Subscribe to RSS/Google Reader
Subscribe to RSS/MyYahoo
COMMENT: The case for development
Rodney Graham is a Davidson resident and owner of John Marshall Custom Homes.
Recently, Davidson United Methodist Church invited
our former pastor Dr. James Howell to speak as part of a series of events commemorating the 100th anniversary of the church. Dr. Howell – who has lived in Charlotte the past three years - spoke humorously about getting off Exit 30, seeing all the construction and wondering if he had gotten off on the wrong exit.
To many who live in Davidson, the developments off Exit 30 and throughout Davidson are no joking matter. Change is everywhere, and many fear the character of our town is being lost. Others are not troubled by the end result, but rather by the process of development, which inevitably includes noise, mud, and delays.
NOT ALL BAD
Development is not all good, but it is certainly not all bad. As a homebuilder and occasional developer, I could be accused of having a bias in favor of development. However, I am writing this opinion from the perspective of a citizen while drawing upon the insights my occupation provides me. I am also focusing my specific comments on residential construction, as that is my area of knowledge.
As a citizen I have been troubled by our town’s seeming desire to keep things in Davidson “as is,” rather than focus on how to make things better. For over a year now there has been a debate about how to best handle development within what is called the Village Infill. The result has been that most of the discussion has focused on keeping things the way they are, with restrictions on house sizes and teardowns getting the most attention.
While the merits of good design have been mentioned, after this year of discussion it was correctly pointed out at a recent public hearing on proposed changes in Village Infill development rules that someone could build a glass block house if they so desired, as long as it was the “right” size. So, good design continues to get the back burner in terms of what is being officially promulgated by our town officials.
Change has been part of Davidson since the town came into being. Teardowns are nothing new. Certainly there are buildings that were torn down that should not have been, but we need to recognize that many of the most prominent older homes in town came into being only after their predecessor was torn down. We need to move from a reactive discussion to a proactive discussion about how to deal with change.
BETTER CONSTRUCTION
Saying “no teardowns” means we are saying no to many of the benefits of today’s construction methods. A house that is being renovated on South Thompson Street illustrates my point.
This house, originally built in 1946, featured the following prior to its renovation: no wall insulation, no floor insulation, very limited attic insulation, energy inefficient windows, and a very inefficient air conditioning system. All of the above are typical of houses built prior to 1970. Many also feature lead paint and asbestos. So, from an energy consumption perspective it was a guzzler. Structurally, the house was fairly sound but was definitely in the last third of its life cycle.
The renovation completely updated this house not only from a design perspective, but also in terms of energy efficiency and structural soundness.
ENERGY STANDARDS
So, if we restrict new construction, we are placing restrictions on the benefits to be gained from new technologies. I think we have now generally accepted that it is wise to conserve energy, and many believe that energy conservation is imperative if we are to protect our way of life on Earth. Towards this end I would challenge the Board of Commissioners to mandate minimum standards of energy efficiency in all new construction in excess of current federal requirements, and require that all existing houses be made more energy efficient. By doing so I think the Town of Davidson could greatly increase its size without increasing its overall residential energy consumption. This would be a restriction on individual property rights, but it would be for a clear public good.
As citizens, we must recognize that not only are construction methods different today, but land planning requirements are much different than what they were 100 years ago or even 50 years ago. 20th and 19th century land plans do not fit with the realities of the 21st century.
Perhaps the biggest change of the last 100 years in terms of how we live has been the increased dependence on the automobile, powered by an energy source which has become much more expensive in the last 35 years. Another great change has been the increase in our population, not only in Davidson but in the United States as well. In less than my (short) lifetime we have added over 120 million people to our country.
The ¾-acre lots that are common through the Village Infill were fine in an age of fewer people and cheap, abundant energy, but in today’s reality they are outdated if not downright harmful. This is not to say that we should tear down every existing house and put up two new ones in its place – we should not – but we do have to recognize the real benefits that come with greater densities and better construction techniques. Whether it is to promote mass transit or to preserve rural areas, there are strong arguments to be made for the approach of having higher density in areas such as the Village Infill that have existing neighborhoods and infrastructure.
DESIGN GUIDELINES
One final argument in support of development is that with the right guidelines new construction could greatly improve the design aesthetics of Davidson. My personal belief is that no improvements have been made to the architectural design of houses since about 1940. All of the classic styles – Colonial, Georgian, Victorian, Bungalow, Colonial Revival, etc. – predate 1940. Until better designs are developed, I think we should adopt residential design guidelines that favor those classic styles. I think such an approach would help improve the character of Davidson. (Yes, I know I’m ignoring my own advice about not getting stuck in the past).
In summary, I feel there is a strong case for being supportive of some if not all of the development that is happening in Davidson. Yes, there are certainly improvements to be made in how development is carried out in Davidson, but I think we all benefit from recognition that development is part of an inevitable change, and that as citizens we should focus on how we can jointly improve both the process and the result of that change.
Filed under: Davidson opinions, Planning & Development, Village infill rules changes
There is a lot to be said about protecting historic districts, official or not. If a neighborhood has survived substantially intact for 75 years or so, efforts should be made to keep it that way. Some of the most attractive places in cities like NY, DC, Baltimore, Asheville, Austin, Savannah, Charleston, etc. were preserved against the wishes of developers who claimed that progress was paramount, change inevitable, and the old buildings weren’t worth saving anyway. It was certainly Charlotte’s choice to listen to the developers, when they flattened its magnificent 19th century uptown.
But then again the new uptown’s bland corporate monoculture, if it survives, may be considered lusciously quaint a hundred years from now. Maybe in 2107 the B of A tower will be a chicly renovated 2,000 room B&B. People will have a choice of rooms decorated in the quaint antique style of cubicles, board room, meeting room, or break room.
Davidson’s infill area is actually tiny compared to the huge developments rising on once empty fields across town. To preserve this small acreage; the 60-70 large lots that were practical at the turn of the 19th century because people had gardens, maybe a cow and a few chickens, and dried their laundry outside using solar energy is a cultural imperative. It will have an infinitesimal effect on the environment and economy.
Infill is already a de-facto historic park, whose beautiful cool trees, gardens, and quiet streets, are enjoyed by a constant stream of walkers, joggers, and babies in strollers. In the not too distant future tourists could be riding through in open-air trolley busses for a glimpse of how small-town America looked c.1870-1930.
So, resistance to neighborhood change is not necessarily an ill-considered selfish perspective. When a neighborhood style has thrived intact for over a hundred years, it must be doing something right, and we Johnny-come-lately transients who are here for maybe just 5-10-20 years shouldn’t mess with it too much. The oldest living beings on my block are the magnificent oak trees, and I’m sure they’ll outlast everyone who is here now too.
I’ve been informed today that the town is putting together an initiative to develop some design guidelines this summer, so that is a step in the right direction.