News & Observer | newsobserver.com | 2008 NCAA Men's Bracket

N&O

Web

newsobserver.com blogs

Grubb: Glen Lennox in state of decline

Submitted by mschultz on 07/03/2008 - 18:48

Clay Grubb, president of Grubb Properties, tried to get the Chapel Hill Town Council to hold off on new zoning rules for the Glen Lennox area last week. He lost, at least for now. But in asking for a delay in the Neighborhood Conservation District process, Grubb gave the community a better understanding of why the company wants to tear down the cottage apartments that for many people define Chapel Hill. We're going to run his letter to the town in Sunday's Chapel Hill News, but in the meantime here is an excerpt.

"The apartments, initially constructed in 1949, are outdated and compete poorly in today’s marketplace. They are undersized in comparison with other competing apartments in the area and provide insufficient bathroom and kitchen space. They do not provide adequate electrical outlets for today’s technology-driven lifestyle or sufficient ambient lighting and they are extremely inefficient with respect to energy use. They do not comply with the accessibility standards set forth by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and some of the building materials used at the time of construction have since been deemed hazardous.

"All of these factors depress our rental rates and force us to offer expensive and ever-increasing concessions to maintain occupancy.
At the same time, maintenance expenses increase every year just to keep the apartments habitable. They are plagued with water infiltration issues and moisture control problems.

"If Glen Lennox is not allowed to change in a way that benefits the Town of Chapel Hill then it will continue to decline."

Comments

big sisters

Mon, 10/06/2008 - 15:09 — Esolladoots (not verified)

Hello.
:)

"The birth took place at the couple's home (just outside Oslo)," says the palace, adding mother and baby were both well.
Bye.

Grubb is a slum lord. Also,

Tue, 08/19/2008 - 17:06 — Anonymous (not verified)

Grubb is a slum lord. Also, the way the leases are designed, (they keep going up, up, up), they encourage people to move out after a year or two-- but you can walk in as a prospective NEW tenant and get a deal for a year for half what they're charging someone who's been there for years. That place is designed to make money and to make money only-- no interest in developing a real community. And from what they charge you after your first year (over $1000/month) they are making bank. They keep all the deposits, too, so it's in their interest to get new people in all the time.
The neighborhood is beautiful though.
They were inefficient, but all the units got new windows recently, which helped.

Disabled Chat

Thu, 07/24/2008 - 09:49 — Disabled Chat (not verified)

I have Bell's Palsy and enjoy your blog very much. First time I've commented, but have been reading here and there.
Great blog. I enjoy reading it every chance I get and value your opinions!

progress?

Fri, 07/04/2008 - 19:29 — Kevin (not verified)

I lived in Glen Lennox for a year in 1993-94. The apartments were a roach-infested dump back then, so I can only imagine how bad they must be now. I will say one good thing about Glen Lennox was how "liveable" the neighborhood was, maybe still is? Very walkable with loads of sidewalks and shade trees, easy access to nearby neighborhoods for biking, and a quick bus ride up the hill to campus. The apartments should probably be torn down, but hopefully the "town" will see to at least a "few" affordable units in the newly redeveloped space. This, however, I doubt. It will likely go the way of Meadowmont with half-million + stacked condos and million dollar townes for the ultra rich, and a few overpriced apartments in a back corner of the development for the students and other assorted peons. I'm sure they'll quickly pave over all of those lush trees too. Progress? Perhaps.

Yes the community has some

Fri, 07/04/2008 - 13:50 — Anonymous (not verified)

Yes the community has some oversight in practical concerns like:

Zoning intensity. regarding density, lot coverage, floor area ratios, building heights, Adequate public facilities (schools and water), Traffic and impacts, Community character.

However, these factors must be considered narrowly and consistently. Further, these factors create a give and take between the property owner the community, not outright rules. For instance, they could agree to build taller, preserving more space for open space or they could help pay for new public infrastructure. The city doesn't just get to say no.

