Greensboro, or what Durham could and should be
October 23, 2007
Last week and this weekend I got to spend some quality time in Greensboro, our neighbor to the west down I-40/I-85. I haven't spent much time in North Carolina's third-largest city, despite having lived a year in Charlotte and several years in Durham.
Greensboro isn't much bigger than the Bull City -- 187,000 vs. 224,000 as of the 2000 Census, though Durham's faster growth portends it will eventually catch up. And there are other similarities; Greensboro is racially and socioeconomically diverse, like Durham, with each the home to one of N.C.'s historically black colleges. Each has sections of great wealth and poverty, with crime rates that reflect their urban nature. (Though worth noting that Durham's crime rates are down 16% in property and 26% in violent crimes since 2001, while G'boro's is unchanged over the same period.)
Likewise, Durham and Greensboro are both in the midst of urban renaissance, renewing their downtowns with a mix of public and private investment.
As much progress as the Bull City has made -- and we have every right to be proud of it -- a weekend in Greensboro spent between downtown and N.C. A&T led me to walk away asking, how is our neighbor to the west so far ahead of Durham in revitalizing the urban core?
I had an inkling of Greensboro's progress based on the report Gary posted of Southside Greensboro over at Endangered Durham a couple of months back. (Check out his article for great text and photos, both of the neighborhood and the downtown area, too.)
Basically, you have an entire neighborhood on the edge of downtown that's been rebuilt via townhouses, row houses and single-families, with some older structures maintained amidst the renewed structure. On the main drag, coffee shops and small businesses have opened up on the first floor with residential units above.
Driving through Southside on Saturday morning, the streets and alleyways were full of couples and singletons out walking the dog or enjoying the early part of the day from their porches.
But the renewal doesn't end at the few city blocks of Southside; it extends down Martin Luther King, Jr. Parkway all the way to I-40, with a massive streetscape project having added sidewalks, attractive lighting and what appears to be landscaping along the boulevard... transforming, in the process, what clearly was once a run-down street into a much attractive drive, and from the looks of it helping to draw in renewal and revitalization to some of the houses.
The MLK Jr. link is more than name only for a city known for the famous sit-in at its Woolworth's during the height of the civil rights movement. Which makes it all the more fitting to see the Woolworth's downtown being restored and renovated to become the International Civil Rights Center and Museum. (The firm run by North Carolina's own Philip Freelon is providing architectural services.)
The Woolworth's project is just one element of a downtown renewal that is five or more years ahead of Durham. Early on a weekend morning, there were innumerable joggers and bicyclists out enjoying the sidewalks and roads, even as a sidewalk artist was setting up his portrait sales for the day. Bookstores, coffeeshops and bars (including a microbrewery) line Elm, with residential units set up in the spaces above storefront retail.
Heading over to N.C. A&T from downtown, I was impressed to see still more streetscape beautification, with landscaped medians, attractive signage, and good lighting. Sure enough, upon approaching the college, attractive, modernized campus-oriented retail appeared along Market right next to the campus.
Frankly, it was the kind of place that passes the Mom-and-Dad test ("does this look like a place we want our kids to attend?") in a way that NCCU's Fayetteville St. corridor often does not. (See the Triad Business Journal for a very supportive view of the work.)
Now, I've been a skeptic of the Fayetteville corridor streetscape project, in no small part due to my concern about how much benefit would accrue to a handful of business owners who've pushed for the plan. But to be honest, visiting Greensboro has re-invigorated my imagination about what Durham can do, can become.
After all, the pieces are on the table. The re-development of the failed Rolling Hills offers a chance to build Durham's own version of Southside, supported by and supporting in turn the Heritage Square project across the street.
Meanwhile, as the Herald-Sun reported a few days ago, Durham is examining what sidewalk and streetscape projects would look like in a number of inner-city areas, based on consultant recommendations that such projects could help spur revitalization and growth. (Including the Fayetteville St. corridor.)
And the DAP district is on the verge of booming with public-private partnership support, just as American Tobacco has done and West Village and the central city are starting to do.
My biggest questions, though, are unanswered. Such as, how has Greensboro pulled off its redevelopment so well while Durham is just starting? Its tax levels are about the same (though as a larger city, it does have a larger base from which to draw.) Is its local government simply more capable at executing on change, on operating functionally?
Whatever the explanation, there is something in the water in the Triad, and it ain't lead. If you get the chance to visit, do so. And bring back some ideas to help Durham follow in its neighbor's footsteps.
