UNC proposes cursory master plan review

After you left, Ruby, it was several more speakers extolling the virtues of the new Innovation/Translational center and why it's a great and wonderful opportunity and urgent to have it right away.  I didn't stay through more than about 6-8 more speakers, but it's evident that some worried professional people believe that the Council and the citizens would like to obstruct the project, most likely  out of ignorance about just how needed and marvelous the IC will be. 

Kevin Foy, one more time, said that it wasn't about the particular use of the building -- the University could even change the use of the building, as it had in the past -- but the Town's lookout for now is only the building's impact on the Town. Speakers apparently took that to mean that they had to demonstrate that a Translational Center would be great for the Town's image, to remedy the Town's well-known poor record in welcoming private business and research, and maybe even some recalcitrant rejection of important advances in medical research.

 In other words, despite Kevin Foy's caveat and reiteration of the explanation that this evening was for responses to the current conceptualization of the building and grounds, and that it wasn't an approval process, most speakers were still arguing for Town approval of Alexandria, translational research, professional opportunity, partnered enterprise, and, oh yes, the IC.

Before I left, I only heard one speaker (sorry, too tired to remember exactly which one -- think it was the head of pharmacy) even address the concern about process and/or timing.  He said that those concerned with timing, who claimed that not having a Master Plan yet made assessment difficult, had to recognize that we have seen several versions of a master plan and we already are familiar enough with how thinking about CN is going to deal with the IC. 

(There was one pilot who frothed a bit about closing HWA and displacing AHEC, but all that did was bring out a restatement from the University that they could and would keep HWA open during construction of the IC but that the AHEC operations would have to move and the airport have to be closed before occupancy of the IC.) 

I would have liked to hear someone remind the speakers, again, that approval by the Town wasn't the issue tonight. 

And, for the record, while I have questioned the process and how the pieces are supposed to be fitting here and at what points the University may or may not have surprised the Town, I have no objection whatsoever to the conduct of translational research, am very much in favor of finding cures and treatments for disease, and would certainly be open to sharing the revenue that generates (especially if anyone's will to share a patent). 

To me, all the speakers who chose to continue voicing their support for the Innovation Center were sending a message to the Town Council that they don't want this opportunity to be lost through bureaucratic foot dragging. I interpreted Matt Czajkowski's questions about the process during the Council discussion to concur with those speakers.

I don't recall seeing so much public support for anything the university has brought to the town in many, many years.

I agree that there is a lot of support for the IC and I believe, rightfully so. I think the questions that were being asked where not so much as to the intent or relevance or value of the project but more to the building itself. For instance: will it connect well to MLK?; will it stand out as one of the buildings fronting on the main entrance to Carolina North?; what will be the energy savings of the building; would parking be better addressed by a structure? why not use pervious pavement for all of the parking rather than only a small portion?

I myself would favor a parking structure or more pervious pavement but I heard an interesting statement that could influence the latter. Someone pointed out that there is benzene contamination of the soil and groundwater (?) at the site. I don't know if it is the IC's site or nearby. I would be interested in hearing from environmental engineers whether pervious pavement would worsen the situation by accelerating the leaching of chemicals into the grounwater. If that is the case then perhaps maintaining the impervious pavement or a parking structure would make more sense.

Ruby summarized the most important part of my presentation, that

the amount of housing proposed at CN is token, and that Mark

was right when he first brought it up a year ago. Without more housing,

it is not the mixed-used project that Jack Evans projects. Ruby

asked me to put my powerpoint slides on my post and I will, but,

since they are not on a website now, does this new software

allow me to simply upload the .ppt file, or should I put them on

some website and provide the link to them in the text of my post?

First, let me explain that the cynical tone of my post about public testimony on the IC came partly from fatigue and partly from skepticism bred of 15 years watching TownGown interactions. When University (or private-sector) people are telling the Town "it'll be good for the Town," and especially when there's an undertone of "hurry up and get out of the way," I do get nervous. However, the IC does seem to be a potentially valuable resource, and if the spirit of good will and optimism is genuine, I'm delighted to see it. It would, indeed, be a great "foot" to start CN off on.

Now about housing at CN: Was delighted to hear Joe's presentation and hope it will be taken thoroughly to heart. But there's an aspect of the entire issue I'd like a little more explanation about -- student housing.

When they talk about moving the Law School up there, does that include housing for the students? I tend to think that's not been part of the thinking as yet, but what about the whole dynamic of a University that provides only a limited amount of housing for its students, forcing the rest into the community -- and thereby occupying housing that could be available for employees?

