Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

ch-scene - Re: skylight/nightlight

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: skylight/nightlight
  • Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 08:02:20 -0500

l.sward wrote:

Yes, Durham was in the works, but we got a house in Chatham Co.
instead.

Also, do you really think Chapel Hill will do mixed-use right? I guess
what I mean is will they make it affordable so people don't have to
move to the subs and use there cars?

I dunno how many existing in-town residents will be displaced by the upcoming mixed-use developments (I know the older white apartments across from Breadmans will be replaced by the Shortbread Lofts, but I don't know if that's a net increase or decrease, and how the prices will compare). It would seem like the total number of in-town residential units will be increasing, which has to be a good thing.

Once the redevelopment makes it all the way down to Cliff's, all bets are off. But that'll be a while.

Will the in-town housing be affordable? Depends on what you mean by affordable. People have to make tradeoffs, generally, when moving to urban mixed-use developments (proximity to work/downtown, in exchange for living-area, for example) and it's not clear that peeps around here are willing to do that in large numbers.

People in the US in general, and in the south in particular, have been conditioned to not accept the notion of compromise or trade-offs when it comes to their living situations. They want to be able to have convenience *and* two cars (with garage or on-street parking directly in front of the house) *and* plenty of room in their house/apartment *and* walkability *and* etc etc etc.

AND perhaps most importantly, they don't want to see any of the "village-like" atmosphere of their current towns sullied by bulldozers and new infill construction. So thus far Chapel Hill's "mixed-use" developments (Meadowmont & Southern Village) have been failures, in the sense that the people who live there by-and-large don't work there, because the ratio of commercial to residential space is screwy (and in both cases, the commercial mix isn't really even fully focused on meeting the needs of the residents nearby). There's nothing inherently great about one group of people living in close proximity to the workplaces of another group of people, you know? And they're way out on the edges of town because they couldn't disturb any existing stuff . . . and so far anyway, town hasn't grown out towards them to bridge the gaps.

I shouldn't call them complete failures, because I'm sure there is some percentage of residents at both places who actually work within the developments, but I can't imagine that % being very high. I wonder if anybody has kept statistics.

The stuff we're looking at now in the Chapel Hill/Carrboro core (setting aside 54 East, which is going to take the place of the being-destroyed motel out there on 54, and may or may not suffer the same too-far-from-town problems as Meadowmont) is closer to what mixed-use is supposed to be, which is to say maintaining or increasing the commercial density of the downtown core while increasing its residential density.

But if the current experiments are any indication (the condos across from Nightlight, plus the gonna-start-construction any-day-now Greenbridge another 2 blocks up Rosemary), the developers are following the "downtown condos! charge as much as you want!" model, same as in Raleigh. The notion being, I guess, that there are enough rich folks who like the idea of a glamorous condo high above downtown Chapel Hill that they'd be willing and able to pay $225-$350/square foot for the privilege.

Affordability is a nagging issue, always, and Chapel Hill has ordinances to address that, but it's typically done on a unit-price basis (X units need to cost less than $Y). Greenbridge initially tried to cope with this by making itty-bitty studio apartments (~600 sq ft) but the neighborhood balked.

Nevertheless, that's the typical solution. Which brings us roundabout back to the notion I started with, which is that people seem loath to compromise, or trade one convenience for another. So it's hard to sell a condo in town if it doesn't come with at least one dedicated parking space directly adjacent. And it's hard to sell a condo in town (around here, anyway, apparently) if it's less than 800 square feet.

People look at the existing housing stock (which is mostly less than 5 minutes drive away) and say "I could get a 1400-sq-foot house for what you're charging me for 700 square feet," and honestly, it's hard to argue with them.

So will Chapel Hill do mixed-use right? How about asking these questions: will ground-floor commercial rents in the new buildings be any higher than in the existing older single-story structures? Will there be restrictions on the kinds of businesses that can operate on the ground floor of a building with residential units on the upper floors?

If you answered "yes" or "probably," then it may or may not be "right," but the character of the downtown core will definitely be different. People around here tend to be NIMBYs, so I would imagine there wouldn't be much room for a rockclub below peoples' apartments. Even a restaurant could be problematic, with the smells and the noises & etc. Putting up with that is part of the point of urban living, but as I said, compromise doesn't seem to be as prevalent around here as it is in the urban-for-150-years northeast.

So if you're living in Chatham (which is where I currently live), you're part of the problem, driving your ass everywhere you go. How's your commute? And how much would you give up in order to shorten that drive, and be closer to the stuff you actually like to do? (assuming that any of what you actually like to do was still there by the time you moved into your new downtown apartment ;-) )




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page