County to DDRT: Deck to get some aesthetic improvements, but no street-level retail

Today's Herald-Sun has an update on the design review for the Durham County Justice Center -- AKA "new courthouse" -- planned for construction on the block bordered by Mangum, Dillard, Roxboro, and the "Durham County Detention Center" -- AKA "jail."

The initial public review of the plans for the center touched off a small debate over the design of the courthouse's parking deck, which includes a number of attractive screening features, but not any street-level retail.

Matthew Milliken of the H-S points out in today's paper that the County is open to making some design changes on the parking deck, including the possibility of additional beautification on the Roxboro St. side of the deck.

Still, however, the County has drawn the line on adding street-level retail or other pedestrian-engaging activities on the deck, with County engineer Glen Whisler again citing legal, cost and logistical obstacles to doing so.

As Milliken points out in the H-S, however, the County's own design appears to run afoul of the City's design district best practices for downtown:

But in response to a question from the review team, the engineer reiterated the county's unwillingness to incorporate retail shops into the street level of the Justice Center parking deck, which will be located at Dillard and Roxboro streets.

The county will evidently ask for at least two design guidelines to be waived for the parking deck: one calling for a minimum of 70 percent of the nonresidential ground-floor square footage of a street block to feature pedestrian-oriented uses and another calling for the ground level of parking structures to be wrapped by retail or similar activity-generating uses.

Bottom line: Barring something unforeseen on the City's end, look for the parking deck to remain status quo as initially proposed.

Comments

[Adam]

Here we go again. Why is it always government who is breaking the rules? I seem to remember similar critique from DDRT of the County's Senior Center behind our downtown YMCA (at which you can't use the front door). Why should the County be able to flout the rules? The County Engineer's reference to obstacles sounds like an opportunity. Why don't we show other cities in NC how this can be done? Where is DDI and City Economic Development advocating for public private partnerships when you need them?

[GreenLantern]

So...could he be more specific about what legal and logistical obstacles exist? Was this just "NO, just 'cause I said so," or are there good legal and logistical reasons we can't do this, etc.?

I'm not complaining. I think we need to get this courthouse done sooner than later, and get busy on the jail expansion to boot. It would have been nice to have, but it's not a total loss. I just don't like hearing "NO", or "It's just too hard", without "why?"

[Jack]

Your earlier post referenced the "legal constraints impinging on the possibility of creating such public-private partnerships."

How did the county overcome those legal constraints in putting a Subway in the current admin building?

http://www.durhamcountync.net/departments/publ/News_Releases/News_Release.cfm?ID=501

Is there something in the county's arrangement with Subway owner Burhan Ghanayem that could be re-used for these purposes? Seems like the request for the county to lease some space to incorporate street-level retail really isn't breaking any new ground.

[Tar Heelz]

There are no legal constraints on putting retail in the parking deck.

This is entirely a "We don't want to." Since we're the government, we don't have to in order to get approval. Those rules are entirely for private developers. Since developers are "rich" they have to conform to expensive, time consuming, and difficult rules. Since we're the government, we can throw up any sort of low-bidder schlock we like. Heck, it's not like we have to build something market competitive. Our users are literally "captive."

[Joshua Allen]

Seems to me that they could wrap the deck with offices if not retail. It could be office space for county employees (not necessarily court related but could be) or it could be office space rented out to bail bondsman, etc. I don't think we necessarily need retail there. We just want that look. It's similar to the form based zoning concept. The actual usage doesn't matter, just the shape and form. It's all about aesthetics.

[Charles]

This Glen Whisler guy seems to have some serious problems. What is wrong with this guy? - he flat refuses to be flexible and to consider what the citizens are demanding - has anyone gone to the city council about getting him removed?

[RWE]

Comment about Subway franchise in the courthouse is well taken. The county simply doesn't want to do this for some unknown reason, and they apparently don't have to. The county administration has perpetrated many of the least pedestrian friendly buildings on our downtown, have abandoned numerous others to decay or be torn down, and with the Senior Center, the Social Services Building, and this enormous parking garage, continue to do whatever they want - disregarding the rules that they impose on other developers.

I don't think Glen Whisler is the primary culprit here. I think he's merely a messenger (or "tool" if you prefer) that the Board of County Commissioners has charged with getting this stuff done as quickly as possible.

[Adam]

I thought Ellen Reckhow was a planning person. She is always talking about sustainable design and pedestrian friendly environments. I see none of that at play here or in any recent County building for that matter. Just a bunch of talk. The Subway example is a great one. They probably didn't think of that when developing excuses off the tops of their heads.

