Dorothea Dix Property

[RaleighHeelsfan]

Oh lordy.....thats all I have to say....

Lets have huge park downtown

lets build sprawly subdivisions and walgreens all over the subburbs.......what don't they fight this?????

[JHuberman]

...Also, if you could find a small chunk of land to cut loose, and mix into the other necessary improvements to surrounding urban form and talk up a super dense build up of that portion (even 10 acres), and you might win over even more of your "opposition". I realize this is contrary to your private development/public use stance, but it is the bone you may have to throw to satisfy the money fists.....the more familiar I get with the NC legislature, the sadder I am that nothing gets done unless every hand gets a piece of the pie.....consensus, not majority rule, wins out....

Friends of Dix hired John Hoal, the designer of Forest Park in St. Louis, MO and he came up with the following plan shown in green. In this park plan map that he prepared, I have emphasized with blue dots the portion of Dix Hospital land that he did not include in the park plan because he wanted clean edges to define the park. The red dots surround the current Dix Campus (306 acres) and the yellow dashes show the current Farmers' Market.

This would offer up just over 17 acres along the edge of the park for development. This parcel is quite near the Catholic Dioceses property. Note however, that he includes some of the Farmers' Market property in the plan. Keep in mind that to my knowledge neither the Agriculture Department nor the University have weighed in on any of these plans.

Edited December 11, 2006 by JHuberman

[DanRNC]

Another vision for Dix

[ChiefJoJo]

WRAL: State GA Dix committee to meet today. They will discuss plans for the park, and Raleigh's efforts to purchase it.

I'm not sure where the meeting is today, but I guess some committee meeting room in the legislature somewhere. I just hope all of the stakeholders get a chance in this... the more I think of it, the more I believe Dix should all be a park. There's way too much developable land elsewhere (including plenty downtown) to not simply preserve it all for the sake of Wake Co and the state's future. It would be very shortsighted in my view not to save it all.

[Jones_]

DAY: Monday, January 22, 2007

> TIME: 2:00 p.m. - 4:00 p.m.

> LOCATION:Room 1027/1128 Legislative Building

From the folks at TASL who are interested in seeing the soccer fields preserved.

[JHuberman]

I just got back from the Dix Property Commission Meeting which I am on. It was pretty well scripted. I made several pleas to get the commission to listen to the Friends of Dorothea Dix Park plan before they adopted any resolution, but the pleas fell on deaf ears. I then tried to amend our recommendations to first consider a 306 acre park and only accept development if it were financially necessary - that too was stopped by the chairs. So in spite of our lively debate, and with questionable parliamentary procedures we passed the recommendations put forth by the chairs.

The good news is that the recommendations the commission adopted are fully compatible with a 306 acre destination park, (as well as a 200 acre development) so we will continue with our quest to explain and convince anyone who is interested that we can have a 306 acre park and raise more money than a development inside the park and satisfy all the stakeholders and create great opportunity for our state and our region.

These are the points I made in my statement...

(I prepared this as a handout but the chairs wouldn't let me hand it out.)

Highlights of the Plan Developed by

Friends of Dorothea Dix Park

Conservation

[*]Respects the

[DPK]

My only problem with the proposed Friends of Dix plan is that it doesn't awe me really. I'd like to see them rip just a few of the remaining roads out, leave a couple. Add a nature trail in there and perhaps some baseball fields. All I see are soccer fields. Perhaps a frisbee golf course too! That'd get ALOT of people. Maybe an ampitheater. Just ideas.

[orulz]

The Friends of Dix plan intentionally avoids committing specific uses to specific parts of the park. The idea is, what needs to happen now is that we need to preserve as much of this land as a park as possible, and worry about developing the park's facilities later. Deciding what goes where in the park will be a multi-year process involving studies, public input, charettes, historic interests, etc. All this is way outside the scope of Friends of Dix's mission.

HOWEVER.

I feel like Friends of Dix would have a much easier time convincing people of the importance of a larger park here if they went ahead and drew up an *example* plan of what could be done with all this land. This will allow people without much imagination (the majority of us) to better envision why more park == better.

