City set to demolish historic structure in Brightleaf area
Two little green signs have appeared on the former Graybar Electric building in the past few weeks, courtesy of our pals at NIS.
Evidently, your commercial building lacking running water and power is a condemnable offense, but should that not suffice, you can always write in the unassailable and undefinable "Unsafe!"
So, let me run down the chronology here: City of Durham takes possession of this 1930 commercial structure sometime in the early 1990s, neglects building for 10+ years, transfers building to the Triangle Transit Authority for a train station development that is in the deep freeze, and now wants to tear down the building as unsafe.
If you're new to this scene, this might sound a bit, well, inane. If you've been on the Durham scene awhile, you'll recognize it as more of the same.
Let's enumerate the reasons why tearing down this building is - I'll be charitable here - misguided.
1) As much as I'd like one, there is no TTA train, and no funding that I know of for Triangle Transit (as they are now called) to develop this triangle of land (between S. Duke, West Chapel Hill, and the RR tracks) into anything positive. Tear down this building, you have a big vacant lot.
2) News flash: we are in a recession. Despite the fact that it is traditional in Durham to tear down buildings when economic times are tough, it is a bafflingly bad idea. Tear this down and we reduce the available square footage for businesses downtown - who could use inexpensive commercial space now, more than ever.
3) Why do we have a Green Durham / Sustainability Manager if we are going to continue the unsustainable practice of tearing down existing buildings, particularly those close enough to multiple businesses and transit to promote walking and minimize car trips?
4) Historic Tax Credits - though not currently on the National Register, this building certainly would stand a good chance of being listed; 40% of the renovation costs could be returned to a developer who would take this on. See #2 - tax credits are a very good thing to bring in front of your friendly neighborhood lending institution right now.
5) It's Durham's history - I leave the historic reason for last, since it remains such an unpersuasive argument for our public sector. But families in Durham remember places like this - their Mom worked there, or their uncle was the regional sales manager, etc. I received a great email from someone at the national Graybar office who was happy to see the building was still around - he sent me clippings from their files about the branch in Durham. These are the things that make us unique, interesting, and connected to our past and each other.
Building codes are in place in order to ensure that occupied buildings meet a safety standard that we can rely upon, and that the public health isn't threatened by a building that is going to collapse on the sidewalk.
Who is this building unsafe for? It isn't in danger of collapsing on anyone. Why this particular building? Why now?
Find this spot on a Google Map.
Posts
34 comments:
What a shame, but with how Durham's city bureaucrats (especially NIS) and Mayor Billy are, it's no big surprise.
I was always amused that this building was on the surplus list for sale when the TTA line was expected to go through it, but now that the TTA is relatively kaput, it's being demo'd.
Oh well, perhaps it'll become a nice place to buy crack and hookers once it's an empty lot. I hope UDI makes a lot of money off the deal.
At least you've documented this structure on this blog, and one day people will [hopefully] miss it.
Thanks.
I had attempted to contact Mr. Rauch for information on the reasons the structure was deemed unsound, but it seems that his email is no longer in the Durham city mailserver's lookup table:
[brauch@ci.durham.nc.us]: host mail.ci.durham.nc.us[70.61.92.135] said: 550
cuda_nsu 5.1.1 User unknown (in reply to RCPT TO command)
Reporting-MTA: dns; xxxxxxxxx.edu
X-Postfix-Queue-ID: 9451751130B
X-Postfix-Sender: rfc822; xxxxxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Arrival-Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 09:12:53 -0500 (EST)
Final-Recipient: rfc822; brauch@ci.durham.nc.us
Action: failed
Status: 5.0.0
Diagnostic-Code: X-Postfix; host mail.ci.durham.nc.us[70.61.92.135] said: 550
cuda_nsu 5.1.1 User unknown (in reply to RCPT TO command)
His email and phone (which I haven't tried) are listed here:
http://www.durhamnc.gov/departments/comdev/housing_districts2.cfm
It would be so nice if our city officials were actually responsive to the public. Or at least, able to be contacted. (The city's 'contact us' forms are black holes, apparently.)
there's ALOT of stuff still in that building, old maps of durham, ancient projector machines, peoples documents, city documents, police documents, tons of candles, billy graham books, old software, office furniture, tables, desks.
i would suggest that anyone curious check out that place before they tear it down, there's alot of weird history inside too.
