Ever since I was appointed to the neighborhood committee for the proposed Innovation Center last spring, I have been looking forward to learning more about this building that would be located near the intersection of Estes Drive and MLK Boulevard (about a mile from my home). However, I remain in the dark about this project as the committee was apparently never convened!
Tonight a concept plan for the Innovation Center is being presented to Chapel Hill's Community Design Commission, which gives feedback on developments early in the review process. At some point this summer, the location of this project moved from the Airport Drive area which is currently used by UNC for facilities services to what is proposed to be the main entranceway for the future Carolina North campus. This is a pretty big shock to those of us who understood that Carolina North would be planned carefully before it begins a 50-year development process.
I am attending the CDC meeting tonight and will report here what I learn.
Issues:
Comments
Thanks for the updates Ruby. If the front faces MLK, what do the other sides look like? Where's the umbilical for utility services, for instance?
RTP circa '90 or RTP today? I called the earlier design RTP-lite, hate to see a reprise of that...
Good point on the gateway aspect.
If this building is signaling the entrance to a world-class research campus it would be nice if it was a signature building - something that communicated the mission of UNC, said something about Chapel Hill - where it has been, where it is going - and reflected the unique qualities of our region and State. There's plenty of characterless business parks stretching 2,000 miles up and down the East coast.
Here's the boundary plat: http://www.unc.edu/community/100innovationcenter.pdf
The design hasn't been posted at http://www.unc.edu/community/innovation.html
And the concept plan was added to the CDC's agenda
http://townhall.townofchapelhill.org/ABC/agendas/cdcagenda.htm
Anyone know if it's been posted elsewhere?
Couldn't make it to last night's session, but (at the risk of being tedious on this subject) did anyone ask about waiting until HWA is closed before beginning construction? Or at least before populating the new building?
Based on the boundary plat (neighborhood impact map) compared to zone delineations in the "Airports and Compatible Land Use" report at
http://tinyurl.com/yrlkur (pp. 44 ff.), it would seem that the Innovation Center would be built in an unrecommended zone relative to its distance from the end of the runway. Height isn't the issue -- vulnerability to mishap is, and the historical probabilities are part of that report.
If the Town goes along with opening such a building, placed where it is while the airport is still operational, it sets a problematic precedent.
How many parking places per employee are proposed for
the Innovation Center? Was this discussed?
Joe,
They proposed 210 parking spaces. No number of employees was given (nor would I have expected it) because this is the type of facility that will be carved into several office/laboratories to accommodate start-up companies. Based on their proposed building size (85,000 SF), its anticipated use, and my experience with biotech start-ups, I would guess that the building might house up to 10 companies with a maximum of about 250 employees. If they have more computer/software-related start-ups, that number could be much higher.
The number of parking spaces didn't bother me so much (start-ups tend to be 24/7 operations and although we have a very good transit service it doesn't provide round-the-clock service). I was bothered by the fact that approximately 75% of the 7.4 acre site will be impervious service with most of that related to parking. No creativity whatsoever here.
Ana Wu made the point that the proposed impervious surface is less than what is on the site now, but I would like the University to start their design process with a "clean slate", as if there was nothing there, and to design something truly innovative that really minimizes impervious surface and that can be recognized years later as a facility that was designed as, and continues to be, an example of energy-efficiency and environmental stewardship.
GeorgeC, the development company UNC wants to partner with specializes in wet labs. Seems like most of their deployments have been more on the physical side than software. info-tech.
Was the mix of business types discussed last night or are you making an informed guess?
WillR,
Just an informed guess. Wet labs are obviously the most difficult kind of space for an early start-up to come by. A lot of developers are reluctant to up-fit flex space for a biotech type of start-up because there is usually a lot of specialization that each company designs into their up-fit. A developer worries about taking on as a tenant a company that has only a seed, or even first, round of funding because of the risk that the start-up may not be there a few years later. Alexandria Realty already has a wet-lab facility out in RTP (off of Davis Drive). The fact that Alexandria recognized the growing value of biotech in this area several years ago, and the fact that this would give them a partnership with one of the premier research universities in the US, makes me a little skeptical of the claim that "they will walk" if things don't proceed quickly enough. Kind of reminds me of all the threats companies seem to be making nowadays to either not relocate to NC or to leave NC unless the State grants them a boatload of incentives. At some point officials are going to have to start standing up to these "greenmail-like" threats.