[Tar Heelz]

Ellen IS a planning person.

Never fail to recognize, however, that planning is an abrogation of property rights. It is anathema to basic concepts of property rights. No one chooses that route for their own property. Ms. Reckhow and her comrades have concluded (like any private developer would) that they have done all they need to do to ensure approval. They are doing not one thing more.

[Visconti]

The wrap around retail or office space should be considered. I'm starting to get very disappointed with some of the current county commissioners. Here they have a golden opportunity to provide something that will improve the city, making it more pedestrian friendly and attractive and instead they are going to give us yet another dead building occupying a whole block. I'll consider other candidates in the next election.

[Rob]

I agree with Joshua Allen above: even if it's not retail, just walk up office space would be fine with me. Something that gives the appearance of street level business being conducted is great, even if it's not mercantile in nature. And I agree with the others, it's really horrible that the gov't sets these rules then breaks them when it suits them.

[anon]

Regardless of the various opinions about the City's behind-closed-doors, no-RFP deal with Greenfire, at least the City seems to understand that there is great value in Greenfire's proposal to demolish the Chapel Hill Street parking deck and replace it with a new deck wrapped with mixed-use space and ground floor retail. Unfortunately, our elected officials at the County, led by Harvard-educated planner Ellen Reckhow, do not have the WILL to do the same. Professional bureaucrats will always look for every reason to say "no" instead of finding the right reason to say "yes." And yes, where is DDI when it comes to advocating for BASIC urban design principles? I guess all we can hope for now is that we can get a hot dog vendor to open shop on the corner, although the County would probably say it proposes a security risk.

[Bill Kalkhof]

In response to Adam and Anon, DDI has been in discussions with the County leadership on the issue of retail in the bottom of the parking deck.

DDI supports the concept of retail at street level in parking decks because that is what is recommended in the Downtown Master Plan for all decks in downtown.

In addition, because DDI has the opportunity to work with Scientific Properties on its projects at Veneable and Elkins, and we continue to work with the City and NCDOT on turning Mangum and Roxboro streets into two-ways streets, and because we believe that in the future the Hendricks Car dealership will eventually be sold for a major mixed-use development project, we have recommended to the County our belief that Roxboro Street has the future opporunity to support retail along the street level.

Since I was out of the country when the County presented the Court House plan to the public, and like others, I am uncertain why the County states there are design and legal issues which do not allow retail at the street level, I have invited the County and its architects to the next meeting of the DDI Board of Directors in order to provide us with a presentation of the project, and a discussion of the challenges they face.

The County leadership is very aware of my position as stated above. If we learn at our Board meeting that there are valid reasons why retail cannot be placed the entire length of Roxboro Street, I have recommended, at the very least, that the parking deck include retail spaces at the corners of the deck along Roxboro Street (where I trust there is more land to include such retail space in the design), and provide for some intersting street level landscaping and/or public art to enliven the rest of the block along Roxboro.

The bottom line for DDI is that our community must not make the same mistake that was made with the Durham Centre Parking Deck years ago --- developing a long street-level "dead zone."

To Adam and Anon, rest assured that DDI has the opportunity to be involved with most downtown policy and projects, and we make our voice and recommendations known to those who drive these policies and projects. And, if you ever need to understand what our position might be, just read the Downtown Master Plan ---- since DDI led the effort (and provided the funding) for the Master Plan Update, we are committed to its recommendations.

[Adam]

Thank you Bill for chiming in with the update and for continuing to fight the good fight. All of us are going to have to push hard on the County to get them to budge from this silly position. As you rightly point out, this doesn't flow with the Master Plan. What is the point of doing such plans if local government can;t even be bothered to go along with them.

[anon]

Bill,

Thanks for the comments. I think a lot of us are quite frustrated that we have a downtown master plan that clearly outlines the importance of these design principles, only to have our local government continue to ignore them. The American Tobacco North Deck (City), American Tobacco South Deck (County), Mangum Street side of American Tobacco East Deck (City?)and the proposed Court House deck (County) are creating vast amounts of dead space in our downtown. The County also wants to drop the behemoth, monolithic Human Services complex on East Main Street, simultaneously bulldozing historic structures to create yet another sea of asphalt on MAIN STREET! The downtown master plan means nothing to our elected officials and the bureaucrats who are paid with our taxpayer money. These people are stuck in the Durham of the 1960s and 70s! The masterplan is a good document, but if our own government doesn't care what it says, then it too is just another waste of taxpayer money. I appreciate DDI's efforts, but this is getting to the point of absurdity.

