It's Our Turn
Last week a couple articles appeared in the press about the possible purchase of the Coyle Dodge property for use as City/County headquarters.
At the last regular City Council meeting, (which seems about seven meetings back) a resolution was passed unanimously, favoring the concept of Smart Growth and admonishing the City to hew to that organization's principles in planning. It further suggested that the City's Comprehensive Plan be updated in accordance with Smart Growth principles.
The potential acquisition of the Coyle property is a golden, if sudden, opportunity to put the City's resolve into practice. Smart Growth might not necessarily result in moving City Hall onto the Coyle property. But smart growth, lower case intended, would dictate that the existing Coyle building be used if that property is acquired.
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
Gonder: "Responsible re-use of the property dictates that the main showroom building be used and preserved as a critical feature of Spring Street."
Picking up where we left off yesterday, John Gonder (city council at large) states the case for smart growth at the Coyle site, and adaptive reuse of its centerpiece.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
14 comments:
Right now there is more demand for downtown housing that supply. For example, Stephen Beardsley’s 7 units have a long waiting list despite zero advertising. The units above studios were leased before they contained kitchens. Rents are up. There’s not a lot of new supply coming on line in the next 12-24 months so this is a trend that will continue.
If the only goal were to spread around redevelopment dollars, to ensure that as many investments in downtown are made as possible, I think locating city hall at Coyle would be a poor choice. I believe it will be redeveloped anyhow, most likely containing housing. For the city to invest in Coyle would be for the city to not invest somewhere less certain of receiving investment.
The newspaper wrote that Coyle is one of three sites being considered. What are the advantages of Coyle over say the West End?
In Jeff, city hall was relocated to the quadrangle. Having this strong tenant in place allowed the developers to secure financing to invest many, many millions into what had been a huge eyesore. It’s my understanding that the situation with the West End is similar. Is there are counterargument to city hall going to the West End?
If the city/county doesn't end up using the Coyle Building for a government center, wouldn't it great if they bought the property under value, placed a preservation easement on the building, and then sold it at cost or at a small profit to a developer looking to build downtown housing?
Any developer worth their salt would know that people attracted to downtown living would appreciate an historic building, so maybe an easement wouldn't be necessary, but either way we have win-win-win potential here.
It is great that everyone is talking reuse/preservation rather than the typical short-sighted approach.
If the Coyle family is determined that the building not be demolished, they should put a conservation easement on the property now. Preservationists know that buildings are best protected with they are economically viable; an Easement could be drafted to allow flexibility for future adaptive reuse. Plus, there could be very substantial tax benefits to the Coyle family for placing the easement on the property.
Forgot about the tax benefits - so true.
What say we to this argument: Since someone responsible surely will redevelop the Coyle property anyway, we should support the West End complex because that would constitute a needed boost there, when otherwise it might not receive such a lag up?
I'm hearing this.
Agreed, except the paper said three sites were under consideration. It’s hard for me to imagine a site that would more benefit from redevelopment than the West End, but I’m curious what the third site is. I heard a rumor that it was Todd Coleman’s Monkey Wrench and the Hour of Power, but that was a rumor. Can anyone confirm? Between those three, I support the West End if the only consideration is spurring redevelopment. Of course tax dollars spent at each site is a consideration too.
I think the "it will happen anyway" argument applies to the West End location just as much as the Coyle site. If Lopp went through all that trouble only to come to the conclusion that the entire development depends on the relocation of government offices...well, let just say I find that hard to believe.
The City has an opportunity to contribute a wonderful adaptive reuse example with the Coyle site that doesn't exist at the West End location.
If there's a third location under consideration, then it's Coffey's wild card. He can't support a west end project that would decimate his natural habitat, and one wonders whether he'll support an east side location favored by "them" people." Once I show him that a Grant Line Road location would benefit my business, then he can't be for that, either.
How does Lopp make the entirely new west end side cheaper than the below market value price (with adaptable structure) offered by the Coyle family?
As far as I know, Lopp is the only developer to so seriously look at such as large investment in the West End. We have no way of knowing their pro formas, or whether city and/or county commitment is make or break. Since I don’t see many other developers lining up to make multimillion dollars investments in the West End, I seriously would like to see the city encourage Lopp’s project. We have no way of knowing if the "it will happen anyway" argument is valid or not; I’d like the city to err on the side of caution. While the city could make a good example of adaptive reuse at Coyle, they could make a similar good example of (take your pick) of LEED development, etc. on the West End. You may say LEED is not on the table on the West End. My response is that we have no guarantee that anything of quality will happen at Coyle if the county and city are involved.
Roger's point about costs is prudent, particularly given that the preexisitng building on the Coyle site probably provides enough room for City offices with no new construction necessary at all.
As I was recently reminded, that approach would also get us out of lease payments which was one of the main goals of a move in the first place.
Tax dollars spent at each site is a consideration.
NA - "below market value price" at Coyle site...
where are you getting that price?
Does it include the cost of brownfield abatement?
I'm merely repeating the figures quoted in the news stories and repeated to me privately by a public official. I doubt this takes into consideration any brownfield costs.
Post a Comment