Jump to content

Greenbridge Condos in Chapel Hill


Nindec

Recommended Posts


  • Replies 85
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Will, I don't know the details of the approval of Greenbridge, and if public procedures were not followed, then I can understand some misgivings about this project, but...

I detect a sense of fear from the tone of your posts that this project and others are not going to be good for Chapel Hill's future and that density and building height are in fact negatives for the town. We've heard some of the same comments from citizens that the density and height will be too much and the town will never be the same. I have to wonder if this project--which is probably as close to a model for new construction as one can find in this state--troubles some in town, what sort of building would people want to see?

Chapel Hill is an incredibly difficult place for developers to build in, while the town continues to have a huge problem with affordability, and the downtown business community has been on a slight, but steady decline in recent years. There is a real need for housing that isn't just for students in the downtown area (look at the Greenbridge reservation list), and I think it's time for Chapel Hill to accept that it needs to change if it wants to fulfill it's goals for downtown and liveability. After all, preventing sprawl and promoting transit, isn't just about restricing development in the suburbs, it's also about promoting responsible development inside the downtown core.

Again, if people have a problem with process not being followed, that's one thing. But the height and density of Greenbridge to me are perfectly reasonable for the town in 2007, and the sustainable design and inclusion of affordable units fit so many goals that Chapel Hill and other cities aspire to achieve. We should be celebrating this project.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is both tall and expensive, due to the cost of land, underground parking, green features, and subsidized housing. We're not sure it will be economically profitable, because the budget is very tight with little room for error. We are sure that it will be environmentally and socially profitable.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So are you saying that the $30 million figure quoted in the Indy last week was way off the mark? The back of my envelope shows that you stand to gross ~$55 million from condo sales alone. I vaguely remember seeing the $30 million figure quite some time ago, so I'm assuming the Indy writer was using some seriously outdated figures.

I think most of the development-nerds here would be curious to hear more about some of the factors that have driven the budget upwards from those initial estimates, particularly as it relates to the potential future prospects for similarly green construction elsewhere in the Triangle. How much of those costs are either (a) one-time, learn-by-doing costs that might not need repeating next time, or (b) technology costs that will hopefully go down as the technologies are more widely adopted? As opposed to

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The cost to construct Greenbridge will exceed $50 million. The $30 million estimate was dated and prior to getting more detailed pricing from our contractor. We will not compromise the green features. In fact, we agreed to stipulate them in the SUP to allay any concerns that we are greenwashing or attempting to bait and switch. It was a reasonable position for us to commit to these features as a condition to our rezoning as TC-3. We wanted those features more than the Town Planning Dept. did. In fact, we would have abandoned the project and sold the lots, if town stipulations had been so costly as to price those features out of the budget. It got very close to that being the case.

Schools are typically built on cheap or donated land. They do not require underground parking, which is very costly. We spent several million dollars splitting the building to allow residents and neighbors to take advantage of natural daylighting. We also gave up an entire floor, going from 16 (two eight story buildings) to 15 residential floors (six on the west bldg and nine on the east) as a gesture of respect to neighboring St. Paul AME Church. The green features cost us about $7 million and the social equity adjustments, about $7.5 million (due to doubling common areas and elevators). The underground parking was over $5 million and the land was $2.75 million.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We would be happy to. We have a design center on Rosemary Street, across from FUSE, that is open from 10-5 every day except Sundays. We've had school groups and civic organizations come in for green building seminars. Interesting how much the kids already know about this stuff, because the schools are doing a good job of teaching about climate change. It's the adults that are still in the dark.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We'll begin clearing the site this summer and complete construction the summer of 2009. We're taking five more reservations for residential units before April 11th, which is the date that we convert reservations to purchase contracts. Details are on our website. We're reserving about a third of the units for sale after next week, but cutting off "pre-sales" then. The way these things work is that banks require a certain level of pre-construction sales before they'll make a loan commitment. The partners raise about 25% of the capital on their own and borrow 75% from banks or private equity firms. Fortunately, the response to GB has been brisk and positive. I think we could have sold 3-4 times the number of units by the time the project is built. Guess that bodes well for the other downtown projects. Certainly hope the Town holds them to the highest possible environmental and social equity standards.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Greenbridge is cutting the geothermal HVAC system from the project.