Many colleges and universities, in my experience, strive to provide housing for as much of their student body as possible, and/but they wouldn't consider it their look-out to provide employee housing. It would be a great contribution if CN were to incorporate a goal of increasing access to affordable housing for employees, but how do we see student housing fit into the same picture?

Priscilla,

Can you provide a reference for your statement that the University provides only a limited amount of housing for its students? All the reports I have seen say there are empty beds on campus and have been for the past several years. I've also heard from students and other renters that there is an excess of rental property in this community, making it possible to negotiate rental agreements at many of the apartment complexes.

I also think Joe is on the right track (tract?) because this is a great opportunity to solve several problems at once for grad students and junior faculty. But what would be said if UNC came back with a plan for more housing and it meant that more of the 1,000 acre area would have to be disturbed?

"If you build it they will come" might work for a ball field but in the student housing world, there are many factors that explain why students make the choices they do in deciding where to live. Until there are students who wants to live on campus but can't because of lack of availability, it wouldn't make sense to increase supply.

I remember when our 2d semester freshman daughter came home for dinner one Sunday with her spreadsheet that modeled the on-campus/off-campus financials and her analysis indicated that we would save money letting her get an apartment with a roommate. Why did they teach her how to do that kind of analysis? Like many parents, we just felt her being on campus made us feel better. It ended up that her analysis was right and she spent three years in town.

Fred, that question about elected folks turning into engineers and how to balance that is a good one. To someone else who is disappointed in the many examples of short-sighted, wasteful planning around here, the official who inspired the question was just doing his job: trying to bring out issues he thought were important that were being raised by the engineers on the Town's staff.

As a science teacher, I am also very interested in this incubator, but I live within 1000 feet of the site and am concerned about excessive traffic and whether more family homes around here will become rentals, as Priscilla mentioned. To me, the housing issue is also a test of whether UNC is serious about CN being a sustainability showcase. Are they serious enough about auto impacts like traffic and emissions to make housing a significant part of the plan?

So I am very glad that we have councilmen who aren't going to be so dazzled by economic prospects that they overlook technical questions that might be out of their area of expertise.

Priscilla, I don't think you're entirely wrong. The figure I've heard is that there are enough beds on campus for about 25% of the students. I've also heard that there have been empty beds for the last several years suggesting that the majority of students prefer to live off campus which is, of course, their right to do so.

I believe that the Horace williams Citizens' Committee recommended that CN provide housing for 25% of the students and employees that would be working there. Several members of the Chancellor's Leadership Advisory Committee (LAC) suggested that CN should provide enough housing to accomodate all of the students and employees on CN that needed it. And the University representatives to the LAC said that the University would provide housing but didn't want to commit to a number.

I think Joe C.'s numbers showed that the commitment to housing for the first 15 years of the buildout of CN is low by most standards and would necessitate much more commuting (either local or long-distance) than would be desirable for a proposed state-of-the-art campus. I hope that as the Master Plan for CN evolves the University will reconsider their plan and provide a hefty increase in the proposed housing.

On another point, has anyone else been concerned about the view of scientific research being drummed up by CN leaders?

Science has long had the image of being a fiercely open endeavor in which freely published information was fully debated in public.  The picture painted by local economic boosters is more like a poker game where players keep their cards close to their vests.

Now - without being too fastidious about lost innocence - that's fine if it's private money that builds the lab and does the work. But where is the public interest when public money is either directly or indirectly stimulating the production of information that is used for private gain? Who is making sure that when public money produces breakthroughs in health care research, that the research findings are not sealed away as proprietary intellectual property? The public - private line is being blurred.

Is that the view of science we intend to instill into the "best and brightest" who will eventually take over the reins at UNC?

David,

The situation you describe already exists. For several decades now the federal government has allowed universities to file and hold patents on research funded, even in its entirety, by federal research dollars (NIH, NSF, DOD, etc). Many of those patents have been licensed to private corporations, both large and small, for commercialization. The universities profit from the licensing fees and royalties on sales if the research is successfully commercialized. The inventor (scientist) usually shares in any licensing fees or royalties that the university receives, often (usually) as much as 25% of the total.

As federal research dollars have been drying up, thanks in large part to an administration that has a strong anti-science agenda, most universities (and many scientists) are looking for commercial sources to fund their research. In many cases if money isn't obtained soon you are going to see many cutbacks at the junior faculty level and even in large, more established labs. Those cutbacks will mean the potential loss of not only faculty positions but the ancillary support positions such as lab technicians and administrative assistants. Also, if faculty can't get funding they can't take on graduate students and so this crisis in research funding has the very real possibility of allowing us to lose a whole generation of young scientists.