I think its pretty unsafe because the roof is caved in completely in the middle, pretty bad water damage throughout... the foundation and walls of the building are pretty sound though. I would help fix it up if there was some way to propose that to the city???
what do you do about things like this?
Old Durham maps? City documents?!? How do we get these archival materials out of there and into the Durham County Library's archives?
I hope this building finds a renovated life.
This is a prime example of the negative influence of one way road design.
I wholeheartedly would place some of the blame for this situation on the decision to maintain Duke Street as more a one-way freeway than a city street.
People don't want to locate businesses (office or retail) on one way roads. One-way roads make it hard to access buildings, then these buildings property values drop and it is hard to find tenants.
You can't revitalize downtown and keep Duke, Gregson, and the other roads one-way freeways. You are shooting yourself in the foot and the revitalization will be only partially successful and limited in scope.
Revert roads to two way travel and buildings like this, and a fuller revitalization of downtown and surrounding core neighborhoods have a chance.
I'm beyond disgusted. I've driven by this fantastic old building every day for twelve years, and looked into buying it when it was listed as surplus property. I was told that it would be "incorporated into the TTA station", which turned out to be a huge load of BS.
The claim that this building represents even a minimal public safety risk is also BS. Gary's point is right on. Unsafe for who? Why can't it be made safe (plywood, padlocks, warning signs) instead of being irreversably torn down for surface parking for a TTA station that will never be built?
I find it absolutely unacceptable that my tax dollars are being used for this. How do I stop this from happening?
Is this city corrupt from head to toe? I'm beginning to think so. I think next election we should clean house.
In the meantime, here is what I just sent to council@durhamnc.gov:
Council members,
I would encourage you to read the post by Gary Kueber at the Endangered Durham web site, then ask yourself, why is this building scheduled to be torn down?
http://endangereddurham.blogspot.com/2009/02/city-set-to-demolish-historic-structure.html
I've driven by this building many times, hoping to see it one day become a cool little restaurant, cafe, or other creative business. This building can be renovated, but the city needs to give developers the opportunity to do so by selling these surplus properties. Leveling the building will only result in a weed and litter covered vacant lot that will hurt, not help, the Brightleaf district.
Please stop the destruction of this, and other historic structures in our city.
Nothing really surprises me with the city of Durham anymore. God forbid we actually renovate something. The tearing down has done so well with their East Durham revitalization plan. If Durham would look at many other cities that have revitalized their downtowns, they would see it revolved around the restoration of historic buildings. Maybe Mr. Bell could use some of his stimulous money we paid for him to go to go to washington to get last week to do restoration work. Maybe that thinking would be too logical......
"had attempted to contact Mr. Rauch for information on the reasons the structure was deemed unsound, but it seems that his email is no longer in the Durham city mailserver's lookup table:
[brauch@ci.durham.nc.us]: host mail.ci.durham.nc.us[70.61.92.135] said: 550
cuda_nsu 5.1.1 User unknown (in reply to RCPT TO command)
Reporting-MTA: dns; xxxxxxxxx.edu
X-Postfix-Queue-ID: 9451751130B
X-Postfix-Sender: rfc822; xxxxxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Arrival-Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 09:12:53 -0500 (EST)
Final-Recipient: rfc822; brauch@ci.durham.nc.us
Action: failed
Status: 5.0.0
Diagnostic-Code: X-Postfix; host mail.ci.durham.nc.us[70.61.92.135] said: 550
cuda_nsu 5.1.1 User unknown (in reply to RCPT TO command)
His email and phone (which I haven't tried) are listed here:
http://www.durhamnc.gov/departments/comdev/housing_districts2.cfm"
His E-mail sir is:
Burton.Rauch@durhamnc.gov
People, go take another look at that building. It's beyond salvaging, and it was never "significant" or "historic" to begin with. This dilapidated structure and the nearby Medical Arts and Temporary Quarters buildings just need to go, the sooner the better! It will really improve the appearance of this part of town.
