Category Archives: ChapelHill

ChapelHill, Community, Downtown, Elections, environment

Godzilla vs. Bambi::RAM Development and Chapel Hill

Leave a comment

If I worked for RAM Development, I’d be dancing quite a jig this evening.

Not only have they negotiated the sweetest of deals – their own publicly underwritten Downtown tower of wealth – they’ve gotten the friendliest of non-reviews by the majority of Council.

Maybe folks will like “rah rah” growth RAM Development style. If so, they’ll be pleased to see that they’re geared up for Phase III:

CHAPEL HILL – Ram Development Co. is moving forward with two projects at the intersection of Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard and Weaver Dairy Road.

On Feb. 21, Ram will go before the town’s Community Design Commission with plans totaling about 130,000 square feet on either side of MLK Boulevard.

The first project, called MLK at Westminster, proposes 48 condos, two banks and a 22,000-square-foot office and retail building on the west side of MLK at the edge of the Northwoods neighborhood.

The second project would include a 16,000-square-foot Walgreen’s drug store and a 22,000-square-foot office and retail building on the east side of MLK near Timberlyne Shopping Center.

N&O Feb. 9th, 2007

Is it really “MLK at Westminster”? That surely sounds, ummm, bland? Safe? White?

What happened to Phase II?

That’s Hillsborough 425 – the 335 pricey condos replacing the existing 111 affordable apartments.

So, for those keeping score, RAM Development now has 4 on-going projects before the current Council.

ChapelHill, Community, Downtown, EconomicDevelopment, environment, Government

RAM’s VP Casey Cummings – The Sixth Beatle?

Leave a comment

Is RAM Development’s Casey Cummings the sixth Beatle?

I’ll have to wait until tomorrow to get some video snippets (wish the Town was streaming video!) to get direct confirmation but it sure seemed like he was comfortable jumping up to the podium sans a request of Council.

I’m not quite sure the propriety of his hard charging rebuttals but I have seen the Mayor spank folks for making unbidden comments outside the normal time for testimony.

Heck, I wish I had had the opportunity to publicly cross-examine his assertions but I bit my tongue and chose to respond via the ‘blog.

Others commented on Cummings ease breaking convention in responding to Jim Ward – and seemed shocked that the Mayor didn’t rein him in.

I’m not surprised. With tonight’s vote, it’s clear that the Council has tilted away from the citizens and towards their partner – that in a sense they’ve been co-opted (though I still think it falls short of one person’s claim that they’ve succumbed to Stockholm Syndrome ) .

Given how difficult it was for me to see Foy’s, Kleinschmidt’s, Strom’s and Greene’s defense of RAM’s tipsy-turvy assertions, maybe, from Cumming’s side, their performance was emboldening.

The bar has been lowered. The door is opened. The precedent is set.

Campaign, ChapelHill, CitizenWill, Downtown, environment, LocalPolitics

Downtown Development Intiative: Thank you Sir, May I Have Another?

Leave a comment

I missed the exact vote but the Council has not only authorized the Lot #5 development but put it on a fast-track.

Talk about compounding a mistake. What’s clear, especially after this evening, is the bulk of Council does not comprehend the consequences of their decision. From my understanding, the SUP (special use permit) gives the Council little leverage to modify building requirements peripheral to the issues specified in the SUP.

To wit, any leverage to mitigate the hazardous waste liability, to make the %20 ASHRAE and AIA 2030 energy goals requirements, is gone.

Below is the liability language Laurin Easthom and Jim Ward referred to:

3.5 Town’s Obligation to Remediate.

In the event that any Hazardous Substance is found on Lot 5, the Town shall be responsible for adopting a remediation plan reasonably acceptable to Developer and the Town’s environmental engineer to remediate such Hazardous Substances in accordance with Environmental Laws. The parties agree that any remediation required will be undertaken by the Developer on behalf of the Town and the Town will reimburse the Developer for the actual cost thereof or, at Developer’s option, the Town will pay such cost on a direct basis, it being agreed that the Developer has no obligation to fund on an advanced basis the Town’s Remediation Cost. For purposes hereof the actual cost of the remediation shall be the incremental increase in construction costs directly relating to any required remediation (the “Town’s Remediation Cost.”) For example, in the event that the soil on Lot 5 is contaminated by a Hazardous Substance and must be removed, the cost of any excavation to remove the same shall not be treated as a remediation cost allocable to the Town if such excavation was otherwise required in connection with the construction of the Project.