"Actually, the airport was one of the reasons Bruce gave for moving the Innovation Center. Apparently they feel the new location is more compatible with the airport remaining open because it's near the site where the Town previously operated municipal services (but NOT In the same place, as Ana stated)"
Having pre-existing buildings in an unrecommended zone doesn't justify new building there. Again, a worrisome precedent, esp. if they go ahead with authorization by the Town.
Thanks George. I concur on the "they will walk" analysis though I also believe UNC thinks they're under the gun else Bruce wouldn't of tried to RAM this through...
Speaking of RAMming, wasn't this part of the "bigger is better" crowds' argument for expediting Lot #5's approval? Wish we'd taken a cooling off period on that project - time might've provided the perspective that would've led to a better outcome.
I'm still not sure that the Legislature has to do anything for UNC to close the HWA, but I agree with Joe - no investors are going to put money into the Innovation Center on a bet that it might get to open one day because HWA is closed. Somebody knows something!
Also, as the quote Priscilla posted indicates, UNC understands that building and operating are two different things. Is this why construction crews wear hard hats?
Priscilla you read my mind; thanks for putting up the
Moeser quote and the link to the article. What I find interesting
here is that, assuming that the quote represents reality,
UNC will spend big bucks to design and build
a facility without being able to control whether it
can be used. There's no way that any developer, even UNC,
would take such a risk. Consequently I think that Chancellor
Moeser knows something that he isn't saying. Perhaps he's
got committments from Tony Rand, Marc Basnight and
Joe Hackney that
the legislature will pass a bill to close the airport in spite of
strong lobbying by AOPA and the other pro-airport groups.
Qu'est-ce tu penses, Fred?
See today's CH Herald article on putative talks with the county to create an "Orange County General Aviation Authority" that would develop a replacement airport if/when HWA is closed. Moeser is spokesman floating this idea (placing him in presumably somewhat better relationship with pilots).
http://www.heraldsun.com/orange/10-883357.cfm (requires you to register, even for current stories)
About the Innovation Center?
" [Moeser] explained that under Federal Aviation Administration regulations, UNC can build its first planned facility, the Innovation Center, while the Horace Williams Airport is still in operation, but the business accelerator cannot open until air traffic is halted."
Asides: Interesting to read that OC commissioners themselves seem not to have been part of those talks, although Mayor Foy says he's aware of the initiative. Interesting also to see statute chapter and verse quoted re: the county's authority regarding siting and building a new airport. Historically two things are true: general aviation will always promise huge sums of available money to build an airport, which turns out later to be federal money not so easy to acquire; and the idea becomes hugely controversial in the areas targeted for acquisition.
an airport "authority" is a special purpose unit of government chartered by the General Assembly, usually with more than one government appointing members (similar in nature to OWASA). Most airports in NC are operated as authorities.
Counties and cities can also operate airports as line departments of the county or city without any further action by the General Assembly. Charlotte's airport is operated as a department of city government.
Second article in recent weeks from Goldberg on this subject. Kudos to him for his investigative efforts, but note, specifically, the occasion for this article: "... UNC Chancellor James Moeser said during a meeting with the editorial board of The Herald-Sun ..."
Also, it's slightly quirky to find this kind of verbatim quotation of statutes on municipal powers in a news item, especially when it includes a phrase like "eminent domain."
As Fred said, "somebody knows something," and somebody's making sure the H-S is getting certain parts of what they want us to know.
Stay tuned.
WRAL just announced that Chancellor James Moeser announced that he will be stepping down as Chancellor, effective June 30, 2008. He will take a leave of absence and then return as a professor. The announcement is at
http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/1865120/
Ana Wu is leading the presentation for UNC, giving the orientation to the site. Says the building will be 3 stories and will seek LEED Silver certification. Will be located where Town of Chapel Hill''s Public Works used to be, so some of the land is already cleared.
I hope she will address the reasoning for moving the location of this building. As I look at the maps, I realize that the location of the building will determine the location of the future roads of Carolina North, etc. The decision over this one building will have the effect of making a lot of other decisions and potential plans moot.