I am writing in my capacity as a Chapel Hill resident, an urban designer, and Town of Chapel Hill at-large member of the Orange County Climate Council.
In reference to the University Inn project, I have listened to 2 CDC meetings on this project, and have the following comments/questions, which focus on mobility, site planning and
urban design integration into the overall fabric of the Blue Hill district.
In order to achieve climate and other sustainability goals, one of the main objectives of a mixed use development like Blue Hill is to reduce Vehicle Miles
Travelled (VMT) by encouraging close access to daily uses through walking and biking, or providing close access to public transit that
will obviate the need to use cars. In order for these objectives to function well, we need to foreground them, to maximize their functional and perceptual interface with the overall urban fabric of Blue Hill and in evaluating them, we need to view the plan
from the perspective of the walkers, bikers, and transit user.
In reference to the following questions, it would be very helpful to see a bike/ped/transit circulation overlay on top of the site design, set into the aerial
map, to ascertain the logic of the circulation into the broader urban context, and how it drives the project site design. This overlay
would show the key magnets and the ped/bike desire lines that should influence building design. This would help the advisory boards better evaluate the proposed project from these perspectives, and help ToCH planning/transport offices better understand their
co-responsibilities for tying it into the surrounding urban fabric as they are the ones who must provide the “mortar between the bricks”.
Although the Blue Hill plan strove to create an integrated urban design with its design guidelines, its public realm and functional mobility integrations
have not been systematically designed as “places and spaces” in and of themselves. As a result, they become an afterthought, or
an “add on,” to the building construction, where they should be a primary design element that drives the building design. Ideally, we would already have designed these
functions through an overall urban design, which is still possible through the preparation of a Blue Hill model that foregrounds them.
1. Pedestrian experience/circulation: The
renderings focus on the building massing/site design, which includes the multi-use path along Fordham, the pass through which ostensibly allows a short cut from Fordham to Ephesus, and another indentation on Ephesus which seems to be an exterior access to
the hotel? Yet, I find myself constantly wondering how its layout refers to the surroundings and what are the functional connections that they respond to. More specifically:
· How
would I as a pedestrian, go over to the Loop for a burger, or more importantly, to Food Lion, Trader Joe’s and return with some heavy bags or a grocery pull cart? If you want to encourage walkability it’s important to design circulation to the pedestrian experience,
which is practical. The form articulation should refer to its practical functionality on the ground, not just a decorative articulation seen from the passing driver or the birds eye view.
· Does
the pass through envision a pedestrian connection directly across Fordham to East Gate? Just want to clarify why is it at that location?
· What
would the pedestrian connection be over to Ram’s Plaza? This will be one of the most important circulation drivers, and it is notoriously difficult with the right turn land from Fordham to Ephesus. Again, thinking people with groceries or returning from restaurants
and services. Even if you “think” they will use the multi-use path, the pedestrian always choses the direct line. In this case, I would like to advocate for extensive rethink of the pedestrian experience at this Fordham/Ephesus intersection
2. Bikability. I like the underpass,
but I wonder how I, as a cyclist returning from a ride to the Farmers Market, might take the multi-use trail and ride back I through the underpass. It looks crowded with furniture and busy and there is no appreciation of how a cyclist might ride through with
her groceries. I would appreciate consideration of this and like the idea of a taller pass through that is "more than a living room"
3. Transit/land use interface. One of the most challenging agendas it to get
people to choose transit, even if they have a car parked in the garage. I’m still not clear on how residents and visitors of this project would easily know where and how to pick up a bus. As noted in my comments about the Aura project, if we really want to
create Transit Oriented Development (TOD), we need to center and celebrate the project’s interface with public transit, not consider it a "tacked on" bus stop. Naturally this must be coordinated with the CH Transit, but I advocate for a very strong and comfortable
transit location that should have its own beautiful identity. The Ephesus pass through is probably too close to the corner to be integrated with a bus stop (providing sheltered and comfortable seating for passengers), but it might be considered for ride share
drop off/pick up. Alternatively, the little pocket park on the corner of Ephesus and Legion could potentially be considered for these functions. Overall, the transit logic of University Inn project should be articulated and it should be strongly integrated
with the transit logic of the Park Apartments, which in my view suggests a well designed, landscaped transit hub serving both projects.
4. A final note on architecture (from a climate perspective). So
far I have seen a lot of multi family projects with NO Solar Shading. Why is this the case in Chapel Hill? The west facade of this project is going to be very hot in the summer (just go to the Trader Joe’s entrance if you have any question about this). Why
are there no overhangs or shading design? This could be done in a variety of ways that are very attractive, and would also help with the aesthetic problem of those boring, unarticulated facades.
