Month: May 2009

Stimulus bucks? Tar Heels get hosed

Want to get mad? Here’s a good one for you:

A USA Today analysis of where stimulus money has gone so far, compared to unemployment rates, shows North Carolina (jobless rate 10.8 percent, among the nation’s highest), is getting way below its per capita share of stimulus money. Here’s a link to the article.

Here’s the telling paragraph: ” … the first contracts [for spending stimulus money] have amounted to only about $7.42 per person on average in the eight states with unemployment rates higher than 10% last month. By comparison, government records show it has awarded about $26 worth of contracts per person in North Dakota, whose unemployment rate is the nation’s lowest.”

The nationwide average is $13 per person, the story says. In North Carolina, the figure was only $1.56 per capita.

No wonder we’re laying off teachers and gutting our colleges and universities. You’d think President Obama would be a tad more grateful for his much-touted victory here last November.

Even South Carolina, where Gov. Mark Sanford is trying his best to stop incoming stimulus money despite its 11.5 percent jobless rate, got $81.34 per capita. Sanford must not be trying hard enough.

Blue Line or Green Line?

Should the existing Blue Line be renamed the Green Line, to please UNCC? Tomorrow the Metropolitan Transit Commission takes up the discussion at its 5:30 p.m. meeting. Here’s a link to the meeting agenda.

At first, it sounds like an easy and simple decision: The transit line that’s planned to run from uptown to UNC Charlotte should be the Green Line, to reflect the 49ers school colors.

But with transit – and transportation in general – things are rarely as simple as you’d think. Here’s the biggest sticking point: The new line will be a continuation of the existing Blue Line. That is, you could hop on at I-485 outside Pineville and ride all the way to beyond UNCC.

There’s already been significant investment in “Blue.” Even the train cars are blue, not to mention the signs, etc.

As CATS officials note, they couldn’t find any other transit system that “changed colors midstream” (hmmm, interesting turn of phrase). It might well confuse riders. I mean, we’re not talking a lot of riders here with New York-caliber subway expertise (where one line simultaneously might have two numbers or letters or colors, and you have to notice whether you’re hopping on a local or an express route, for instance). Starting on the blue line and ending on the green line might be as confusing as starting out on Woodlawn and, without turning, finding yourself on Runnymede and then Sharon Road then Wendover, and then Eastway. Or maybe Tyvola to Fairview to Sardis to Rama. Or … well, I could go on but I won’t.

Hmmm. Now that I think about it, a Blue-to-Green Line transit corridor fits right in. How very Charlotte.

Agriburbia? Tell that to Detroit

My earlier posting on “agriburbia” – saying “Agriculture is the new golf” and reporting on an in-the-works development near here that will feature farm fields instead of a golf course or – brought an e-mail with this link to a story from the online Detroit Free Press.

It seems some visiting urban planners, noting the enlarging areas of disinvestment in the Motor City, have proposed that eventually the city will resemble clusters of villages surrounded by farmlands. Back to the future, indeed.

Does anyone know of any urban land that has successfully reverted to farmland?

I asked a soil specialist some years back about the feasibility of turning abandoned big-box stores and their huge parking lots back into farmland and was told that, unfortunately, the development scrapes away the topsoil, which takes centuries to create. Maybe with enough chickens and livestock one could replenish the soil?

‘Agriculture is the new golf’

The latest career advice, I hear, isn’t “plastics.” It’s “agriburbia.”

A developer-land planner-type pulled me aside this week to talk about his newest project: A development, in the general vicinity of Kannapolis-Salisbury, that they’re dubbing “agriburbia.” It’s a residential development but instead of common open space and big lawns, they’ll have a civic farm, land leased to a farmer. There will be do-it-yourself options for backyard gardeners. They’ll market it, he said, to people affiliated with the N.C. Research Campus in Kannapolis – the health-and-wellness related research operation.

The term “agriburbia,” he said, was coined by a guy in Colorado. Sure enough, here’s the Web site. “Agriburbia” is even trademarked. But it’s such a great word it may have a life of its own, like “locavore.” Its slogan: “Growing Sustainable Communities by the Bushel!” Its goal: “the re-integration of food production directly within the living environment … by focusing on agriculture as the centerpiece of both new and existing communities.”