However, if the soil excavated and removed must be treated under the remediation plan, then the cost of such treatment (but not the excavation) shall be borne by the Town. The Developer shall submit to the Town on a monthly basis the cost associated with any required remediation and the Town shall reimburse the Developer therefore, or pay such costs on a direct basis, within thirty (30) days of the receipt of an invoice.

Page 27, January Agreement

Prepare to bend over Chapel Hill.

ChapelHill, Downtown, EconomicDevelopment, environment, Government

Downtown Development Intiative: Easthom, Ward on Hazardous Waste Liability

Leave a comment

Live ‘blogged from hearing:

Laurin Easthom picked up on a point that I didn’t have time to speak to this round: hazardous material remediation.

It’s incredible that a hazardous waste assay hasn’t been done on a piece a property that is known to have had oil and gasoline exposures. Back in the ’80s I used to do environmental assays of just such properties. The cost was quite modest, moreso considering the heightened risk entailed by this site.

As Laurin pointed out, the taxpayers will eat the open-ended cost of remediation – now, as the project starts, instead of later. So, one hit on tainted soil in 2007 could cost the Town’s taxpayers $2-3 or more million.

Where’s the due diligence? This is symptomatic of the gaps opened up during the negotiation process.

Now Jim Ward has jumped in on the hazardous waste issue adding that remediation is more than soil removal. Volatilization of the chemicals could require long term pumping strategies. As Jim said “I’m not ready for an open ended commitment”.

Jim calls RAM’s Casey Cummings out on the energy commitment language in this agreement – “don’t we already know what your answer is?” Jim Ward wants the language struck as a farce – non-sensical given RAM’s VP Casey Cummings rather stern declaration that they won’t do more.

Mayor Foy tries to defend RAM Development’s language – saying, incredibly, “it’s not like they will just change the numbers”. This with a project that has lost half of its putative purpose while increasing required public expenditures 15-fold. Tomorrow’s video clips hopefully will capture Foy’s strange defense.

Jim Ward jumps in with a valiant defense – and makes the excellent point that they’re leaving a tremendous legacy – a poor legacy if they let the project go forward.

Later on:

Foy suggests there should be some give and take – more negotiating but RAM has already squeezed an incredible deal out of Council. Trading more elements away makes a tragic mess worse. My review of the negotiating process convinced me that our Council members compromised all the promise of this project away while RAM gets to pickup a bigger and bigger payday.

Sally Greene jumps in bolstering RAM’s VP Casey Cumming’s suggestion that they don’t spend $200K on a consultant to verify LEED compliance but on actual energy improvements. The problem? RAM’s credibility on delivering to target has been tarnished by their recent history. Reagan’s “trust, but verify” comes into play here. How, other than measuring the compliance, do we know we hit ASHRAE’s targets?

No reason to ask for compliance if it isn’t measured?

RAM’s VP Casey Cumming’s wants to move on to the SUP as the gatekeeper. Ralph Karpinos, the Town’s Attorney, points out that the SUP concerns itself only with LUMO (land use ordinance) variations and not energy/environmental concerns.

The Council, if the plan to “walk the talk” needs to stop the process tonight.

Dang! It’s tough watching Foy, Strom, Greene and Kleinschmidt work so hard on RAM’s behalf. Of course, Bill and Mark, using strategy to push through the proposal, were quick to move the resolution.

Hill and Thorpe are still out.

Right before the vote, Jim presses again on the hazardous waste liability. Karpinos says our only recourse is to default on the agreement and take our chances in court. In other words, the risk – which seems quite high given the prior use of this property – is passed on to the taxpayer.

Basically, RAM can sue the Town to move the project forward EVEN if the Town determines the cost of hazardous waste remediation isn’t tenable. The developer, RAM in this case, holds all the cards… The Town’s additional counsel says we have to go forward no matter what “damned if we do, dammed if we don’t”.

Would the “rah rah” folks pushing this broken deal be so jubilant if we don’t have the money to do social program improvements or couldn’t build the new pool complex, etc.

The counsel says the second environmental assay was unsanctioned and that there was a “smell of gas”.

ChapelHill, Community, Downtown, EconomicDevelopment

Downtown Development Intiative: Feb. 12th’s Comments

Leave a comment

Tonight’s vote is not about whether Chapel Hill is a town or a city or whether we need to vitalize Downtown or not. We know that Downtown needs help.

Tonight’s vote is simply about whether the RAM proposal is a good deal for the town’s citizens – both now and in the future….

