Town considers Mall as permanent location for Library

It's very hard to find a downside to this development.

The key question for me is how much sales-tax revenue does Dillards provide the Town and County.  We need to crunch those numbers carefully before we eliminate a business that creates revenue. Ironically, I just dropped about $8.00 in taxes there this morning while refreshing my work wardrobe.   

Like Mia Burroughs, I'm wondering how Dillard's plays into this plan.  Is the store going out of business or moving to a new location?  Or would it be, in effect, kicked out of the mall to make space for a new library?Of course, Madison-Marquette can make whatever decisions it wants concerning the inhabitants of its commercial space.  I assume that if they did decide to kick out Dillard's in favor of a new library, it would be because Madison-Marquette felt it was ultimately a better business decision.  I just hope that the town doesn't end up flexing its own eminent domain muscles with regard to Dillard's.  So long as decisions regarding the proposed new space are freely made by the relevant private stakeholders, this sounds like a pretty promising plan.

 Dillard's  has a lease, and unless they are in violation of the lease,  they aren't going to get kicked out before the end of their lease term.   Either the mall management or Dillard's can opt not to renew.     I guess the stress comes when one wants to renew and the other doesn't, and at this point, nobody knows  if that is even an issue.   I like this idea.   Great location,  Good for the other mall businesses--talk about driving traffic--the foot count to the mall will be tremendous!   That has to have some residual benefit to the businesses in the mall.    i do echo other's questions about the tax revenue.   Here are my questions:What exactly is the mall proposing?  A long term rental?  A purchase of the space?  Are there property tax implications that could reduce the amount of property tax collected on the mall property?    what would happen to the existing  library building?   How does the overall money structure work?   If we aren't issuing bonds,  what will be the way that we'll raise money for renting the space?  If we build a space, we are building a hard asset for the town so some of the bond  debt repayment is going to  help us pay for an asset.    (of course hen we also have repair and maintenance of that asset over time). We aren't doing that if we are renting a space.   Not saying it doesn't make sense, I just want to know more about the deal.     If the town is considering renting space, then at least make sure there is  due diligence   There's a vacant car dealership space on 15-501,  vacant space at Vilcom, and vacant space all around town, some of which might be large enough to accommodate the  library.   I don't know for  sure,  but  if the rental option is now being considered, then explore all the options.   I'd like to see a financial comparison of renting the  Dillard's space  versus building onto the library versus buying the Dillard's space (if that's an option).     I am sure the town will do this.    I appreciate the creativity of the idea.       

This is certainly worth studying for it could be a win for both the town and the stores in the mall.  A question I would add to the list above is whether it is better functionally to have a larger library in one place or to have two libraries of about equal size.  As UNC continues on the design of Carolina North, it has to decide how many of the functions of the main campus must be duplicated in order to make CN an attractive place to work.  The same question applies to a 2nd town library in the mall.

Am I understanding this right? The "old" library building would become something else? This seems kind of weird, except that people's desire for all the things that books give to them would be translated into better retail sales. Like Bush said after 9/11, "shop, folks, for our future!"

I do wonder about things like if they wanted to expand the library again in the future, how would that happen?What about hours of operation?  The library currently opens at 9am on most weekdays & Saturday according to their website, but the mall doesn't open until 10pm according to their website.  Would the library be allowed to open just their section independently of the rest of the mall?  Do we know what time of day the library is most used by the public?  For the most part the hours line up pretty well as day time hours, so its not a huge concern, but something to think about.  Are there other ways in which public stakeholders interests and retail interests might be divergent in any significant way that would affect operations?At a surface glance, this looks like it could be a very symbiotic relationship that is worth further research.   But I like the library and I like U-mall (except maybe Roses) so it seems like an interesting proposal to mix the two.

Off the top of my head the Umall would be a great location for the library.Maybe, the rental would leave the land for taxation as well as the facility (building). But, if the Town "owns" the building and the land it would be tax exempt, with the land being subdivided from the rest of the mall. I think rental would possibly really be a leasehold with the building being owned by Town and land by mall, and the building then might be tax exempt. Whew.