[Spatula]

I'm fine with having a big park, but it has to be pretty special. This isn't just going to be trees and stuff. This would be Raleigh's flagship urban park. A ferris wheel and some retail establishments are practically mandated.

[cophead567]

^extending on that thought, i'd like to see some unique areas of the park that you dont see anywhere else in the area. i'm originally from boca raton, FL and as a kid i would always go to sugar sand park. an element of that park that i would like to see replicated on dix is the science playground. there's no doubt in my mind that something like this would always draw a crowd and be very memorable to visitors.

[ChiefJoJo]

WRAL: Legislative Commission approves plan, but apparently the fight is not over...

[ChiefJoJo]

Greg poole is pushing his Dix Visionaries Plan, designed by John Hoal, a St Louis Park Planner. It preserves the entire property as a park. Poole is trying to enlist all the councilors, members of the state committee, and local developers like John Kane... good approach I think. It looks like a more focused, fleshed out vision of the Friends of Dix Park Concept. JHuberman, would you agree?

[urbanvb]

I personally like the idea of keeping the park but allowing for development on the periphery. Eventually it may remind you of NY's Central Park with it's towering buildings around it. And hopefully this would come to fruition:

Hoal told the group that a 300-acre park district would create demand for new condominiums and mixed-use buildings around the property eventually worth more than a billion dollars and generate millions of dollars in tourism each year.

Sounds like quite a destination.

[JHuberman]

This is the same plan that FDDP is promoting. We have been working together for over a year. The plan isn't new, what is new and fantastic is that we seemed to have moved past some tipping point and influential people are all at once seriously examining the plan -- and they like what they see. I believe we are moving forward.

Joseph Huberman

Greg poole is pushing his Dix Visionaries Plan, designed by John Hoal, a St Louis Park Planner. It preserves the entire property as a park. Poole is trying to enlist all the councilors, members of the state committee, and local developers like John Kane... good approach I think. It looks like a more focused, fleshed out vision of the Friends of Dix Park Concept. JHuberman, would you agree?

[ChiefJoJo]

I believe we are moving forward.

I think so... if you believe Bob Geary.

But the best news of all is that Meeker, who's nothing if not a realist, is also backing away from the ULI plan, and now talks about a park of "at least" 215 acres, "the bigger the better."

Meeker didn't mention Dix in his "State o' The City" speech, but when somebody asked the question, he was ready with remarks about "a great destination park" and lots of "activities," perhaps including gardens, an amphitheater, even a Ferris wheel.

I like what I hear.

[ChiefJoJo]

Yet another story on Dix--a perspective from the NCSU Dean of the College of Design, who says we need to think of the land first and speaks of the need for a destination park. If you listen to Rep. Deborah Ross in the video, it seems she isn't ready to preserve all the land just yet (despite new some momentum that way). I hope more people start to listen to Greg Poole.

On a side note, don't you all think it's truly amazing that we even have such an amazing opportunity for Dix Park? It's an incredible asset to be able to have 300 acres right next to DT that is relatively untouched and provides such great views of the city...

[JHuberman]

There is one other point that we should consider. We are not choosing between a development plan that makes money and a park plan that costs money. We are choosing between a development plan that makes money for a few and a park plan that makes substantially more money for very many people as well the University, City, and County.

The FDDP park plan offers a wide range of funding options that can be used in various ways depending on the way the landowners surrounding the park wish to develop their land. In no way is it one size fits all. The best part about the FDDP basket of funding plans is that the State can sell the Dix Property or it can keep it. The University can develop to the level and at the pace that suits them. The Agricultures Department will have opportunities to greatly improve the popularity of the farmer's market, and the many land owners along Lake Wheeler Road will have tremendous opportunity to improve and redevelop their neighborhoods.

The FDDP park plan makes dramatically more money than any plan to develop private uses within the Dix property. This is true because it is so diverse and it produces income from many sources, among them are: increased tourism and visitor related economic activity resulting in increased hotel and meal tax revenue, additional city and county tax revenue from the redevelopment of blighted areas; the conversion of some property from non-taxable to taxable; ground leases for the possible use of State land around the Dix property by private development; rental or sale of housing developed around the Dix land; savings to the State by consolidating DHHS employees in the existing hospital buildings for many years; University and corporate recruiting benefits when attracting businesses and talented people to our city. On the other hand it will be more difficult to orchestrate. A comprehensive land use plan will need to be drawn up by all the stakeholders and the City and County and State will need to be part of that agreement. Many people will need to work together with a common vision of a great park anchoring the central focus of our city between the University, Downtown, and the natural watersheds and wetlands.

