything with Lot 5 has never been subjected to wide-spread citizen review because it has never been a topic in the last two elections.

The scope of the investment and the ramifications of the project are large enough that I think we should have had some community wide debate that we only get when something is an election topic or a referendum in its own right.

For example, Mayor Foy said at the Economy Breakfast that "we are changing Chapel Hill from a quaint college town to an urban center."

When do the council decide this? Have we as a community decided this? I think a lot of people would be surprised to learn that the town council is trying to turn us into an urban center. I know many are surprised to find that Town Council wants to build a nine story building.....boy, 4 years ago as Chamber Chairman I was begging for private actors to be able to build 5 story buildings...what's changed? our concept of what is correct or who is behind the development?

Cheers!

Scott

So Scott, are you against the town becoming an urban center or are you just opposed to the town council making that decision without citizen input? If the later, what format would you suggest?

Terri