After reviewing January’s proposal, reading 100’s of pages of confidential minutes, listening to hours of confidential negotiations, rereading all the published material on this project, it is quite clear that this is a
broken deal.

There are so many reasons to turn this deal down, so many, I’ll mention just a few:

Affordable housing is important in our community but affordable housing at any cost is not a good deal.

What kind of precedent does this community set when we spend $7.5 million housing cars at this facility and give property worth millions dollars to a developer so he can build million dollar condos – all so we can get 21 small units?

Council says that these units are sufficient for families but that assessment has not really been made. We don’t know the economic viability of units where folks have to park off-site when their neighbors don’t…. Or can only park between 6pm and 6am. How family friendly is that?

And the %1.5 condo fee cap sounds so alluring but it makes up a significant chunk of qualifying tenants monthly income.

The $7.5 million would be better invested in strengthening existing neighborhoods and building affordable housing units more akin to what we KNOW our citizens desire.

Council continues to celebrate the %1 Art funding going to an out-of-state artist for a centerpiece who’s public usage has not been clearly defined. Nearly a year after I first asked, I still don’t know if my 10 year-old son or his friends will be trespassed off the property for dangling their feet in the fountain.

And why is it that the lions share of this public investment isn’t going to structural improvements in our local art’s scene? Why not provide an on-site arts space? For that matter, why aren’t the taxpayers getting on-site play structures, public bathrooms, drinking fountains.

The pretense that this development improves our transit picture is disturbing.

Without sufficient walkable living infrastructure – grocery stores, parks, schools, jobs – the tenants of this building will inevitably make car trips – maybe as many as a typical resident.

Why no anchoring grocery store? Why no commercial office space for jobs? And why no discussion of incorporating the planned Downtown transit transfer station?

LEED certification is a minimal requirement for today’s sustainable buildings. The lack of a firm commitment for energy reductions in the design and operation of this building is just not acceptable. We know, with better accuracy than RAM showed in forecasting construction cost increases, the trend line for energy costs is only up. Energy efficiency is more than saving money – it is about doing the right thing.

How will Chapel Hill claim moral leadership on environmental issues when our Council approved, financed, built an environmentally sub-par project?

Approval of the initial stages of Carolina North is coming soon. How can our Council demand the highest caliber of environmentally sound development from UNC when they won’t practice what they preach?

You need to walk the talk…

As Council member Kleinschmidt asked, without the carrot of Lot #5, can we ever get a good deal on re-development of Wallace Deck? You know the answer – it will be from difficult to nearly impossible. Will we have to sell the Wallace Deck to get redevelopment? My guess is yes.

Finally, what about the pure bread-n-butter of paying for this project?

Tonight’s coversheet claims we will see significant property and other tax revenues. It also claims a %43 increase in parking revenue. Yet, as we’ve seen, just over the last 9 months, this projects economic projections have been seriously flawed – flawed to the point of losing half the original projects scope. Add to that the public investment increasing 15-fold. Where is the business-like certainty? What proof the return on public investment exceeds the cost of services?

This is a broken project. If Council approves it, please, please, don’t expedite the special use permit.

The public is still coming to terms with the wild shifts in this projects scope and cost – please give them the courtesy of a reasonable time to review what will be the most significant public investment of the next decade.

ChapelHill, CitizenWill, Community, Downtown, EconomicDevelopment, environment, Government, LocalPolitics, Ruminations

The Sad Story of Council’s Downtown Development Initiative

Leave a comment

They say, the story is buried in the details.

After reviewing hundreds of pages of confidential documents and listening to hours of ridiculously poor audio recordings of confidential meetings, I can, sadly, stand by my public assertions that the private-public Lot #5 development Council will most probably be thrusting upon us this evening is a terribly flawed beast.

By now, Council should realize that a re-think is in order. But I doubt that will happen….

Yes, it looks like Chapel Hill’s citizens are going to underwrite the development of million dollar condos, lose its moral leadership to criticize other environmentally poor initiatives, set the sub-standard for a new downtown development cycle that will create concrete canyons quashing the charm of our unique berg.

Like dumping a gallon of perfume in a reeking cesspool, the latest “updated” proposal does little to cover the stench that has settled about “the plan”.

RAM Development, directly, and Council, as I expect with tonight’s acquiescence, has no will to ameliorate the vast negative fiscal, environmental, social and political consequences of earlier versions of this plan.

