Recent post asserted that The Lawrence Group indicated Pittsboro Matters was making false claims

On:
In: 27312, Construction, Development, Government, Growth, Pittsboro, Politics
Tagged: , ,

Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2014 22:07:29 -0500
From: “Mike Watkins”
Subject: Re: Lawrence Group finds Pittsboro Matters making false claims

A recent post asserted that The Lawrence Group indicated Pittsboro Matters was making false claims about proposed population densities of Chatham Park in comparing it to Pittsburgh and Baltimore.
Actually, there is nothing false about Pittsboro Matters claims on proposed Chatham Park population density.

Although I am a member of Pittsboro Matters, I write here for myself.

I also wrote the Pittsboro Matters website article referred to in that post and I continue to stand by it. (http://pittsboromatters.org/more/preserving-the-character-of-pittsboro/ ).
It is simple math and the math is irrefutable.

Maximum potential build out in the Chatham Park PDD Master Plan is 27,970 homes on 7,022.2 acres (see “Land Use Summary Table†)
Using Chatham Park’s own statistics for population/home (2.5) that equates to 69,925 people in 10.97 square miles (1 sq. mile = 640 acres), an average of 6,374 people per square mile.
According to 2012 US Census data, the population of Pittsburgh, PA is 306,211 on a land area of 58.3 sq. miles, That’s an average of 5,252 people per sq. mile.
Baltimore’s population is 621,342 in a land area of 92.05 sq. miles.. That’s an average of 6,750 people per sq. mile.

So, how can it be false to say the proposed population density of Chatham Park fits somewhere between Pittsburgh, PA and Baltimore, MD?

Since I consider the entire Lawrence Group report to be an outstanding piece of work, I was naturally irked that it should assert my numbers were wrong. In email follow up with the lead consultant, however, we have since determined these numbers to be accurate.

That said, they do not agree this is a valid way to compare a potential development.  They prefer to use development density versus people density as a measure and, in that context, and given the variety of development forms in the 92 sq. miles of Baltimore it is impossible to compare on an “apples to apples†basis.  Their approach is to compare to individual developments around the state such as Southern Village (312 acres) or Meadowmont (435 acres) in Chapel Hill.  They are the experts while I clearly am not.  My goal was simply to offer another illustration of the magnitude of this proposal (see also Chatham Park: The view from 50,000 ft at http://pittsboromatters.org/factorfiction/chatham-park-the-view-from-50000-feet/ ) and to again pose the question of how the character of Pittsboro could possibly be preserved.

Nevertheless, my feeling is that any method of comparison has the potential to be misleading. At over 7,000 acres, there has never been anything in North Carolina remotely comparable to Chatham Park. Different pieces of it may compare with surrounding developments but nothing in this state comes close to the overall project.  Reston, VA is probably the most appropriate comparison, across multiple dimensions.  Looking at the way that project turned out, however, I am sure no one would wish to hold it up as a model for us..

…Mike Watkins

400 Prince Creek, Pittsboro, NC 27312 (USA)