Philip Duchastel has a searing column about Carolina North in yesterday's Chapel Hill News. I think he raises some good points, although he also seems to look at the issue as if no conversation or process has come before. I certainly don't agree when he says that "all assume building Carolina North is good." And I also wish he would propose some kind of better way forward instaed of just predicting Chapel Hill's doom.
...the big questions have gone unspoken. The behemoth of those is growth. It seems assumed by all that growth is desirable, and of course that growth is possible. I beg to differ.
[...]
We're talking of an additional 20,000 people, plus their families -- in addition to the droves of additional people in the service sector to provide for these families. The area we live in will be mushrooming with sprawl, a la Cary and north Chatham.
This will not happen overnight, of course. This is a 50-year plan, after all. We might imagine that, with time, we will creatively counter the ill effects of growth. But that is just tempting the fates, isn't it? Research Triangle Park was a beautiful dream, too. But look at it now, gridlocked in an ever-increasing sprawl to the point where even one of its main partners (UNC) wants to go its own way.
- chapelhillnews.com | Town, university ignore pitfalls of Carolina North, 2/6/08
Without offerring an alternate proposal or a new framework, Philip just reminds me of those who stuck their heads in the sand to oppose Meadowmont a dozen years ago. They were unsuccessful in stopping it, and never made any helpful suggestions until it was too late to turn that speeding train around.
True: if done wrong, Carolina North could be the worst thing to happen to our community. Unfortunately, I don't think we can choose whether it happens. So how can we make sure it is done right?
Past efforts have failed to have much sway over the University, but I still hope that we can convince them that our fates are too closely tied to act without grave consideration of each other's needs.
More Information:
Issues:
Comments
Is This Helpful?
Over on the Orange County, NC site, I asked Phillip where he got the "20,000 people and their families number" for who will occupy CN. He couldn't tell me but said the number isn't really important because it should be zero. Zero is will not be!
I find it interesting that people who move here then decide that there should be no growth after them. It's like we could somehow prevent people from crossing our borders. As the TV Dr. Phil might ask, how's that been working for you?
Phillip also seems to think that the Chancellor/staff picked a developer to head the Board of Trustees. This is just another example of a failure to understand who does what. I called it a case of "profession discrimination," as Phillip wants to rule out someone the Trustees themselves select to lead them on the basis of their profession.
Columns like this - with inaccurate statements and statements that reveal that the writer has not done the homework to understand what he is writing about - are not helpful in trying to move forward. "Raising good points" get lost in pieces like this, as others tried to point out when he floated it over at Orange County, NC.
Something will be built at HW and if we really want to contribute to it being done right, this just doesn't help.
Framing the issues like that isn't helpful either, though.
Fred, slowing growth does not mean preventing new people to come to Chapel Hill, nor does it mean locking out everyone who came here after you. College towns cycle their populations at a rate much, much higher than typical places. Of course anyone can move here, even if the number of households were capped (which I'm not asking for) but it comes at a cost. The traditional line has been for this cost to be the sacrifice of mere dollars through the economics of outrageously expensive real estate, drastically reducing our diversity. I'd rather see us implement policies that ask people to sacrifice something else, like square footage per person, water, landfill, and electrical useage, automobiles, etc. Chapel Hill can remain a reasonable size, as some people will be unwilling to give up a wasteful and irresponsible lifestyle to live here.
Secondly, framing Phillip's concern with a developer leading the BOT as profession discrimination completely ignores the imbalance of the current board. As I look at current BOT makeup, I see a slate of almost entirely CEOs, lawyers, developers, venture capitalists; and the two lone voices of an academic with a city and regional planning background and a nonprofit executive who might offer anything like the kind of direction I'd expect a public university to take. I'll worry about Roger Perry getting discriminated against when the board takes on a membership that actually represents Chapel HIll OR North Carolina. Until then, he's on his own.
Please Read His Column
Phillip is calling for ZERO growth, not slowing growth.
He writes, "It could name someone other than a developer to head its Board of Trustees, but the dream continues." Who is the "It?" "It" does not select the chair.
Jason, you personalized this to be about Roger and that was not my point at all. He is saying that a person from a particular profession should not be the chair. Do you agree with that as a policy?
I think we also need to remember that the original Ayers/Saint/Gross Development Plan is not the one on table; why are we still referring to it?
I did a week ago... and?
I read his column and your comments thereupon over on the Orange Citizens Ning site well before they ended up in the paper. I don't agree completely with his views, but I don't agree with your characterization of them here, either. I'm not a zero growth advocate, because I don't think that's a pragmatic approach, but I also think that the concerns that zero-growthers raise are legitimate and that our current method for dealing with these concerns is inadequate.
