–Very interesting remark, but a little short on the content!
Brian Holmes

Very interesting information! Thanks!

G’night

“I have to confess, this is….”

…the most interesting reaction to this article I have yet gotten!

Particularly the parts about this text being an “external geography,” in other words, a fly-in, fly-out job as opposed to a perception built on long familiarity and involvement. Of course, that’s absolutely right and one of the things I’m always hoping for is for people to call me on that and offer another perception.

Check it out at:
http://bullinfull.typepad.com/bif/2007/08/the-geographic-.html

In the past couple of weeks, I got into a bit of an online spat with my neighbor Chris Sevick in the comments section of Kevin’s blog, particularly following this post and this post. I have to confess, this is

“In early 1954, Brandon Hodges, the state treasurer of North Carolina, Robert Hanes, the president of Wachovia Bank and Trust Company, and Romeo Guest, a Greensboro building contractor who some say gave birth to the idea of a research park in the triangle area, met to discuss North Carolina’s need for industrial growth. Hanes, an extremely influential citizen, was not immediately sold on the idea. In the fall of 1954, Hodges and Guest enlisted the support of key deans and faculty at North Carolina State, and in December 1954, the group convinced Chancellor Carey Bostian to take the triangle idea to Governor Luther Hodges. While the governor, like Hanes, did not immediately see the potential of the idea for North Carolina, he was willing to commission a concept report. The 10-page document, written by William Newell, director of the Textile Research Center at North Carolina State, was delivered to the governor on January 27, 1955, and soon thereafter the triangle idea became known as the “Governor’s Research Triangle” (Link 1995, p. 20).
“In April 1955, having solicited the support of Gordon Gray, president of the University of North Carolina, and Hollis Edens, president of Duke University, Governor Hodges organized the Research Triangle Development Council with Hanes as chairman…
“In August 1958, Governor Hodges and Hanes approached Archibald (Archie) Davis, also of Wachovia Bank and Trust, to help attract North Carolina investors for the Pinelands Company. Davis recognized that the Research Triangle had the potential to be extremely important for the future economic direction of the state, and he realized that if the Triangle was designed for public service rather than for private gain it would be much easier to raise money from corporations and institutions that were interested in serving the state of North Carolina. Thus, he agreed to raise contributions, as opposed to solicit financial investments, under the condition that the pledged funds would be used to pay the Pinelands Company’s borrowed debt ($415,000), to finance the establishment of a research institute ($500,000 estimated), and to construct a building ($250,000 estimated). In October, Davis presented this proposal to the Committee and it was accepted. He began his fund raising efforts on December 1, and on January 9, 1959, Governor Hodges announced that Davis had raised $1.425 million and that these funds would be used to acquire the land assembled by Pinelands and to pass control of this enterprise to the recently constituted nonprofit Research Triangle Foundation of North Carolina.”

Albert Link and John Scott, “The Growth of Research Triangle Park,” in Small Business Economics 20/2 (2003); at http://www.dartmouth.edu/~jtscott/Papers/00-22.pdf.

First, some basic edits: You name the school in Chapel Hill in its first introduction as “North Carolina University,’ and in the Epilogue as “NCSU Chapel Hill.” Neither are correct, although the first was used as an alternate name long ago. The strict name is the “University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill,” although it’s commonly known simply as “UNC.” NCSU refers to its counterpart in Raleigh, which was originally North Carolina Agricultural and Mechanical University, but hasn’t been for nearly a century.

Secondly, describing both Durham and Raleigh as “historically black cities” misses the mark by a bit. Raleigh, to my knowledge, has never even approached being a majority black city. I can’t remember who coined the phrase, but at one point it was described as “a state capital surrounded by mayonaise.” Its reputation has long been one of a staid, buttoned-down government town. Durham, on the other hand, was for a period a majority black city, but never by overwhelming majorities (56% I believe was the peak), and that was largely due to white flight to the suburbs, of course. I believe the current percentages are around 48% black, 42% white, and the remainder a growing Latino population with a smattering of various Asian populations.

I’ll hopefully have a chance to respond to more of the substance of the piece later, rather than just editorial comments. In particular, are you familiar, or possibly interested, in a recent fight between local neighborhoods and Duke University over its plan to install a large, tax-free retail installation on its campus? The text from neighborhood activists centered largely around the narative that Duke wanted to exploit its non-profit status into a money-making venture, in which it would align with corporate chains and gain an unfair advantage over a largely locally-owned business district nearby.