Greenbridge Condos in Chapel Hill

[ChiefJoJo]

Another Greenbridge article... this time with a focus on developer, Tim Toben... how a trip to Iceland gave him focus on how he could help combat global warming... also how green building can be profitable, but is pricey now because it's not widespread enough at this point.

[dmccall]

I think anyone over there who fights this project is crazy.

[DanRNC]

This was approved tonight.

[ChiefJoJo]

I think anyone over there who fights this project is crazy.

[DanRNC]

In my work with the public, I've become increasingly convinced "people" (as a collective) just want to come to public hearinga to (1) hear themselves talk, and (2) complain about something--anything--even if it has little to do with the actual topic of the meeting (I've seen it many times before). You will never please those people.

[ChiefJoJo]

N&O story on approval.

Greenbridge Developments is now cleared to apply for its final permits and begin construction on two towers -- one seven-story and one 10-story -- just off Franklin Street. The project is being designed by green-building architect William McDonough. It would be the first mixed-use development in North Carolina certified at the "gold" level through the U.S. Green Building Council's Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design program.

"It will set a new standard in this state," said Larry Shirley, director of the N.C. State Energy Office. "Our dream is that ... there is not one but 1,000 projects like this across the state.

"We've looked at Chapel Hill to lead us forward when it comes to environmental sustainability," said Shirley, who lives in Carrboro.

As part of the Greenbridge approval, the council also raised the town's maximum building height from 90 feet to 120 feet, a change that also will make way for the town's own plans to redevelop a downtown parking lot in partnership with Ram Development Co.

Greenbridge's taller tower actually would reach 135 feet, so the council had to make an exception to its brand-new zoning district on the first piece land it covered.

[DanRNC]

I really liked what I heard from the town council last night as far as density downtown. With all the overlapping historic and conservation districts in town, the only place to go very dense now is downtown. Next up on the plate should be Shortbread Lofts on Rosemary which will mostly be affordable units aimed at University faculty/staff.

[raleightransplant]

Good news for Chapel Hill! Chapel Hill is not the "village" some people would want it to be. It's a wonderful place, and this is wonderful for the downtown. This will only work to increase CH's standing as one of the best pedestrian areas in the state.

[DanRNC]

Chapel Hill is not the "village" some people would want it to be.

[ChiefJoJo]

A really interesting article on Chapel hill development...

"Chapel Hill's going to grow," said Steve Wright, who lives on North Graham Street less than a block from the Greenbridge site. "It can go up or sprawl."

"Perhaps we are a mini-city, but we don't need to be a city of mini-skyscrapers," said Eunice Brock, who helped persuade the original developers of the Bank of America Center to step its 90-foot tower off Franklin Street in the 1970s.

"This is a massive change to the soul of Chapel Hill," said Ken Brooks, a Briarcliff resident who spoke against Greenbridge. "We always called ourselves the village, and I don't want to see that change. I say turn back. That's not my town. That's not Chapel Hill."

A 40-year resident of Glen Lennox, Jane Hare felt the same way about East 54, a seven-building complex with 203 condos that will rise as high as six stories above N.C. 54. The council approved the tallest building for 70 feet, plus another 15 feet for rooftop mechanical systems and elevator shafts.

"Thinking of buildings that are 70 feet high really is kind of mind-blowing to me," Hare said.

...

But height, and the dense population that comes with it, is exactly what the council wants downtown and along transit corridors such as N.C. 54.

"We thought 85 feet would be an appropriate height because of the increased density," said Gene Poveromo, the town's development coordinator.

Council member Sally Greene noted that a planned regional express bus [rapid transit] line would run directly behind the East 54 site.

"In my view, this location is very ripe for more density," she said.

Nelson said both Greenbridge and East 54 show that Chapel Hill is committed to preserving the natural environment.

"I don't think that they're a change to our soul; I think that they're an expression of our soul," he said. "We protect the environment by going dense on the things we've already messed up."

Lex Alexander, owner of 3Cups coffee shop in the West End, said Greenbridge in particular will help revive a downtown that currently relies on students and the few residents who can afford scarce downtown homes.

"Downtown is a great place for students under the age of 20, and it's a great place for people who came here 35 years ago," he said. "We desperately need people living in downtown. I've been counting on it."

"Yes, we need more people living downtown," Brock agreed, "but they don't have to live in high rises.

"High-rise buildings do not preserve neighborliness," she said. "They destroy it."

Alexander countered that Chapel Hill has lost an energy that now resides in downtown Carrboro.

