An affiliation with the chain will help attract investment for the project near downtown Brevard, said a City Camper company official, who expects to receive final permitting for the work in October.
I was a tourist here for many years. Now a relatively new homeowner in the area. Have already done some volunteer work with in both PNF and DSF. I purchase locally vs on the web whenever I can. Love this special little town and will do my best to contribute vs destroying it.
Compared to many tourism dependent towns, Brevard does a pretty good job of limiting growth to things that are relevant and positive. Is it perfect? of course not. But as local merchants age out, if we don't attract new owners and new investment, the city will be in bad spot.
Let's keep an open mind to new, limited, and well-planned growth. There is a way.
Dan DeWitt’s 7/4/24 post on the revived City Camper was as usual well-researched and impartial. I would like to add a perspective of political economy, which suggests that government-assisted luxury hotels detract from community livability. My comments are based on 30 years’ participation in Nashville TN’s master planning and, more recently, study of Brevard’s land use plan. I welcome critique.
To preview, we don’t need more outside investment to make the City Camper travesty worse. The initial development team - Birmingham money, Georgia engineer, and Japanese-owned contractor - strip mined the hillside behind the historic courthouse and uncovered ground water that made the mud hole. This unforeseen foundation problem plus twenty months of dallying are responsible for the increased construction costs. So a celebrated “mixed use” present for Brevard will now become an investment-free gift to the international Hilton Hotels and Resorts.
Three issues require the attention of residents. First, contrary to Planning Director Ray’s statement, “the plans (have) changed dramatically.” Gone are the project’s freestanding spa and restaurant as well as multi-layered employment opportunities and utilization of local outfitters. The much-reduced design is now sleeping and parking for deep-pocketed customers for Brevard’s arts and spa businesses - the lobbyists most quoted in the press.
Second, City Camper was never “mixed use” under Brevard’s Comprehensive Land Use Plan. Mixed use buildings most typically have everyday amenities on the first floor with citizen residences above. Such structures are central to “new urbanism,” which champions walkable streets with housing, services, work, and public spaces nearby (see cnu.org/resources/what-new-urbanism). While not explicitly cited, new urbanism clearly underlies the Brevard plan. The plan’s first goal is to “expand housing for all residents while preserving the character of Brevard and its neighborhoods.” Other aims are inclusive wellbeing, a “livable place,” multi-transit, conservation and recreation, sustainable economics, and resilient infrastructure (see cityofbrevard.com/473/2030-Comprehensive-Land-Use-Plan, p. 26). New urbanism’s mixed use development philosophy should not apply to willy-nilly combinations of non-resident accommodations.
The third problem is “venture capital” - absentee, pooled, and tax-advantaged wealth pursuing above-market profit. City Camper president O’Neal’s statement says as much: “Though Hilton will not invest in the 120-room hotel, ... its name will help attract financial commitments from other sources needed to meet the increased cost of the project.”
The perspective of “political economy” - how politics affects economy and vice versa - should now be apparent. From the start, political propaganda and economic self-interest characterized the CC campaign. Alabama millionaire Ty Warren introduced the development as a tribute to his children’s camping experience in Brevard and as “quintessentially Brevard ... celebrating the character of the city.” The executive director of the Transylvania Economic Alliance applauded “a gateway property ... critical to the visual landscape of downtown,” yet he did not define that landscape or acknowledge the “widely criticized modern design.” And O’Neil described Hilton’s standards and marketing as “protection for the city of Brevard.” In all, the CC drive has been a grand, ideological subterfuge.
Missing from the artifice is any advocacy for new urbanism. Except for the hot-button issue of affordable housing, preserving the character of Brevard and its neighborhoods is rarely mentioned. The values underlying the local plan - well-being, livability, multi-transit, sustainability, and resilience - are buried on Planning Department shelves, only to be exhumed when the next venture capitalists require plan exemptions for non-conforming proposals (see “Brevard Station,” “Glen Cannon,” et al). Nullifying the public interest is simply a cost of doing business for private speculators.
As I have written before, righting the ship will require subordinating rapacious finance to “mass flourishing:” economic dynamism, and justice resulting from engaging work for diverse human aptitudes and skills (Nobel economist Edmund Phelps, 2013). Taming invasive money can come about only through an assertive “Citizens United for a Flourishing Brevard” (my idea). Such active citizenship is missing in Mayor Copelof’s triad of collaborators: government, developers, and property owners (Transylvania Times, 5/23). Examples of more consequential resident involvement are recent housing proposals by the Brevard-Davidson River Presbyterian Church and Transylvania Community College. Yet a broader movement will require knowledge of and support for the city’s master plan.
We need AFFORDABLE housing not another ugly high priced hotel . I've lived here all my Life and it makes me sick to look at how my quaint town is looking more like trashy Asheville every fay
I was a tourist here for many years. Now a relatively new homeowner in the area. Have already done some volunteer work with in both PNF and DSF. I purchase locally vs on the web whenever I can. Love this special little town and will do my best to contribute vs destroying it.