I, too, think this is quite promising, especially from an accessibility standpoint. Already there is more bus service to the mall than to the current library, bus service that is more frequent, and a lot of connections are made there. Plus many private organizations bus in their residents.Another nice point is that a store is a big open space that is designed to be flexible - perfect for a library.Oftentimes there are stores in malls that are open earlier or later than other stores, especially on Sunday mornings. I don't see the library having to start opening at 10 AM because the mall does.  If the library brings increased traffic to the mall and that leads to increased sales at mall stores, then that might offset a tax loss, but I can't imagine it would offset the entire tax loss. However, if the town and county are going to loose the Dillard's tax revenue anyway..... And finally, the economy was a very different animal several years ago when voters (including me) approved the library expansion bonds. There is a real cost/benefit analysis to look at here. If the trade off is even just ALMOST as good (e.g., the library expands significantly, but not as much as in the remodel of the current building AND the cost is significantly less) then I think we should do it. Of course, all of the above assumes the town has a bona fide, pressing need to convert the current library space to some other use. The Chapel Hill Museum??  Just kidding, folks...

I'm much less sanguine about this proposal than most seem to be, so this is probably a minority view. A lot of questions here:1. What happens if  Madison-Marquette decides that the library isn't really pulling in the kind of patronage of the rest of the mall they intended?  Or they change their business model (again)?  Or they sell the mall?  Or declare bankruptcy?   The town isn't Belks or the S&W or Kerr Drug.  2. What happens if/when the library outgrows the limits of the mall space?  The sq. footage is already less than needed, and promises of a mezzanine addition seem potentially awkward and temporizing at best.  And there's also the issue of parking.  On a game day, will buses and tailgaters be competing with library patrons?  At Christmas, will they be hiring parking gestapo (a la University Plaza) to keep commercial patrons separate from library patrons? 3. What happens if the rest of the mall starts to deteriorate or fail?  4. Who's really getting the better end of this deal? I second Anita's questions about the financial structure.  The Town stands to lose tax revenue while spending quite a bit of money to improve something on privately owned land.  Or will Madison-Marquette foot the bill for the building in return for very expensive rent?  Do we want to be committing ourselves to that kind of longterm financial commitment without really having any leverage over our "landlord" regarding the management of the rest of the mall?  At best, it's a chirkendoose of an arrangement, seems to me. The most I'd consider prudent would be to keep this arrangement at the level of a temporary experiment.  Just too many issues out of the Town's control otherwise.

After an afternoon visit to the Mall yesterday and reading the CHNews today: Follow - up: 1. According to today's CHNews, the Town will be owners of the property at the end of the Mall, not renting tenants.  I apologize for not reading the proposal more carefully in the first place.  However, that only clarifies some aspects but doesn't represent any less risk. To the contrary. There are still questions about maintenance of the Mall property, parking (most all spaces on the 3 sides of Dillard's at noon yesterday were taken by basketball ticket holders  - how will that work with/for a library there?),  changes in ownership or business plan for the rest of the Mall, size limitations, etc.  2. Dillard's employees told me that (as far as they know) Dillard's has 2 years more on their lease with a hefty break-lease penalty fee if they are forced to leave earlier.  "We aren't going anywhere anytime soon" was a frequent comment. I'm sure that's what Dillard's hopes they'll say, but I'd be curious about that break-lease penalty.  3. The number of otherwise educated and thoughtful people who honestly believe that the (supposed) death of paper-ink books means the death of libraries is stunning. Somehow they've missed the big increase in patronage since libraries incorporated e-technology, not to mention all the other reasons people  -- most of whom I'd guess are laptop owners -- use libraries so much that parking and expansion are a problem.4. A very subjective impression is that Madison-Marquette's concept for the Mall is at best confused and at worst questionable, based on watching patronage of it dwindle as it's been pushed toward "high-end" and "community" usage.  Neither concept, nor the combination of the two together, seem to have breathed all that much life into the "new" Mall compared to the old Belk-Kerr-K&W days.   It's probable true that some library users would go on to shop (assuming a mall entrance in addition to an external entrance), but the most frequent library users seem to be parents with very young children and retirees -- does this demographic meld well with boutiques, art galleries and jewelers?  In any case, it's plausiable that a branch Library offers  benefits to a Mall owner and library patrons; but I still seriously question the wisdom of locating the one-and-only main library of a Town in a commercial setting over which the Town has so little control.

For years now, the town council and a high number of regular posters on this blog have looked forward to the urbanization of Chapel Hill. Locating the library inside the most urban of urbanized services, a mall, applies that theory/ideal more consistently than does locating it within a park setting. Reusing an area with too much parking is more consistent with that theory/ideal than is taking out more trees to build additional parking in a park-like setting. Providing services located where large masses of residents already go rather than asking them to go somewhere that no other services exist is also more consistent with the theory/ideal. I'm finding it a bit odd that the council would even consider opposing this deal.