This dovetails with a talk in Charlotte last fall by New Urbanism godfather Andres Duany, about what he termed “agricultural urbanism.” It was Duany who quipped “agriculture is the new golf.” By that, he meant an activity and marketing point for developments.

“Only 17 percent of people living in golf course communities play golf more than once a year,” Duany said. “Why not grow food? By the way, food is very good-looking.” (I wonder if Duany, an urbane Miamian, has ever seen fading tomato plants at the end of a hot, aphid-ridden summer, or squash plants wilting from vine borer assaults. But I digress.)

Duany suggested the $40 billion that Americans spend on lawn care might be better diverted to food production. And this may be the biggest eyebrow-raiser, coming from a devoted urbanist devoted it to agriculture: “The large lot (as in large-lot suburbia) can be justified primarily as the making of food.” When Duany is trying to justify large-lot suburbia, you know the world is changing.

Being Andres Duany, he even came up with a “transect” (translation: context-appropriate designs) for agriculture in a range of conditions from rural (your basic farms, with farming village clusters) to center city (container gardens on terraces and rooftops). His transect has specific allowances for how many chickens are allowed – though no cluckers in the most dense urban neighborhoods. If memory serves, you can’t have a rooster unless you’re in one of the more rural zones in his transect. Whatever.

The local developers said they’ll be going public in a few weeks. Theirs isn’t “agricultural urbanism,” they said, but suburbia with farms instead of big lawns. Stay tuned.

Transit lovers, and Portland haters (an update)

Friday, May 22, 12:21 PM update:
If you like reading about Portland, check out this piece from the Oregonian’s Anna Griffin, whom some of you will remember as a former Charlotte Observer writer (who covered the growth beat here in the QC before moving to our Raleigh bureau.)

Today, a little something for transit-lovers and then for transit- and Portland-haters.

First, here’s a newsy dispatch from Mary Hopper at University City Partners:

“The most recent cost estimate for building the LYNX Blue Line Extension from Center City to University City now exceeds $1.1 billion. That’s a lot of money, to be sure. But is it too much money? A study paid for by University City Partners suggests that every dollar spent on transit construction will come back three-fold in additional development and increased property value and tax base within our municipal service district through 2035.” Here’s a link to the study she refers to.

Hopper, executive director for UCP, also points to a proposed high-rise office building from Bank of America:
“University City’s proposed transit line is already spurring plans for intense transit-friendly development on North Tryon Street. Bank of America has requested a zoning change to allow up to 1 million square feet of offices in buildings up to 16 stories tall, just south of Mallard Creek Church Road. The wooded 24-acre site lies within a quarter mile of a proposed light-rail station on Mallard Creek Church Road. The Charlotte City Council will consider the request at its June 15 zoning hearings.” Read more. And here’s a link to the rezoning petition.

Finally, for those who like to read opposing opinions, here’s some red meat for you anti-transit, anti-planning, anti-density readers: George Will on “Why Ray LaHood Is Wrong and Portland Stinks.” [My title, not his.]

2:15 PM – A friend shares with me this riposte to George Will. Link here.
3:28 PM – A TV station in Portland is running an online poll on who would win if George Will debated U.S. Rep. Earl Blumenauer, a Portland Democrat who’s an avid supporter of transit, bicycling, pedestrians and planned growth. Link here.

High-speed rail roadshow comes to town

If you’re hot for high-speed rail through the Carolinas, then pay attention Wednesday.

Charlotte will bat lead-off in a national high-speed rail vision road show – a series of workshops in seven U.S. cities put on by the Federal Railroad Administration.