DurhamLover
Although you might persuade me on Temporary Quarters, you won't persuade me that vacant lots are better than buildings on the Medical Arts site or this site. Vacant land doesn't improve an urban center.
I don't really understand your statement that it "wasn't historic to begin with." Notwithstanding the obvious - nothing is historic to begin with - this building has been here for 80 years, during which time countless people have patronized the businesses within/gone to work at them and passed by this building - perhaps every day of their lives. How is that not historic?
But that aside, you've ignored the first 4 points. (I really tried to put the historic one last, but people always want to argue that building X isn't historic.)
There may be a very small percentage of buildings that are 'beyond salvaging'. But mostly, that's a meaningless statement. Almost any building can be saved - it's just a question of whether the people with property control want to spend the money to do it, or transfer it to someone who has the money to do it. I've been looking at and renovating structures like this for years. It can be salvaged.
The real issue is, would you be happy if it was completely renovated - with a viable business in it? If so, why aren't we working towards that rather than demolition? If not, then the issue really doesn't have anything to do with whether the building is 'salvagable', and the use of publicly-funded code enforcement to get the building out of the way for something else is inappropriate.
GK
Oh I want to curse so much right now. Oh so much. Durham City -- please "get it"! You could be so much better and we would be so much better for it!
Gary
I really do appreciate what you do with this site. That said, it's just not practical to try to save every single old building in Durham, especially plain, derelict ones like this structure.
Vacant lots are not necessarily bad; personally I prefer them to many of the eyesores around this part of town.
Now, if anyone was willing to completely renovate that building, then sure, why not? But that seems pretty unlikely. As it stands (barely?), the structure is a danger to public safety.
DurhamLover,
YOU go look at that building again! It's a fine old place, one that has always intrigued me, definitely nothing I would dismiss as "plain". Obviously I haven't been inside, but no matter how bad it is, why not at least preserve the facade. I'm willing to donate my time and even a modest amount of money to help with this cause, and hope that others are too.
Gary, thanks for the wonderful glob!
(: Marty :)
This building is in far better shape than much of the American Tobacco Campus was just a few years ago. Of course, lots of people wanted that "dangerous eyesore" torn down too.
Beyond the irresponsibility of tearing down a redeemable historic structure, it's also fiscally and environmentally irresponsible.
I would expect that the city could realize greater profit by selling the property, than by spending money tearing it down, then further tipping fees to dispose of the debris, only to be left with a vacant lot that would bring a much lower price upon sale. Once a business is up and running then the city realizes tax revenue, and the business further contributes to Brightleaf and downtown.
Tearing down a redeemable structure, just to build some craptacular structure in it's place is both atheistically undesirable but environmentally irresponsible.
I don't think that this city could get this more wrong if it tried!
Wonder how much Mayor Bell is stuffing in his pockets to turn his back on this and other properties ? I whole heartedly agree we need to Clean House on the next election !
Ok, I'll be honest, my attention is now off the building and onto what is said to be inside it. Personal and historical ocuments? Maps? In a building where (allegedly) the roof has caved in and is leaking? At the very least, con't something be one about salvaging any history that might be in those maps and docs?
Anonymous - if anyone can get the stuff out of the building, Durham County Library's NC Collection would love to have them. We already have some 'rescued' blueprints of Durham buildings, old maps of Durham, and miscellaneous governmental documents in our archival collections. DCL is trying to contact the City about the items inside, but if anyone has a way of getting it to us sooner that would be helpful.
I emailed Mike Woodard to alert him to the situation and get his opinion about what can be done about this. Hopefully, he will post a comment here and we can organize ourselves to stop this demolition from happening. As I wrote to Mike, "The city should spend the demolition money and associated tipping fees to stabilize the building, and look for a qualified buyer."
My name is Nicole Norfleet. I am a journalism student at UNC-Chapel Hill. I have a GoogleAlert for "Triangle Transit" and stumbled on this blog accidentally. I want to write a story about it for my journalism class so if anybody is interested in telling me their opinion about the demolition please e-mail me at norfleet2009@gmail.com. Thanx.
Anonymous wrote:
His E-mail sir is:
Burton.Rauch@durhamnc.gov
Then why isn't this listed on any Durham City Government webpage? In fact, a Google search shows no listings of this email anywhere.