All very good questions, Kevin. I look forward to reading to responses from others. I've spent a lot of time in GSO over the past decade, particularly when I served as State President and Vice President of the NC Jaycees, and GSO had the largest Jaycee chapter. Many of the functions I attended were in the downtown and southside areas, so I saw the revitalization up close. Many of the things I've seen and that you've noticed are taking place in Durham now. Without firsthand knowledge, my observation is that local investors got out of the box earlier there than in Durham, but we are catching up quickly.
Here's an interesting read: a report from a UNCG prof benchmarking GSO against its regional competition. One clear theme in this report: Durham's gaining and passing GSO, and they realize it.
http://www.actiongreensboro.org/documents/reports/Debbage_Benchmark_Report_II.pdf
Posted by: Mike Woodard | October 23, 2007 at 12:49 PM
I sent the link to Ed Cone this morning; thought it might be interesting to see the Greensboro comments. http://www.bullcityrising.com/2007/10/greensboro-or-w.html
Posted by: Steve | October 23, 2007 at 02:50 PM
Mike - Isn't it rather interesting that the citizens of Greensboro voted against the bond referendum to renovate War Memorial Auditorium in order to attract Broadway shows. The similarity to Durham's theater project is remarkable. Do you think Durham's new theater would have survived a bond referendum, or would Durham's citizens vote the same way as Greensboro's?
I fully understand that we are financing our theater with the hotel occupancy tax, and it doesn't require a vote, but in my opinion, that hotel occupancy tax is a tool that could have been used for a future project that enjoyed wide public support.
I think that you have done some good things while serving on City Council, but I don't think that I can bring myself to vote for you again (or any other current occupant of City Council) due to your vote on the theater. I know that I'm in the minority, but I look at that last election in Greensboro, and I'm able to make the obvious connection. "Acting against the will of the public" is not my definition of leadership, and it will hurt Durham in the long run.
Posted by: chris | October 23, 2007 at 03:37 PM
Mike -- thanks for the comments. Absolutely agreed that Durham is getting there, particularly with public-private development parterships and the efforts of local developers. And, as the GSO report shows, there certainly is a positive trend within Durham in terms of population growth, income, education, and occupational mix.
But though we're doing well on the macro level from a trend perspective, my concerns are with the micro level, notably in terms of how well our city "Gets Stuff Done." I got a few emails back from residents after posting this article, from folks wondering why GSO's center city park got done in a year, or why Durham greenways go months without being mowed.
I think Durham is on the right track -- don't get me wrong, I love it here. And I think Council has done a good job steering Durham's government back to the right direction. But there's a way to go, too, especially at the administration level.
Posted by: Kevin Davis | October 23, 2007 at 06:37 PM
What a thoughtful and well-reasoned post :-). It is worthwhile to note, though, that not all of the stuff that Greensboro does with its parks is hunky-dory. We may have gotten the downtown park up quickly, but Barber has been closed due to contamination almost since I moved to town, and there's no timeline in site to reopen it.
Posted by: Erin | October 23, 2007 at 06:51 PM
I'm glad you enjoyed the streetscapes in my adopted home town. In partial answer to your question, the planning for Southside and the East Market redevelopment came from some very talented people in Greensboro's Housing and Community Development department, who are adept at working with other city departments, with the community, and with local politicians.
Even people in Greensboro have been surprised -- pleasantly! -- at the success of these projects.
Anyhow, I linked your post at my blog.
Posted by: David Wharton | October 23, 2007 at 08:11 PM
Most of what you're seeing in Greensboro is fake. For instance, while Martin Luther King Drive looks great all the way to I-40 go 1 block off MLK in either direction and you find yourself in the slums. Greensboro spends a fortune marketing itself as a great and safe city-- it isn't. Greensboro crime rates are soaring at twice the national average. The last 3 police chiefs asked for 100 police officers-- city council approved 37. 30 officers will retire this year.
Greensboro has lost all sight of priorities, our police force is in shambles, we have no leadership and a handful of slumlords and developers control our puppet government.
If you want to see the truth about Greensboro I'll be more than happy to show it to you.
Posted by: Billy The Blogging Poet | October 23, 2007 at 10:55 PM
Good comments all. Just another reason blog reading is essential for me.