"They have a real vibrant and walkable community, and we don't have that," he said.

It's so interesting to see the opposing sides of this debate. Obviously I'm all for these urban projects, and I think more could be on the way. I think the owner of 3Cups has it right. CH is great for college kids and 60 year olds who have lived here for years, but it's time to embrace a segment of the population (25-35 urban dwellers) that has been ignored in town. People who want to "turn back the clock" need to think about moving elsewhere. The only constant in this world is change, so it's time to get on board or get off IMO.

[DanRNC]

It's so interesting to see the opposing sides of this debate. Obviously I'm all for these urban projects, and I think more could be on the way. I think the owner of 3Cups has it right. CH is great for college kids and 60 year olds who have lived here for years, but it's time to embrace a segment of the population (25-35 urban dwellers) that has been ignored in town. People who want to "turn back the clock" need to think about moving elsewhere. The only constant in this world is change, so it's time to get on board or get off IMO.

[DanRNC]

Only 10 units are left and the groundbreaking hasn't even happened.

[sax184]

Most of the people defending the "village" in Chapel Hill rarely set foot in downtown, and would viciously fight affordable housing development in their own neighborhood. They believe the town should be frozen in time. The CH Town Council deserves a lot of credit for looking past those voices to a different future for the town.

[JDC]

From The Independent Weekly

This story caught my eye in this week's Indy. Looks like this proposed structure will implement all sorts of eco-friendly elements, from grass rooves to solar panels to ample bicycle parking. It could also become Chapel Hill's new tallest building.

"Are we going to keep building these Southern Village developments, or are we going to utilize the city spaces we have? This is something we have to pay attention to, or we're going to find ourselves looking like Houston, Texas-which nobody wants." - Tim Toben, one of the partners behind the project

[ChiefJoJo]

But what makes Greenbridge so green? Every aspect of the project has been fine-tuned to ensure a balance with what Toben calls "the triple bottom line": environmental sensitivity, social equity and economic viability. "If you have those three things, you have a sustainable project. And we think we have those things."

Consider Greenbridge's shape. Most buildings of its sort would be rectangular, straight and flat, with everything at 90-degree angles. Greenbridge is irregular and angled, and split down the middle into two separate units-a unique shape that will allow 90 percent of the units to be day-lit.

The roofs of the buildings will be vegetative, literally gardens. This is not just for appearances; the sod roof cools the building below, reducing energy costs, as well as reducing rainwater run-off in the storm drains and releasing oxygen into the atmosphere. "In general, our firm's designs seek to create rooftops that are productive in some way. All the rooftops in Greenbridge are doing something," says Mark Rylander, a director at William McDonough. "It's not just a roof membrane; it's valuable real estate."

Other roof spaces, and possibly the walls of the building itself, will be paneled with solar photovoltaic and solar thermal collectors, further reducing the building's net energy expenditure. A cistern will collect rainwater not absorbed by the garden roofs for use in the building's cooling system.

In the units themselves, energy-efficient lighting and Energy Star appliances, as well as low-e (emissivity) windows, low-flow toilets and waterless urinals, and a top of the line fresh air delivery and heat recovery system, will further save on energy and resource costs.

But the single largest environmental feature of Greenbridge is its location. Rather than building out in the surrounding rural buffer-where new infrastructure would have to be put in, trees cut down, roads paved, power lines raised and pipe laid-Greenbridge is making use of underutilized land in downtown itself. "This is a classic case of contrasting with suburban sprawl," Toben says. "Typically, if you look at the average amount of land used in a typical sprawl development, you're looking at between one and 10 acres per residence. Greenbridge is 100 residences on an acre and a half of land."

The benefits don't end there. "In many ways the location, density and underground parking are the most significant, sustainable features that tend to be taken for granted, or not even counted, in the LEED rating system," Rylander says. "The number of car trips that are reduced by committing to build inside a town has environmental benefits that aren't as easy to calculate as reducing the energy use, but they really need to be counted. If you can walk to work, or to dinner, and not be getting in your car to do every last thing, the environmental externalities of your living arrangement are completely changed."

Yes, Yes, Yes! We really should be offering some sort of bonuses or incentives for developers who do good infill development with some LEED elements. Awesome project.

[rossgrady]

While I'm still fully in favor of this kind of development, not only in Chapel Hill but just about anywhere, I'm currently feeling a bit sticker-shocked. Here are some hard numbers for y'all to mull over. These are all taken from the pricelist sent this week to folks with reservations; the letter accompanying the prices states that they expect prices to rise 3-5% after the initial unit-selection for reservation holders takes place on 4/11.

