news-record.com

OPINION

Development issue in College Hill a question of preservation

Article
Comments (17)

Sunday, December 20, 2009

(Updated 3:00 am)

By DAVID ARNEKE

The massive private student housing complex proposed for College Hill isn't an issue for just one neighborhood. It's a matter that will impact the entire community.

The Zoning Commission made the right decision last week when it decisively rejected the proposal, 7-2. In two weeks, the new City Council will have a chance to show how willing it is to defend the quality of life in Greensboro's neighborhoods.

The College Hill neighborhood doesn't oppose the redevelopment of the Newman Whitney metalworking and machinery site. We just oppose this particular plan. As the Zoning Commission recognized, the scale and density of the proposal are wildly inappropriate for a residential neighborhood. The huge buildings and 725 students squeezed into too small a space -- and the traffic, parking and noise problems they would create -- would have an extremely negative effect on a great many families and homeowners. Those families' investments in their homes in College Hill have raised the neighborhood's property values dramatically, benefiting the entire city. Greensboro's tax base hasn't had too many bright spots lately. College Hill and the other historic districts are shining exceptions.

College Hill residents don't object to having students in the neighborhood. We have hundreds of them living with us now, and we always will. We're already doing our part to accommodate UNCG students. Adding 725 more in one massive project is just too much in too small a space.

We recognize that the property will be redeveloped, and many neighbors will be happy to see Newman Whitney go -- the company is not an entirely wonderful neighbor. But it's easy to imagine worse; in fact, this proposal has provided a blueprint for worse.

Redevelopment is inevitable, but the answer isn't to build a giant complex at the expense of College Hill. This is a very valuable piece of in-town property near UNCG. We thank the Zoning Commission for recognizing that the city doesn't have to jump at the first redevelopment project that comes along. The College Hill Historic District is an aesthetic, cultural and financial asset. We can do better than this student housing proposal.

The developer's attorney complained to the Zoning Commission that the neighborhood didn't offer any solutions. An obvious one already exists: The city's comprehensive plan calls for mixed commercial development of the property. That could be a mix of retail, office and residential use. Such a project, designed with appropriate scale and density and with sensitivity to the surrounding neighborhood, could be a very good solution for that property.

The timing may not be favorable for such a project today; so part of the solution is for the property to remain zoned as it is until a developer with a better idea can make an offer. Contrary to the inaccurate information being promoted by the city planning staff and the developer, Newman Whitney is still operating at the site. It appears to be a going concern and, without a buyer for the property, the chances of it having the resources to buy a new site and actually relocate appear to be essentially zero.

One other aspect of this case worth noting: Greensboro's two other historic districts have similarly large tracts in or adjacent to them that eventually will be redeveloped -- the Guilford County Schools offices in Fisher Park and the Dunleith property in Aycock.

Even if you don't care about the aesthetic and historic value of these neighborhoods, the great jump in their property values in recent decades is inarguably an asset to the city. College Hill and Greensboro's other historic districts are assets worth protecting.

The author is president of the College Hill Neighborhood Association.

Advertisement | Advertise with Us

Comments

View Comments

This article has been closed to new comments. Comments are generally closed after 14 days. However, comments may be closed earlier at the discretion of the News & Record.

Inappropriate content? Please report abuse.

DRA922

December 20, 2009 - 9:12 am EST

Please note that "student housing complex" is a euphemism, the News & Record's words, not the words I used when I submitted this column as a response to an editorial. Edwards rents its developments out by the bed, not by the unit. That's what a dormitory is. What's the problem with that word? What's the problem with calling things what they are? The developer, and apparently the News & Record, want to position this thing as some kind of upscale apartment complex, but it really would be nothing more than a giant dormitory. And that makes a difference. Apartment complexes don't rent exclusively to undergraduates, living on their own for the first time. Just ask the neighbors of a similar dormitory built in recent years on Walker Avenue at Mayflower. These things aren't a good fit with residential neighborhoods.

Unlike a dormitory run by the university, this complex would have no accountability to the public. Noise, parking, every aspect of the behavior of 725 undergraduates shoehorned into this complex right on top of the neighboring homeowners -- no one from the Edwards company is going to be there at 2 a.m. to control it. Or possibly at any other hour, since they don't plan to have an on-site resident manager. Anyone who thinks that's the best and highest use for this property probably won't have to live within earshot and won't have to deal with the parking and traffic problems brought on by such an absurdly dense development in a residential neighborhood.