The workshop – the only one to be held for the Southeast Corridor – will be 1-4:30 p.m. at the Renaissance Charlotte Suites Hotel, 2800 Coliseum Centre Dr. (off the Billy Graham Parkway).
If you’ll remember, President Obama has offered up $8 billion in grants for high-speed rail corridors, intercity passenger rail and congestion grants under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA, as a pirates would say). Competition is likely to be fierce. Last month I heard Xavier de Sousa Briggs, associate director of the Office of Management and Budget, talk about what would give regions a leg up in competing. He said regions that can demonstrate solid regional cooperation will have an advantage.
N.C. rail insiders suggest it’s not coincidence that Charlotte and the Southeast Corridor are first on the schedule. Folks from Atlanta are expected to attend. And let us hope our sister state to the South shows some interest, despite its governor’s dislike of stimulus money.
Here’s a link that will tell you more, including linking to the letter from FRA administrator Joseph C. Szabo. Szabo’s letter says the FRA seeks input “to provide us with your regional visiton of high-speed and intercity rail networks,” among other things.
If you want to attend you may RSVP here. And to submit comments for the public docket, click here. It’s Docket No. FRA-2009-0045 and the deadline for comments is June 5.

Modern architecture — Oh, the terror!

This may explain why I, and many other people, aren’t so fond of Modernist-style buildings. We’re instinctively reacting with fear.

(See my previous posting about the Mid-Century Modern home tour this weekend. Link is here.)
I stumbled on this piece from Fast Company about how surroundings shape our minds and bodies. Among its interesting tidbits: People instinctively prefer objects with rounded edges (think of arches, for instance) over sharp-edged objects (think of most 20th-century buildings, such as the Westin hotel in Charlotte, shown above, with the NASCAR Hall of Fame in the foreground). The theory is that it has to do with hard-wired fear of sharp objects.
Memo to architects designing libraries: High-ceilings in rooms encourage you to think more freely and abstractly.
And memo to minimalists: Clutter increases the “memorability” of a place. As the article says, “A generous scattering of objects generates a fondness for the place.” (But I’m pretty sure that doesn’t include dirty socks or last night’s grease-splotched pizza box.)

Mid-Century Modern: Charlotte’s bulldozer bait?

If you think Mid-Century Modern is outdated and ugly, and ought to be torn down, you’re probably over 45.

The nonprofit group Historic Charlotte has put together a Mid-Century Modern home tour this weekend, (here’s a link where you can see a list, a map and buy tickets) featuring 17 homes built from the 1950s to 1970s, to try to show everyone why a lot of younger people are interested in preserving and living in houses from that era. It’s part of a whole month of celebrating Mid-Century Modern.

The houses range from modest to impressive, and with local architects Murray Whisnant and the late Jack Orr Boyte among those represented.

It’s an architectural style and era not beloved around here – until recently. Diane Althouse, executive director of Historic Charlotte, told Tuesday night’s Civic By Design forum that buildings from the era are in greater risk of demolition than others in Charlotte. And of course, we know virtually everything here that doesn’t have preservation in its deed restrictions is at risk of demolition.

Here’s a measure of how unpopular this modern architecture is. Last fall, in an unprecedented move, the City Council in a 6-4 vote, rejected a move to name a 1957, Jack Boyte-designed house in the Cloisters neighborhood a local landmark. The owners wanted the designation; the city-county historic landmarks commission wanted the designation, the state preservation office had concluded the house was eligible. Usually the council doesn’t have a problem, if the preservation experts say something’s worth designating, and the owners concur. But council members just said they didn’t think the house was very attractive.

If you’re old enough to think Mid-Century Modern is ugly, you’re probably old enough to remember when Victorian-style buildings were being demolished because they were “too ugly” and far too many treasures were lost.

I confess to some ambivalence about Modernism. As generally carried out, it’s too bleak and stark. One modernist building amid older, ornate buildings is sleek and elegant. A whole city (or even whole city block) of nothing but square angles, bare concrete and cold glass would be depressing. But the point of preservation isn’t only to preserve buildings we think are pretty. It’s to ensure that eras aren’t obliterated.

And it’s worth pointing out that buildings from this era are coming to be treasured and sought-after. I know of several people who are specifically looking to buy homes from that era.

Atlanta vs. Charlotte for ‘King of South’


Atlanta Journal-Constitution weighed in last weekend on the Charlotte-Atlanta rivalry with a piece by former Observer reporter Dan Chapman: Rivalry to be economic King of South heats up.
Read it, then read the comments. Then tell me whether you don’t suspect that a lot of the talk about how well (!!) Charlotte has dealt with growth and transportation comes from Atlanta types hoping to goad their legislature with some jealousy. The story says the Georgia leg won’t let Atlanta or other metro regions impose sales taxes for roads, and won’t even let MARTA use its own money to fill budget holes.