Your original post seemed to focus on Grubb's motives and seemed to imply that they shouldn't be allowed to redevelop unless they had first exhausted all other options. Given that another big mixed use project is under construction across the street, the city would be acting capriciously in forbidding Grubb to pursue a similar project across the street.

For those dead set against redeveloping Glen Lennox, you really only have one recourse: buy the property.

I complained about across the street, too

Fri, 07/04/2008 - 14:54 — rabid1

So I guess that gives me the right to complain about this one, as well. The town acted capricously in that approval, in the meantime, the chickens have come home to roost. The public was not adequately informed about the East 54 (nee University Village) project. Once they get an idea of how awful it truly is, as they are now getting their first glimpse, they will hopefully resolve to be better informed and active before the next fatal gaffe.

Anyway, East 54 is being developed by Roger Perry, he can do things in Chapel Hill that even God couldn't get away with. But His Divinity is unlikely to rub off on the grubbier developers.

Actually, decline is sufficient reason to tear it ALL down

Fri, 07/04/2008 - 13:10 — Former resident (not verified)

Half those units have been remodeled. They all smell like mold and leak anyway. Frankly, they should have been torn down years ago.

Who Owns The Property

Fri, 07/04/2008 - 08:01 — Patrick (not verified)

To read these comments, you would think this was public property. Grubb owns this property, they can do what they want with it. The public's oversight is limited to practical concerns.

Thanks for clarifying,

Fri, 07/04/2008 - 12:00 — Zippo

Thanks for clarifying, Patrick. I was beginning to think I was living in a totalitarian Twilight Zone where citizens think any and all property is theirs and they get to control what happens to it.

These are undoubtedly the same (wealthy) citizens who sit by while the Town Council countinues to increase our taxes while discouraging almost any and all new growth.

That old Canard...

Fri, 07/04/2008 - 12:39 — rabid1

Zippo, please don't tell me that you are one of those people who believe that growth will reduce taxes?

Residential development costs over $120 in services for every $100 in new taxes that it generates, according to a study on Chapel Hill conducted by the NCSU.

Every new house that goes up is COSTING you money, which is why taxes have gone up. Rashkis school cost $13 million to build only five years ago. Elementary School #10 cost $25 million.

The school board has a capital plan to spend $300 million over the next ten years to keep up with GROWTH -- and it surely won't be enough.

Interestingly, agricultural land, although it is taxed at a low rate, costs only $80 in public services for every $100 that it pays in taxes. That's because cows don't go to school.

Rabid! Mistaken

Fri, 07/04/2008 - 14:07 — Zippo

Rabid! Mistaken again.

"...Residential development costs over $120 in services for every $100 in
new taxes that it generates, according to a study on Chapel Hill..."

Actually, the local NIMBY's trying to stop growth are even more against commercial development than they are residential. And unfortunately the Town Council is in agreement with them. Unless of course it's lot #5 - the council's own pet project, which has plenty of both.

Practical concerns...

Fri, 07/04/2008 - 11:41 — rabid1

Yes, practical concerns like:

Zoning intensity. regarding density, lot coverage, floor area ratios, building heights.

Adequate public facilities (schools and water).

Traffic and impacts.

Community character.

In short, all of the types of factors that have been regulated since the first half of the last century.

To read some of the comments, you would think that land use regulations did not exist and we lived in an anarchy. And no, private property or not, you can't open a hog farm within city limits, either.

Disappointed with Reporting

Fri, 07/04/2008 - 06:40 — rabid1

This is a classic "single source story" which presents one side of an issue -- what a surprise -- the developer's.

I'm sure that Grubb Properties has their own Public Releations department, it seems like an abuse of limited news resources to write a story and publish exclusively their side in a media outlet that should strive for balance.

Why would an N&O reporter attach his name to the developer's argument for demolition?

As for the meat of the coconut... how long has Grubb owned the property? If it has not been for long, one would assume that it was never their intention to maintain the units properly.

