Chapel Hill speaks out on the Downtown Development Initiative.

Will,
You expressed what I have been grappling to grasp-- that is- how the council is so accommodatingly accepting this radical shift in the deal. It is so far afield from the original proposal, it would seem we should call for a re-bid.

I also found the comments on your site http://citizenwill.org helpful.

(I had not heard of Ram's interest in purchasing 12 acres on Hillsborough Street, just up from Franklin Street, and building 335 condos stacked 6 stories high and 21 townhomes. nando, july 2006
http://citizenwill.org/2006/06/16/councils-conflict-of-interest/)

Please, carry on with your "fearless questioning!"

Laura Shmania

Back to the issue of these condos becoming student housing.

(Not that there's anything wrong with students; it's just that students do not have the kind of disposable incomes to help invigorate the downtown economy.)

I mentioned two ways to help prevent this eventuality.

The second is to somehow require owner-occupancy (through the type of condo-association formed, or otherwise). This approach has been touched on above, and would require some legal research to investigate its feasibility.

The first is to carefully address the quality of construction, and really, herein lies the rub. As I suggested to the Town Council: consider the inside of these buildings as much as you consider the outside.

Let's examine the extremes: if these buildings are built with the cheapest of materials and approaches possible, then this will really help make it impossible for non-students to live there. Picture bass notes from stereo speakers next door making the walls vibrate all night long, the all-night party overhead...such will be the case if walls and floors are thin. Don't talk to me about having building noise regulations and their enforcement. I've been there. Also, HVAC equipment, if done as cheaply as possible, often is not be pretty in terms of noise levels. I've been there, too. This will all combine to keep out working folks and the idle rich alike, or it will drive them out, helping increase the number of units becoming investment properties, maxed out with students, two or three per bedroom.

Now, the other extreme: condo units independently suspended from the building frame, with no interconnections among them; concrete walls between each unit on each floor; very thick concrete floors; the best of HVAC equiepment, engineered for quiet running throughout the building; and so on. If Franklin Street were lined with units built like this, to accomodate faculty and their families, even university execs, as well as Town Council members and their families, then they would of course cost more than the cheapest of construction, but they would bring in the people who really want a down-town life and who would have the disposable incomes necessary to catalyze a vibrant downtown economy.

The reality probably lies somewhere between these extremes. Go too far in the "cheap-it-out" direction, however, and there you have it. If not for this project, then I hope these concepts will be considered for others.

Barnes B--the development has been specified for LEED Silver status. That means that materials will have to be environmentally friendly (no off-gassing carpet/paint, products available locally, etc.). The building will have to be sited to make use of solar (passive or active), and the HVAC system will also have to meet fairly rigid standards of efficiency. However, that doesn't mean the development will be energy efficient. Which is why I called for an expectation of 40% higher efficiency than is standard for similar building types.

At the estimated sales prices (major GULP!), I assume RAM believes developing to the LEED standard means added cost, but that is not always the case. If anyone would like to learn more about high performance building options, there's a great (free) booklet available from Interface Engineering.
http://www.interfaceengineering.com/portfolio/green_building/book/book.html

Maybe $45K Per Parking Space Isn't So Bad!

WRAL News had a snippet on this morning's news in which they reported that a parking space in Boston was recently sold for $250K. This was a single space, outdoors, that you have to cross over a curb (i.e., no curb cut)to get into and that has a large storm grate (key snatcher?) in the middle of it. Now that's pricey!

Will,
Thanks for posting citizen input at the town council meeting all in one spot.

There's an interesting Letter to the Editor in today's Daily Tar Heel. Go to:
http://www.dailytarheel.com/
then go to the letter titled "Taxpayer money is wasted on proposals for Lot No. 5."

I missed the DDI meeting today and would like to hear more. I will check other the OP thread.

Laura Shmania

Here's a modest (but serious) proposal.

Why not eliminate the parking element of the project altogether and use the $7.3 million investment by the town of Chapel Hill to triple (or even quadruple) the number of affordable units administered by the Land Trust? Then we'd be getting closer to a truly progressive public/private partnership that would benefit the town in a meaningful way.

This solution would also lessen concerns about the development becoming just another expensive student dwelling place as most students would not qualify as Land Trust homeowners. In addition, those who live in the condos would have to do most of their shopping downtown since they would have to be committed to living without cars (or paying for expensive private parking elsewhere).

Thanks Cam for answering all those questions. I appreciate your participation. Chapel Hill is very lucky to have such engaged elected officials. Lots of municipalities are not so fortunate. This level of transparency is very important to democracy!