In addition, it is me, or was your terse reply dripping with disdain?
Just to be sure that this is clear, the city no longer owns this building. The city owned this building for many years, but sold/gave the building (I don't know the mechanism) to the Triangle Transit Authority ~3 years ago to be used as part of the downtown Durham TTA train station development.
It wasn't ever clear what the disposition of the building would be in TTA's station development, and I was concerned that it would become part of a parking lot.However, there is obviously no commuter rail train on the horizon, and no funding to develop this land into something else. So what is Triangle Transit doing with this land? They at least threatened eminent domain for the gas station on West Chapel Hill. Where is the public good in this?
In that context, the city has condemned the building. There is no alternative plan for this land - why aren't we (the city, the private sector/public, and Triangle Transit) trying to find a future that allows a local business to get started in this building? Give them a sweetheart long-term lease deal in exchange for them performing necessary repairs to make the building not only fit for occupancy, but a vibrant part of the Brightleaf district.
There are so many creative ways to get to a win-win here; but because the lose-lose (demolition)is easy, and the status quo, that's the path we'll go down. Let's just not pretend that it's a good solution for anyone except the demolition company.
GK
I don't usually agree with Gary over keeping every old house or building just because of it's age or legacy, but in this case, I can't see any good reason to demolish a brick structure like this one, given the opportunities that exist in its location. Once the train station and Chesterfield buildings are completed, this would be a perfect location for a restaurant or club that further connects the Brightleaf district with American Tobacco.
Unless they plan to put up an office tower, I just don't see any uses except for parking, and there is now plenty of that with the new deck at West Village.
I'm sure the roof is in bad shape, but the walls and architecture look fine for adaptive re-use. It's not an eysore like the Medical Arts building or the old Holiday Inn, and it's in a perfect location given all the traffic that passes by every day.
terseness - a neatly short and concise expressive style
I wonder if it's possible to buy this building from the city??
anyone know the parking situation for that building?
Rakolnikov- There is no dedicated parking spot for this building, but there is an 18-spot lot attached to the bookcase shop next door.
Is this building within the downtown tier? Without that, nothing will be allowed on the site without parking. The map I used to use to look at the downtown tier is now missing from the planning department's web site (I'm sure it is somewhere on the Durham website, but I couldn't find it quickly).
Yes, this building is covered by the Downtown Design Overlay (DDO-1). There are no parking requirements for buildings within the DDO. I would hope that we would begin to move towards some shared parking - the intent of the DDO. I don't think there is a dearth of parking around here between the West Village deck, and the potential for shared space with the usually sparsely used Duke Memorial lots on the north side of Memorial St., not to mention the other parking in this triangle of land.
Admittedly, it's still a challenge to convince folks (tenants, users) that such parking arrangements are adequate. I hope we can get there.
GK
Oh, and if anyone needs a map of the current DDO boundaries, here is a link to one.
GK
I wrote to Burt Rausch asking for additional information, I received an uninformative reply. Maybe he's not allowed to say more; I'm unimpressed either way.
>> Mr. Rauch,
>>
>> I was wondering why, exactly, the former Graybar Electric building, at 303
>> South Duke Street has been condemned?
>>
>> Furthermore, I was wondering if the City of Durham/TTA made any attempts
>> at maintaining the structure, that you are aware of, since it was acquired
> The building at 303 S. Duke St (Graybar Electric building) was
> condemned because it is in violation of North Carolina General Statute
> 160A-425.1 (Unsafe Buildings). The legal process that we follow requires
> us to notify the owners and any others that have a financial interest in
> the property. They will have ample opportunity to bring the property into
> compliance.
>
> Thanks for your concern.
Anonymous & Gary, thanks. I noticed a driveway on the left side of the building and wonder if that could be used for parking (may not be wide enough though). I agree there is adequate parking nearby.
Here is the full text of § 160A‑425.1.
Unsafe buildings condemned in certain localities.
