VILLAGE PROJECT COMMENTS ON the March 27, 2007 CAROLINA NORTH CONCEPTS

After examining UNC’s most recent concept plans The Village Project Board of Directors supports the “Centers” concept plan (pictured below) for Carolina North over the “Grid” and “interwoven” plans for the following reasons:

1. “Centers” appears to be the most transit-, pedestrian- and bike-oriented plan, and has the best prospect to become a “park once” environment.

2. “Centers” appears to have the most “organic” form, with the greatest capacity to incorporate innovative development strategies and adapt to future transit services.

3. Both the “Grid” and “Interwoven” plans appear to have more paving and automobile dependence.

4. For reasons elaborated below, “Centers” appears to provide the greatest opportunities to adapt to future transit services.

5. “Centers” focuses new development on already-disturbed areas to a greater extent.

Below are Village Project recommendations for adjustments to the "Centers" plan:

• Extend the natural corridors further into the proposed built area so that they interconnect and provide more “green” edges throughout and in addition will provide wildlife corridors connecting north and south areas of the Carolina North campus. Visual and physical access to natural spaces helps offset the intensity of urban use. (The most appealing feature of the “Interwoven” plan is the large quantity of natural edge it has.)
  
• Eliminate the road running north of the campus to Homestead Road, which fragments critical natural areas. Instead, consider departing Homestead Road just east of Bolin Creek and continuing along the northwestern border of UNC property to Seawell School Road. This configuration would accommodate transit and traffic from the west, where many UNC employees already reside.
  
• Use transit infrastructure to link new Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) at Carolina North to existing TOD’s. There are two natural TOD’s pre-existing in the community: Downtown Chapel Hill and Downtown Carrboro. The transit network should support convenient connections from both to Carolina North. Placing a major TOD at the west and east ends of the “Centers” plan creates a “Core of Four” transit-oriented destinations that support connections to all parts of the local community as well as to regional destinations.
  
• Use multiple modes of transit such as commuter rail, bus, streetcar and light rail to the advantage of the community rather than seeking a one-size fits all transit solution.
  
• Avoid use of heavy rail diesel technology within the campus west to east; enable mode changes to technologies more supportive of human-scaled urban fabric for the campus.
  
• Ensure that transit crossing the campus on the east–west axis is well-integrated into the campus and particularly into the public open spaces associated with transit stops.
  
• A quantity of smaller parks and plazas, even more than shown in the “Centers” plan, distributed throughout the urban fabric of the campus, is preferable to having only a few traditional, large scale “quads.” This will ensure that there will be open spaces within a very short distance of any indoor space on the campus. Quads as they exist on central campus are too large relative to the compact urban design that is envisioned at Carolina North to enable a readily walkable, connected campus. The quad concept is more suited to a lower density pattern that is much less supportive of transit.
  
• The soccer fields are not well integrated into the plan. Even placed deep within the fabric of the campus there could well be undesirable noise & nighttime lighting impacts on surrounding neighbors. Such outdoor recreational uses need to be compatible with the surrounding neighborhoods, both in their design & operations.
  
• Consider integrating compatible “community scale” agricultural uses on the property, to supply food for residents and restaurants at Carolina North.
  
• As stated at the March 27 presentation, none of the plans has sufficient detail to assess the adequacy of housing, parking, infrastructure, and phasing of development.
  
• Does the University intend to build a co-generation plant on-site, and, if so, will it use locally available renewable fuels?
  
• Does the University intend to do any treatment of wastewater and/or stormwater on-site?
  
• Abundant housing and the necessary supporting retail and civic infrastructure are key to Carolina North’s ability to be a model sustainable community. Transportation costs are generally inversely related to quantity of housing; in addition, pressure on local housing affordability will be relieved by increasing housing supply.
  
• To maximize walkability, resource conservation, and community character, as well as economize on infrastructure requirements, uses throughout the campus must be mixed both vertically as well as horizontally. A vibrant urban environment is an urban environment that is attractive to residents and businesses. Vibrant urban cultures spur creativity and innovation, and Carolina North can tap into this time-tested principle of economic development by setting the stage for a community that grows organically and has the capacity to test new ideas.
  

Like the rest of the community, we look forward to seeing more detailed plans from UNC. We recognize that all levels of detail were not dealt with in this most recent set of plans. To see some examples of the concepts recommended by The Village Project, please view the following brief slideshow.

 

Content