Greenfire moves to Tear Down Three Historic Downtown Buildings
Left-to-right, 122, 120, and 118 West Main St., 07.24.08
In disappointing but not-very-surprising news, Greenfire has applied to the planning department to demolish three buildings in the downtown historic district: 118, 120, and 122 West Main St. This action would remove 50% of the buildings from this block face, and leave only one relatively-intact historic structure on this side of the street.
I asked Mike Lemanski about this at the public meeting to discuss our public subsidy of Greenfire's development plans, because the historic structures on the renderings clearly disappear. He gave me a refreshingly honest, if vague, answer: "That would be a fair assumption." Carl Webb gave a more defensive, meandering, and less forthright response about looking at "[their] track record".
The fact is that there has been a concerted effort to tear down these buildings for years now, because the ambitions of a varied group of downtown players who believe that something that meets their criteria for impressiveness needs to sit on the northeast corner of West Main and Corcoran Streets.
In fact, the fight to save these buildings directly resulted in my decision to start this website, two years ago this week. I retroactively published an op-ed column I wrote for the Herald-Sun in January 2006 on this site much later, which you can read here. That column earned the ire of the city and my former colleagues at Preservation Durham alike for its criticism of the city's involvement in the push to tear down some of our few remaining downtown historic structures, supposedly protected by local historic district status.
This was the point at which I lost patience with NIS, then still part of Housing and Community Development, an organization I had politely pled my case to many times, despite the persistently deaf ears those arguments fell upon.
It seemed back then that we could at least hope that the Historic Preservation Commission and our local historic districts could act as a bulwark, albeit a leaky one, against the (seemingly) inexorable tide of demolition in this town. Unfortunately a bristling group of later-NIS folks appearing in front of the Historic Preservation Commission and denying the authority of the HPC to stop the demolition of 120 W. Main back in 2006 resulted in just such a shift in power becoming reality. One of several loopholes in the city's preservation ordinance is the ability to tear down unsafe structures without delay. The point is to be able to avert a public health calamity posed by a building that will imminently collapse. Unfortunately, this loophole is like red meat to a demolition-focused department. When the city attorney confirmed that the HPC could not delay the demolition of 'unsafe' structures, NIS simply proceeded, and proceeds, to deem structures they want to demolish as unsafe. This has had much larger ramifications for the loss of historic structures in Durham. But, 2.5 years ago they argued such about 120 West Main and pushed to demolish it immediately because of the imminent threat it posed to the public.
Somehow, that structural instability was averted by a Greenfire purchase, or perhaps a coat of magic green paint, as NIS hasn't been heard from since on these buildings.
The desire to clear out this block for something Impressive dates back further, to the case made to tear down the Woolworth's structure, the last remnant of the truly impressive Geer Building that once stood on the corner. I was less informed about things-Durham back in 1999-2000, but the building, transferred to the city from Woolworth's for $1, came down in a hazy indictment of 'toxic mold' and asbestos - while there was clearly a desire to build something Important to replace it.
Enter Greenfire, which has shown renderings of their proposed tower, which I'll dub the Pickle on Parrish. (Have your own alliterative fun with "Corcoran" and "Woolworth".) But really, I don't have anything against the architecture per se (not that it's anything more than a gauzy rendering at this point) - simply the notion that it is somehow so important to build something outsized on this block that we must demolish historic structures to accommodate it.
In a politically savvy move, by allying this structure with the Parrish Street museum-without-walls concept, denying this structure can be framed, if convenient, as counter to the celebration of 'Black Wall Street.' But really, tearing down history to enshrine history? Does this make any sense?
If there's anything I hope to have accomplished with this website, in the 2 years I've been doing it (as of this week) it's to hopefully have put the loss of these structures in perspective for people in the community. They aren't just a couple of buildings, but a set of structures built immediately after the big fire of 1914. 122 is the Pritchard-Bright Building, clothing retailers, and longtime Eckerd's drugstore. 120 is the Pollard Building, longtime Silver's five and dime store. 118 was the Straus-Rosenberg building, later Roscoe-Griffin and VanStraaten's clothing store. They are the the meager remnants of our once-very-urban and bustling downtown. We don't have a lot left of the historic fabric of Durham.