[bla4hire]

Everyone is getting focused on the fact that the deck does not have retail but a reality is how pedestrian friendly can Roxborro street ever become when it is basically an ncdot controlled oneway 4-5 line THOROUGHFARE. i personally dont foresee walking my kids along that strip anytime in the near future, maybe if City of Durham pushes for those two way conversions of roxboro and mangum???? there would be a truly encouraging change to help drive some mixed use - development that would really last.

in meantime, while retail or another form of wrapper could be a welcome add to the parking deck , i think that everyone is forgetting the fact that DPAC has turned its broadside to the public ways as well as diamondview and for that matter tobacco village when you consider that only a few anonymous doors exist on the blackwell street facade and the majority of its businesses front the internal courtyard.

Also i think everyone is overlooking the good the county has tried to accomplish in regards to creating a major public urban plaza in the midst of all of the redevelopment occuring in this part of town and the great expense this project will be burdened with in regards to repairing city infrastructure as well as city streetscape when the dpac has done minimal improvements to its facade along mangum (street trees, furnishings, landscaping????). This courthouse plaza could help balance yet another area of inward designed private durham projects (on the johnson motors site, look at that site plan and its sections if you really want to see something to moan over- its public space is elevated almost 3-4 stories above the street with very limited connections to the inner workings of its site by what is currently being run through site plan review. and to top it off its height is being extended to be well above anything else in the durham skyline- potentially even eclipsing the suntrust building, one of durham's noted structures.

budget is a whole different enchilada--- if durham county or city went to their respective councils to get the additional money needed upfront to do this style of development, half the city and county would be screaming over this being the cause of their tax rate hikes and how its not good spending etc.... etc.... etc... partnerships could pay for these....but the constraints just never seem to be agreed to at the council levels --- blame the elected officials or blame their citizen committees.

I truly dont envy anyone that has to represent a public job in this city with this kind of feedback.

[anon]

bla4hire,

There is plenty of positive feedback for those officials and public employees who listen to citizens and make reasonable and rational decisions. For example, people like Mark Ahrendson with the City are routinely praised for their efforts, and deservedly so. However,when those who always take the path of least resistance and only pretend to listen to their constituents (through quasi-public processes like design charettes, masterplans, etc.) continue to make poor decisions, then we have a serious problem. There is no question that our County government has a serious problem when it comes to understanding how to invigorate a downtown. If they do a crappy job, and they ARE doing a crappy job, then they deserve our criticism. Welcome to the democracy we call the USA.

That public plaza in front of the courthouse will be about as active as the plaza in front of the Marriott or the lawn in front of the Senior Citizen Center. Here is how they decided to create that space: Hmm, we've got some leftover space here, so let's create another plaza. Unfortunately, that is the wrong way to design public spaces. A well designed plaza or courtyard is defined by the scale of the buildings along its edges and by the use of those buildings. Think about the numerous squares in Savannah, Georgia, the great plazas of cities in Spain or just one of the quads on Duke's campus. They were carefully planned with the appropriate scale and beautiful architecture. They were not created from "leftover" space. The Courthouse plaza will be a sizzling hot wasteland with a view of the Mangum Street parking deck. No thank you.

I agree with you that Roxboro Street is a nightmare, but the idea is to one day narrow it, and possibly convert it to 2-way traffic once the East End Connector is built. There is no reason for us to simply "write off" any of our downtown streets as unfit for pedestrian activity. If you want to get out of a hole, the first thing you should do is stop digging.

As for Scientific Properties' plans for the "Van Allen," I believe the images you saw here on BCR were only meant to show scale. They have some very design-minded staff there (actually they have some very brilliant people there) and I don't think they plan to create a fort on that site.

Don't forget that even though a deck with some retail probably does cost more, it also produces more income through rent, income taxes, sales taxes, etc. I agree with you that too much of our downtown development is inward focused - again another urban design issue that needs to be addressed.

[Anon]

Anon-
Ugh, please don't stroke egos. While I would certainly say that Scientific Properties have demonstrated some good business sense over the past couple of years, I'd stop short of describing any developer as brilliant. I certainly don't claim to know any of them personally, but at the end of the day they're still a developer who usually makes decisions based on their bottom line. Profit is their compass like any other developer.