Have theye been operating it as a cash cow? Or have they been actually making the improvements that they complain are expensive?

Has the property been inspected by the town fire department and code enforcement departments to make sure that there are no life threatening conditions and that the units are in code compliance? Are there public records which document any violations.

The Americans with Disabilities Act passed in the 1990 are REQUIRED compliance, or the owners have been subject to civil action for the past decade. Have they owned the property the entire time and been negligent in making improvements? If they purchased the property since the passage, then they obviously paid a reduced price that took noncompliance into account.

It should not come as a surprise to a real estate investor that ALL PROPERTY requires maintenance and occasional renovation.

Read What He Said

Sun, 07/06/2008 - 09:31 — fhblack

Rabid1, did you not read what Mark Schultz wrote? He said it was a letter to the paper that would appear Sunday, and it did. It is NOT a story written by a reporter!

No Fred

Sun, 07/06/2008 - 13:47 — rabid1

I didn't "not read" what Mark wrote. i just said that it is disappointing to read a story that only reports on the contents of a letter.

If that's what you expect and enjoy, then that is up to you. I think that it is a misuse of limited resources to write a piece about what is in a letter that you are going to run and then not offer any other balance to the profit motivation of the developer.

The crux of this argument is whether the developer should be able to triple or quadruple the intensity of what is there. Why can't energy efficient units be constructed with larger bathrooms, and baths, equipped with more outlets, that still respect the tree canopy, low height and neighborhood feel?

Missing the Point

Sun, 07/06/2008 - 15:33 — fhblack

It is NOT an editorial or column, it's a head's up about a letter that was to appear today. I did not have a problem with them giving us a head's up without an accompanying story at the same time; he simply is letting us read an excerpt of a letter before it was published.

Knock, knock, anybody home

Sun, 07/06/2008 - 17:38 — rabid1

Why don't you comment on the issue, rather than take issue with a straw man?

You believe that it is correct to run a "heads-up" which presents Grubb's arguments, then allows Grubb to make them for the second time when the letter actually runs. I would think that the cash-strapped N&O should not give away that type of promotion. If they are going to utilize staff resources to promote an argument - whether it's a heads up or not - they should spend a little time and space presenting the alternative view.

Sorry,

Sun, 07/06/2008 - 18:44 — fhblack

But you seem to have made the issue Mark's blog. Welcome to the world of newspaper blogging!

Are you not presenting an alternative view? I think that Mark accomplished his goal.

Maybe time for a new topic

Sun, 07/06/2008 - 19:28 — rabid1

I think that I have been clear in expressing my objections to this project. So far, you have only made it your objective to defend the newspaper.

I have asked you to respond to the project that is the subject of the post, but you don't seem to have any opinion on that. Which makes me ask, "Do you just follow these threads to defend the Chapel Hill News?"

If the subject of this thread was whether or not the Chapel Hill News promotes real estate development, I would not limit my comments to the favors that they are performing for Grubb.

I would ask you to count the pages devoted to real estate advertising and the additional superficial floss devoted to items like how well Greenbridge and the new Lot 5 project are doing. I would ask you to look into how little scrutiny was given to East 54, or how little effort was made to explain the Transfer Tax.

If the issue is whether or not the CH News is a shameless flak for real estate interests, the answer is a resounding YES!

But I didn't think that was the issue, Fred.

Sure Is!

Sun, 07/06/2008 - 20:02 — fhblack

^{Have a good night, Rabid1, the one who titled his post:}Disappointed with Reporting and then finds fault with me for commenting on his subject line!

fhblack -- You Hit

Mon, 07/07/2008 - 09:24 — Zippo

The nail on the head. Rabid! seems to think that any opinion other than his own is missplaced and inappropriate; a classic error of those who only listen to themselves.