Local historic districts were ostensibly created to protect these fragile resources. Unfortunately, their weak protections (a maximum 365 day delay) have been further diluted by the city. It isn't even clear whether Greenfire needs the approval of the historic commission to proceed, as NIS has previous used the Big Ol' Rubber Stamp that says 'unsafe' on the buildings.
And really, given the fact that Greenfire has asked for the public's help in funding this development and others, one has to ask if we, as a city, are going to not only take an entirely spineless role in protecting our historic resources, but also take an active role in subsidizing their destruction through public financing?
These buildings will come before the Historic Preservation Commission on August 5th - I'm not convinced that the HPC can actually avert their demolition, but make your voice heard, and attend the hearing if you can. Don't be surprised if Greenfire chooses to delay a cycle or two, though.
118, 120, and 122 West Main, looking west, early 1920s.
(Courtesy Durham County Library / North Carolina Collection
Posts
44 comments:
*sigh* another reliable dissapointment.
Why why why? I'm tired of reading time and time again that Greenfire has acquired another downtown property, and done nothing with it. Now they want to do something with 3 buildings, and guess what they want to do?.... tear them down. Please Greenfire refrain from purchasing more downtown buildings to hold them indefinitely unrehabbed, or worse...to tear them down. Let others who really want to put their money where their mouth is, and who have a commitment to the existing historical integrity of Durham, a chance to do something positive and responsible. Ask Jim Goodman, ask Tom Neiman...They seem to "get it."
Like my grandfather used to say..."take all you can eat, but eat all you take." I think this applies here.
I still have a fantasy of starting an "architectural renovation guerilla group," that goes around Durham in the middle of the night, fixing up vintage buildings so their that owners or the sh*tty (oops! I mean CITY) can't demolish them due to neglect and etc.
Of course, we would need a financial backer...
Something has to be done to stop these jokers; but of course, when the mayor is one of the main players in a company (UDI) that demolishes buildings for a living, what can one expect?
Legal questions:
I have questioned how Greenfire has wound up with the rights to develop the site in the first place. As I recall, the RFP was awarded to the team of Zapolski & Rudd/Carl Webb, with the expectation that Z&R, who have lots of development experience, would take the lead given that Carl Webb was in the communications/marketing business. Well, Zapolski and Rudd no longer work together and Carl Webb, who left his company to join Greenfire, has no development experience except for what he can claim during his time as a partner there - sorry, not much. Is the awarding of a development contract from the City transferable, following an individual? Is Zapolski & Rudd still involved? Did the contract have an expiration on it? I would love for an attorney to answer some of these questions.
Design Issues:
Undoubtedly, Greenfire will say that the footprint isn't large enough for the tower they propose to build. I would have to disagree given the numerous examples of beautiful "sliver" buildings that have been constructed on much tighter lots in urban centers around the country. Google "sliver buildings" and you will find numerous articles on them.
What ever happened to the 9-story building the City had envisioned for the site which would be more in scale with its surroundings? It seems to me that a 17-story (or whatever Greenfire is proposing) will overwhelm the mostly 2-7 story buildings along Main Street and, depending on its design, cast a huge shadow on the CCB plaza for part of the day. If anything, they should follow the lead of cities like Vancouver, BC where the portion of high rise structures that meet the street are only 4-5 stories, whereas the tower portion of the structure is set towards the center, so as not to overwhelm the pedestrian environment. I have not seen their proposed design.
