Town should keep its lid on
By: David Godschalk, UNC Professor Emeritus, City and Regional Planning Department
Issue date: 4/13/07 Section: Opinion
In February, the Chapel Hill Town Council took the lid off of downtown development by approving two projects that forever will change downtown's character and scale, not necessarily for the better.
The public-private project by the town and Ram Development includes an nine-story condominium on Franklin Street. The Greenbridge Development project includes a 10-story condominium on West Rosemary; prices average $650,000 (and rise to $1.4 million).
The developers will reap more profit. What are the public costs, beyond the massive financial subsidy to Ram?
These towers for the well-to-do will soar above downtown, generating an ad hoc urban form, with little continuity or human scale.
What if this had happened on campus? High-rise condos on old campus? Suppose UNC partnered with a private developer to build 10-story green condos for wealthy alumni, with token student apartments, at the Old Well and Carolina Inn.
Would protest be stilled by assurances of reduced sprawl, ecological friendliness and increased street life? Of course not. So why didn't the public protest the downtown proposals?
Maybe they have been misled by myths put forward by redevelopment supporters. Supporters claim they are saving downtown and preventing urban sprawl from leapfrogging into rural Orange County. They dismiss critics who raise issues of human scale and neighborhood impacts. Their claims have taken on the character of local myths.
To save downtown, we must tear it down. This "creative destruction" myth is the same one that fueled 1960s urban renewal mistakes. It argues that because downtown's old buildings are losing retail tenants, the only solution is to rebuild with taller buildings, underground parking and condos for new up-scale consumers of urban life.
This myth ignores successful downtown revitalization in cities such as Portland, Ore., and Boulder, Colo., which adaptively reuse older buildings, whose scale and texture provide a comfortable setting that can't be replaced with paved plazas and public art. They are more affordable than new construction, attracting the creative class identified by Robert Putnam.
The public-private project by the town and Ram Development includes an nine-story condominium on Franklin Street. The Greenbridge Development project includes a 10-story condominium on West Rosemary; prices average $650,000 (and rise to $1.4 million).
The developers will reap more profit. What are the public costs, beyond the massive financial subsidy to Ram?
These towers for the well-to-do will soar above downtown, generating an ad hoc urban form, with little continuity or human scale.
What if this had happened on campus? High-rise condos on old campus? Suppose UNC partnered with a private developer to build 10-story green condos for wealthy alumni, with token student apartments, at the Old Well and Carolina Inn.
Would protest be stilled by assurances of reduced sprawl, ecological friendliness and increased street life? Of course not. So why didn't the public protest the downtown proposals?
Maybe they have been misled by myths put forward by redevelopment supporters. Supporters claim they are saving downtown and preventing urban sprawl from leapfrogging into rural Orange County. They dismiss critics who raise issues of human scale and neighborhood impacts. Their claims have taken on the character of local myths.
To save downtown, we must tear it down. This "creative destruction" myth is the same one that fueled 1960s urban renewal mistakes. It argues that because downtown's old buildings are losing retail tenants, the only solution is to rebuild with taller buildings, underground parking and condos for new up-scale consumers of urban life.
This myth ignores successful downtown revitalization in cities such as Portland, Ore., and Boulder, Colo., which adaptively reuse older buildings, whose scale and texture provide a comfortable setting that can't be replaced with paved plazas and public art. They are more affordable than new construction, attracting the creative class identified by Robert Putnam.
Be the first to comment on this story