426 replies to this topic

[ericurbanite]

N and O dorthea dix

Looks like there will be a meeting tommorow night (Tuesday) to present the two plans for the dorthea dix site.  So hopefully someone from the forum can go and see what the presentations look like.  I have a feeling that the proposals could have been alot better than this, and do not take advantage of the all the possible development that could take place.

[avery]

They mention museums as something people would like to see.  I don't necessarily agree with this.  I am all for cultural/educational advancement, but why do we need to spend additional money on another museum.  Raleigh already has some great museum facilities that can either be improved or expanded.  The NC Museum of Art has plenty of room to grow.  With the limited money available at the state level, I would rather see money appropriated to schools than another museum.

Dix is a great piece of property and I hope they do not overdevelop it too quickly.  I hope the plans have been thought through carefully before they commit.

[orulz]

I'd like to propose that we get a delegation of people from Urban Planet together for this meeting. The last meeting felt dominated by nimbys and 100% preservationists; we need to prove that there are a large number of people who are interested in seeing mixed-use development on the Dix property. It seemed to me that many people at the last meeting lacked a basic comprehension of how public interests can be served by well-designed private development. I'm hoping that this time they'll actually have some attractive, conceptual renderings for the Mixed-Use plan. Maybe some people will be swayed if they get an idea of what it will look like.

I don't like the idea of preserving and reusing existing buildings. The main hospital started out as a number of different buildings, and was linked together with dozens wings through numerous seperate construction projects over the decades. It's ugly, and from what people tell me it has a haphazard and confusing interior layout and is laced with asbestos. I'm sure that some of the buildings on the main campus could be preserved, but most of them should be torn down, and the area along Lake Wheeler Rd should be turned into an urban corridor of multi-story, mixed-use structures.

As for the area to the west of the RR tracks, I agree with the CAMPO thoroughfare plan that there should be a connector street  through the property, but I do think that  a fairly large contiguous chunk should be preserved as low-intensity recreational space.

Avery, You're right about developing it too quickly. It's looking to me like the only options will be a homogenous office park, or a massive "open space" that's too disorganized and undeveloped to even call a park. Neither of those is a desirable outcome.

[avery]

I sometimes worry about the mentality of both sides of this issue.  Leaving the property in its original state and leaving existing buildings is not good use of this land in my opinion.  There is a real opportunity for Raleigh here.  On the flip side, developing it too quickly benefits only the developer chosen to manage the project.  Throwing up office buildings quickly is a poor idea in my opinion too.

They need a third option which falls in the middle of these two.  A mixed use development with some open space preservation, I think is most appropriate.  Big box retailers and half-rented office parks really bother me.

If Raleigh is committed to revitalizing downtown, they need to integrate this into thier plans due to its proximity.  The location is perfect for townhomes, a few restaurants (with a good view), small retailers and maybe a hotel.  NC State, the Farmer's Market, and the new convention center is less than 3 miles away in any direction.  Housing is key for drawing more business into downtown and the Centinnial Campus.  

Raleigh is growing and people already living here need to accept it.  Poor planning and sprawl will cause major problems as the Triangle continues to grow.  Infill is very important to reducing dilapidation and the cancerous spread of a city.  The key should be making Raleigh more desireable when approaching any "development".  Accept growth and plan smart!

[Tayfromcarolina]

Quote

Avery. Raleigh is growing and people already living here need to accept it. Poor planning and sprawl will cause major problems as the Triangle continues to grow. Infill is very important to reducing dilapidation and the cancerous spread of a city. The key should be making Raleigh more desireable when approaching any "development". Accept growth and plan smart!

Very well put.  Those nimby's from the last meeting got on my nerves to say the least.  Raleigh is a fast growing city on the verge of something exceptionally great.  People really do need to realize this. Townhomes, integrated housing, resturants and a hotel or two really would work for this area. I also liked the idea of the world class botanical garden or even an NC aquarium. (something that would create a draw).  As I see it Raleigh has enough greenways and trails as it is, dare I say more than citys twice the size even.