I seem to remember reading several years back that the city council was going to be visiting Asheville to take notes from its vibrant downtown. If they did indeed go, they would have seen buildings just like these - full of businesses! But here in Durham we allowed our small business loan program to be hijacked by fraud and the everything the city does downtown is as unfriendly to the small business as possible! Has anyone done a survey of how many businesses died due to being blocked off by city work on the roads or sidewalks downtown? Downtown already had a rep for being hard to get around in. The city needs to do more to foster and support small businesses. There is an incredible energy happening about downtown right now. But the thing that makes a downtown great is all those little funky stores and places to eat that need buildings just like these - it will be a shame if they tear them down.
-Kendra
RE Asheville: One of the things that makes downtown Asheville such a vibrant place today is that the city never got any federal urban renewal funds back in the 1960s, so their old downtown buildings weren't torn down. This allowed the old structures to be renovated and turned into a prosperous and pedestrian-friendly business district today. You'd think somebody who claimed to make a living fostering economic development would notice a thing like that, wouldn't you?
And yet, I can imagine a developer seeing downtown Asheville and thinking, "Yuck! We need to get the wrecking balls in here yesterday, so we can build some high-rises! As soon as we can get the city to pay for it, of course."
Seriously, Durham, we've been through this before. Can't we at least learn from the mistakes of our past?
I agree that protecting buildings like these--whether historic, just plain old, or of recent vintage--is a better alternative than demolishing them in the blind hope of attracting future development (urban renewal's favorite tactic). However, I can't see anything remarkable about these buildings and see no reason they should be saved IF there is a new, well-designed structure that will be developed in their place. Adding some high rises to the heart of downtown could be a great thing for the city by increasing the density. Keeping a few thoroughly unspectacular low-rise buildings just because they are old--ahem, historic--seems narrow-minded provided a real plan exists for their replacement. Whether such a plan exists is another question entirely, and I can't see any reason Greenfire needs to demolish these structures far in advance of beginning their tower project.
We're forgetting one important, and creative compromise. Incorporate the historic facades into a moderately scaled street front, and let a larger tower rise behind them.
Greenfire needs to be very careful with their now-familiar "this is the only way it can work" rebuttal to community suggestions on how to improve their designs. This is a design-savy community with a growing force of activism advocating good design. Either they won't listen, or they need to hire better urban designers and architects to work with the community and solve these complex issues.
May I suggest that we get a coalition of ED readers to meetup before the hearing? We can make signs, sing kumbaya, etc.
Thank you Gary for drawing the community's attention to this. Has there been any word from Preservation Durham? IMHO their acceptance of city funding represents a conflict of interest given NIS's agenda.
And why exactly do we need a "tower" at this site anyway? Does Greenfire think that Durham wants to be Charlotte or something?
I'm horrified that Greenfire is porposing to tear these buildings down. And I'm not sure if they understand how badly it will damage whatever "cred" they have as a friendly company trying to improve Durham as opposed to a rapacious pillaging developer trying to make a buck with no care for the community. This definitely puts them in the latter category IMO.
And before they get too greedy with big dreams they should probably have a little conversation with Lou Goetz, who learned in a long expensive lesson that sometimes smaller is better in Durham ...
Funny, my blog has been "locked" today by Blogger due to a report that it is a "spam blog". Thus I can evidently comment, but I can't post anything further. What a coincidence.
GK
Interesting. Either they didn't even bother to look at your blog's content before locking it (entirely possible, idiotic though it may sound), or someone in Greenfire owns major stock in Blogger.
If they don't give you a profuse apology, I'd see about finding a new host. This sort of thing shouldn't be tolerated.
The help forum for Blogger is inundated with posts from other users whose blogs have also been locked. Lots of distressed folks there.
I don't understand why Greenfire would think that it would be a good idea to destroy a part of what they are claiming to be rebuilding. There is no reason to tear those buildings down! They should be incorporated into the new. Development does not have to be at odds with preservation or human scale buildings.
Thanks Lynn - better that it's just Google being thugs rather than something targeted.