Unfortunately, as you point out, early licensing of a scientist's research discoveries often brings with it undesired effects such as a requirement for increased secrecy or, in some cases, the inability to continue one's own line of research. Early licensing of discoveries or contract research with large corporations is often the least desirable choice we make. However, in these particularly difficult times it might be the choice between surviving and carrying on or shutting down. I would say I'm hopeful that things might improve a year from now but the deficits that Washington has created will insure that these changes in how academic research is carried out are likely to be long lasting.

<>Here's a summary of what I presented last Weds night, and which all the

councilmembers who referenced it agreed with.

At the five year mark, CN will contain a total of 685K sq ft of buildings, which

includes 100K of housing, for both faculty and grad students.

<>Roger Perry said two weeks ago that the housing units would be larger

<> than 1K sq ft so I divided the 100K by 1250 sq ft to yield 80 housing units.

I divided the remaining size (585K) by 325 sq ft per employee to

calculate 1800 employees. The 325 figure is mid-range of standard planner

space for office workers, and of course this figure could be challenged

somewhat in either direction. Assuming one CN employee per housing

At the fifteen year mark, the numbers are 2475K total space, of which

500K is for housing. The same math yields 6077 employees and

400 housing units, a 6.6 pct housing provision. Conclusion: this

is not a mixed-use project, it is rather, as Jim Ward said, a commute-in

commute-out project.

<>My second major point was that Jack Evans has said on several

<>occasions that many of the CN employees would not be new employees,

<>rather would be current employees now working in rented space

<>salted througout Chapel Hill and Carrboro. His point here, I think,

<>is that the impact of CN won't be as great as we might believe from

<>inspecting the numbers.

<>UNC's viewpoint is a narrow but valid one, for their task is to

<>to plan for their own employees. But the towns don't have the

<>luxury of this narrow viewpoint, for the number of new employees in

<>town(s) will equal the employees at CN<>, and here's why:

<><>Consider the Bank of America

<>building in the middle of downtown CH. It houses several hundred

<>UNC employees, mostly working for the School of Public Health.

<>Should they all move to CN, (professionally a good idea, likely)

<>the building won't remain empty. Employees of a mix of organizations

<>will move in to fill the space. Ditto for the Europa Center, the

<>building behind Armadillo Grill, etc.

<>My final point was my dream that UNC would sell the building at

<>440 W. Franklin to a commercial developer to help with our west-end

<>redevelopment and to get it onto the tax roles.

Priscilla, Jack Evans said that there would be a total of 100K sq ft

and 500K sq ft of housing at the 5 and 15 year marks. It will be for

grad students, faculty and staff, but no decision has been made

on the allocation among these classes. He also said that there will

be no undergrad housing at CN.

David,

My observation has been that as the amount of student housing on-campus has increased in the past several years, places that were previously rented by students, either in apartment complexes or neighborhoods, are advertising vacancies now. I am only pointing out anecdotally that it seems that as UNC provides more on-campus housing, the new on-campus housing has a ripple effect in the community.

Linda Convissor

Several years ago I was surprised to learn that UNC houses a higher percentage of undergraduates than similar institutions (Michigan, Wisconsin, etc.). These schools are in larger towns than Chapel Hill so the impact of students coming off campus in search of housing is not as great. What we forget about Chapel Hill is how small a town it was very recently. In 1960 the population was 12,573; it doubled in the next ten years to 26,199 and by 2003 it doubled again to 51,485. I suspect that the numbers in Carrboro are possibly more dramatic. I also suspect that the numbers of students living off campus is ahead of this curve. So MOST of the housing here has been built in the last 30 years. Students living off campus use traditionally "work force" housing, places where carpenters, wait people, retail clerks, etc. might live. Students also pay more for the same spaces than the former blue collar residents did. This is why Northside and similar neighborhoods have had a large influx of students in the last 20 years. It is profitable to rent to students so a lot of housing that would have been "owner occupied" in the past is now owned by landlords and rented out. Witness Cameron Ave in the last 20 years. When I moved there in 1978 it was 90% "owner occupied", now it is 20% at best. This has put a great deal of pressure on our community's "affordable/low income" housing stock.  

It has become clear to me that UNC is only reluctantly considering housing at CN. Their current proposal is token at best. I understand this, UNC is not in the housing business, at least as it is being considered at CN. Like a lot of the aspects of CN, mitigation would not necessarily have to occur at CN. Suppose UNC were to build enough dorms to house all their freshman and sophomores and UNC then required them to live on campus. This would, in the words of Bill Friday, "strengthen the undergraduate experience". It would also reduce the number of cars in Chapel Hill (because dorm dwellers are not supposed to have cars) and free up some housing for something other than student rentals.