Greenbridge partner Michael Cucchiara said this week that geothermal heating and cooling planned for the future $50 million eco-towers on West Rosemary Street is now unlikely.

"We just had a partners meeting [Monday] morning, and we told them we didn't think we were going to do it," he said.

Geothermal technology uses the Earth's stable temperature of 55 degrees to absorb heat in the summer and give off heat in the winter. Instead, Cucchiara said, Greenbridge may use more solar energy.

I can't tell exactly why it will be axed from the project other than concerns over maintenance of the system at the parking deck. It appears some are pissed that this is part of a bait and switch... that Greenbridge pitched this system as a vital component of the project but cannot deliver. Somehow, I doubt it, but despite the costs, the developers need to deliver a successful project that does meet the vast majority of their goals, or it may be shown as an example that truly sustainable projects are not practical at this time. The article mentioned they will still apply for LEED Gold certification.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 months later...
  • 1 month later...
  • 3 weeks later...
  • 2 weeks later...
  • 3 weeks later...
  • 5 months later...

Last time I was by W. Rosemary (~2 wks ago), crews has excavated fairly deep on the site... probably about 20-30 feet down. I believe the parking was to be placed underground beneath the building. I'm not sure if the project is still a go, but at least there were crews out there working, so that's a good sign.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
  • 5 months later...
  • 1 month later...

I see the site several times a week. Construction seems to be rolling along quite well. According to the website, several units have sold - I don't know how the downturn is affecting this project, given Chapel Hill's overall demographics.

The demographics of the surrounding community is another matter - a considerable amount of ire broke out in Wednesday's Chapel Hill News, a gentrificiation debate, several letters to the editor, and a response from the developer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From the article:

Since when does raising property values equate to hurting a community?

Hopefully the few large projects that have gone ahead or are proposed lately (East 54, Greenbridge, 300 E Main, 140 Franklin) are just the start of the densification of Chapel Hill, not the end of it due to community backlash.

Those articles in the Chapel Hill News show that a lot of people would like Chapel Hill preserved forever exactly as it was 50 years ago. Sorry, guys, but cities are living, breathing, changing things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have no objection to dense, and I'm not of the opinion that growth - at higher levels than we're perhaps accustomed to - is inherently bad. I assume that CH/Carrboro's rural buffer is a concept inspired by the UGBs in Oregon, which are in fact not fixed boundaries - certain amounts of affordable housing need to be available, or being built within that growth boundary, or the boundary must legally be moved outward to accomodate that need - either by bringing it within the buffer, or opening up land for construction. Similarly, we either grow out, or we grow up - there are circumstances when we will have to - this is an expensive town, a tight housing market, and well-designed, affordable places to live are at a premium. And all of these projects are to be commended for including affordable units - small, but they're there, for anyone with the credit to buy them. But if most people who work here can't afford to live here, there's a service underclass who in some instances will not always have the credit to rent easily, much less buy, and a wider economic crisis has hit, and dense development equals mostly million dollar condos - in such a landscape we should be very careful to not drift dangerously close to some kind of caste system, or at least toward turning into North Carolina's Marin County, which isn't smart anything, or progressive anything either. Thus, I'd say the concerns of nearby residents voiced in those features are profoundly reasonable. A photo exhibit commemorating the lives and history of a neighborhood whose residents fear being priced out is the nastiest paradox here, given the overall economic climate.

No growth is not what we need, and freezing Chapel Hill (or Carrboro) into some time capsule of self-satisfied quaintness would be a tragedy. Ditto if we were to wake up and discover that yes - we have become Marin County - very leftist, in the most exquisitely elite fashion. We need development - but that development needs to be mindful, attuned to the whole of the community, and clued in to developing (economically speaking) communities that are already here and find it to be a very tough place to live.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.