Triangle Transit and City of Durham following well-worn path towards a vacant lot at Duke and West Chapel Hill
Triangle Transit held a "Public Information Session" on Tuesday night regarding the Graybar building - my guess would be that ~15 members of the public showed up over the two hour period, a group matched by ~10 people from TT, 2 code enforcement officers from NIS, one city council member, and one city planner.
This was not set up as an opportunity to solicit ideas for the preservation of the building, as the small room was ringed by boards outlining the historic insignificance of the building, the derelict condition of the roof that makes the building 'unsafe', a site plan showing the entire NCRR-Duke-West Chapel Hill triangle land covered with surface parking, among others. The posture was clearly that the demolition of the building was a fait accompli, and there really wasn't anything to be done about that.
The story, as gathered from several folks:
1) TT acquired the building from the city for use as part of the eventual station site. They own the building, and Cherokee Investment Partners has a five year option on the land as master developer to provide infrastructure and the like. Cherokee has ~3 years left on this option, but no particular plan to do anything imminently.
2) TT is not in a hurry to demolish the building. However, after ?20 years? of sitting empty, most of it under city ownership while being allowed to deteriorate, NIS has decided to now cite the building as unsafe, giving TT the option to repair, demolish, or be fined and sued if NIS demolishes the building for them.
3) Wib Gulley, counsel for TT, states that TT has no authority to spend public funds for the repair of the building, as it is not part of their plan for the station site. I could not get a clear sense of whose requirements these are, but it seemed to be Federal and state. They do not intend to be sued, so they will demolish the building.
4) There is no plan to do anything with the site right now, and it will likely be seeded with grass, or a garden-next-to-the-tracks will be planted. The city-approved site plan shows the entire site filled with a surface parking lot. TT's hopes are pinned on the Senate and local approval of a 0.5 cent sales tax and the STAC transit plan to allow them to, ~3 years or more from now, build rail transit.
My over-riding concern, based on 50 years of Durham history, is that we will demolish this building on the basis of dreams, and end up with yet-another weedy lot that someone like me has to call and pester someone to mow for the next 30 years. We will, yet again, squander a historic resource for nothing.
My major points to TT:
1) Explore partnership with a private developer to redevelop the building, and eventually integrate the building into the station site. The condition of this building is no worse than anything any local developers have taken on. The 'unsafe' thing is a silly 'scare' argument, in my opinion, wielded as a cudgel by the city when they want to disarm the opposition. ("Why do you hate the children that will be inevitably crushed by falling buildings....?") Unless it is going to fall on the sidewalk, we are talking about the safety of trespassers. Secure the building.
2) If a parking lot is somehow a required element right now (which I'm not sure I understand, since there is no station,) it is, by TT's admission, undersized. This will not improve if someone manages to eventually build underground parking, an extremely costly endeavor, since they plan to build a station on the site if the train dream comes to fruition.
3) The proffered notion that someone is going to build a $$$ million dollar 15-story building or buildings on the site is just silly. It is by nature a low-rise development site, highly constrained by its shape and small size. There is no way the space, parking, and $ work out to build something large on this site, unless you knock down Duke Memorial or BB Olive's building to build a giant parking deck, or Greenfire wants to share space in a massive parking deck wrapping the NC Mutual building.
4) Just because the building isn't listed on the National Register doesn't mean that it isn't historic. We cannot afford to lose yet another of our few remaining historic commercial buildings in Durham. It is possible to designate this building and for a private developer to get tax credits on it.
5) Creating a giant vacant lot here is utterly inconsistent with the goals of TT. Creating a more desolate streetscape between the Brightleaf district and Durham Station is not going to promote pedestrian activity/ridership. Yet another moat of surface parking/empty lot will further separate the Brightleaf district from Durham Station, American Tobacco, and all other points south and southwest. The notion that this important gateway into Durham would be 'anchored' by an empty lot/parking lot is depressingly retro.
6) I support rail transit. But it isn't reality right now; it is a hope. The known, budgeted future for this site, if the building is demolished is a vacant lot. That is the only real choice in front of us: vacant historic building or empty lot.
The two major things that need to happen to save this building are:
1) the city needs to be convinced to hold off from demolition / civil suit against TTA to remove the immediate impetus for demolition.
2) TTA needs to be convinced that the building can be an integral part of their long-term plan for the site.