Average SF: 1565

Average price: $653,150

Median SF: 1522

Median price: $579,995

Cost per square foot is tricky to pin down, because it varies as a function of how much terrace space you have, which side of the buildings you're on (the units on the inward-facing sides are cheaper, obviously), and what floor you're on. The range of costs per sqft is roughly $280 - $500, if you use the [relatively common] fudge of counting patio space as 1/2 heated space.

The cheapest non-subsidized unit is $249,995 for a 794-sqft studio apartment on the 2nd floor. The most expensive units are the 2 top-floor units, each at $1,374,995 for ~2580 sqft plus ~600 sqft of terrace apiece.

The original prospectus imagined sort of a bell-curve unit distribution, with the peak of 31 units in the 900-1100 sqft range, and a total of ~65 units below 1200sqft. Apparently Chapel Hillians aren't quite ready to downsize their lives that much, so the final list only has 13 units below 1200sqft (that's not counting the 15 affordable units, which aren't listed on the pricelist sent to reservation holders).

This is kind of a bummer for me, because as it happens, I was hoping to snag one of the ~1100sqft 2-bedroom units from the original prospectus, but now there aren't any at all. Oh well. I've been kind of leaning towards downtown Durham a lot more lately anyway.

[davidals]

While I'm still fully in favor of this kind of development, not only in Chapel Hill but just about anywhere, I'm currently feeling a bit sticker-shocked. Here are some hard numbers for y'all to mull over. These are all taken from the pricelist sent this week to folks with reservations; the letter accompanying the prices states that they expect prices to rise 3-5% after the initial unit-selection for reservation holders takes place on 4/11.

Average SF: 1565

Average price: $653,150

Median SF: 1522

Median price: $579,995

Cost per square foot is tricky to pin down, because it varies as a function of how much terrace space you have, which side of the buildings you're on (the units on the inward-facing sides are cheaper, obviously), and what floor you're on. The range of costs per sqft is roughly $280 - $500, if you use the [relatively common] fudge of counting patio space as 1/2 heated space.

The cheapest non-subsidized unit is $249,995 for a 794-sqft studio apartment on the 2nd floor. The most expensive units are the 2 top-floor units, each at $1,374,995 for ~2580 sqft plus ~600 sqft of terrace apiece.

The original prospectus imagined sort of a bell-curve unit distribution, with the peak of 31 units in the 900-1100 sqft range, and a total of ~65 units below 1200sqft. Apparently Chapel Hillians aren't quite ready to downsize their lives that much, so the final list only has 13 units below 1200sqft (that's not counting the 15 affordable units, which aren't listed on the pricelist sent to reservation holders).

This is kind of a bummer for me, because as it happens, I was hoping to snag one of the ~1100sqft 2-bedroom units from the original prospectus, but now there aren't any at all. Oh well. I've been kind of leaning towards downtown Durham a lot more lately anyway.

[CitizenWill]

One name: Will Raymond

[DanRNC]

Where should have been sited? Out in the burbs?

[CitizenWill]

Where should have been sited? Out in the burbs?

[DanRNC]

The whole TC-3 zoning proposition is a bit disconcerting but I feel that just because a building is tall is doesn't necessarily make it unattractive-the Chapel Hill Town Council will never let a repeat of U Square or BofA Plaza. We have heard the comparisons between these buildings and the new proposals from critics-talking about apples and oranges. Those buildings were just plain ugly but I can show you one-story monstrosities all over town that are as bad or worse-Binkley Baptist Church, every building on Connor Drive, the Estes/East Franklin axis of awful architecture, etc.

[toben]

Greetings. A few points of clarification. Greenbridge could not have been approved without the formation of the TC-3 zone. The Council could have approved the height variance from 90' to 120' through the SUP, but it could not have approved the density variance from a floor-area-ratio (FAR) of 2.0 to 4.0 (roughly habitable space/unit area) without the rezoning. TC-3 is not a geographic zone of entitlement. In other words, there is no TC-3 district in Chapel Hill. Every project that applies for TC-3 will have to justify its application based on exceptional attributes, so there will be ample opportunity for citizens to express viewpoints on which projects meet or fail to meet that standard.

Public notice and public information meetings were held on TC-3, prior to the Council considering it in conjunction with Greenbridge. The Community Design Commission and Planning Board, as well as other advisory boards in both Chapel Hill and Carrboro considered TC-3 separately, but at the same public meetings they discussed it's first potential applicant; namely, Greenbridge.