Chris: Sorry I lost your vote over the performing arts center. I don't know the particulars about the War Memorial Auditorium vote, so I can't comment on the dynamics of that decision. It's hard to answer your hypothetical about Durham voters approving bond money for the DPAC. I do recall voters rejecting a bond for the DBAP, and the City Council turning around the next year and approving COPs to fund it. Frankly, I don't hear the "will of the people" or "hurting Durham in the long run" arguments about that decision now. Just read all the glowing press about the recently-deceased Mayor Rodenhizer last week; he and Chuck Grubb, who both lost reelection the next year, pushed this idea through. One historical correction: the vote to authorize construction using the hotel occupancy tax was in June 05, just before I was elected. To be fair, my opponent voted against it, and I would have voted for it had I been on the Council in June. While I was initially skeptical about the DPAC before being elected, I do support it, as have all six of my colleagues. If you're voting against all of us based on this one issue, I hope you've found another seven good people to replace us. But I digress: this thread was about GSO. We can have the DPAC conversation over coffee or a beer sometime.
Kevin: Agree wholeheartedly about "getting stuff done." In fact I told the Manger just last night that some departments have no "culture of completion." It is frustrating, me being a naturally impatient person. But as Bruce Cockburn sang: "You've got to kick at the darkness until it bleeds daylight." I have a framed quote from Belva Lockwood, the 19th century attorney and general rebel rouser, hanging in my City Hall office that reads: "Reforms are slow, but they never go back." True to the spirit of Bruce and Belva, I'll keep trying to move things along.
Interesting comments from our GSO readers. How's your mayor's race going?
Posted by: Mike Woodard | October 24, 2007 at 12:54 PM
I lived in East GSO for 4/5 years as a student and can tell you personally that GSO has its perception of crime under control. In reality GSO and Durham meet somewhere in the middle based on perception and actual. GSO has had even more violent crimes recently.
I believe GSO like Raleigh tries to sweep its problems under a rug but they slowly bubble to the top. You can't gentrify them away either. Durham's perception is made worse by the fact we choose to talk candidly about our issues.
Posted by: KH | October 24, 2007 at 05:55 PM
The mayor's race is interesting. Before I entered it was boring.
Posted by: Billy The Blogging Poet | October 24, 2007 at 06:10 PM
Mike - Thanks for replying. Speaking as a voter, I wish there were some candidates that I could support. My politics are pretty simple. I don't believe in any of this economic development spending. I view growth as a negative thing. It never seems to "pay for itself", and if the growth is indeed inevitable, I see no need to spend taxpayer dollars to encourage it. If anything, I'd like to see some money spent to put the brakes on growth.
Unfortunately, Democratic and Republican candidates both love those economic development handouts, so I don't really have anybody to vote for. I guess I'll just vote for all the challengers in an effort to penalize the incumbents, even though the new people would probably vote the same way.
If no candidates support this position, does it mean that my views are in the minority? I think that the answer is "no". The Greensboro bond referendum was pretty clear evidence. Most, if not all, of the elected politicians very much supported the auditorium renovations, but the general public still rejected it. I'm sure that Greensboro's political leaders are already looking for ways to borrow money for the renovations without putting it to a vote again. (Durham learned this lesson over a decade ago.)
Don't take this personally, but when I look at Durham's elected officials, and the current crop of candidates, I'm not very impressed; however, I always ask myself, "Why would a sane person want to get elected anyways"? The pay sucks, and I'm sure you have to work a bunch of extra hours to get stuff accomplished, which can't be good for somebody with an aggressive career track. It's a dysfunctional system that clearly doesn't attract the most talented members of our society. But I guess we get what we pay for . . .
Posted by: chris | October 24, 2007 at 07:15 PM
Chris: I would have to disagree with you in re Durham's elected City officials, at least in the case of ... four of the current crop. One other gets a half-nod to me, and two get a red flag. Of the candidates running next week for Council, there's only one that I think really and truly doesn't have the mettle to get things done. By and large, I think Durham is fortunate to have bright, talented people running for office and trying to make a difference.
Your mention of a 'career track' is interesting. In the political science world, one of the trends in the past half-century has been the change in who gets involved in local government. At one time, companies actively encouraged their employees to get involved in running for office; "good government" was the goal, on the notion that if a couple of good people in your organization held mayoral or city council seats, local government would be efficient and effective, which would both make the city a better place and a better place to do business.