Granted, it would be quicker and much easier (if one could tame the populous outcry) to sell the land to a developer and collect the reduced profit up front, but everyone would be much poorer, both in money and quality of life (except for the developer).

Joseph Huberman

[plus2]

I'd love to see Dorothea Dix turn into something like this (albeit smaller) one day...

[Damien]

The Dix 306 people are out in full force today in Boylan Heights. I was just solicited by some guy wanting to put up those tacky little signs in my yard. Its good to see people involved..even if I don't think sacrificing 90 acres will do any harm.

Edited February 5, 2007 by Damien

[RaleighRob]

^ Saw those signs all up and down Wade Avenue today. Wasn't expecting that.

Reminds me of Fall '04 when there were all those Kerry/Edwards signs up and down the avenue like dominos.

Edited February 3, 2007 by RaleighRob

[JHuberman]

Take a look at what it already is:

How about a slide show tour...

Enjoy it now, and if we preserve it as a park generations of people can enjoy it for centuries.

Joseph Huberman

[sax184]

Where to start? I drove through Dix yesterday. It was a ghost town. As far as I can tell, there was nothing stopping anyone who wanted to from wandering through the grounds and enjoying them. That said, there was nobody there. It was brisk, but not super-cold outside. I saw 2 other moving cars, and zero pedestrians. I have concerns about the ULI plan, but the FDDP/306 plan poses more danger to the future of the city right now.

If the FDDP plan is pretty much "leave it as it is," and gives no details of the interior, I see two futures for the park:

1. Exact same vibrancy as today- none. A mostly ignored property.

2. A space that in the public mind, is like Moore Square, and perceived as "not for everyone" and is predominantly considered a homeless hangout. Note carefully: I am not advocating shuffling the homeless off our streets and out of sight. What I am saying is that the most successful public spaces have room for everyone, where people from all walks of life feel comfortable and safe.

Primarily I see these outcomes because the FDDP/Dix 306 plan seems to do little to draw more positive activity into the park. I also do not see anything that makes the Dix park in the FDDP plan a "Destination Park" other than assertions that its location will become increasingly important over the next 50 years, so more people will come and hang out.

I think some other people have touched on why a comparison to Central Park makes no sense, and the biggest key point to summarize is that Central Park's vitality is heavily dependent on the nearby population density. Manhattan's density at the time Central Park was planned was in the vicinity of 35,000 people per sq mile. That population density has risen to above 50,000 people per square mile for the whole of Manhattan. Raleigh's density today is something like 3050 people per sq mile, and assuming Raleigh annexes ZERO land (unlikely) and moves in 10000 people a year, the density of Raleigh will be a "whopping" 3900 people per sq mile in 2017. Throw in the fact that NYC is also a worldwide commerce and tourist mecca, with MILLIONS of visitors to the city who also take time to enjoy the park, and the argument that "location" near DT Raleigh and 50 years of growth alone will fuel Dix into a Destination Park-- fizzles out completely. So please, let's stop talking about Central Park. There's no valid comparison.

So what would make Dix a destination park?

1. Increased variety and intensity of uses in and around Dix. Yes, this means some development of housing, office, and retail. Unlike the ULI plan, there should be no single family housing. This is an URBAN park. There should not be any suburban building forms. A base of local users who live and work there will provide the "eyes on the street" that help secure the space for the broader public.

2. Programming. Programming. Programming. A tremendous example of transforming an underused asset into an urban destination that people do FLOCK from near and far to enjoy is Providence's Waterfire. HOw do you let people enjoy hundreds of acres at Dix, and still enjoy something like this-- is a question we should be working on.

3. Connectivity. Greenways are nice, but they're a suburban form. Dix should be linked to its surrounding environs by SIDEWALKS and urban boulevards. The Boylan Heights bridge and street under Western Blvd need to be spruced up as linear gateways that draw people from downtown towards the park. Wayfinding signs like Philadelphia's might help.

