Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
As far as "real" mixed use, what you're describing seems like it should be a city core. It would take a lot of space that may not be readily available. I feel like the Dickinson Ave corridor and surrounding areas can become what you're describing. There are lots of single family homes within walking distance of that area, and there could be opportunities for developers to build other types of housing nearby. I definitely think as more developers get interested in this area, the higher chance you'll see different types of developments.
Thing is, cookie cutter developments (4-5 story buildings, 1st floor office/retail, upper floors apartments) are still in style all over the place. They're relatively cheap and quick to build and they get lots of people interested in living in them.
I really would like to see a mixed use building in this area that holds a primary care/urgent care facility, a pharmacy like CVS or Walgreens, along with medical offices on the 2nd/3rd floor, and PCC classrooms (continuing education?) on the top floor or two. I hope that the whole area doesn't just become 5 story apartments. I don't think it will. I think the Dickinson Ave area will become our American Tobacco district, our North Hills, our Epicentre all rolled into one (on a much smaller scale, of course).
Sutton Station in Durham is very mixed-use on much less land than the proposed project on Charles. It has office, retail, several restaurants, some kind of health care facility and backs up to the American Tobacco trail that goes from downtown Durham and Chatham County. It also adjoins Woodcroft which is a very early version of mixed-use development and has very generous trails for walking and biking, with a number of different housing categories, with a recreational area and shopping center on the periphery. Meadowmont in Chapel Hill came a number of years later and is bigger, but has many of the features I described above. Mayfaire in Wilmington, I believe has a number of these elements. It just seems that new ideas seem to take longer to materialize in Greenville. But, I think Greenville's growth has brought in a population that is more diverse and would be interested in these kinds of developments. There are many different kinds of developments that have emerged in recent years, even ones built around farms. Check out some of the developments planned and built by Village Habitat design: (Village Habitat) Several of these have been built in and around Atlanta. The goal of these developments is to reduce dependency on automobiles. Wouldn't it be better to walk down the street (or greenway or across a meadow, etc.) to get a loaf of bread than to get in a car and drive several miles to and back from a store?
I'm encouraged by the proposed plan to redevelop the Dickinson & Memorial Drive area and the city's encouragement to build more high-density development near the greenway and the downtown core. But, there are many more models that have emerged in recent years that would probably be welcomed in Greenville. Evidently, it takes more than the city's encouragement to make these kinds of developments a reality. Developers that are familiar with some of these models and are willing to do a little market research to get a handle on demand, instead of playing it safe with what's familiar, is definitely needed. Urban sprawl, to paraphrase Howard Kunstler, is the greatest waste of resources in the history of mankind. It's also boring.
I think many are undervaluing the need for student housing in Greenville.
If ECU has 23K on campus and Pitt has about 10K undergrads that is about 33,000 students...there are about 5,500 students on campus at ECU, zero at Pitt...
Which leaves you needing housing for 27,500 beds for student housing...
If you just had complexes of about 600 students each, do you know how many of those complexes you would need?
FOURTY FIVE.
In other words, building a handful of complexes isn't going to hurt the situation. One of the big differences now than 30 years ago in Greenville is Pitt, which is bringing in kids from all over the region to Greenville and those kids need to live somewhere, and student housing complexes makes the most sense...and guess what, Bells Fork is easy access to both ECU and Pitt.
Answer this question...how close is North Campus Crossing to Pitt Community College?...and you will see where the real problem with NCC was.
BTW, the College View neighborhood is in shambles...anyone have a rendering of what is going back there...very good location for redevelopment of student housing.
Very good points! I'm certain there has to be analytical data showing viable support for X number of housing units.
Dickinson Ave After Dark is planned for Saturday, March 25 in Uptown Greenville.
This is an adult-only festival featuring the local fun that Greenville has to offer. There will be music performances by Lipbone Redding and Jessy Esterline with more to be announced. Food will be available from Shep's Farm to Truck food truck, JAmerican Hot Dogs, and Patty Cakes adult bite-sized cupcakes.
The following breweries are also participating:
Tarboro Brewing Company (TBC)
Trollingwood Taproom & Brewery
Uptown Brewing Company
217 Brew Works
Mother Earth Brewing
The Duck-Rabbit Craft Brewery
3rd Rock Brewing
The event is from 7 p.m. - 10 p.m. on 8th Street between Dickinson Ave. and Washington Ave.
I like it. More events like this will pop up again in the future. Wish they had advertised this more than a day before the event happens.