I hope they don't pick that city park plan.  Come what may that land needs to be used to it's fullest potential. I hope the city dosen't make a bad call on this one.  They've made some good decisions as of late with the conv. center & fayetteville st. mall projects.

[Justin6882]

Quote

I'd like to propose that we get a delegation of people from Urban Planet together for this meeting. The last meeting felt dominated by nimbys and 100% preservationists; we need to prove that there are a large number of people who are interested in seeing mixed-use development on the Dix property.

Looks like I'll be there.  Post in this thread if you plan on going.

[catdaddy]

Thats alot of land there preserving. Why soo much?  

[JunktionFET]

How long is the thing supposed to run? I'd like to make it, but the earliest I could arrive would be between 7:30-8:00, thanks to work. How will UrbanPlanet-ers be able to identify eachother?

[Justin6882]

I'll probably be there with Raleigh-NC...and I'm not sure what I'll be wearing.  However, if someone wants to make some stickers with the NO symbol and NIMBY in the middle of it, I'd wear it   That'd be the perfect way to tell!

[JunktionFET]

Justin6882, on Jul 18 2005, 07:21 PM, said:

I'll probably be there with Raleigh-NC...and I'm not sure what I'll be wearing.  However, if someone wants to make some stickers with the NO symbol and NIMBY in the middle of it, I'd wear it   That'd be the perfect way to tell!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

How long will the thing last? Would it be worth me coming out there between 7:30-8? Raleigh-NC knows what I look like as I have met with him a number of times. I'll give him a call tomorrow to see if maybe we can have a short after party. hehe

[Tayfromcarolina]

I wish I could make it.  Make sure you make enough noise for me too. And give us plenty of info tomorrow. Good Luck against the nimby's.

[Justin6882]

^^ According to WRAL, it lasts until 8:00 pm.

[catdaddy]

Well 7:30 will be too late to go i was gonna try to make it.

[ericurbanite]

i accidentally fell asleep and didnt attend, so whoever goes post the info as soon as you get on the computer!!!  I don't know if it is possible to take pictures there but if it is i hope somebody took some.

[orulz]

I went, and I didn't take any pictures, but I believe Romec did and hopefully he'll share some with us sometime later. But here's what I thought:

THE PLANS

The plans presented today were much more fleshed out and balanced than what we saw at previous meetings.

The "central park" plan called mostly for preserving/reusing the old buildings, closing some streets to traffic, and leasing 190ish acres of contiguous park space to the city of Raleigh.

The "city in a park" plan called for preserving the "contributing" historical structures, demolishing most of the the "non-contributing" buildings and building new 3-5 story structures in their place. The city in a park plan also called for more street connections, integrated parking decks, a grid layout, and a total of 160ish acres of contiguous park space.

Interestingly, both plans called for preserving at least part of the original 1850s hospital, and actually restoring the original entryway which has been built over with an ugly addition. Good move.

PUBLIC COMMENT

The anti-development folks were out in full force and while some made coherent arguments, most missed the point entirely. At one point somebody asked for a show of hands. Fully 1/3 of the people in there said they favored the "city in a park" idea, and yet every single person who got up and spoke acted like not a single person raised their hands.

anti-development fallacy 1: By adopting this plan, we are shutting Dix down.
Many people argued that it was a travesty to shut down a mental health facility. Problem is, that decision has already been made. Dix IS closing by 2008, and unless the legislature "takes it back" there's nothing that can be done. Not to mention that these people are making the assumption that outmoded space like Dix is the best thing for the mental healthcare system of North Carolina, which it is not. Dix will cease to be a mental hospital, and there's nothing that's going to stop it.

anti-development fallacy 2: Preventing new construction preserves Dix's "historical character" and gives us more park space.
Still more people advocated for "no new construction on Dix so we can have more park space." Well, as we see, by preventing new construction we get 30 extra acres of park space. And by taking out a couple of the new buildings in the "city in a park" plan you could probably gain those 30 acres back. Both plans restore the historical sections of the Dix hospital (including the original entrance) but the "central park" idea keeps most of the additions that were tacked on over the years, giving the hospital a very haphazard and almost useless character. The idea of being stuck with all of the poorly layed-out, asbestos-infested, old buildings on Dix isn't exactly attractive to me.