4. Management. Urban parks have different need than suburban parks which function more as nature preserves or athletic fields set amid cookie-cutter subdivisions and strip malls. Management needs to be much more active in an urban park.

These are just a few issues that need work at Dix to get a terrific park.

Edited February 4, 2007 by transitman

[JHuberman]

I enjoyed your thoughtful reply, and agree with much of what you say. I would like to correct your understanding of the FDDP plan.

Where to start? I drove through Dix yesterday. It was a ghost town. ...

If the FDDP plan is pretty much "leave it as it is," and gives no details of the interior,...

Up until two years ago, for at least the last 28 years (since I moved into Boylan Heights) hospital security stopped organized activity, and discouraged people from being on the hospital grounds. They didn't kick pedestrians out, but they asked you to stay out of the built up areas, and explained that patients were using the grounds and people without business at the hospital weren't particularly welcome. This attitude in the public mind continues to today.

The FDDP plan calls for major "Destinations" to be included in the park. The plan outline that is posted on our website is by necessity just an outline. After we have a commitment for a great park it will take somewhere between a year and a half to two years to bring all the stakeholders together to develop a master plan. There are many great possibilities and examples of success.

Dix Park has many things going for it already.

• The DHHS offices will be there for years. This will give the first park service tenants, like cafes and restaurants lunch business while the park is developing. DHHS will also renovate and use many of the historic buildings prior to their conversion to park uses.
  
• The University has an extensive outreach program that could both take advantage of a great park on its border as well as create another destination for the park visitor.
  
• The Farmers' Market is in the same position of both benefiting from the park and giving benefit to the park
  
• Soccer fields are already heavily used, and that would continue.
  
• The limited plan that we do have calls for re-sculpting the areas around Rocky Branch to create a healthier stream and water contact for the visitor. NCSU has already reconstructed Rocky Branch above Pullen Park, and the creek could benefit from further work downstream. (The landfill issues will be taken into account.)
  
• The historic buildings could certainly be used for public park purposes, and with DHHS using and maintaining them for many years it gives time for the great opportunities to arise in conjunction with DHHS eventually moving to a more appropriate location.
  
• One opportunity that has been suggested is a Smithsonian stattlite museum. This has already been done in St. Louis
  

So what would make Dix a destination park?

1. Increased variety and intensity of uses in and around Dix. Yes, this means some development of housing, office, and retail. Unlike the ULI plan, there should be no single family housing. This is an URBAN park. There should not be any suburban building forms. A base of local users who live and work there will provide the "eyes on the street" that help secure the space for the broader public.

2. Programming. Programming. Programming. ...

3. Connectivity. Greenways are nice, but they're a suburban form. Dix should be linked to its surrounding environs by SIDEWALKS and urban boulevards. ...

4. Management. ... Management needs to be much more active in an urban park.

These are just a few issues that need work at Dix to get a terrific park.

It is critical that the master plan includes the areas surrounding the park. The plan should be crafted with the park stakeholders including the people in the neighborhoods. We should include increased residential density around the park with transitions into the lower density residential areas. The land use plan must be well thought out. The Saunders North Redevelopment Area is considered "blighted" and it must be part of the redevelopment plan. In addition it connects up to Glenwood South and the transit station. The community fabric around the park is what will ultimately make it a success.

You clearly understand the problems we must solve to create the Great Park we desire. We do not believe it will easy. Many people have a stake in the outcome, and once we begin to share a vision of a great Destination Park, then by working together we can create a better park than any one group could create alone.

Joseph Huberman

[ChiefJoJo]

I didn't see this posted yet...

The N&O is doing a series on what to do with Dix, with anecdotal 'case studies' from other large state-owned tracts in the US.

N&O Sunday on Dix: "Emptiness costs" Basically there are hidden maintenace costs with the 306 acre park and maintaning the historic buildings.

N&O Monday: "McBryde building: Lost masterpiece or uninspired remake?"

[ChiefJoJo]

WRAL Dix article/video: basically, Meeker says it's up to the state to sell the land to the city. It also mentioned that the state is building a fueling station on the land, which calls into question their intent for the property.