When I submitted this column, I described the complex as "a massive dormitory complex." Which is exactly what it would be. Who edited this -- Henry Isaacson? Even though this was written as a response to the newspaper's editorial supporting the rezoning proposal, the editors changed it to reflect the developer's description of the project, taking out every reference to the complex as a dormitory. Some public forum.

College Hill, and the rest of the community, can be thankful that the Zoning Commission isn't as naive and short-sighted as the News & Record. Their discussion of the issue last Monday night was thoughtful, responsible and showed a lot of insight. The News & Record could learn something from it.

David Arneke

logicfairy

December 20, 2009 - 9:02 pm EST

I also noticed that the caption under the photo in the article read "A proposal to build a complex of town house units for students in College Hill prompted some residents to organize in protest, but others favored the plan." What bias. "Town house units," as if these will be ordinary apartments instead of high-priced dormitory rooms. "Some residents" is technically correct, if by "some" they mean the vast majority of residents, and by "others" they mean a handful. The News & Record should be ashamed.

Doug

December 23, 2009 - 3:17 pm EST

David,

Your comment was just pointed out to me, or I would have responded sooner.

I'll take responsibility for the change. Student housing complex strikes me as a more accurate description of the proposed development than dormitory. If that's a euphemism, then UNCG itself uses a euphemism, because it does not have dormitories, it has residence halls: http://hrl.uncg.edu/halls/

The term recognizes the differences between student housing now and back when I was in college and students really did live in dorms -- two or more to a room and one bathroom for an entire hall.

In regard to operating this proposed complex exclusively for students, it is my understanding that's the intent but that nonstudents could not legally be excluded.

Doug Clark

Risright

December 20, 2009 - 9:51 am EST

I'm sorry, I disagree. First of all, every property in America "over the last decades" have appreciated in value, except in the past year or so when values have decreased for the first time anywhere from 10% to 25%. There is nothing remarkable about the property value appreciation in College Hill. On the contrary, I would argue College Hill property values are in jeopardy and at a crossroads.

The restrictive and resulting costly development standards in College Hill prevent any new single family residential development. It is not going to happen. Additionally, these same standards make it cost prohibitive for the average small investor to buy an older home and fix it up. Thus, you are left with commercial development to be able to afford the costs to invest in the neighborhood.It is all good and well for the neighborhood to want a nice, small mixed use retail / residential development but if the numbers don't work to sustain a small development, it will not be built. So, you have effectively taken the private sector out of the equation. Ah...but you still have government!

UNCG is going to grow. UNCG has stated that their goal is to move from 25% of their student body housed in university owned dorms to 50% in the next 5 to 10 years. That means they are currently about 4000 beds short. If UNCG buys this land, the resulting development will be a generic, non descript, containment dormitory for students.Not the kind of property that increases property values of the surrounding neighborhood and in fact will probably hurt the values.

If Greensboro is ever going to evolve past the old sterotype, blue collar, mill town mentality that has left it mired in the past, and yes, the College Hill property owners are todays equvilant of the Mill owners who don't want to see any competition, then it needs to take some bold steps to create excitement and buzz. The detractors of this type development are the same ones who pay lip service to and think Greensboro is a new south, progressive, dynamic town and a good fit for todays youth. It is time these people wake up. We can't keep running off the developers who have the abiltiy to make significant change for the better, if we expect to grow and be competitive in todays world.

buzzman

December 20, 2009 - 10:31 am EST

Excellent commentary! I haven't heard of any other developers waiting in line to build on this property. The dorm-style apartments may not be ideal, but they would be better than nothing and much better than UNCG built dorms.

SouthWest

December 20, 2009 - 12:53 pm EST

Sometimes nothing is better than something.

logicfairy

December 20, 2009 - 9:15 pm EST

The dormitory would be prettier, but make conditions much worse. And you shouldn't accept something that is not appropriate in the fear that something worse will come along. I would rather it remain an eyesore until that right something comes along. If it doesn't, so be it - we're no worse off for it. I have a feeling that most of the pro-Edwards commenters on the N&R are working for the developer, and at the very least don't live in College Hill and is pro-any-development.

At least UNCG built dorms would be accountable and have resident assistants living there, but UNCG says that they would probably develop the property for other uses.

DRA922

December 20, 2009 - 10:48 am EST

Two new property owners are preparing to build new homes in College Hill right now. Families continue to buy houses and fix them up. The historic district standards still attract investment in College Hill, just as they have for 30 years. In fact, it was "the private sector" in the form of absentee landlords that was pushing College Hill to the brink of becoming a slum in the 70's, and what brought it back was families investing in and improving their homes. That process continues today, and no amount of ideological wishful thinking -- government is bad/big corporations know what's best -- is going to change that. The only thing the historic district guidelines are preventing is the further deterioration of the neighborhood at the hands of absentee landlords.