This was a really fun event. There was an awesome turnout and I really hope they do this more often than once a year. Promotion of these kinds of events haven't been great. Spazz Fest was also this past weekend and I did not hear much about that. Additionally, Nerd Nite (https://twitter.com/nerdnite252), a monthly event that would cater towards most of the Dickinson Avenue After Dark target audience, was this past Friday. These "Young Professional" sort of events could benefit a lot by better promotion.
This was a really fun event. There was an awesome turnout and I really hope they do this more often than once a year. Promotion of these kinds of events haven't been great. Spazz Fest was also this past weekend and I did not hear much about that. Additionally, Nerd Nite (https://twitter.com/nerdnite252), a monthly event that would cater towards most of the Dickinson Avenue After Dark target audience, was this past Friday. These "Young Professional" sort of events could benefit a lot by better promotion.
Glad to hear that this event went well. All the pics on social media that I've seen made it seem like there was a good turnout. I'm sure this won't be the last one. That's why I hope there will be a built "festival park" somewhere in the dickinson ave area, so there could be events like this all the time. My hope is that the Dickinson after dark event is held every 3 months or so.
Spazzfest should be promoted more, as well. It's in its 8 year, and still young, but I"m sure these things will continue to get better.
Glad to hear that this event went well. All the pics on social media that I've seen made it seem like there was a good turnout. I'm sure this won't be the last one. That's why I hope there will be a built "festival park" somewhere in the dickinson ave area, so there could be events like this all the time. My hope is that the Dickinson after dark event is held every 3 months or so.
Spazzfest should be promoted more, as well. It's in its 8 year, and still young, but I"m sure these things will continue to get better.
My wife and I went to D.A.A.D. and it was very well attended. Luckily we got there early to sample all the beers and grab pints before the lines set in. Being the first event it was certainly a success and should absolutely prompt more. I saw at least one brewer run out of beer earlier in the event so it was perhaps larger than even expected. A festival are would be a worth while investment certainly!
Does anyone have the letter to the editor that Connely submitted that spurred this response?
"CLOSE AND CONTROVERSIAL VOTE
REBUTTAL TO COUNCILMEMBER'S CONNELLY'S LETTER ABOUT MY VOTE
Councilmember P. J. Connelly posted a letter to the editor in yesterday's (March 27) Daily Reflector criticizing my vote on a controversial rezoning in last Monday night's Council meeting.
Trying to debate complicated policy issues in letters to the editor is not the best way for us to conduct the public's business. Letters to the editor are limited in length and the debate cannot be a timely back and forth as it can be in a council meeting debate. So, while I prefer not to promote a practice of councilmembers debating complicated issues in the letters to the editor page, I certainly wanted to respond to Councilmember Connelly's weak critique against my vote.
Provided below is basically what I said in the council meeting about my vote. Many citizens and thought leaders in our community receive this newsletter, and, hopefully, it will suffice as response to Councilmember Connelly's letter. But if I judge it's not sufficient, I'll keep open the option of a letter to the editor.
STICKING TO A COMMITMENT
We all, including Councilmember Connelly, have strongly advocated public-private partnerships. In past months we made several decisions to support a 53 million dollar tax base project in our Center City. Stepping into a major public-private partnership and then taking actions that might terminate such a project does not help our tax base and sends the wrong message to potential private interests that might want to engage with us.
The bottom line rationale for my vote is that I believe the Council should follow through on its actions, on its commitments. I respect Councilmember Connelly for making a different decision on this difficult rezoning. I don't appreciate his mischaracterizing my position.
COUNCILMEMBER CONNELLY IN THE MINORITY
Councilmember Connelly paints a picture of my vote as bad for Greenville, not based on facts, meddling in free trade, and personal preference taking precedence over logic. What he does not say in his letter is that this was a very close vote--tied 3-3 with Mayor Allen Thomas breaking the tie against how Councilmember Connelly voted. Clearly, the Council as a whole judged this not a clear-cut vote and sided against his position.
Before getting into the details of the issue, I'll register puzzlement about why Councilmember Connelly called only me out in his letter, when three other councilmembers and the mayor voted against Councilmember Connelly's position. Of those who voted in the majority, I probably gave the most extensive rationale for my vote. I find it very interesting that of his four colleagues who voted against his position, Councilmember Connelly chose to criticize the one--me--who gave the most extensive rationale for their vote.
CRUX OF THE ISSUE
The rezoning project I voted against has many features we want to see. It is a project that I could normally support and, indeed, may very well support in the future.
However, over the past months the Council has taken several decisions to support a 53 million dollar project close to campus. At that time to my knowledge we were not deciding among various projects--we had an opportunity to help add 53 million dollars to the tax base and we went for it. We (1) closed a street, (2) made some zoning/setback adjustments, and (3) participated in a complicated property exchange that could help facilitate the project. If Councilmember Connelly thought we should not have taken these actions to support this project, that was the time to strenuously object to each of our actions in all venues.