You may be right George, but I listened to the entire discussion and the tone of the comments was decidedly negative. Except for Mark K, what I heard was concerns over why this wouldn't work, nothing about what a great opportunity this is. To me, tone is as much a part of the communications offered from council to community as the actual words spoken.

Lots of interesting questions and observations here, although it seems to me that a mall is the ultimate expression of suburban rather than urban living.  I personally like the library where it is, but if the proposal is fair, legitimate and more economically viable, then it should be carefully considered.   Years ago, before East Chapel Hill High was sited and built, I recommended that it be placed in the mall.  This after listening to imported architects warble on and on about the need for flexibility in the "modern high school."  What place could be more appealing and functional for teenagers, I asked, than a mall?   They're designed in essence to be as adaptable as legos.  These, and other, more moderate, suggestions from myself and my colleagues, were, of course, generally ignored.  That's a problem when the powerful and well-placed hear only what fits with their view. My concern about placing the CHPL at University Mall is that there may be more to the story than meets the eye.  With so few resources, local media is neither prepared nor inclined to examine the decision and its ramifications as closely as would be wise.Over the years there has considerable flooding from Bolin Creek in that area, some of it, if I remember correctly, backing up into the mall's drain system -- or at least threatening to.  Undoubtedly, selected experts will contend, with their reams of data, that a repeat of such flooding is highly unlikely, and that, anyway, corrections have been made that wil prevent any reccurence.  With all the new developments upstream -- full disclosure, I live in one -- don't bet the farm on this.   Years ago, University Mall's location was a lovely farm -- Paul Green's cabin basically overlooked it -- and virtually everything upstream was field or forest -- most of it nicely adapted to absorption.  I'll leave it to others to figure out what percentage of this acreage has been paved or rooved in the intervening period, but its impact can be seen in the creek itself and anytime it rains heavily.  True, we've had years of drought, but when it has rained it has rained a lot.  A lot.There are probably many other considerations to weigh against the numerous seemingly positive aspects of placing CHPL at University Mall, but we need to bring to such a process genuinely objective wisdom.    

I have some research questions about this matter. UNC has a library school, and ostensibly some of the faculty there have expertise in planning and siting libraries. What do they say about this idea? What questions/approaches would they suggest for examining the idea further? Not that a bunch of academics who work in an ivy-covered ivory tower necessarily have definitive answers, mind you, but, given some time (and maybe a bit of incentive), some of them might really help shed some light on the feasibility and long-term viability of this idea.Another question: what are other precedents (besides Wake County) for this kind of approach? Where have such approaches worked, or not, and why or why not.

I was thinking of an ENCLOSED mall. I do not think anyone here in Raleigh considers Cameron Village a "mall", but a "shopping center" Of course, since it is a "village" that makes it the same as Chapel Hill.  :) 

"My concern about placing the CHPL at University Mall is that there may be more to the story than meets the eye. "That's probably an understatement.  I've been thinking that the discussion keeps sidestepping the fact that the Library was sited where it is because it was deemed a perfect, appropriate setting.  The failure of the Town to follow through on expansion - despite the positive vote for it -- eroded a vision well-considered and embraced not all that long ago.  The removal of bus service to the door has further undermined its usability, perceived and real.Now, at the suggestion of a mall owner whose vision for the mall seems confused and foundering, we are suddenly in the midst of distorted double-think rhetoric about "saving the mall" to "save the library" -- enouraging some to leap to a "win-win" presumption.  To get there, however, one has to torture all arguments to fit what is essentially the mall owners' rather baffling business plan.  (Side comment: the last thing thing the Town has needed has been not one but two malls both targeting high-end shoppers).   There seems substantial, thoughtful distrust and even outright opposition to the library-instead-of-Dillards plan on many grounds, especially economic -- enough that the Town should take a very long breath before charging forth any further.  Yet there is worrisome precedent for the Town to make a decision rather arbitrarily and without all stakeholders' interests clearly identified.The quicker things happen, the more you have to wonder what's really going on backstage behind a normally very plodding process.There are rumors, for instance, of at least two Town departments lusting after the library site and building.  That means that the debate may be couched in terms of whether we need X servie, Y service, or just some dusty old books more -- when in fact, it's -- surprise! -- just a matter of who has more clout behind the scenes to get the situation they want.  For a change... If it's not mall owners/commercial developers, it's the bureaucrats and the pols.It should be the library users and the taxpayers.  And they should not only be given a chance to speak their minds, they should be given honest information -- and listened to.

How much (percentage) of the current CH library operating expenses are supported by county funding and how much of the funding support by the town of CH?  Has the OCBOC weighed in on this possible move or are they not stakeholders? Does Chapel Hill own the current building? 

