Skip to content
The Archive of The Carrboro Citizen
Menu
  • Home
  • News
  • Community
  • Schools
  • Business
  • Opinion
  • Obituaries
  • Sports
  • Mill
  • Flora
  • Print Archive
  • About
Menu

Tall buildings

Posted on January 26, 2012January 25, 2012 by Staff

Jack Haggerty
This is the second in a three-part series of essays about Carrboro development.

Many of us opposed what came to be called “the tall-building ordinance” when it was proposed. It allowed an increase in building heights, from two and three stories to four and five stories, in the downtown districts. In a previous essay, I wrote about the horizontal development of Carrboro (“Established boundaries,” The Carrboro Citizen, 1/19/12); this essay is about the vertical development of Carrboro. I am convinced now the tall-building ordinance was of no benefit to Carrboro. I believe the passage of it had the opposite result of what its advocates told us to expect.

The public debate over the ordinance was contentious. Those in favor of it were of one voice: highest, best use; think big, think up; the future’s ahead, and it’s “tall buildings.”
There were contrary positions: Carrboro was a little town – big buildings typically need big corporate tenants and chain stores, and that’s not Carrboro; the existing two- and three-story limit was appropriate, friendly and more in keeping with our sense of Carrboro; the town infrastructure wasn’t up to the potential size and intensity of uses that would be allowed; and, lastly, and what was most on point, where was the demand for all of this space?
The discussion started in the late ’90s, gained momentum and the ordinance passed, and we’re surrounded by the result; rather, there wasn’t any result. The busted economy does little to explain this, as there were a number of boom years following the passage of the ordinance before the crash. If we hadn’t wanted so much, I think we could have had much more than we currently have.

The passage of the ordinance had a number of foreseeable consequences, all of which hindered development in the downtown and still do today. There was an inflation in downtown land prices in anticipation of the boom, and the expectation created was unrealistic (we were going to get towers of low-rent artists’ studios powered by windmills and solar collectors). The cost of submitting a project application became a considerable expense and one that was multiplied by the time it took town staff and citizen committees to review the application before it was sent to the board. And, mistakenly, and worst of all, the goal of a bustling downtown (who wouldn’t want that?) became linked with taller buildings.

I understand a busy downtown bestows manifold benefits, from a lively and desirable atmosphere to businesses and real estate that provide a welcome and significant portion of the tax base, but the taller buildings weren’t required to achieve that goal.

Carrboro is not built-out at a two- and three-story level, not even near it. The goal of doubling the commercial square footage listed in the town’s Vision 2020 document in no way requires the taller buildings; the increase could be accomplished with two- and three-story buildings. A build-out at the existing scale of two- and three-story buildings would be a natural progression for the town. Two to three stories is a comfortable scale, one familiar to Carrboro residents. By staying with the then-existing height limitations, we would have removed fractious and anxious arguments about height issues from the approval process. The tall-building advocates wanted downtown Carrboro to go, by analogy, from third grade to high school. It’s hard to see how that could go well.

Other considerations were overlooked in the haste to pass the ordinance. Four- and five-story buildings are typically made of concrete and steel – expensive materials. They have elevators. These buildings require a certain economy of scale to bring the higher material costs even within sight of reason. That’s why you rarely see taller buildings with small footprints, and with the small lots in Carrboro, an economy of scale is difficult.

Combining these requirements with the inflated land prices and expensive applications that require long reviews full of costly revisions, four- and five-story buildings turn out to be quite expensive to build. That also makes them costly for users – whether the user is buying space or renting it. The shopper in a tall building carries the cost of that building in her basket as she walks to the register to pay for her purchases. Someone dining in a restaurant in a tall building lifts that cost to his mouth with every bite.

Two- and three-story buildings, on the other hand, can be built of brick and wood, a considerably less costly (and greener) way to build. If the zoning ordinance allows only a two-story building of 20,000 square feet rather than a five-story building of 50,000 square feet, the cost of the project for both owner and user will be less. Less space will be given up to paved parking and less rainwater runoff will hit our watershed. And because the consequences of smaller buildings are fewer and have less impact, the permitting approval process is easier, cheaper and quicker.

Smaller buildings are of a scale manageable to local developers; giant loans and faraway banks aren’t required. The money can originate and stay in the community, and we are less subject to the national economy. There is less of a chance of overbuilding, and the edge can be kept on demand. Does a mom-and-pop store need a five-story concrete parking deck? I thought we were in favor of affordability – both commercial and residential.

The result, I believe, in staying with the two- and three-story limit would have been a more built-out downtown, a denser and more vibrant downtown, with more businesses built and owned by local folks – in short, the downtown we “visioned” more than a decade ago.

Jack Haggerty is an architect who lives in downtown Carrboro.

Web Archive

© 2025 The Archive of The Carrboro Citizen | Powered by Minimalist Blog WordPress Theme