Greenbridge will be 117' tall on the east side, with various mechanical equipment (chillers, solar collectors, etc.) set back from the street and screened on the rooftop. So the habitable height is 117' and the utility setback adds another 15' on the roof.

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.

[CitizenWill]

Greetings. A few points of clarification. Greenbridge could not have been approved without the formation of the TC-3 zone. The Council could have approved the height variance from 90' to 120' through the SUP, but it could not have approved the density variance from a floor-area-ratio (FAR) of 2.0 to 4.0 (roughly habitable space/unit area) without the rezoning. TC-3 is not a geographic zone of entitlement. In other words, there is no TC-3 district in Chapel Hill. Every project that applies for TC-3 will have to justify its application based on exceptional attributes, so there will be ample opportunity for citizens to express viewpoints on which projects meet or fail to meet that standard.

Public notice and public information meetings were held on TC-3, prior to the Council considering it in conjunction with Greenbridge. The Community Design Commission and Planning Board, as well as other advisory boards in both Chapel Hill and Carrboro considered TC-3 separately, but at the same public meetings they discussed it's first potential applicant; namely, Greenbridge.

Greenbridge will be 117' tall on the east side, with various mechanical equipment (chillers, solar collectors, etc.) set back from the street and screened on the rooftop. So the habitable height is 117' and the utility setback adds another 15' on the roof.

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.

[toben]

Will -- Suggest you consult with the town attorney to get a more accurate response to your first question, but here's my best shot. We tried to get exceptions to TC-2 (our pre-TC-3 zone) through the SUP to construct Greenbridge. McDonough refused to design a typical "wedding cake" to conform to existing building setbacks and envelopes, so we broke outside of the height, building envelope, and density parameters. We were told by the Planning Dept that Council could approve everything in the design, except higher density. That required rezoning. The Planning Dept. did not want to create a new zoning district that would entitle just any tall building in Chapel Hill, so instead created a conditional use zone, which could be applied to projects in town center with exceptional attributes. Lot 5 and others will have to prove their case to citizens and to the Council, just as we did. I hope we are the minimum standard for every other project proposed for TC-3. Although I can understand how the zoning process seemed fast to you, it was both costly and very time consuming for us.

Apparently, building height must encompass everything on the structure (including Wifi antannae and solar PV). So, even though our habitable space only goes to 117', our utilities on the roof will push us up to 132'. 135' gives us 3' of error room. Happy to meet to discuss wifi -- fits into our social equity goals. Would need outside funding, but we would gladly host, so long as the equipment doesn't exceed 135'. Spoke to Ruby Simchock's husband about this briefly, so perhaps you two can coordinate.

[CitizenWill]

Thanks Tim, the wedding cake TC-2 vs TC-3 makes sense (look @ Franklin Inn). Guess time will only tell how TC-3 is used or misused.

Kind of a theme I've been working for awhile is increasing citizen involvement in all aspects of Town governance. As far as development, we have tools available to help visualize the impact a development has within a particular locale (you guys obviously have used them). The Planning Dept. is only waiting on a Council directive to put together a virtual Chapel Hill to model these developments (in fact, they created the dataset in 2004/5 - I was the 1st person, Gordon thought, to ask for the model).

Further, for a potentially far reaching zoning change, like TC-3, I think Council owes it to folks to go the extra distance. Look at all the discussions around UNC's OI-4. Years worth.

Finally, I think there should be a conversation about what Downtown should evolve into rather than a catch-as-catch-can approach. Between Greenbridge, Lot #5, Shortbread, Franklin Inn, whatever will be going on behind the Lantern, University Square, etc. what folks think of as the "human scale" Chapel Hill will be vanishing. If for no other reason than we'll be tapping folks wallets to support those new high density developments, we need that conversation. Oh, it'll be a pain in the ass to entertain all the orthogonal ideas but it is the "right thing" to do.

I thought the self-inflicted Lot #5 was an excellent opportunity to pioneer such a new process to create a shared vision of Downtown (maybe following the best of the NCD process + some other ideas). So far the process has been diktat from on high. Quite a shame as we're demanding a higher standard from UNC - which, arguably as a public institution has the same requirement to go beyond the minimum of outreach.

Wifi equipment probably won't add to height at all. Also, BrianR (Ruby Sinreich's new husband) and I were on the Town's now defunct Tech Advisory Board and have had quite a few conversations about how to bridge our local digital divide. I'll contact you soon to see how we might work out a solution.