You're right about the appointment of the BOT chair, but I don't think it changes the issue at all. For the sake of determing goals for growth, the BOT essentially IS the university. Had Philip instead written that he dreams of the BOT selecting someone other than a developer to be its chair, we wouldn't be having a semantics argument. As for this being about Roger, it has nothing to do with him on a personal level. The reason why I bring him up by name is because the role he plays in our community is unique. Were the BOT chaired by John Doe, the major developer of private property in Universitytown X, the concerns wouldn't be any different. A developer serving as chair during the largest planned expansion of the university in centuries sends a message, and it's a very different message than were that same board chaired by a community advocate, an environmental scientist, or even a green developer.
I don't believe, and I didn't see anything in this column to suggest that Philip does either, that a developer should not be allowed to serve in that position. But it's a far cry from what I would have chosen. For a university that prides itself on being "of the people," I sometimes wonder why more of "the people" aren't involved in its governance.
Hear Hear!
You've said it spot on. The whole issue of Carolina North is very complicated. Its so easy for citizens to take a pro growth OR a no growth attitude. I feel its much more difficult to agree with some of each. To contemplate multiple parts simultaneously. Not saying that someone shouldn't have a absolute POV.
Submit a column yourself Jason. (or more blog posts) Folks need to understand every facet of this debate. If "the people" do not they will get lost in the avalanche of data.
how history treats events
Are They?
Growth & Carolina North
Here's an earlier discussion (with a different tone) about the growth issues related to Carolina North:
http://orangepolitics.org/2006/10/the-housing-gap-at-carolina-north
Duchastel Reads Handwriting on Wall
The evidence is ubiquitous: unchecked growth has been and is ruining the planet in countless ways. Read Lester Brown's latest book if you're unconvinced.
Phil does well to raise the fundamental question of growth in regard to Carolina North. One might ask how, in 2008, an institution claiming to be "world class" can fail to address this question at the highest level in regard to its own mission and planning.
The major shortcoming of Phil's argument is that, for it to be effective, it needs to be connected to a movement for change, although starting a conversation is an essential first step in building a movement.
Elsewhere, Phil refers to the group Advocates for a Sustainable Albemarle Population whose goal is "a sustainable 'optimum' population characterized by a size and distribution that maintains and even strengthens the health of our natural and social environments."
Could our area be ready for such a group?
Reading Phil’s piece reminded me of the following, from one of my favorite books:
"In the natural world there are two things that grow endlessly: parasites and cancers. Both of these continue to grow until their host is destroyed. The analogy to the impact of growth capitalism on the environment is more than a casual one. By contrast, a mature ecological system is characterized by stability accompanied by a rich, fecund diversity of lifeforms. The coral reef and the climax forest are examples of this."
Of course, both of the latter are now subject to rampant destruction due to our inability to come to grips with the question Phil is posing.
Off The Mark On One Aspect
I don't know Mr. Duchastel but his statement "The university is stuck in a research rut. It is losing ground to other institutions and sees its salvation in teaming up with corporate research and development, which is the principal rationale for Carolina North." is at least partially off the mark.
The University is hardly in a research rut. UNC has done what I would call an incredible job of keeping their research programs afloat in a time of diminishing federal R&D dollars. Virtually every university I know of, public or private, has been struggling to keep their programs going at an acceptable level at a time when the current administration in Washington has been initiating serious cutbacks. I'm not aware of many universities that aren't looking to the private sector to help supplement those diminishing federal dollars so UNC shouldn't be faulted for looking to do just that. However, I do think that UNC has been overly optimistic about how much help the private sector can provide at Carolina North given the downsizing and cutbacks and outsourcing that so many pharmaceutical, biotechnology and technology companies in the US and elsewhere are now experiencing.
This seems like a more
This seems like a more interesting question that you are getting at, George: How realistic are UNC's plans for Carolina North - not with regard to local politics, but in regard to national politics and research funding?
I don't know much about such issues, but it seems to me that UNC's plans sort of assume that we can continually get a larger and larger slice of the federal pie. How likely is that really? I have no idea.
Like Phillip, I question the
Like Phillip, I question the impact growth is having on our community. But before submitting his article for publication, Phillip was given explanations and correct information on some of the claims in this article and instead of adjusting his draft, he chose to perpetuate inaccuracies, such as the 20,000 + family number and the "research rut" that George addressed. And even more astonishing to me, is the fact that the CHN editor chose to publish something that he too knows is inaccurate and cannot be justified as anything other than a gross exaggeration.
Such exaggerations lead to statements like Jason's "A developer serving as chair during the largest planned expansion of the university in centuries sends a message, ...." The largest planned expansion of the university in centuries? Between 1986 and 2006, the campus population grew from 30,486 to 39,016 (15.4% increase) and gross square footage increased by 26.8% (about 6.8 million square footage). How can anyone believe that CN, on its 250 acres, will support 20,000 new faculty, students, and staff, or half the current campus population? This is all public information and Phillip and the CHN editor could have easily checked it before publishing this article.