It’s important for any community to make decisions based on the most current knowledge.  A University Mall  location wasn’t even an option on the table when the current library was built,  or when the expansion was designed and the bonds issued.  .  Circumstances have changed.     This location is a new opportunity, and the town budget is being hit hard by the recession.    Under those circumstances, I’m encouraged that  my elected officials  are taking a  fresh look at the overall library expansion plan with that new information factored in.   I go to the library at least once a week.  I enjoy the location, but it’s not essential to my library experience—I’m more interested in what is in the library than what’s around it.   And I for one would welcome thoughtful consideration about what is a want versus what is a need.    I'm not a tax hawk by any means, but when finances are tough, priorities have to change.   From what I  hear,  we're going to need  new bricks and mortar for other town services in the near future.   That can't be ignored in this discussion. If using University Mall means we get a new bigger  library in addition to other facilities we  need,  (by repurposing the current library building)   and for less money overall, then  that has to be part of the discussion.    We can't make every spending decision in isolation from every other decision.   We don't do that in our own personal budgets and we can't do it as a community either.  

Anyone go to the meeting at the Mall Wed. afternoon (2/2)?I missed it (have been out of town on sad family metters and am still dealing with them), but I see no mention in any of this morning's papers -- which suggests very low turnout or, possibly, just media disinterest.  I'm sure the CHNews will have something on Sunday, but until then...I note the preponderance of negative responses in recent letters-to-the-editors as well as the existence of at least two petitions.  Yet I suspect the "fix is in" on this one, regardless of public sentiment.  For all the reasons given by opponents, in print and in the on-line petitions, the idea strikes many of us who truly care about the life of library and town as a bad idea - shortsighted and conceived more for the benefit of the current mall-owners than anyone else by quite a bit.  Moreover, there is still the sense that what the voters and the council may commit to one year can be ignored and/or undone at will the next, much like the current chaos on Capitol Hill.  However, once the library has been relocated to the Mall, undoing that - when the Mall is sold or even abandoned (think South Square); or when the logistics of parking, needed expansion, or flood threats become exigent - will be far more expensive and daunting a project.  

Other communities, including Seattle, are finding the mall/library relationship to be beneficial.  http://www.libraryjournal.com/article/CA498837.htmlhttp://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0823/p12s02-ussc.htmlhttp://www.seattlepi.com/local/157154_clibrary19.html

Greg Childress' article in the CH Herald supports some of my impressions, which are that (1) it's primarily commercial interests in the town who think this move is a good idea, not residents and not library patrons; and (2) that other town offices are salivating over the possibility of moving into the lovely library building.  (But who knows which town officer has most clout with Council members?)   http://www.heraldsun.com/view/full_story/11251272/article-Resistance-to-...The article, although it does acknowledge that "some residents" are "still" resistant to the plan (by implication, a stubborn handful), focuses on Aaron Nelson, chamber of commerce pres/CEO.  "[Nelson], said a chamber committee has determined that moving the library to the mall has 'positive social and economic' aspects....'Compelling to us is the fact that you get two buildings for one,'  Nelson said."   Nelson and that "chamber committee" constitute some of the primary voices who, I still believe, will be controlling in the final decision.  Getting "2 buildings for one" isn't actually the bottom line here, either. Tellingly, Nelson asked opponents the move not to criticize Madison Marquette for their administration of the mall.  Yet the behavior, policy, and practice of mall owners is a pivotal consideration in weighing the wisdom of such a move. The Town and the library are ultimately at the mercy of whatever mall owners do or don't do by way of planning and maintenance, not to mention selling the mall out from under the Town and library users.In addition, if the town's estimate (from the article) of expansion costs is $15.5 million -- which voters DID authorize -- while the upper limit of cost extimates for moving to the mall is $14.5 million (which we DIDN'T),  the difference constitutes less than the usual "margin of error" in such things. The various calculations of other financial trade-offs -- lost tax revenue, etc. -- can't really take into account future costs to the town of having to undo the move when the predictable-but-unquantifiable happens re: deterioration of mall conditions or sale of the mall. I keep having the image of our main library being placed at one end of the old South Square mall just before it was demolished. By all means, consider putting a branch in there, but by mall owners' logic, it would have to be one that appealing to the same people who go to the mall for upscale jewelry and clothing. Otherwise, is it really up to the Town to rescue Madison Marquette's vision for the mall -- which remains rather poorly patronized except for Dillard's, Rose's, and Southern Season, two of which don't fit its vision.