Many firms today are much more reticent about providing the release time for people to hold office, and that's unfortunate. As an admittedly left-leaning voter, I want compassionate elected officials who can think with their heart... but I also want them to understand concepts like marginal analysis, balance sheets, NPV and discount rates, and so forth. Leadership skills can be learned in a number of contexts, but I'd like to see people with analytical skills in office, too. Which makes it a shame more companies aren't willing to devote the time for their employees to run for office.
Is your view in the minority, Chris? I know we've had debates here before about political elitism, Chris, and you're not going to like this answer. But ask a civically unengaged citizen if they like population growth and new developments, and they're going to say, "No, I wish we'd stop growing." But then, ask them if they'd want to trade off no growth for, say, the days of Northgate and South Square as the only shopping option in town, or American Tobacco as an abandoned complex, or less access to jobs and employment centers, and they'd say, no, they like the changes they've seen.
I think most people like the benefits of growth but don't understand that population growth, in fact, drives renewal and change. Which is not to say we should grow in an unplanned or chaotic way, mind you. But frankly, if you'd like places with no growth, there are always places like Youngstown, Ohio you could live. Youngstown is currently contracting, shutting down parks and public services in underpopulated (abandoned) areas and shrinking its size. Somehow, I don't think most people would choose that.
KH: To your comment, yes, absolutely agreed... crime, statistically, is definitely higher in GSO, which I acknowledged at the beginning of the post. That's one area where we do seem to be doing a more effective job -- politicking to the contrary.
Posted by: Kevin Davis | October 25, 2007 at 08:18 AM
Kevin - I agree that things would be much better if businesses encouraged their top employees to run for office. I work for one of the top-5 largest corporations in the US. I'm on the R&D side of things, but I deal with some extremely talented managers, who have risen pretty far up the org chart. I look at the current batch of elected officials, and I just don't see the same level of skill. Durham must have a bunch of citizens who have risen to corporate VP level and above. It's rather amusing that we want Durham to be managed more efficiently, but don't elect anybody who knows how to accomplish this.
As far as your arguments about "growth", or "smart growth", or whatever, I find them to be pretty shallow. Let's face it, your blog, and many of the people who read it, are very pro-development, and I think this mindset has clouded your judgement. You say that you like Durham's unique and diverse population, but when you talk positively about downtown development, you seem to carefully avoid the issue of gentrification. What happens when the gentrification spreads to Durham's poorer neighborhoods? Is this really helping poor people who don't own their homes? Are their salaries really going to keep up with housing inflation? I'm looking years down the road, and I just don't see things headed in a morally-acceptable direction. Durham will certainly be a more homogeneous and less diverse place, and it is definitely not something to celebrate or encourage. I think the average citizen in Durham is much more conscious of these issues than you give them credit for.
Posted by: chris | October 25, 2007 at 03:15 PM
Chris: Gentrification *is* a worry for me. But let me address it from a couple of perspectives. First, gentrification is not, in and of itself, a bright-line bad thing. Having neighborhoods that are wrecked with poverty and crime, as parts of East Durham are, does not make it a place where local residents "enjoy" living.
Note that one reason given for so many abandoned properties in Durham has been the presence of Hope VI and other new-model affordable housing programs giving low-income Durhamites a better place to live. Don't be fooled into thinking for a moment that just about any of the law-abiding residents of East Durham have liked seeing a once-solidly middle and working class area slide into despair.
To my mind, the solution to fears over gentrification aren't grounded in just halting growth and redevelopment. It lies in changing entirely how we approve new subdivisions and development anywhere in Durham. Concentrated pockets of poverty, or concentrated pockets of wealth, are *both* things we need to avoid in the community.
I've proposed before (over at Barry's blog) the solution I'd like to see: inclusionary zoning that requires a certain percentage of new units in subdivisions and communities to be affordable housing, either rental or owner-occupied. I'd personally take that a step farther and give a carrot to developers -- in exchange for each lot or unit of affordable housing created by inclusionary zoning, give the developer an abandoned property in an older, more established Durham neighborhood under the condition that it be an owner-occupied property.
What are you doing with a policy like this? You're taking the first step towards ending the housing policies that allow Croasdaile, Treyburn, and the like from setting up as strictly upper-income communities (which will naturally draw disproportionate levels of city services and tend to be well-policed, safe communities), while keeping pockets of poverty in the inner city.
