HUMAN SERVICES COMPLEX -2

Thanks for following up on this. I've kept meaning to get back with you about ways to work on this, but it's been a busy week.

I imagine, as you mentioned, that one of the reasons there's resistance to saving the TNT mart (a.k.a. the "blue sto") is that so many people would like that store gone. On the one hand, the county could just buy it and close it, but just like tearing down buildings in bad shape isn't always a great idea, closing questionable businesses isn't either. There simply aren't very many businesses open on E. Main these days, and that place provides services, however questionable some of its products.

I'd like to get the time to get fancy with ArcMap at some point and get some hard numbers, but I wonder how much parking they could create by simply drawing the footprint of the building back a bit on two or three sides, bringing the curb and sidewalk with it, and turning the created space into either parallel, or preferrably, angle parking. In the current configuration, I count 36 parking spaces along the southern end of the property. I imagine if the parking and sidewalk were switched, using either 45 degree angle spots, that could accomodate 20 cars. (again, I want to use GIS and published parking space standards to answer this for real, but anyway...) From the looks of it, the missing chunk on the 500 block of E. Main that fills the spot of a row building holds about 20 cars. So put angle parking on two sides of the building, and you probably create as much parking to make up for keeping the buildings on the north half of the property.

I haven't been over there recently, so I can't think of what the southeastern-most building on that block is, that stands on its own. Is it worth saving? Could we stand to compromise and lose it, and just pave the entire southern half of that block, minus the little one on Dillard St.?

Michael

Thanks for your note. I haven't had time to go all ArcView on it either. I played a bit in Google earth just to look at some building sizes. Using ~290 sq ft per parking stall, the 500 block can accommodate 560 parking spaces. The 4 significant buildings on the E Main street frontage are worth ~32 parking spaces.

1) It seems like you can accommodate max employees +30 visitors even with retaining the buildings (and presumably some employees can park at the big surface lots at Queen).
2) If you modify the site plan per your suggestion, you get close to making up that number anyway.

I don't think the building on Peabody is much of a loss - neither is the one on Dillard, the set-back building next to the TNT, or the car service? place at the east end of the block.

GK

Hi There,

I wanted to clarify something about the site plan you drew up. The "500 block," site of the surface parking, is actually where you have it, *plus* it goes all the way down to Ramseur St. Also, the architect's master plan recommends putting the garage behind some commercial street frontage as you recommend.

The big surface lot on the 500 block is recognized as not being a good urban gesture. It *is* however a stop-gap until the garage issue (mostly a political one, frankly) is settled. Once the garage is presumably/hopefully built, the idea is that the some of the surface parking along Main St. can be removed and typical storefronts can be put in. The parking layout for that block is being designed to anticipate this.

Alas, my understanding is that the county could not, under its bylaws, add more than a postage stamp of retail or private commercial space in this facility. I don't know the details of that. Main St. (and other sides) would be enhanced with more entrances, and the slope of the site (it drops 16' from the NE corner to the SW!) makes for a difficult ground level elevation. Security needs for Human Services employees and clients requires limited points of access though. The entrances that are in the project are given more prominence to help break up the base and mass of the building.

I read some folks have expressed reservations about the side elevations being mostly continuous horizontal windows. There are a lot of reasons for this including 1. controlling the budget, 2. providing as much natural daylighting as possible to the workers (about 2/3 of the building is office space), and 3. there was an expressed *dis*interest in making this complex look to much like the old warehouses.

What I'm a bit surprised that people haven't picked up on is how the public entrance opens itself towards Hope VI and East Durham. Plus I guess people haven't seen the courtyard space for the complex that was a natural amenity once you push the building envelope to the street edge (with sidewalks of course), as is wont for an urban building complex. Having an interior courtyard was desirable over pushing the building back from the street. Again, lighting and sustainable issues also factored into this idea.

Please keep posting about this project!

Anon

Thanks for the additional information. I'm saddened to hear that the surface lot will take out even more old structures, including a great little restaurant space at Peabody and Dillard that has been on the market for awhile now. While I understand eminent domain for retail is no-go, the structures could be used by the county for county uses. I don't see any reason why purchased properties could not be leased to services for county workers, neighbors, etc.

What Glenn told me about the parking deck was that the county did not plan do a combined development, but to leave an empty 'strip' on Main so that a developer could develop on this strip later. While I realize that there may be political reasons for this, I don't think it is wise from a development perspective.

I'm glad that there is some interior courtyard space for the folks in the HSC, but unfortunately that does little for the neighborhood. In fact, with the surrounding emptiness, it may reinforce the 'bunker' mentality. I'm glad there is little-to-no setback on the Queen/Main/Dillard sides, but I think it would be preferrable to reduce the footprint on the Ramseur side to reduce parking requirements in the 500 block, thereby saving the best structures.

While I recognize that most of these structures don't look like much now (and may be a nuisance), that is a function of economics. The county has the potential to enliven this area more with the HSC (particularly synergistically with HOPE VI and GB), but they are going to cut the potential off at the knees by demolishing the entire 500 block. Instead of some small entrepeneurs buying up a small historic property for a store, etc., we have to wait for large developer to be willing to build some large development on this site when the county wants it. And the historic architecture is permanently lost.

Tearing down a block of historic structures is just bad development practice - the research supports building upon a base of historic structures to create vibrant neighborhoods. Destroying them with well-intentioned, grand, government modernist structures and their attendant parking has failed again and again and again.

Thanks again for visiting.

Would it be more politically possible to suggest, at least, that there be some "courtyard" space out front? I find the appearance of this building distressing too, but it could be made less threatening if there were signs of life right outside... and this would help connect it with anything else that might still be going on in the neighborhood (what's left of it). There certainly seems to be enough room, among all the gracious plantings. (Make a rule that there has to be seating for at least as many actual people as there are avatars in the picture! Truth in advertising!)

If anyone starts a petition to try and prevent the historic structures from being paved over, let me know and I'm there (could probably find one or two others to sign up as well).