Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

ch-scene - Re: cradle & arts center move

ch-scene AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: RTP-area local music and culture

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: grady <grady AT ibiblio.org>
  • To: RTP-area local music and culture <ch-scene AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: cradle & arts center move
  • Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2005 09:35:24 -0500

Hm, well, it would appear to me from skimming back through the thread that the only people bitching about the thing are Richard Allen (lives in NYC; projecting his youthful hatred of Suburban D.C. onto the project), Tim Harper (mostly just concerned about where to park his panel van, which should be easily handle-able; took a potshot at the Main Street Elevation, which *does* look kind of polished & bland, except for that interesting white building at the far right; however, that elevation looks *so* generic that I suspect the reality would have to be somewhat more variegated), and Dave Hollinghurst (apparently also currently living in NYC, and in any case rendered permanently embittered by those years spent in a van with Kenlan & Garrison so you gotta discount half of what he says anyway).

Most of us who actually live here have by-and-large seemed pretty optimistic in our posts.

I myself *would* like to get beyond the current namby-pamby weak-postmodernism that southern commercial architecture seems to be stuck in; it's neither vernacular enough to be useful in the South, nor interesting enough to be, well, interesting. (I already mentioned that white building at the western end of the project; I'd like to see more details of that one)

I'd like to see structures that take advantage of the vast quantities of solar energy available to us here, like the new Club Nova apartments just a couple of miles further west do.

I'd like to see green roofs for stormwater control. I'd like to see where the bus stop is, how sheltered it is, and whether it will be possible for the bus to get completely out of the way of through traffic on Main St to do all the loading & unloading of people that one hopes would be required, considering we've got free busses in Chapel Hill/Carrboro & thus residents of the project & surrounding areas would have no real need to use their cars on a regular basis to get to/from it.

I'd like to see how the angled pedestrian plaza that aims at Weaver Street is actually going to connect to Weaver Street right through the middle of the most annoying (simultaneously pedestrian-, bike-, *and* car-unfriendly) intersection in all of Carrboro.

By and large I *am* optimistic, but at this point my optimism is mostly practical: I wholeheartedly support the idea of higher-density mixed-use development in the middle of our existing communities, which is the best place for it. Meadowmont and Southern Village are sorta nice ideas that are executed in the wrong places; those people still have to get in their cars to go to the drugstore, to the dry cleaners', to the library, to a whole host of other places.

This development is a great idea that is being executed in exactly the *right* place. I'm *not* convinced that the architecture is going to be anything other than ho-hum, but I'm willing to put up with that. Maybe I shouldn't be.

I think people are right to be wary of single-developer developments that span whole city blocks and attempt to incorporate faux-public spaces; certainly Southpoint of a good example of how evil such things can be when done in a wholly cynical capitalist fashion.

But I spent several years living in Houston, where there is no zoning whatsoever, and I can tell you right now that "the people", when left to their own devices, rarely spontaneously generate genuine/authentic "public" spaces, especially not in the middle of urban blocks, regardless of whether there's a single developer or a dozen different developers doing the design/construction.

I shouldn't have to remind y'all that the single most popular "public" space in Carrboro is Weaver Street Market, which is "public" only in the sense that the market is a co-op. There is nothing inherently bad about a private developer setting aside "public" space. There *is* something sad when fascist/pure-capitalist venues such as shopping malls become the de facto public spaces of our communities, but I'm not sure that's what's happening with this development; the "anchor stores" for this particular mixed-use development are apparently the folks who're currently there: the ArtsCenter, the Cradle, Performance (in a smaller retail-only space, apparently), perhaps Vis-Art.

Will there at some point be a problem with free speech/association issues on the pedestrian mall/outdoor amphitheater that will apparently be on private property in the heart of this development? That is a distinct possibility, and one we should be prepared to deal with, but it's perhaps premature to get too worried about that just yet.

Ross

jenn.halter AT gmail.com wrote:
Have you seen the property in question? If that's
small town character, give me Epcot Center.


No kidding, there's not much character in that strip mall.

I'm curious about everyone else's design ideas, I mean, if you don't
agree with what they're going for aesthetically. More modern? More
shire-like? Real brick instead of the "fakey fakey" mentioned? I think
it might be impossible to have it *not* look new, because it will be,
in fact, new.
-Jenn

-- ch-scene: the list that mirrors alt.music.chapel-hill --
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/ch-scene





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page