Incidentally, Chris, in full disclosure, I am certainly not anti-development -- I have an undergrad degree in government and an MBA with a real estate development/finance concentration, although I continue to work in information technology. However, my only real practical experience with development has been working on land use and site development issues for a local affordable housing builder's 30-home subdivision, for which I volunteer 1-4 hours a week. So believe me, I see and very passionately care about providing housing opportunities for Durhamites who've been economically less fortunate than many of us.
Posted by: Kevin Davis | October 26, 2007 at 08:34 AM
Oddly enough, depending on how you define the category, "the poor" are not always renters. Indeed, many of the most disadvantaged folks in our community are seniors living on single incomes who paid for their house long ago.
East Durham and West Durham used to be fairly similar. They both grew up around satellite textile and tobacco mills, with a rather large minorty of people commuting down to the main plants downtown. They consist of a mix with mostly smaller, working class homes, with some areas including larger, fancier houses. Looking at both sets of neighborhoods, the architecture between them is nearly identical.
Both had generations of millworkers invest large portions of their incomes into a single equity investment -- a house. But here's the difference: some working class families in West Durham have seen the houses they bought for $15,000 in 1975 jump in value to $150,000 (or even much higher). While that brings higher taxes, it also means that if those older couples decide to move out, they have a rather hefty return on their investment. Contrast this with those who bought those identical houses in East Durham for $15,000, whose houses are now worth $40,000. Sure, they're taxes are still comfortably low, but they live in an area with no services, high crime, and they can't even afford to sell and move, because that $40,000 won't get them nearly enough to buy somewhere else. Whose shoes would you rather be in?
We haven't solved the gentrification problem, but Kevin's mention of inclusionary zoning is a step I've been requesting for years. Economic growth doesn't have to mean sprawl, malls, and gentrification. It can, in fact, be done right, if one is careful.
Posted by: Michael Bacon | October 26, 2007 at 12:43 PM
Kevin - Your last post seems to suggest that actions can be taken to prevent the gentrification of urban neighborhoods. The actions that you mention can't hurt, but are you seriously suggesting that gentrification can be prevented?
A useful way to look at this issue is to examine neighborhoods like Trinity Park and Watts-Hillandale, which contain a number of modestly-sized houses. How does a middle to low income family afford a mortgage for one of these houses? For those without higher-wage jobs, home ownership is simply not possible in these desirable areas. As downtown development accelerates, this same scenario will be true for an increasing number of urban neighborhoods, and some measure of diversity will surely be lost.
All of this might be inevitable, but I just don't understand how thoughtful people can embrace downtown development so enthusiastically. If you think about the long-term effects, it doesn't seem like anything worth celebrating. Downtown Durham is one big yuppie wet dream, and it's not going to look so good when people wake up.
Posted by: chris | October 28, 2007 at 10:52 PM
I think Greensboro still has alot planned for its downtown. We know about the opening of the new center-city park and the new First Horizon Ballpark which opened in downtown Greensboro in 2005. Southside is also another success story. But Greensboro is starting to think "big league" with its downtown projects now. Currently a multi-million dollar renovation of a former 17-story office building is in the works. The former Wachovia Building is being converted into Center Pointe Condos. the new exterior of the building is amost complete and the building is expected to be complete by July of 2008. Some of the top floor units could sell as high as $5 million.
other downtown Greensboro projects in the works:
1) A Charlotte developer is looking to build a high-rise condo/boutique hotel in downtown Greensboro
2) Greensboro developer is planning an urban village in the northeast corner of downtown called "Murrow Station" which will feature condos, townhomes , office space and a clubhouse
3)developer Issac Cain is proposing a MASSIVE $300 million project called "Greensboro Triumph Center" The project consists of a cluster of mid and high-rises which includes a:
- 20 story,500 room,4-star luxury hotel
- convention center with a shopping plaza
- 18 story multiuse building
- condos and apartments
- significant office space
- multiple restaurants
- entertainment complex which would feature a movie theater, bowling alley, skating rink, IMAX theater, childrens rides, interactive rides and a 2,000 seat restaurant/music venues that would attract national acts.
The project is being spearheaded by a Greensboro developer but involves international investors and an unidentified Orlando, FL development company. The project could take up as much as 3 city blocks in downtown Greensboro and has been described so some close to the project as a "destination for the Southeast region" at has also been described as being like a themepark without rollercoasters and waterslides. The project is by no means a slam dunk for downtown Greensboro but currently talks are secretly under way. Time will tell if this highly ambitous project happens.
Posted by: T | November 03, 2007 at 02:53 PM