THE CHAPEL HILL NEWS
Guest Column -- By Jan Schochet Published: Aug. 5, 2008 5:56 PM | Full story
By Jan Schochet
As a person who has lived in Chapel Hill on and off since I first went to college here in the '70s, and as someone who also spent time fighting against the complete razing of downtown Asheville, my hometown, in 1980-1982, I am very disappointed that the town of Chapel Hill would even consider the Glen Lennox destruction project.
Given that there are already two "urban villages"-- one going up across the street (54 East) and one down the street (Meadowmont), both of which were built on one-use properties (54 East a former motel and Meadowmont on a former farm) -- the destruction of a complete neighborhood to build yet another densely populated shopping/high-end residential project is entirely inappropriate for a town that likes to think of itself as a progressive community.
There needs to be green space left somewhere. And for those who ask "where should development happen?" my answer is that it should happen downtown -- now there's an area that needs help very much.
Because the people who have owned downtown buildings for 30 years or more are aging and/or dying and the property is changing hands for the first time in decades, the property values have risen so much that the mortgage costs to the new owners necessitate extreme increases in rent prices. Hence, the problem with empty storefronts.
Also, as has been shown in Asheville, my hometown, which now has a thriving downtown of restaurants and galleries, a main turning point in revival of the downtown occurred when residential was brought into the downtown equation. (Why doesn't Grubb do their project downtown?)
Glen Lennox has always represented a moderately priced, safe neighborhood that a student or a grandmother (or anyone in between) could live in; currently the newest developments all over Chapel Hill aspire to appeal to the richest of the rich, a sad comment on who society values. Does Chapel Hill really want to exclude "regular" people from its population?
So-called "smart growth" holds at its core the idea of density. Density is fine where densities are commonly used -- in cities. Downtown Chapel Hill (as in downtown Asheville or in any other urban space) is a great place for density. A complete community of small garden apartments with lush vegetation (which adds back to the green grass and soil below it) of trees and parks is not a great place for density. It is a place to be cherished. It's not broken, so don't try to "fix" it. As a neighborhood, it works, so why not keep a smart neighborhood intact?
And lastly, most people hate mid-century architecture, but, as a preservationist and historian, I don't. (And neither do the members of the NC's Twentieth Century Society.) The small shopping center that is part of Glen Lennox is the only remaining example of a mid 20th century retail space still in existence in Chapel Hill.
Hundreds of Victorian houses and bungalows in the Triangle were torn down in the 1960s-1980s because they were considered "monstrosities" according to tastes of the day. Let's not repeat that mistake, either.
For all of these reasons (and probably some more I could think of later), I believe the destruction of Glen Lennox apartments and retail is a particularly bad idea for Chapel Hill.
Jan Schochet lives in Chapel Hill and Asheville, produces documentary projects related to historic preservation and history, and has a master's of arts degree in folklore.
2008 The Chapel Hill News