Worse yet, instead of giving the public ample opportunity to review and reflect, the Council is voting to expedite the SUP (special use permit) to rush their development partner’s application through. Beyond the propriety of granting special favors to ones development partner, the problem of public participation has been swept to the side.

“Ahhh, Will, but the public has been given plenty of opportunity”. What a crock. The deal Council is voting on tonight runs to 160 pages – the public record thousands – yet the Council, generally, has made little attempt to integrate a broad perspective ala the NCD (neighborhood conservation district) process – to draw in to the process all the citizens of Chapel Hill.

We’ve heard quite a bit of enthusiasm from those that stand to gain from this precipitous decision. The developers – who benefit from Council’s ill-conceived direction. Those great social champions who want to broaden our affordable housing stock – but, in this case, at too steep a cost. Those that stand to make tons of bucks from the wealthy inhabitants of the publicly underwritten rooftop villas.

Why hasn’t Council tried to build a broader context around this development? Why didn’t they start a conversation with the wider public – the same public that will be picking up the tab for this mess – months ago?

Why? Because a measured assessment of this project, as currently constituted, by the public, would ring its death knell.

And for those Council members caught up in this “rah rah” – “do something, do anything” – atmosphere engendered by folks standing to win big by big, big, big development – that is unacceptable.

ChapelHill, CitizenWill, Downtown, EconomicDevelopment, LocalPolitics, Ruminations

Downtown Development: RAM’s VP Cummings’ Smackdown

4 Comments

Ouch! Obviously stung by Council member Jim Wards comment about “switch-n-baiting”, RAM Development’s VP Casey Cummings delivered a death blow to Council’s request for affordable condo fees for the affordable housing units and a commitment to energy efficiency.



[MOVIE]

Both requests seem quite reasonable.

What use is it for the Land Trust to “sell” a condo to an affordable housing applicant just to have them priced out by condo and parking fees?

On the energy front, as former OWASA board member Terri Buckner notes over on OrangePolitics

Not a single citizen speaking at last night’s hearing or at the first public hearing on Lot 5 challenged the Council to ensure energy efficiency. There seemed to be an assumption that “LEED certified” means the development will be energy efficient. However, LEED certified is the lowest level of LEED and even at Platinum status there is no assurance that a LEED building will be energy efficient. To get around that problem, the state of North Carolina has adopted ASHRAE 90.1 for all state constructed buildings.

Chapel Hill is not willing to meet the same requirements as NC State? Dang, we usually lead the State in environmental initiative.

As far as “bait-n-switch”, RAM was challenged last year on their original rosy financial projections. Were they knowingly over promising expecting to under deliver to get the deal?

In the most stark example, Grubb’s financing model would produce a 21.77 percent return on its $10.5 million investment in condominiums on the Wallace Deck site. Ram sees only a 2.98 percent return on its $23 million investment there.

“If they’re willing to do it for that,” Harris said, “God bless ‘em.”

Even if the company wanted to, Grubb couldn’t make a counteroffer, Stainback said, explaining that the proposals are considered “best and final offers.”

Two council members asked Cummings whether Ram’s financial model was too good to be true.

He said no projection ever is exactly right but that his company hopes to ride the growing trend of people returning to downtown.

After the meeting, Ivy Greaner, Ram’s managing partner, said the profit margins are healthy enough to sustain the project.

But Ram also is seeking a foothold in North Carolina. The company is willing to make less money in Chapel Hill to get a centerpiece project in the Triangle.

“This is a special town,” Greaner said, in a suitor’s tone. “We love Chapel Hill.”

N&O

Town investment up 15-fold. Value of the property discounted. Property moving from public to private hands. I understand Jim Wards sentiments.

CarolinaNorth, Carrboro, ChapelHill, CitizenWill, environment, Government, OrangeCounty, Ruminations, UNC

CarolinaNorth Community Meeting, December 13th: Ecological Assessment

Leave a comment

Earlier this year, I asked the Carolina North Leadership Advisory committee to do an environmental assay of the highest caliber. It will be interesting to see this phase of Biohabitats’ research.

And kudos to UNC for scheduling two (2) sessions to accommodate the public. Yes, they’re both on the same day 😉 but progress all the same. Well done Linda and crew…

Subject: Carolina North Community Meeting, December 13

Dear Friends and Neighbors,

Many of you have expressed interest in Carolina North. I am writing to invite you to a review of the draft ecological assessment recently completed as part of the discovery phase of our planning process.