(a) Residential Building and Nonresidential Building or Structure. – Every building that shall appear to the inspector to be especially dangerous to life because of its liability to fire or because of bad condition of walls, overloaded floors, defective construction, decay, unsafe wiring or heating system, inadequate means of egress, or other causes, shall be held to be unsafe, and the inspector shall affix a notice of the dangerous character of the structure to a conspicuous place on the exterior wall of the building.
(b) Residential Building and Nonresidential Building or Structure. – In addition to the authority granted in subsection (a) of this section, an inspector may declare a residential building or nonresidential building or structure within a community development target area to be unsafe if it meets both of the following conditions:
(1) It appears to the inspector to be vacant or abandoned.
(2) It appears to the inspector to be in such dilapidated condition as to cause or contribute to blight, disease, vagrancy, fire or safety hazard, to be a danger to children, or to tend to attract persons intent on criminal activities or other activities that would constitute a public nuisance.
(c) If an inspector declares a residential building or nonresidential building or structure to be unsafe under subsection (b) of this section, the inspector must affix a notice of the unsafe character of the structure to a conspicuous place on the exterior wall of the building. For the purposes of this section, the term "community development target area" means an area that has characteristics of an urban progress zone under G.S. 143B‑437.09, a "nonresidential redevelopment area" under G.S. 160A‑503(10), or an area with similar characteristics designated by the city council as being in special need of revitalization for the benefit and welfare of its citizens.
(d) This section applies to the Cities of Clinton, Durham, Fayetteville, Goldsboro, High Point, Lumberton, Rocky Mount, Whiteville, and Wilson, and the Towns of Garner, Franklin, Hope Mills, Louisburg, and Spring Lake only. (1905, c. 506, s. 15; Rev., s. 3010; 1915, c. 192, s. 15; C.S., s. 2773; 1929, c. 199, s. 1; 1969, c. 1065, s. 1; 1971, c. 698, s. 1; 2000‑164, s. 1; 2001‑386, s. 1; 2002‑118, s. 1; 2003‑23, s. 1; 2003‑42, s. 1; 2004‑6, s. 1; 2006‑116, s. 3; 2006‑252, s. 2.18; 2007‑216, s. 1; 2008‑59, s. 1.)
I am writing to inquire about the status of the 303 South Duke Street property which has recently been condemned. I am wondering if this property has been available for sale to the general public. I ask because I know there would be a great deal of interest in preservation and restoration. Seeing that the property is historic and is part of the heritage of the City of Durham, it would be a loss to see it torn down. I am unsure as to who in the TTA would be of assistance in this situation, please do let me know if there is a particular person I may contact regarding this property. Thank you for your time and consideration.
Respectfully,
Kate Thompson
I got two responses. One from Patrick Hannah, J.D. who actually isn't on the board anymore (but the reply was nice) and then one from Wib Gulley
Web Gulley
General Counsel, Triangle Transit
4600 Emperor Blvd, Durham, NC 27703
PO Box 13787, RTP, 27709
919.485.7418
I can't copy the response... but I can summarize. Here it is:
Ms Thompson,
"Your inquiry ... has been referred to me by Mark Ahrendsen of the City of Durham."
Here he tells the storyline of the TTA acquiring it from the city of Durham, it being left in ill repair, the roof caving in, the TTA now owns the surrounding buildings and it will be the new downtown station. The condition of the building is poor.
"TTA has worked ...to ensure that locally designated and National Register Historic structures, sites and districts are not adversely impacted by current and future TTA facilities."
For more information, he gives this contact:
"Steve Cruse, Senior Planner, Durham City County Planning Department at (919) 560-4137 extension 236."
He then states that a librarian (name withheld) has had access to the site and has determined there are NO historical documents within??? SO there is confusion on this subject given others' posted comments.
"TTA is issuing a Request for Proposals for demolition of the building at this address and also for the concrete building nearby that was formerly a gas station..."
He finishes by stating that the building is in poor condition and that it "poses a threat to public safety"
It seems that though the building is in bad shape, there are people who want to save it- and those people (who have the money) should contact the TTA and propose a deal. I know in Chicago that there are all kinds of shops and stores around the EL- Why can't that be true of Durham? I would love to see someone save the structure and then down the road (in many years) when the TTA does build, build around, incorporate, and value history and progress at the same time. Right?
Post a Comment