GK
Dang...Greenfire's sounding like Bill Fields and Ronnie Sturdivant with degrees and dressed up in True Religion jeans and Armani jackets or something.
Anonymous you spoke on letting people put their money where their mouth is, some of the so-called great designers and architects we have in this city that are against this should draw up some realistic options that Greenfire Development may have in mixing the old with the new. Instead of hold up opposing signs, hold up another options/solution. Then maybe, they'd understand and SEE exactly what other options that they have. For instance, some of the problems that exist in the projects surrounding that area, 1) They may need a bigger area for parking. Why, because they are talking about building a 14+ story building, so underground parking may be in their plans. No to mention they are still going to need close parking for the Boutique Hotel at the former Suntrust building. I'm sorry but I'm not going to be paying $200+ for a room and I got to walk more than 50 yards in any direction to park, (at this point they'd have to offer 24 hour valet service...) 2) Last say they did decide to keep the front facade of all the buildings, but still wanted to build a 14+ story modern looking building who would design/build it, and has experience in doing such a project. 3) It is not really their problem, but if people want Asheville so badly, move there. Winston Salem has plenty of older and newer buildings that mix well, on different scales might I add.
It's my understanding that the demolition request has been pulled from Tuesday's HPC agenda. No word yet if it will be heard at the September 2 meeting.
Gary, as you are an employee of Scientific Properties, I have to assume that you understand the certificate of appropriateness process with the Historic Preservation Commission since your company will undoubtedly be seeking to alter or demolish properties in downtown. Your readers may not have the same level of understanding.
In a nutshell, the COA gives us the flexibility to modify, demolish, or preserve any stable properties. That said, we are preparing for the possibility that we will not be able to keep these buildings intact. Along with historic renovation we have been a leader in sustainable development and have made a practice of repurposing materials from our properties, sometimes for use in other redevelopment projects.
We have not made any decisions on how these properties may be integrated into our Parrish Street project. We anticipate being in pre-development on the new Parrish Street project soon and have applied for the COA so that we are able to make timely decisions.
We are proud that to date we have put about 150,000 square feet of abandoned historic properties back into active use in the city center, buildings like the Durham Kress, the Baldwin Building, the Fire Station, and the Pharmacy.
Our offices are in the Durham Kress at 101 W. Main St. We welcome anyone to come by and talk with us if we haven’t answered your questions or concerns.
Michael Lemanski
Greenfire Development
Can anyone explain what it is about the facades or other features of these buildings that is worth preserving, other than their age? It seems like there is a lot of knee-jerk negative reaction on these buildings, with little discussion of a) why these buildings are worth saving and b) what is wrong with the new designs proposed for the site. Please educate me...
Michael
This website has been around a lot longer than I've worked for Scientific Properties, and my involvement in trying to save these properties, and many other historic properties, from demolition precedes that relationship by many years. This website in no way reflects the opinion of Scientific Properties, and we maintain a strict 'firewall' between my activities here and my work for them. I'm a supporter of your work to renovate and restore properties - and your own staff and consultants have contacted me and referenced my website to support your historic materials and tax credit applications. I'm happy to provide such support for historic preservation to the community - and if you make money off it, power to you.
But, as I've quoted you here - you said a few months ago that it was a "fair assumption" that the disappearance of these buildings from your renderings implied that they would be demolished (in answer to my question.) If you don't intend to tear them down, please state so clearly, and the community's concerns will be assuaged. If you only plan to apply for a COA to make modifications, then state so. But that's not what city staff are saying you've applied for.
In short, I support historic preservation, and I support Greenfire, Scientific Properties, Blue Devil Partners, the city, the county, etc. - when they choose to engage in historic preservation. I've worked hard on the Golden Belt renovation for Scientific Properties because of the commitment to restoration of the complex, which I believe in strongly, on multiple levels. Should Scientific Properties start wholesale demolition of contributing structures in Durham's local historic districts, you'd better believe that I'll find employment elsewhere.
