Archived

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

c_harmons

Cary Fighting Growth

18 posts in this topic

http://www.davisandhighhouse.org

What a well organized fight to keep high density development out of Cary.

This is exactly the problem I have been pointing to in the Triangle for some time.

1) WE ARE GROWING OUT TOO FAST, WE NEED INFILL DEVELOPMENT!

2) INFILL DEVELOPMENT IS TOO DENSE AND BRINGS IN TOO MUCH TRAFFIC. PLUS WHO WANTS PEOPLE WHO LIVE IN THESE HIGH DENSITY PROJECTS NEAR US?

3) OK, THESE PROJECTS MIGHT HAVE A PLACE, BUT THEY NEED TO BE AWAY FROM EXISITNG FAMILIES!

4) WE ARE GROWING OUT TOO FAST, WE NEED INFIL DEVELOPMENT - BUT NOT NEAR ME.

It is so aggravating to see this time and time again. And I can almost asure you the Council will dumb these projects down so much in order to approve them, the whole infill concept will be lost.

We really need leaders that point to areas for high density growth and tell the neighbors to get over it. It is for the betterment of the Traignle to have infill development in certain places. And infill means "infill"

Between Cary, Chapel Hill, and parts of inside the belt, there is no other place to grow than on the edges.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


What a joke to hear residents of Cary complain about traffic.......every resident of Cary has chosen...repeat, chosen about the most auto-centric lifestyle oriented town in the State....sorry, Cary folks on the forum but traffic would be less of a concern if they lobbied for better designed neighborhoods, with gridded street patterns paid for by the developer instead of reducing the size of infill. How about asking the developers to pony up school funds? With three of these four corners undeveloped this intersection has a chance to be developed correctly with cross streets from each development lining up with the others, sidewalks on both sides of all streets, no cul-de-sacs, actual park space incorporated (instead of bufferized 'greenspace'), commercial space pulled up to the street with higher density apartments and townhomes appearing behind the commercial on connected streets and lower density homes appearing after those.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What a joke to hear residents of Cary complain about traffic.......every resident of Cary has chosen...repeat, chosen about the most auto-centric lifestyle oriented town in the State....sorry, Cary folks on the forum but traffic would be less of a concern if they lobbied for better designed neighborhoods, with gridded street patterns paid for by the developer instead of reducing the size of infill. How about asking the developers to pony up school funds? With three of these four corners undeveloped this intersection has a chance to be developed correctly with cross streets from each development lining up with the others, sidewalks on both sides of all streets, no cul-de-sacs, actual park space incorporated (instead of bufferized 'greenspace'), commercial space pulled up to the street with higher density apartments and townhomes appearing behind the commercial on connected streets and lower density homes appearing after those.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Figures that there would be opposition. It is interesting that they call it their "residential" community and that it goes against the land use plan - since it is a community activity center. And the examples of denisty that they provide is contradictory - SAS RAC (307 acres!), Cary Towne (487 acres!) and Crossroads (492 acres!) These places are huge in land area and requires driving from one place to the next, especially Crossroads. So if they support mixed development and use suburban development examples as precedent then they are for the continuation of sprawl.

They should have compared these proposals to North Hills, Preston Village, or some other similar places around here or elsewhere.

Can anyone translate the Comparative Analysis that they have posted?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't feel bad for these people, but it is sad to watch the discussion of growth proceed like this. But I understand why these people are against this project when I consider their worldview, which is- "anytime anybody goes anywhere, you use a car, so more development ALWAYS means more TRAFFIC!!!"

Jones133 said it pretty well above. Cary is continuing to grow, as are all the surrounding towns, mostly in a completely hideous suburban fashion. Unless there are sections of the urban fabric designed for non-car mobility, the landscape will be forever beset with endless traffic.

The irony is that more density and better design is probably the answer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Chapel Hill is not Cary. Let's just make sure we're on the same page here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


OK, so when did it become OK to call Davis & High House infill!? There may be a couple subdivisions further to the west of here that sprung up within the last 5 years, but in my book the definition of infill is to build a dense development in a lot that has been neglected or underutilized for a long time but has proximity to existing services and infrastructure. Are we now going to call EVERYTHING between Cary and Jordan Lake "Infill?" Not really.

So, Davis & High House is still very much on the fringe of Western Cary.

But regardless of the infill/sprawl issue, this intersection will be in the middle of a heavily developed area 10 years from now, so the concept of a dense, mixed use, walkable district at this intersection is a good one - in theory. In practice, the developers have made a few token concessions towards walkability and the developments do incorporate both residential, retail, and office space, so in that sense they are "mixed use." But it's really just a ruse so that they can stand in front of the planning commision and town council and wax poetic about walkability and smart growth, in order to be granted the right to build more densely. From what I've seen, these developments will look very "modern" but they will be just as auto-dependent, the traffic will be just as bad, and the district will be only marginally more coherent than Crossroads.

Why? Density and mixed-use are only two parts of the equation that equals smart growth. High density without walkability, access to alternative transportation, and interconnection leads to only one thing: traffic, and lots of it! You can't plunk a dense internally walkable "lifestyle center" in the middle of a big parking lot along a limited-access road on the suburban fringe of a city with no means of interconnection to nearby neighborhoods and terrible access to public transit, and call it smart growth.

These developments are unusually dense strip malls, coated with nothing more than a veneer of modern "new urbanism." These shopping centers will look worn-out and ratty after 20 years, just like any strip mall.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My question would be is this "New North Hills" mixed use or "Brier Creek" mixed use? If it is the former , the Cary residents should shut up and be thankful for getting that kind of development. If it is Brier Creek-ish, and they are fighting for something like North Hills, then I'd fight with them.

But it sounds like they're fighting anything other than *yet another* subdivision to go next to *their* subdivision. From the ABC 11 story:

"Instead of people using major roads, they will then start spilling off residential streets where children are playing," said Liz Fenton, mother and Cary resident.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Over 1,000 signatures and climbing....www.davidandhighhouse.com

I actually find it amusing when you lok at this petition most of the people say "when I moved here 3 years ago, this was a good place to live..."

hmmmm.....so it was OK for you to move there, but it is not OK for someone else to come there.

Interesting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Over 1,000 signatures and climbing....www.davidandhighhouse.com

I actually find it amusing when you lok at this petition most of the people say "when I moved here 3 years ago, this was a good place to live..."

hmmmm.....so it was OK for you to move there, but it is not OK for someone else to come there.

Interesting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As it is, transit has already failed in this corridor. The TTA 310 route is being cancelled because of low ridership.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Gee, what a surprise. :tough: People in Cary wanting to stop others from moving into their 'town'-- no way!!! So when does Cary become a city BTW?? When it reaches 150,000 people in 2015?? The criticism of this project causing too much traffic is void considering that ALL of Cary is slow moving traffic. At 5pm, all the major arteries are like a parking lot. This opposition is mostly feels like even a slice of urbanity will ruin their little suburban town, which it is not. The are essentially saying "if people want to move to Cary, too bad. Move to Morrisville or Apex."

I say bring a few midrise buildings closer to Cary's downtown.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So when does Cary become a city BTW?? When it reaches 150,000 people in 2015??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Town and City are some sort of function of how the Council is setup as spelled out in the charter. I do not really know the specifics but think it has something to do with how seats are determined or how the Town Manager/City Manager interacts with them or something.......anyone else have a better feel for this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.