As far as the effect that this would have on the housing/rental market, it might slow the rate of price escalation down for a short time and actually take some housing from the rental market and make it available for sale to people who might live in it. 

If UNC wanted to they could have the dorms built and operated by private developers as has been done on other campuses. 

The efforts that Chapel Hill and Carrboro have made to create "affordable" housing are recognized nationally as "cutting edge". They are still a drop in the bucket. The biggest challenge we face in our community (IMHO) is that we are becoming too homogenous, too rich, too white. The people that made this an attractive place to live can no longer afford to live here.

Bleeeccch...  

The University has stated on several recent occasions that one of the driving forces behind CN and the IC is the fact that their faculty are aging and the University thus needs to recruit young up-and-coming faculty from a highly competitive pool. One of the great tools they have to do that, if they choose to use it, is to provide affordable housing for their young faculty. Home prices in this area have been rising so rapidly of late that recruiting a young faculty member is going to be faced with some of the same issues that confront universities in Boston, San Francisco Bay area, San Diego, Miami, etc.

Affordable housing is a key issue for a young faculty recruit who is often also beginning to start a family. UNC has a key advantage in luring potential recruits: because it owns the land on CN it can insure that a young faculty member can not only afford to live in comfortable housing but also have many of the other very desirable amenities such as free public transit, great schools, and recreational facilities. Building equity in their home is not going to be the primary concern of a young faculty recruit. Their primary concern is going to be building equity in their career. A young faculty member has a limited number of years to establish their careeer or then they will need to move on. If they are successful in establishing their career they will have all the opportunity they need to go out into the community and buy a house that they can build equity in.

If the University really believes that faculty recruitment is a very important reason for building CN then they should be considering a more serious commitment to providing affordable faculty housing than that what has been presented thus far. And although it may not seem obvious to some, faculty get their jobs done thanks to the many staff that assist them so it would be prudent to provide incentives for those valuable members to work at the University as well.

As someone not all that far beyond the years of being a undergrad in the dorms, I have a problem with the cattle-herding mentality of some otherwise well-meaning folks in the affordable housing arena. Not to be accusatory here, but I just want to put out a few thoughts before we devolve to that state. Perhaps, rather than conceptualizing a plan in which UNC forces students to live on campus, we instead should be focusing on actually making on campus housing appealing as compared to of campus options.

Put yourself in the shoes of a student briefly. Unless the benefits of dorm life are that great to you, why would you want to share a small room that is generally in worse condition than similar apartments, generally more expensive, lacking in several basic amenities, that you are forced to leave several times a year during holidays you may or may not celebrate, all while sharing a bathroom with perhaps dozens of other people that often reeks of vomit and garbage that someone was too lazy to take all the way outside because no one is willing to take ownership of common property, and at least in my case, a kitchen that consisted of a single oven, microwave, and table in an unoccupied bedroom to be shared with the entire building. In my opinion, this is a completely undignified way to expect adults to live in. Obviously, not everyone begins their undergraduate experience ready to take on the responsibilities of taking care of themselves and their property, and to be respectful of their neighbors. But that's exactly the point - you can't take any sizable group of people and offer them a single solution and expect it to work for everyone. It's the very same problem that causes our housing crunch in the first place; you can't build one-size-fits-all housing and expect to attract a diverse population.

I fully support seeing UNC put in a sizable housing stock at CN, but not simply more of the same tired stuff they've already got. While it's unlikely we'd want to see UNC compete to the point where they're flooding the market and private landlords are unable to fill their rooms, I don't think we're anywhere close to that yet. If we are, it probably has less to do with some great evil UNC is up to than a mistake in what <i>kind</i> of private development we've allowed to go up in the past decade or two.

Linda Convissor is right, at least in the near-to-campus Westwood

neighborhood. There are rental units going begging, something that

never happend until two years ago. It is the result, I believe of two

things; a fare-free bus system that makes walk-to-campus housing

less attractive than before, and a significant increase in new, more

attractive on-campus housing. I doubt if Jason's vivid but

Farm.

<>A student can now vote with his feet and pocketbook where to live, and

many are choosing to live on campus. Yes choosing, not fullfilling a requiement.<> I'm not near a DTH, but there was an article today that

<>described the very high number of applications for next year for the

<>RAM-? (I forget the exact name) housing near the DeanDome.

<>Like many universities, the UNC housing people seem to finally learned

<>how to build good housing.

<>

"(Living in Ram Village) is just really convenient," said junior Bryan Ching who recontracted in Ram Village for next year. "We were contemplating living off-campus, but it's easier to keep in touch with friends here."