Chancellor Moeser has said that Carolina North will be a model of sustainability. As one of the first steps to that goal, Biohabitats, Inc. has produced an ecological assessment to inform our planning. We are eager to get your input to help us shape effective plans for sustainable development at Carolina North.

To accommodate different schedules, we will hold two sessions. The information reviewed at both will be the same so attend whichever is most convenient for you.

Both sessions will be on Wednesday, December 13th in room 2603 of the School of Government:

3:00 – 5:00 PM. Parking available in either the Hwy 54 Visitor Lot or n the Rams Head deck.
6:00 – 8:00 PM. Parking available in the School of Government parking deck.

Information on transit service to the School of Government is below.

If you are a neighborhood or community contact, please forward this to your group as well as any others who may be interested. We hope for extensive participation from the community. My apologies in advance to those who may receive duplicate emails.

Although an RSVP is not required, it would help with meeting logistics if you would contact Tiffany Clarke at tclarke@email.unc.edu. If you have questions about the review session content, please contact Mary
Jane Felgenhauer at mfelgenhauer@fac.unc.edu.

For Carolina North information, visit our web site at http://carolinanorth.unc.edu <http://carolinanorth.unc.edu/> . To learn more about our current planning efforts and our consulting team, click on Technical Workshops.

As always, please feel free to contact me if you would like more information. We know there is great community interest in Carolina North and look forward to working with you at this early stage.

Best,

Linda

The School of Government is served by numerous bus routes, including the FCX, HU, V. S and the RU. The U and G are available for the early session only. Please check the Chapel Hill Transit site at www.townofchapelhill.org <http://www.townofchapelhill.org/> for details.

Linda Convissor
Director of Local Relations

Linda_Convissor@unc.edu
CB# 6225
919-962-9245

ChapelHill, CitizenWill, Media, Ruminations, Technology

Carrboro’s New Media Experiment

Leave a comment

There’s been a small discussion over on SqueezeThePulp about the declining efficacy of local media outlets in covering our community. I suggested that new media outlets will soon move into this long fallow territory – intensively covering local events – to the possible detriment of traditional news outlets.

It appears that Carrboro is the center (once again) of local innovation.

Monday, the Carrboro Commons launched to fill the gap:

As we launch the Carrboro Commons today, we too feel the need for an introduction — sort of a 5W’s on us: the who, what, why, where, when and how.

In short, we are a new newspaper blog for this special place. Whether you call it “the Paris of the Piedmont,” “The People’s Republic of Carrboro,” “Karmaboro,” or just plain old Carrboro, if you’re a resident, you know that Carrboro is unique. And with apologies to Stephen Colbert, compared to Chapel Hill, we think Carrboro is “uniquer.”

That’s why we believe that Carrboro is an under-served media population. From everything Carrboro folk are telling us, this is a town that needs, wants and deserves a quality news, feature and A&E source.

More via the inimitable Paul Jones.

ChapelHill, Downtown, EconomicDevelopment, Ruminations

Downtown Development: Steamrolled by Jagannath

Leave a comment

I went to this evening’s Council meeting fully expecting to be steamrolled.

Yes, the negotiation team has worked years on “a deal” but not “the deal”. Since Nov. 20th, no real new details have been forthcoming.

I’ll be posting the video of tonight’s action tomorrow, so I’ll reserve detailed critiques until then…

Just a few quick comments, then:

  • Jim Ward’s description of how his “love was lost”, switch-n-bait and his solid reasons for opposition
  • Bill Strom and Mark Kleinschmidt watering down an amendment to the resolution to hold the the Town and its partner, RAM development, to the same energy efficiency requirements as we’re asking UNC to…
  • Laurin Easthom’s itemized list and request for specificity. Other Council members “response” to her request…
  • RAM’s VP Cummings shooting down reasonable condo fees for affordable housing and Leeds Silver + %20 energy efficiency
  • Mark K.’s remarks that paying reduced fees will make folks feel like second class citizens. Heck, if I made the commitment to move my family into a 850′ unit in what will generally be an expensive place to live, I’d be happy to deal with the tension of paying affordable condo fees.
  • The comment that the negotiations haven’t been rushed. True enough. Rushed has been the education and time for citizens to digest this radical right turn.

This is the first major issue I’ve come out against folks – Cam, Sally, Bill – that I’ve strongly endorsed in the past. The experience has been interesting….

For anyone interested, here’s the latest datasets for my Powerpoint (ugh!) presentation:

I’ve already tweaked the elevations again in GE using altitude. I believe I’m either going to have to go back to 3DS to fine tune the data or import the same topology that the model was developed against into GoogleEarth (GE).