Compared to many tourism dependent towns, Brevard does a pretty good job of limiting growth to things that are relevant and positive. Is it perfect? of course not. But as local merchants age out, if we don't attract new owners and new investment, the city will be in bad spot.
Let's keep an open mind to new, limited, and well-planned growth. There is a way.
Thanks for the update. We were all wondering!
Ken Winter, 7/16/24
City Camper: An Exercise in Political Economy
Dan DeWitt’s 7/4/24 post on the revived City Camper was as usual well-researched and impartial. I would like to add a perspective of political economy, which suggests that government-assisted luxury hotels detract from community livability. My comments are based on 30 years’ participation in Nashville TN’s master planning and, more recently, study of Brevard’s land use plan. I welcome critique.
To preview, we don’t need more outside investment to make the City Camper travesty worse. The initial development team - Birmingham money, Georgia engineer, and Japanese-owned contractor - strip mined the hillside behind the historic courthouse and uncovered ground water that made the mud hole. This unforeseen foundation problem plus twenty months of dallying are responsible for the increased construction costs. So a celebrated “mixed use” present for Brevard will now become an investment-free gift to the international Hilton Hotels and Resorts.
Three issues require the attention of residents. First, contrary to Planning Director Ray’s statement, “the plans (have) changed dramatically.” Gone are the project’s freestanding spa and restaurant as well as multi-layered employment opportunities and utilization of local outfitters. The much-reduced design is now sleeping and parking for deep-pocketed customers for Brevard’s arts and spa businesses - the lobbyists most quoted in the press.
Second, City Camper was never “mixed use” under Brevard’s Comprehensive Land Use Plan. Mixed use buildings most typically have everyday amenities on the first floor with citizen residences above. Such structures are central to “new urbanism,” which champions walkable streets with housing, services, work, and public spaces nearby (see cnu.org/resources/what-new-urbanism). While not explicitly cited, new urbanism clearly underlies the Brevard plan. The plan’s first goal is to “expand housing for all residents while preserving the character of Brevard and its neighborhoods.” Other aims are inclusive wellbeing, a “livable place,” multi-transit, conservation and recreation, sustainable economics, and resilient infrastructure (see cityofbrevard.com/473/2030-Comprehensive-Land-Use-Plan, p. 26). New urbanism’s mixed use development philosophy should not apply to willy-nilly combinations of non-resident accommodations.
The third problem is “venture capital” - absentee, pooled, and tax-advantaged wealth pursuing above-market profit. City Camper president O’Neal’s statement says as much: “Though Hilton will not invest in the 120-room hotel, ... its name will help attract financial commitments from other sources needed to meet the increased cost of the project.”
The perspective of “political economy” - how politics affects economy and vice versa - should now be apparent. From the start, political propaganda and economic self-interest characterized the CC campaign. Alabama millionaire Ty Warren introduced the development as a tribute to his children’s camping experience in Brevard and as “quintessentially Brevard ... celebrating the character of the city.” The executive director of the Transylvania Economic Alliance applauded “a gateway property ... critical to the visual landscape of downtown,” yet he did not define that landscape or acknowledge the “widely criticized modern design.” And O’Neil described Hilton’s standards and marketing as “protection for the city of Brevard.” In all, the CC drive has been a grand, ideological subterfuge.
Missing from the artifice is any advocacy for new urbanism. Except for the hot-button issue of affordable housing, preserving the character of Brevard and its neighborhoods is rarely mentioned. The values underlying the local plan - well-being, livability, multi-transit, sustainability, and resilience - are buried on Planning Department shelves, only to be exhumed when the next venture capitalists require plan exemptions for non-conforming proposals (see “Brevard Station,” “Glen Cannon,” et al). Nullifying the public interest is simply a cost of doing business for private speculators.
As I have written before, righting the ship will require subordinating rapacious finance to “mass flourishing:” economic dynamism, and justice resulting from engaging work for diverse human aptitudes and skills (Nobel economist Edmund Phelps, 2013). Taming invasive money can come about only through an assertive “Citizens United for a Flourishing Brevard” (my idea). Such active citizenship is missing in Mayor Copelof’s triad of collaborators: government, developers, and property owners (Transylvania Times, 5/23). Examples of more consequential resident involvement are recent housing proposals by the Brevard-Davidson River Presbyterian Church and Transylvania Community College. Yet a broader movement will require knowledge of and support for the city’s master plan.
We need AFFORDABLE housing not another ugly high priced hotel . I've lived here all my Life and it makes me sick to look at how my quaint town is looking more like trashy Asheville every fay
Just what we need more tourists and outsiders moving here to finish destroying our town
Amen to that. No housing, just hotels for strangers. And low paid jobs to go with it. Brevard needs a plan for growth.