GK
Various Anons
Because of the vagaries of taste in determining whether a particular building is 'worth saving', communities and the National Park Service determine that structures are contributing or non-contributing structures in a historic district. The review process that takes place is intended to vet all properties for their level of 'significance', as determined by architects and historians. These structures met the threshold for such significance. This is how historic preservation policy is intended to work, so that we do not resort to more arbitrary opinions in the heat of development.
GK
Gary,
Your passionate and principled committment to historic preservation is abundantly obvious to even a casual viewer of this site. For Michael Lemanski to suggest that this post was somehow connected to your employment indicates that he doesn't have a case to make for himself, and is simply going to resort to innuendo instead. He discredits himself and his company in the eyes of any fair-minded person.
John
As long as Blogger has me locked out, you can see the post intended for today here:
http://www.endangereddurham.org/wordpress/
GK
"I'm sorry but I'm not going to be paying $200+ for a room and I got to walk more than 50 yards in any direction to park"
If you can't walk 50 yards from your car through a vibrant urban environment, then there are any number of generic hotels for you to stay at in suburbia. Furthermore, nobody said they "wanted" Asheville. I believe their point was to show how other cities have successfully salvaged smaller, non-grandiose historic buildings and integrated them into the urban fabric. I am sure Greenfire has hired a very competent architect who can lay out their options and doesn't need a group of local designers to offer suggestions.
May I suggest we all take a deep breath until the intentions of Greenfire are known. I've met most of you in person (John, Michael Lemanski, etc.), and personal attacks are unwarranted IMHO. There's nothing wrong with Michael bringing up Gary's working for SP -- he phrased it in a context that clearly indicated that he was trying to explain himself rather than "talking down" to the commenters here.
With regards to anon, I will in fact be holding up a placard that provides for an alternative use. Since I'm running for office this fall, you might want to take a look at my platform -- it's a free market approach that is supported by the development community. Historic preservation is not incompatible with making money, you know -- Greenfire has demonstrated that in spades.
etI live in a historic building, 329 west Main. We redid this building in 2000. Based on my experience with that remodel and city approval, years of meeting on a committee to "direct" the street rehab design and living with that horribly managed construction project that disrupted our lives and cost us money for more than 2 years----I have no faith whatsoever in the city planning department, or the manager's office period to care about those of us who have invested in downtown and live here.
sally schauman
actually, Dave, you've read this site long enough to know that my employment is completely irrelevant here, and I'm sure that you understand that Michael bringing it up in an awkward association with COAs is merely an attempt to distract from the fact that he's applied to demolish these buildings.
So Greenfire's defense/justification of tearing down these buildings boils down to "Look at all the good stuff we've done?" So it's OK if we lose forever these pieces of Durham's history to Greenfire, because THEY deserve it? Apparently, by this implication, it's somehow better for us to lose our history to a company that's got "green" in its name than to someone like Bill Fields or Ronnie Sturdivant.
Or maybe it's just time to pay the piper. Greenfire's done some good things and now they want us to pay for them. I've heard a lot people wondering why Greenfire is buying up so much of downtown. It's sort of along the lines of "Hmmm, is there something we should be worried about? Maybe yes, if our history happens to be in the way of THEIR Parrish Street project ...
If Greenfire gets a COA to demolish the buildings as one of their options, there would be NO further barrier to them doing so, and the community loses what little leverage we have.
To the suggestion from anon that we architects should put together ideas and show them to Greenfire...if Greenfire would open their design process up to a community charrette or forum, as has been requested and recommended numerous times, I would GLADLY, along with many other of Durham's creative faithful, offer our creativity and professional experience, for free, to help this community.
I am encouraged by Anna's quote in the Herald Sun: "And we need to do more with the community so it doesn't feel rushed." I'm eager to here announcements about how Greenfire is going to do that.
My position and testimony to the Commission will be:
1) The buildings are significant and, at minimum, the facades should be preserved, if not restored in some manner to their earlier character.