Am I to understand
Am I to understand correctly, then, that the university has made a commitment to keep its growth over the next twenty years to under 430 persons per year (just over one percent annually)? Otherwise, it would still be a larger period of growth. Also, lacking a complete updated comprehensive plan, I have very little concept as to what footprint CN might occupy. But I'd venture a guess that comparatively, much (but not all, obviously) of the university's expansion over the past twenty years has been infill. Do we have a hard number somewhere as to what percentage of CN will be greenfield development? A glance at the presentation given at the council retreat seems to indicate much of it might be, especially when one considers the "I-40 Park and Ride" corridor addition.
Check out the image I made below based on a combination of two graphics in the latest Carolina North plan presentation. Please forgive minor inaccuracies due to my shaky hand with a mouse. One is UNC's own map of the Horace-Williams Tract in relation to main campus. I just copied and pasted the CN footprint from another part of the presentation regarding possible layout. Does this not, at least visually, suggest the largest expansion of the university to date?
10 year enrollment projections
I question the scale of your drawing Jason. It could be accurate, but I suspect not. You can look at the enrollment projections and see for yourself that rate of planned growth is not accelerating.
You might also want to spend some time looking at the UNC system's work on distance learning. I think you will see that Erskine Bowles and the NC legislature are committed to helping state residents learn in place. So even if UNC Chapel Hill is asked to assume higher enrollments, the question would be how much of that enrollment will be on campus and how much will be handled through technology.
Just a couple of notes
Just a couple of notes, and then I've got to run. I'll be out of town on business until Sunday night, but assuming we haven't solved the Carolina North problem by the time I get back I'd love to pick it up again. :)
First, I have no idea how accurate that drawing it - I'm at work and using a computer with MS Paint - when I get home, I'll throw it into ArcGIS and align the points based on known nodes and get something more accurate. I updated it slightly below, based on correct matching of Piney Mountain Road and both the entrance and exits of Estes Drive. One might wonder why I'm having to do this myself, as it seems like a footprint comparison might be something UNC should have provided.
Second, enrollment projections are not the same as campus population. In fact, of all the UNC populations to look at, it would seem that enrollment would be the least pertinent to Carolina North, if it truly is going to be mostly R&D work. In UNC's projections, we're going to have 685,000 square feet of expansion by fiscal year 2014-2015, or almost 100,000 sf/year at CN. With the exception of the Law School, none of that is an academic facility - it's all either research, corporate space, housing, retail, or facilities space. None of those would be available to offset the burden of academic space for additional enrollment. Beyond that, looking into the next fifteen years, there are about 2.5 million proposed square feet of floor space, of which only around 10% is marked as academic (and therefore enrollment-related). Of course, this doesn't include parking, recreation, or the school site, which were all left out of the projected space totals. That's not to say that new enrollment won't use the research facilities (I hope?), but there's no way I can look at the projected enrollment numbers and think that this encapsulates what is going on with Carolina North.
More notes
I used enrollment because it has always been a good projection point for a university. On most campuses, there is a degree of elasticity between research and academics. But if you prefer other data points:
Between 1986 and 2006, sponsored research funding grew by 58% and gross square footage grew by 26.8% while total campus population grew by 15.4%. So even though the campus grew significantly in space and research funding, the population growth was much more moderate.
We also need to remember that CN is going to consolidate research groups that are currently disseminated out around the community into a central location. That will leave empty spaces open around town. Should the towns decide to fill those spaces with their own population growth, then elected officials need to take equal responsibility for the "planned" growth. This has been the point I've been arguing all along. Growth in this community is not restricted to the university despite what the elected officials would like us to believe.
Absolutely the Biggest Expansion Plan Ever
UNC has 14 Million square feet of space right now, I believe, and has called in the past for 6 Million more at Carolina North - a 45% increase in space. The campus population of 40,000 would logically also rise by something like 45% or about 17,000 people. We used the figure 20,000 people in discussions at the Leadership Advisory Council on Carolina North. That's basically what the now-discarded Ayers Saint Gross (ASG) plan called for. When I suggested at the LAC that we use the ASG gross square footage figures for purposes of discussion, no one disputed that UNC still intended to build about that much space at Carolina North. I certainly agree that there are unrealistic aspects of UNC's plans for Carolina North, but about 20,000 people is indeed what their plan has been all along. And Jason is assuredly correct that this is largest expansion plan in centuries (largest such plan ever, actually).
The Planning
Mark, one of the effects of having UNC work through their planning process in public is that it turns out to be a lot like thinking out loud. Stuff changes several times and it doesn't make much sense to say, "but last time, they said...."
To the best of my knowledge, UNC has never stated their numbers as these various visions have moved forward, so even though there was no response to your use of the 20K number, it doesn't mean it has any validity. Same is probably true of the estimated square footage. In the 15-year data sheet that they briefed to the Town leaders, it indicates 2.475M square feet by FY 2025. It's not clear that their "thinking out loud" plans beyond that have numbers linked to them yet. I'll keep looking to see if more data is out there somewhere, but I'm not sure that UNC even has it yet.
Maybe so