The large rezoning, which could add much student housing, that I opposed could endanger the other project to which we have already made a commitment. Basically, I voted to see through what we've already started before moving on to something else that might undermine our prior actions. Ideally, we could sequence the projects and have it be a win-win for everyone. In the days prior to the vote, I and others made efforts toward a win-win for both sides. I'm still open to that outcome if it can be designed.
Again, I want to emphasize that this was a difficult vote to decide. I respect those, including Councilmember Connelly, who voted in the minority.
SPECIFIC RESPONSES TO COUNCILMEMBER CONNELLY'S STATEMENTS
Now, I'd like to respond specifically to some of illogical or irrelevant statements Councilmember Connelly made in his letter.
CONNELLY: "Monday night's meeting was an example of personal
preference taking precedence over logic."
MY RESPONSE: I gave the logical rationale for my vote and, clearly, a majority of the Council disagreed with Councilmember Connelly's position. Councilmember Connelly could disagree with my rationale--but done in the council meeting as we debated the issue--and that would be much better than postulating personal motive later in a separate forum.
CONNELLY: "The city staff provides numerous pages of information pertaining to the items listed on our agenda for each council member to help formulate an opinion."
MY RESPONSE: Correct, but so what? Councilmember Connelly and I read and interpret this information differently. And, in fact, part of what staff provided, taken from the new Horizons Land Use Plan (which Councilmember Connelly voted for) referred to the concern about overbuilt student housing in the outer edges of our city. (see details below)
CONNELLY: Mercer "chose to interfere with potential competition by another project." "The government has no right to select winners and losers, and Monday night's meeting was a prime example of why we struggle to recruit businesses and dignified, high paying jobs to our city."
MY RESPONSE: I agree with the basic sentiment that the market should prevail. So, working public-private partnerships is a fine dance between interfering with the market and promoting development that is good for the city and our tax base. Councilmember Connelly and I may differ on how to navigate that dance, but it does not mean that everyone--in this case, a majority--who makes a different decision from him is being driven by personal preference.
TOO MUCH STUDENT HOUSING--A LEGITIMATE QUESTION
An undercurrent in all this--not at all acknowledged by Councilmember Connelly's sketchy letter--is a concern about too much student housing. There are concerns about student housing complexes degrading and becoming crime havens and code enforcement nightmares. And, as I noted, the newly updated Horizons Land Use Plan, which Councilmember Connelly voted for, calls attention to this problem.
Approving a significant new development, which could include student housing, 2.5 miles from campus could be the right thing to do. But I've explained clearly my rationale why a sensible vote could very well go the other way and, indeed, did go the other way and against Councilmember Connelly's position.
Note this from the Horizons Land Use Plan:
Chapter 9: "Action Plan: Priority Implementation Action Number 4: Develop Strategy to Address Overdevelopment of Peripheral Apartment Complexes Action 5.7.
A handful of multi-family apartment complexes on the periphery of the city have the potential to face disinvestment due to overdevelopment. The impact of these properties can extend beyond property lines, and a strategy to tackle the issue should be developed before the full effect of disinvestment hits. This action was not a top ten priority at the public open house, but addresses a condition in particular need of attention from the City.
This above information regarding overdevelopment of student housing from the Horizons Land Use Plan was provided to the Council in the agenda on this rezoning.
We don't have a formal policy about the amount of student housing. However, (1) The Horizons Land Use Plan, as noted above and provided to us in the agenda item on this issue, gives alert to the overdevelopment of student housing. (2) In council meetings over past months, the subject of the overdeveloment of student housing has come up several times. (3) Several council members have called for us to have a focused discussion about overdevelopment in this sector.
A FINAL THOUGHT
in his short time on the Council Councilmember Connelly has been the lone opposition vote on many issues; 5-1 votes are not uncommon this past year. When he's an outlier, maybe he's right and everyone else on the Council is wrong. But at the very least, in the rezoning vote under discussion, I'd hope Councilmember Connelly would admit that it was a difficult vote and one on which good people can disagree on the merits.
This is Calvin Mercer's Constituent Communication Newsletter No. 421."
They had the DAAD in the best spot they could, given the current state of the Dickinson Ave area. I think the city could do some quick upgrades to 8th street and turn it into something like a mini Fayetteville St. (Raleigh) where they can easily block it off and host festivals.
That entire area needs repaving. I know it's supposed to be coming, but it's got to be a little rough for the businesses that are there now.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