2) What happens if the option of demolition is granted, and demolition is performed, and then Greenfire is unable to build their tower? Won't we have a nice giant hole in our history then. Growing concerns for the Triangle's economy and difficult lending environment cannot be removed from this debate.
3) The Historic District and the Commission were created to protect historic buildings from the economic pressures which would inevitably cause one to conclude that the older, smaller buildings should be torn down. The Community voted that our history was not only more important than the money, but that the history could actually DRIVE the revitalization by allowing us to create something in the City Center that you can't buy. ..the actual bricks, mortar, character and integrity that built this town. No one has convinced me that this tower rises above or should be immune from that goal.
If those building's are torn down, the scale, character AND integrity of a large chunk of downtown will be lost forever. Not just because of the physical qualities that will be lost, but also because of the erosion of the system that we had hoped would balance and preserve in our City Center a quality and resource that no one developer can create or replace.
If those buildings are torn down, might we learn to 'like' or even 'love' what replaces it? Sure...that's possible. But it's not the point. The whole historic district is an vital, living organism that is under attack.
Are we going to heal it, or kill it?
Greenfire's attempts to smear Gary's intentions as he fights on behalf of all of us for our precious history is despicable . .
I have to agree. That was a cheap shot by Greenfire.
A couple of people have suggested that Greenfire get their demolition permits and then we should wait and see what they do...
That's backwards.
Instead, Greenfire needs to tell the public what they're going to do (in writing). Only then we can talk about demolition permits.
In the meantime, Greenfire should apologize for crossing the line with their smears and innuendos.
You all keep chastising Greenfire for posting innuendo, but where is the condemnation of the innuendo that Greenfire is behind the blogger site being temporarily shut down? I guess this site is fun for conspiracy theorists. Yes, you are all correct. The City and Greenfire secretly hate downtown Durham and would like nothing more than to permanently destroy it.
Last Anon
Not sure who the "you" is here amongst all the comments, but you should read more closely - someone pointed out that it was a systemic Google problem, and I acknowledged that I was glad that it was just Google being ridiculous rather than "something targeted." I apologize for implying anything otherwise, just seemed odd at the moment I posted this, I'm informed that my website has been tagged as spam. But I was wrong.
GK
GK
I really don't understand the venom directed toward Greenfire on this board. They have said that they are interested in preserving the facade's and using them where practical in the new building. They share the value of having respect for the history but they also have investor dollars on the line to produce a viable project at the end of the day. That seems pretty conscious rather than rapacious.
This process hurrdle is one that they will need to clear before constructing the new building. Potential corporate tenants tend to want their new space within a resonable and predictable time frame. Clearing this hurrdle would allow them to market the new building more effectively.
What Greenfire has done with Rogers Alley should give everyone some comfort that they are not "rapacious pillaging developers." There are plenty of developers in Durham who have bought property and are sitting on it. This may include folks that participate on this board regualarly. However, that is not a fair statement about what Greenfire has done (see Rogers Alley & NCM).
Also, these old structures that are being described here as "historic" have long since become less than viable. They are neither stonehenge nor ancient burial grounds. This is the center of Durham's business district. It needs greater density and needs to be developed more than it needs preserving. The new high rise would make a huge difference in the perception of Durham from a commercial perspective and make it easier for other projects to get off the ground.
The suggestion that the city is paying for anything in the proposed Greenfire project is misleading. It needs to be said that the city's support of this project, while critical, dosen't amount to paying for anything. The city is essentially going to give them a tax break on what they develop after they complete the enttire project. They get no money upfront.
Greenfire has taken the lead on making this happen and has increased values for all the property oners downtown. There is no one else who has shared a big enough vision of what Durham's central business district could be. That is unfortunate but not something to hold against Greenfire. So we have a big vision for developing that area and the neigh sayers are in the position of just saying no and trying to slow Greenfire down. Interestingly, this strategy may serve their self interest but I don't think that it serves the community interest.