anti-development fallacy 3: Unless the land stays 100% public, we'll end up with McMansions and shopping malls.
Still more people wanted all the land to stay completely in the public hands. I still get the feeling that the people are expecting a shopping mall and a super wal-mart if private developers are brought into the mix. The truth is, LandDesign recommended that the state remain a steward of this land responsible for maintaining and carrying out the master plan. This means that any private developments will be subject to RFPs and will be held up to a very high standard. By letting people live on the dix land, you're not making it "their land." The streets, sidewalks, shops, and most of all the huge park would all be public space, to be enjoyed by all. Just because a developer is making some money off of a deal doesn't automatically mean that the public loses out.

anti-development fallacy 4: Dix should be like an underdeveloped version of New York's Central Park, minus the accessibility.
Many people drew the parallel to Central Park in New York City again. What they're not getting is that what makes central park WORK is that millions of people live and work around it. There are high-rises and mid-rises built RIGHT UP to its edge - no buffers. You can walk through central park on your way home, or walk to it from your office for a picnic at lunch - it's accessible, with private development right up to the edge. Central park is accessible from EVERYWHERE, rather than an isolated park that you have to DRIVE to as the anti-developers want. Oh, and let's not forget to metnion, that there are numerous transverse streets through Central Park, and yet nobody seems to complain. It provides better access and visibility.

in conclusion:
The audience was stacked in favor of the anti-development crowd. The truth is, however, many of the people were just there to push their personal agenda and were just playing off of the audience's "pro-park/anti-development" leanings to get a favorable reception.

In a conversation with the LandDesign folks afterwards they made it clear that while the anti-development folks have dominated the public meetings, the feedback that they've been getting outside the meetings is much more varied and much more open to the idea of private development. I really would have liked to get up there and say something but the audience was so hostile I couldn't muster up the courage.  

Anyway, maybe I'll write a letter to the N&O tomorrow. We'll see what happens from here.

Edited by orulz, 20 July 2005 - 08:13 AM.

[Miesian Corners]

Just curious, I worked on the three comparable developments in other parts of the country that were presented in the power point presentation.  How'd people react when they saw JUST how much open space they're getting?

[romec]

I'll make a longer post later today, but in general they really didn't care. There was only a 30 acre difference in the amount of open space in the city in the park vs central park plan. 160 acres of open space didn't really seem to qualify as a "park" to the friends of Dix (I'm not making up that name). I was surprised at the strong reaction, because Land design did everything in their power to preserve historic buildings, vistas and trees. Truth be told, the city in the park still looked like a "central park" except there was actual useage of the land where the hospital buildings currently sit.

[Miesian Corners]

Well that's just great.  You spend days researching this stuff and then no one pays any attention.

[orulz]

Miesian Corners said:

How'd people react when they saw JUST how much open space they're getting?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Many people seemed incredulous that they weren't getting 1000 acres of open space out of a 300- acre site. Sigh.

romec said:

Truth be told, the city in the park still looked like a "central park" except there was actual useage of the land where the hospital buildings currently sit.

Exactly. The previous "city-in-a-park" plan really chopped up the park space with development, which made it seem small and useless. This time around, however, they made it contiguous except for Umstead Drive (and the railroad tracks, which would be crossed by a pedestrian bridge or tunnel).

The park combined with the residential and commercial portions of the plan really made it seem like a really great place to while away a lazy Saturday afternoon. Take out the commercial and residential aspects of the plan, and the entire eastern half of the property is DEAD on the weekend.

Edited by orulz, 20 July 2005 - 08:02 AM.

[ericurbanite]

all i can say is what a waste of land.  These tree huggers are crazy!! I have never been to the dorthea dix site and now i probably never will because i will have this hard decision to go to pullen park or dorthea dix park.... well i guess i probably wouldnt go to either.  This place needs some kind of development.   Im sorry but those people are ignorant if the development plan only subtracts 30 acres from the central park plan.

Also for more in depth look at what happened at the meeting this is from the n and o.

Dorthea Dix Meeting