I believe the Planning Department (Gordon Sutherland and company) might have better models of Granville Towers. Mine are envelopes of the actual structure, height based on the testimony of RAM’s designer (who provide comparable elevations for Granville, University Square, NCNB Plaza).

Also, I understand that the Mar. 2006 RAM Development Planning documents included a 3DS model of their development. When I get my hands on that, I’ll go ahead and update the Downtown.

Please feel free to use the material. If you should get the topology %100 before I do, please send me a copy ( campaign AT willraymond.org ).

ChapelHill, CitizenWill, Community, Downtown, LocalPolitics, Ruminations

Out-Foxed Chapel Hill Style

Leave a comment

The Downtown Development Initiative is a steamroller (in more ways then one). Check out this summary of comments from Nov. 20th’s public hearing. A little light and less nuanced than the opposition comments I recall. Good thing there’s a video record on-line.

So why introduce the following bias?

Potential Advantages of the Project

-Mixed use adds life to downtown
-Residents downtown year-round desirable
-Will stimulate other private development
-Residential development is the key to revitalization
-Will visit cultural facilities, businesses, increase tourist dollars
-Need diversity of pubic spaces and flexibility for uses
-Proposal could be a model for other developers
-Project embodies sustainability principles: economic, environmental, social
-Improves quality of life
-Reduces dependence on automobile
-Improves ability to work where live
-Helps prevent sprawl and retain rural buffer
-Removes surface parking
-Provides significant public open space
-Improves tax base
-Commend LEED certification and energy efficiency
-Improves public safety downtown
-Provides affordable housing
-Consistent with Downtown Small Area Plan
-Is right place for a taller building
-Downtown needs a multiple use center to attract people
-Quality of the design is high
-Public art will be center stage
-Supports vibrant, walkable, liveable community
-Economically a good deal for the Town
-Indirect public benefits make deal even better
-It is the right place for the project; keeps out of neighborhoods
-Will provide more people downtown to sustain retail downtown uses
-If we want to retain the rural buffer, we need more density in Town of Chapel Hill
-Thanks for keeping the affordable housing in the proposal

Concerns Noted Regarding the Project

-Make design fit in with Chapel Hill
-Financial risk too great for the Town
-Wrong place for this development; put in neighborhoods?
-Ruins spirit of Chapel Hill
-Principle of revenue neutral investment not being met
-Take more time to consider project
-Latest “magic bullet” that will not improve quality of life
-Will units be quiet and have firewall construction?
-Will it be family housing?
-Incorporate solar technology and be a model for energy conservation
-Is commitment to local businesses being met?
-What happens if the developer goes bankrupt?
-99-year lease is too long
-Buyout of rights in 50 years could be a concern for Town down the road
-Make sure underground parking is well-lit
-Make sure condominium association dues are reasonable for the affordable units

ChapelHill, CitizenWill, Downtown, EconomicDevelopment, LocalPolitics, Ruminations

Downtown Development: Easthom’s questions, questions, questions…

Leave a comment

More questions about the Town’s and RAM’s Lot 5 development (DDI) plan?

Well, there’s been a dearth of specifics, so there should be a wealth of questions.

Add to the throng of “those who want to know” Council member Laurin Easthom.

With tonight’s pre-vote presentation on DDI looming (not a public forum)), Easthom weighs in with her questions in what is the most public analysis by one of our elected officials of the “new” RAM development deal.

She’s not against development but is looking for solid answers to questions that should’ve been answered over the days since Nov. 20th:

There undoubtedly has been much written and discussed about the redevelopment of Parking Lot Number 5. Here are my feelings. I think that redevelopment of this site for residential and commercial use is important for being an impetus for more good redevelopment downtown in the future.

More here.

The Town’s stale site (as of 12/04/06) on the Downtown Development Initiative (DDI).

ChapelHill, CitizenWill, Downtown, EconomicDevelopment, Government, Ruminations

Downtown Development Initiative: A Few New Perspectives

2 Comments

Lot #5 Downtown Development RAM building design based on Nov. 20th public hearing proposal . The model is in proportion and the proper height. It wasn’t until I laid out the model that I realized how large a beast we have here…


Looking North towards Lot 5 Dec2


Lot 5 Hovering above Baptist Church Steeple Dec2


Continue reading Downtown Development Initiative: A Few New Perspectives →