I'll do my best on these, but I need your help. Landscape architects, contractors, architects, developers et al - if you feel like to can contribute to an alternative vision for this site, please let me, TT, and the City know about it. Wib Gulley said he was willing to listen to alternatives where someone would redevelop the building. It is possible to get the city to hold off if there is a plan in place. It's a long-shot, to be sure; but I'd argue that it's not any more of a long shot than rail transit in the Triangle, and we're faced with the strong chance of a lose-lose proposition: no train, no building.
Posts
7 comments:
Well, I give you all the credit in the world for fighting this one, but I think we'll need an actual interested party with money in their hands to pinch this one away from TTA. Someone is going to have to stand up and offer to purchase it, then renovate it. Given the condition this would be a daunting task, especially given the size of the building. It would be a great space for a restaurant I think, but there's no parking associated with the building and anyone would be reluctant to put out that much capital one a building where the risk of loss is so great. Especially in a time when the economy is so down in the dumps.
And I agree, getting the grass cut will be a pain in the rear if and when it's torn down.
Dear Wib:
I knew you as an idealistic, passionate and caring college student. Now you've become "the man." How sad.
If I were into conspiracy theories, I'd be very worried for the Durham Bookcases building.
Looking at the state and federal budgets and the federal stimulus package, there's an awful lot headed for this corridor. High speed rail, TTA, and widening of the NCRR corridor look like they may all be headed for the line through the middle of Durham.
This spot is one of the only "pinch points" in about a 6 mile stretch through Durham. Everywhere else, widening to two or even three tracks won't be a problem, but here, there's not much room without going in towards the old L&M campus.
TTA's interest in demolishing this building only makes sense to me if they've looked at the maps and realized they had to make more room here. The Graybar building is easy pickins -- it's empty and owned by them already. Durham Bookcases is harder, but it's the one right up next to the tracks.
>>1) the city needs to be convinced to hold off from demolition / civil suit against TTA to remove the immediate impetus for demolition.
2) TTA needs to be convinced that the building can be an integral part of their long-term plan for the site.<<
I agree very much with number one, but after talking to TTA staffers at this "hearing," I'm convinced that number two is simply a non-starter. The plans they displayed showed a parking-lot exit right where the Greybar building is currently located. As one staffer said to me, without that exit, buses would not be able to go through the parking lot, and what kind of a station would it be without bus access? (Never mind the fact that the brand spanking new bus terminal is just across the street. Obviously you need a bus to get across the street.)
I'm afraid that TTA has become a lot like DOT. DOT sees its function as roadbuilding, and anything that interferes with roadbuilding is simply a nuisance that needs to be bulldozed aside. For TTA, light rail has become an end in itself, and nothing else matters; certainly not anything as inconsequential as the Graybar building.
But would someone explain to me why we need light rail? As I understand it, the Feds rejected money for this because however TTA goosed the numbers they couldn't project enough ridership to make the project economically viable. The expected cost, at least a few years ago, was 630 million dollars. See: http://www.carolinajournal.com/articles/display_story.html?id=2465
I'm not against railroads. I like railroads. But the question I asked (and never got an answer to) is, why light rail? Why can't TTA buy some engines and cars and start running commuter train service on the existing rail lines? According to one estimate I've seen, light rail costs something like $25 million per mile to build tracks. Why do we need more railroad tracks in Durham? And why do we need to encounter such heavy upfront expenses? If we used the tracks we've got, the new AMTRAK station could be the TTA station as well.
The Graybar building needs to be renovated, and complementary, street-facing buildings need to be constructed on this site. This would encourage pedestrian traffic between Brightleaf and American Tobacco. TTA's proposed parking lot will be a visual, gaping wound on body of downtown.
What do I think will happen? With the city's connivance, the Greybar building will be torn down, and we'll have an empty, weedy lot on the site. But the light rail won't get built because someone (Feds, state) will notice that it costs too much. Will TTA try to use existing tracks as I've proposed? No, and for the same reason DOT wouldn't be caught dead building a bike path.
Lose. Lose.
Durham Bookcases is definitely a goner. It's completely inside the NCRR right-of-way on leased land.
I don't know how I can help, but if you need an extra voice or labor, tell me what to do and I'll do it.
It was interesting/painful to be at the session.
One option for "anchoring" this block would be a grocery store (e.g. Trader Joe's). It's a good way to attract foot and car traffic, and is completely compatible with a (future) transit hub. This model is not uncommon in many smallish European cities. With the plethora of unoccupied sites (former Greyhound station, former gas station, and soon-to-be former Amtrak station), a creative parking arrangement might also be possible, no?
Post a Comment