The Chancellory: Back to the drawing board

As expected, Durham's Board of Adjustment rejected the height and density permits for The Chancellory, the luxury condo project at the southern end of Trinity Park.

In yesterday's post, I shared my frustrations over two points: the ongoing challenges in getting density and urbanity recognized as good things appropriate to Durham, and the process difficulties inherent in this particular project.

I realized that a newcomer to this particular Durham discussion might ask, 'What of the developer?' One might perhaps feel bad for Park City, the development firm spearheading the project, for all they went through to end up at this point.

Please don't.

If there's a lesson for developers in Durham out of this experience, it's that neighborhoods and neighbors have long memories, and that trust is a long row to hoe. Though there are disagreements in the precise details about the particular path that this project took to get to that point, the miraculous transformation of a 70-room boutique hotel to a 100+ room extended-stay hotel complete with parking deck thrown in gratis was probably, in retrospect, the real death blow for neighbors' support for this project.

And so while I do have concerns that the project's outcome wasn't necessarily the best one for the neighborhood as a whole, it's not fair to lay that entirely, or even mostly, at the feet of neighbors themselves. Was the neighborhood not able to make a bottom-of-the-ninth-inning save, a last-minute deal to save the project? No, and that does frustrate me. But the project never should have made it to the point of a last-minute save in the first place.

As the experiences with Station Nine demonstrate, neighborhoods can come around to understand the benefits of density and urban projects. But there has to be a two-way relationship of trust that is earned, not granted. With luck, whatever comes next for the empty parking lot at Lamond and Watts will reflect such a relationship.

Comments

[Lisa B]

I'm paraphrasing a quote by a city official (whom I won't name because the quote came to me second-hand): "the stupidest thing Lou (Goetz, of Park City Development) ever did was sell off the hospital site" (that site being where the "supersized" hotel will go). From my conversations with people near the project, I'm convinced that without the expansion of the hotel, they would not have found the the size and density of the condo proposal so objectionable (the original seven-story height would have been , however.) But as it stands now, the two projects together are just too much. Since there is very little neighbors can do about the hotel at this point, they see the condo project as the point where something has to give. To paraphrase another observer, whom I'll also decline to name, "It sucks to be Lou right now." If he ever appeared at all to be a pleasant, reasonable person I would feel badly for him.

[John S]

I believe the "trustworthiness" issue extends far beyond the bait-and-switch on the hotel. In my experience it permeated much of the interaction between the developer and the neighborhood groups throughout the process including the last-ditch revised proposal. I looked at these drawings carefully and consider them to be substantially misleading in their depiction of the massing, scale and context of the new condo proposal, and shared my concerns with the Neighborhood Association Board.

[steve ortmann]

The stunning lack of self-reflection on the part of all involved (and I do mean ALL) is breath-taking. Everyone wants to affix blame, no one wants to accept responsibility.

The "neighbors who hijacked the word sustainable" know nothing about sustainable development. The renderings that someone complained about are actually done accurately to scale, and were developed not by self-professed experts, but real, licensed professional, some of whom live within a stone's throw of the site and have a vested interest in the "right" project being developed.

Some of us know the truth about who requested the last minute design renderings and what the real committments were, others just want to act as if their opinions are fact because they say there so.

EVERYONE is responsible for this failure, from the NIMBY fools who think they can dicate what happens in the neighborhood (including threats of legal action against the TPNA Board), to the stunning lack of acknowledgement by the Board of what REALLY happened at the last minute here, to yes, the devlopment teams communication problems.

Good luck with what you end up with their, but its a lose-lose for everyone.

[mike]

I hope these people feel good about themselves. Instead of saving a forest or the everglades they saved an old cracked up parking lot from becoming a building the same size as the old hospital that is already there. They should be real proud. I mean where the hell are they from where 48 measly units is too dense. It's not like we were talking about a Trump tower going up there.

[KH]

I just attended a training session at the new Residence Inn in Chapel Hill near the Omni Europa hotel. I have to say that it is the best extended-stay hotel that I have experienced (a 4/5-Star extended-stay...if there is such a thing). Granted a boutique hotel would be nice but most (i.e. aLoft, etc.) have decided to locate near the Park or Airport.

I imagine the market impacted the developers bait-and-switch. I also believe that the developer could have built the same building (boutique v. extended-stay) but the NIMBY's wouldn't want THOSE [extended-stay] people staying so close to their homes.

People get so upset over an extra 18 rooms...An extra story or two greater than adjacent buildings...theoretical "shade" that is not produced from a tree.

I can see how Durham is very difficult for developers. There is no balance between the rubber stamp (Raleigh) and the chaotic, overly opinionated development process (Durham). We definitely drive a hard bargain and I think it ends up hurting more than helping us in the end.

The development process should have some form of predictability to it. Our zoning code should spell out the general requirements for each development and neighborhood but it doesn't seem like that happens in many cases.