Is Charlotte doing things better than Atlanta? Depends on what you look at. Definitely we’re doing better at tying land use to transit – at requiring transit-oriented development along our light rail line. Atlanta didn’t do that during MARTA’s earliest decades and results show.
Is Charlotte doing any better at controlling sprawl? That’s a tough question. I think some of the counties and smaller towns in the region (Cabarrus County, Davidson, Belmont, etc.) are, indeed, doing better. Further, N.C. annexation laws have left Charlotte in a healthier situation and have allowed the city limits to expand, instead of being hemmed in like the actual city of Atlanta itself.

Yet Charlotte and Mecklenburg have done virtually nothing to preserve farms or any section of the county from suburban-style development, other than a few county parkland purchases. Eventually every square foot of the county will be developed except for those parts purchased for parkland or privately donated to land conservation groups such as the Catawba Lands Conservancy. No serious farmland or forestland protection measures have been taken by local governments other than Davidson.

Atlanta is definitely bigger. Is it better? I think that depends on what you’re looking for and how closely you look.

Trashing public art — again

Mayor McCrory, council members Andy Dulin and John Lassiter, can I make a request? If you don’t like the city’s 1 percent-for-art program, then end it. But as is, it’s tediously predictable that whenever you get a presentation about what the money is being spent for, you go off on the program’s administrators and trash the art.

Guess what. Their job is to administer the city program. The city program allocates 1 percent of the cost of most (not all) city projects and dedicates that money for public art.

Now, plenty of people can make good philosophical arguments for why government shouldn’t be paying for art. It’s a reasonable position: Art should be independent of government, because public money comes with strings attached. Public art typically isn’t very cutting-edge, for instance, because that would offend the pols and they’d ax the money. Some people genuinely think art isn’t what government should be doing, and I respect that view, even though I disagree.

But there are other good arguments about the value of art to the public and about the value of having artists in your city. And for now, city government (and the county, and the transit system) have concluded it’s worth the fractional amount of money it takes to have public art.

The item getting people’s attention is a project to put mosaic tile covers on trash cans along Central Avenue, as part of a Central Avenue streetscaping project. Here’s a link to the slide presentation; mosaics are on page 6. The City Council heard a presentation on Monday, showing numerous public art projects. Dulin tallied up the cost of the mosaics – $42,000 for mosaics on the outsides of 12 trashcans, 4 mosaics each – and said, “That’s $3,500 a trashcan.” Then he asked if he could get one of those trashcans at the bus stop near Myers Park High School. “$3,500 per trashcan is a little bit out of line, I’m sorry,” he said.

Lassiter wondered whether the primary colors of the mosaics would look good next to some murals also planned along Central Avenue, whose colors looked (in the slide show) more pastel. (Should we cut him some slack? He was suffering jet lag from a trip to Ireland.)
McCrory complained – as he does whenever public art comes up – that he prefers more representational statuary that depicts people and history. “I like the statues at The Square. I just don’t think we have enough of them,” he said. “The most comment I get from people is the statue at Myers Park Hardware [a privately funded statue of the late, eccentric Hugh McManaway].”

There were snickers and snide remarks about several of the art works. Robert Bush of the Arts & Science Council, which administers the public arts program, was stoic. Public art administrator Jean Greer kept a pleasant smile on her face. Surely they get sick of this, every time they appear.
OK, let’s try it one more time: Not all art will please everyone. If it did, it would be awfully tame. Some people like abstract art, and I don’t want the mayor, or any mayor, choosing what art I see. Some people prefer ancient Roman busts, or statues of nekkid goddesses or “The Thinker.” But art changes with its era, and this art should reflect this era.

Putting art on a trashcan might just be a way to brighten up a part of town that, heaven knows, has felt decades of city neglect. Should all art be restricted to uptown or Myers Park, where more affluent people live? Should art not be allowed on trashcans, only walls?

This is silly, fellas. Can’t we just move on?