Rabid! -- Maybe I'm

Fri, 07/04/2008 - 09:01 — Zippo

Rabid! -- Maybe I'm mistaken, but isn't it the choice of the property owner to decide whether to remodel or rebuild? Last time I checked, we lived in a free country, or did Chapel Hill recently become a communist state where the ruling government calls the shots?

maybe you are...

Fri, 07/04/2008 - 10:26 — rabid1

mistaken, if you believe that it is the town's obligation to rezone from low intensity residential to high intensity, mixed residential / commercial use.

I don't suppose I would be complaining if Grubb was proposing to replace 400 old residential units with 400 new residential units, provided they didn't tear down all the trees, which incidentally are public assets.

Instead, what they want to do is tear down 400 residential units, clear thousands of trees, and replace them with 900 residential units, a 200 unit hotel and hundreds of thousands of square feet of commercial and office space.

I'm glad that we don't live in that kind of country. In fact, the last time I checked, the ruling government is supposed to be comprised of its citizenry!

Glen Lennox

Mon, 07/14/2008 - 19:25 — Anonymous (not verified)

It is surprising to see the name calling devoted to the replies and counter-replies in the blog; and I hesitate to say anything, expecting that to then be directed this way. Anyhow.

At first glance, Grubb is proposing to do the very things the leaders of Chapel Hill have been saying for years that they want done: more dense development, combining both residential and commercial, along a major roadway that leads into the downtown. Then everyone gets bent out of shape about it.

Second note, regarding the various comments about the probable loss of the trees. If you go and look at any recent development done by Chapel Hill itself (or any of its subsets, such as the school system) - Chapel Hill clear cuts the buiding site, puts up its building and a few new bushes, and keeps on moving. For example: Rashkis or the new park south of Southern Village. Apparently, the town does not follow its own preaching.

Thank you.

Rabid!, you're

Fri, 07/04/2008 - 12:09 — Zippo

Rabid!, you're mistaken.

"... the last time I checked, the ruling government is supposed to be comprised of its citizenry!"

Unfortunately, for the past few years the ruling government of Chapel Hill has been comprised of self-serving politicians voted into office by a very small percentage of the public (less than 15% if I'm not mistaken). Let's hope that changes in the next two upcoming elections.

You're quibbling...

Fri, 07/04/2008 - 12:26 — rabid1

So do you think that Grubb ought to be able to put ten pounds of fertilizer in a five pound bag?

I believe that was the point of the post, before it got sidetracked.

Decline is no reason to tear down Glen Lennox

Thu, 07/03/2008 - 19:31 — Edward (not verified)

If these buildings are in a state of decline, then why not remodel? All old buildings need upkeep, and sometimes they need upgrading. The answer is not to tear them down.When Old East needed remodeling in the early 1990s, you didn't hear UNC say, "oh well, the building's in decline so let's just tear it down." I don't buy the answer that just because something's old means it needs to be destroyed.If you ask me, it's just a developer living up to his last name.

Edward, I rented in

Fri, 08/15/2008 - 10:09 — Anonymous (not verified)

Edward,

I rented in Glen Lennox for about a year. The unit was renovated, however, the structure originally built is shoddy. The energy costs were outrageous. Even if it is an affordable option in terms of rent, people do not realize that the costs of heating the units add about 150 dollars monthly to the rent -- which is why it makes sense just to upgrade to a newer unit. Of course, there is asbetostos (supposedly cleaned up), and major problems with roaches. I think it makes sense to preserve some of the character of the neighborhood, but rebuild new. The buildings are in disrepair and renovations that would fix the issues would essentially amount to rebuilding anyways.

Edward -- Maybe I'm

Fri, 07/04/2008 - 08:19 — Zippo

Edward -- Maybe I'm mistaken, but isn't it the choice of the property owner to decide whether to remodel or rebuild? Last time I checked, we lived in a free country, or did Chapel Hill recently become a communist state where the ruling government calls the shots?

Grubb: Glen Lennox in state of decline

Comments

Comment viewing options

Mark Schultz