SouthWest

December 20, 2009 - 1:05 pm EST

David,

I am an absentee landlord and take pride in my units. I understand that some absentee landlords do not put the effort in keeping their places up to standards but have seen onsite owners do the same thing.

Hopefully the City Council will reject the developers plan and the same or different developer will come to the table with a better more thought out plan. I figure on this proposal, maximizing the dollar took out some of those ideas.

nclawkid

December 20, 2009 - 10:50 am EST

David, Don't many of the single family homes in College Hill also rent out by the bed?

I would like to see the Newman site redeveloped because it is quite an eyesore. And I like College hill's idea of mixed use even better for this site. Hopefully, College Hill reps are spending as much time meeting with Edwards about redesigning this plan as they are fighting it in the media.

DRA922

December 20, 2009 - 11:15 am EST

All of the rentals I know of in College Hill are rented by the apartment or by the house, not by the bedroom. It's not inconceivable that a few are rented that way, but citywide zoning limits single units (apartments or houses) to no more than four unrelated individuals, so you don't find the type of extreme density that Edwards is proposing.

We've met with Edwards five or six times, most recently four days before the Zoning Commission hearing. The design of the project is very problematic, but the bigger issue is that the intended use is so incompatible with a residential neighborhood. And they haven't moved an inch on that.

Risright

December 20, 2009 - 1:10 pm EST

David, it is not incompatible to a residential neighborhood. That is why it is called student "residential" housing. There are students walking all over College Hill. I think you are out of touch with today’s students and what they desire. Go visit Chapel Hill or Athens, GA or Auburn, AL. All of these areas having student housing tucked in with these eclectic small neighborhoods. Today’s student is very appreciative and sensitive to the neighborhoods. The Animal House mentality is gone. All these kids have been indoctrinated to the green, eco-friendly mind-set. They are mindful and respective of the historical nature of the area. Sure there will be a few bad apples, but you can't legislate against that. Times have changed. College Hill needs to also.

logicfairy

December 20, 2009 - 9:13 pm EST

Risright, you continue to miss the point that College Hill doesn't have a problem with students. We have a problem with a giant dormitory full of undergrads concentrated in an area that can't support the traffic. Students scattered all over the neighborhood are generally not a problem. Do you honestly think that the residents of College Hill don't know what it is like to live with students or what today's student is like? Your comments assume that we don't, and that's ridiculous. Do YOU live in College Hill? If not, stop telling the real residents what it is like to live here. We're not in Chapel Hill or Athens. Stop talking down to us.

winter23

December 21, 2009 - 11:49 pm EST

I agree with logicfairy. I am a College Hill home owner, and a UNCG graduate. So I am not against students nor the university's future growth plan, but I am against a boarding house labeled as student housing shoved into a space too small. It may be marketed as Student Housing but anyone can rent a room. We already have a rent by the room "student project" and it is now a halfway house. So we do not need another even bigger one. I also agree that Risright needs to stop talking down to people, whether we be blue collar or not. I am proud of Greensboro's industry, history, and its strong community. I chose Greensboro because it was the perfect balance of culture, education, and industry. and that is all we are asking for "balance"

newkid

December 20, 2009 - 10:55 am EST

Best of luck to the College Hill preservation activists as this case goes to the new city council. One hopes that the newly conservative council (whatever that means) will be receptive to voters and not just developers.

One side note: the continuing idea that the school system needs a new administrative complex needs to be examined. I suspect that most taxpayers would not support any expenditure to improve the office environment for the school bureaucracy while school students are still housed in inadequate buildings.

CollegeHillFan

December 20, 2009 - 6:16 pm EST

I hope the council members are following this debate. This development would be terrible for the neighborhood. There are better projects for this site that would benefit greensboro, not just the neighborhood. Edwards is not the only player in the game. There are others out there who would be interested in the property. The neighborhood wants change, but wants to make sure it is good change. If Edwards is denied, I am sure that a better plan will come forward. I look forward to a plan that the neighborhood can actively support.

gsostudent

December 22, 2009 - 3:13 pm EST

My friends live across the street from the proposed site and I have a number of other friends in that immediate area. Everyone I know who lives in the neighborhood thinks this development project is a horrible plan and they are completely opposed to it. And I'm talking about grad and undergrad students here who are against it- longer term community members aren't the only people who are in opposition.