People have also taken pot shots at the "development" experience of Greenfire. So far, Greenfire has demonstrated in incredible ability to source capital. That is the first job of any developer. Second they have presented a vision for downtown that is game changing for an area of town that has been moribund for a generation. That would be job two of a developer, coming up with a viable idea. So they have the money & the idea. That gives me some significant confidence that they can put together the team to execute on the plan. The first piece of that puzzel includes Skanska as GC. So they have stared by getting an outstanding partner. Seems like they have apretty good track record at putting the team together. Hmmm!!! Maybe experience is over rated, not to be political about this, but maybe its capability that counts more than whether someone has done it before.
Chuck
Since you just spent awhile on another post implying that I was racist for not having posted sufficiently on Hayti and the injustice of urban renewal yet (it's starting in a few weeks, fyi) I have to question this statement:
"Also, these old structures that are being described here as "historic" have long since become less than viable. They are neither stonehenge nor ancient burial grounds. This is the center of Durham's business district. It needs greater density and needs to be developed more than it needs preserving."
Was Hayti either "stonehenge" or "an ancient burial ground?" Your arguments for development vs. preservation would sound quite familiar to the supporters of urban renewal.
Gary,
Is there any online petition that we can sign to let the City know how we feel about more teardowns in Durham?
Ginny Martin
Ginny
Indeed, I just received an email that one has been set up:
http://www.petitiononline.com/westmain/petition.html
GK
I'm pretty sure I know who "Chuck" is (if it is who I think it is, he owns a nice parcel in the DCP/DAP district), so FWIW he's not a bad guy IMO. He makes an excellent point re: Greenfire's funding and execution so far.
I didn't see anything unreasonable about his post (and I'm not sure I get the point he was making in the Hayti comment). While there are certainly valid reasons for tearing down historic properties, Greenfire's stated reason does not meet the test in this case.
Glad to hear the agenda item for demolition is being pulled. We shall wait and see.
This is a mistake. Our city has just started to see this, after the fact. Give us a look at www.HistoricNearWestside.com
Greenfire is being criticized because...
1) they have applied for demolition permits for three historic building in the heart of downtown Durham,
2) they are keeping the public in the dark, and
3) they smeared one of Durham's most reasoned voices for letting people know.
Surprised anyone had to ask.
Honestly, I fail to see much value in those buildings. They look pretty plain. I'm sure when they were built that no one expected them to last a hundred years.
It's okay to keep a few "historic" buildings around, but a thriving downtown needs nice modern buildings that are constructed to today's standards. Let's follow the lead of Charlotte, which has a great downtown, without obsolete structures cluttering up the area and preventing new development.
Hey Chuck -
Go read the financial statements on the Greenfire deal that were posted on the City of Durham Council Agenda site back in March.
What you will see is cash flow from City of Durham to Greenfire. This is not a tax break. This is a Public Incentive project and those proceeds are what help with the costs of the project.
The project would not move forward with the public funding, end of story. It is an interesting read.
Too bad there wasn't more of an uproar when this who debacle started earlier in the year. Better late than never I guess.
In addition to the Preservation Durham/COA process, be on the look out for the Developer Agreement that was supposed to be completed in June/July for Council Vote.
This is the key document that will enable or constrain what Greenfire can do.
I think it is laughable to suggest that Greenfire wants the COA to enable a quick decision on development options. Someone wrote that they should come clean first, then apply with full disclosure on the plans.
Hey Gary - Where can I find information on the HPC Meeting Agenda? I will definitely attend. There is no reason for those buildings to be torn down to accommodate a grossly disproportionate project. Just build something that will fit on the open parcel and rehab the other buildings.
Pretty funny it was pulled from this weeks agenda. Typical tactics from what I've seen of their MO thus far. Just wait for the last minute agenda add where no one is aware except the 20+ GF supporters.
Post a Comment