NA Confidential: There, I fixed it.

Wednesday, January 19, 2011

There, I fixed it.

With the City retaining ownership of a smaller plaza/parking garage, this would be a much more sensible development than the proposed scars of enclosure.

10 comments:

Jeff Gillenwater said...: Or, in other words:

They hang the man and flog the woman
That steal the goose from off the common
But let the greater villain loose
That steals the common from the goose. - English folk poem; 12:29 PM
G Coyle said...: indeed.; 2:36 PM
dan chandler said...: Jeff, my initial hunch is that your "proposal" would cost the city millions more than Mr. Bobo's proposal. Since your proposal could not be built with new TIF, are you suggesting it be financed from the general fund?; 2:57 PM
Jeff Gillenwater said...: EDIT, Riverboat, CDBG, parking revenue, perhaps lessened TIF...

There are lots of options worth exploring, not the least of which is the social value and function of the land in question, the purpose of the private development, and, more specifically, the purpose of the redevelopment commission within the framework of the prior two.

City control of this particular property represents an opportunity to reconnect the city with the river, an oft stated goal, unprecedented in our lifetimes and one that may not come again in several lifetimes more.

To the extent that the River View conversation, à la the bridges project, is dragged into the unnecessary and counterproductive trenches of "all this or nothing", the community will suffer a disservice. The current proposal is just a fleeting option, but one with long-lasting consequences.

Of course, if the Preservation Commission does its job and requires that design guidelines be followed, this all may be a moot point.; 3:23 PM
Jeff Gillenwater said...: Oh, and potential lease revenue from leasing space on the plaza for small scale retail, eateries, etc.; 3:43 PM
dan chandler said...: Of course, if the Preservation Commission does its job and requires that design guidelines be followed, this all may be a moot point.

Having spent two years on the HPC, I see no clear violation of the guidelines with respect to new construction. Do you? If so, which guideline section? Which line? Do you believe the YMCA violates the design guidelines?

The guidelines require that new construction be made primarily of traditional materials and respect the proportions, height and setback of neighboring buildings. The architect is aiming, in part, to match the feel of the YMCA. The materials include much brick, as does the YMCA. The proportions, height and setback are not out of place because of the development’s location away from Main Street, behind existing buildings, and next to the YMCA.; 4:02 PM
Jeff Gillenwater said...: The proportions, height and setback are not out of place because of the development’s location away from Main Street, behind existing buildings, and next to the YMCA.

That's a mouthful and one I don't think should be easily accepted, given the way the proposed development will subjugate existing structures.

What its location does do, however, is provide an even larger barrier between preexisiting structures, the public, and the river front.; 4:12 PM
dan chandler said...: What its location does do, however, is provide an even larger barrier between preexisiting structures, the public, and the river front.

It does create a larger barrier with regard to line of sight from some existing structures. But most of these buildings currently lack steller river views. Contrary to your assertion, it decreases barriers for pedestrials. It also creates many new lines of sight to the river from new buildings.

None of this will matter to the HPC, however. The Historic Ordinance as enacted doesn't consider river views or access. Neither the river nor the Greenway are in historic districts.

All this assumes the property is in a historic district. I just reviewed the Downtown map and it's not clear that the garage would be in a district. It looks like they are just outside of the district.; 4:50 PM
bayernfan said...: I'm curious as to what kind of retail establishments they're hoping to attract there.; 4:59 PM
Jeff Gillenwater said...: According to the map provided the public by the HPC, it's clear that a good portion of the largest proposed building is squarely in a historic district. It will abut Main Street.

The YMCA property, I think, is a poor example because a) it doesn't dwarf surrounding blocks and b) the City retains ownership of it, even though someone else is paying for a substantial portion of it.

With a mix of tax incentives and more directly identifiable public expenditures, the River View project could produce the exact opposite, e.g., a project substantially paid for by taxpayers but owned by a private entity.; 7:19 PM