See how much it's changed (gulp) in a quarter century?

Top, the view in 1987, when my friend Bob joined me in a day of downtown decay photography. Last year I snapped the scene below. If not for the graffiti and a few more panes of broken glass on the Reisz building, it would be hard to tell which year was which. And yet the political perspective remains the same, always, administration through administration: Abject and enduring fear of putting the pedal to the metal, breaking a few eggs, shifting the paradigm, and actually getting something done. In New Albany, caution is defined like this: "Every generation deserves the same deterioration."

Random 2013 Platform Goals 2: Can we agree on a riverfront plan, please?

For the second installment of Random 2013 Platform Goals, we consider the current state of affairs on New Albany's downtown riverfront.

Apart from the Greenway, the YMCA (Scribner Place, Phase Only) and the new Amphitheater roof, very little has changed there in the eight years this blog has been functioning.

Today's news story (below) helps to bring the city's ongoing riverfront conceptual vacuum into sharper focus. It's tempting to roll one's eyes at another big-time development group refusing to show us the money, but at the same time, New Albany Horizons has a point of sorts.

Indeed, the planet stopped spinning for two (three?) years as we rushed to gift Mainland Properties with various keys to the city as pertains to its ever-mutable (and apparently, entirely unfunded) River View plans. Now the olive branch is withdrawn, and Horizons gets its deferred turn to convince someone/anyone there's any there, there. A bank account might be a nice first step.

To me, it reveals an even larger, perhaps congenital problem. There are numerous development plans on file, all of them addressing the riverfront's future. But there is no row-in-one-direction cohesion as to what might actually be expected to happen.

The anarchy is exacerbated by the usual small-pond turf wars. Successive mayoral administrations say one thing, councils do another, and the redevelopment commission something else again. More importantly, since the last two riverfront development plans minted by for-profit, non-governmental bodies (Mainland's and Horizons) called for condos, it might behoove us to check with the city of New Albany's overall housing master plan.

Well, is there one? If so, what's it have to say? If not, shouldn't there be a plan, or is our only strategy to lay in stocks of lubricant whenever private "partners" come calling?

And maybe is would be constructive to exercise leadership on these points -- although a return to the England administration's top-down, crony-enrichment bludgeoning is not welcomed.

Developer questions city’s aim for New Albany's riverfront corridor; New Albany Horizons granted extension on payment for property, by Daniel Suddeath (N and T)

NEW ALBANY — Developers who once proposed a $30 million project in downtown New Albany want to know the city’s vision for the riverfront area before proceeding with any investments.

On Tuesday, the New Albany Redevelopment Commission extended the due date on a mortgage note for six parcels of public property off Bank Street owed by the group New Albany Horizons LLC. In 2008, the commission agreed to sell the parcels to the group for $107,500, with final payment due by the end of this year. So far, the group has only paid property taxes on the lots.

New Albany Horizons already owns land around the public property, and eyed the parcels as part of its plan to construct residential, commercial and office space near the corridor of Bank and Main Streets.

Carl Holliday — a partner in New Albany Horizons — told the redevelopment commission Tuesday the group hasn’t started the project because of uncertainty over what will be developed around the property.

Part Four: Ordinances, resolutions, and all that Coffeyite grandstanding.

INTRODUCTION OF ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS: READING

Price to introduce R-09-24, and actually does it. Seconded. Wow.

R-09-24 Resolution of the Common Council of the City of New Albany Amending the “New Albany-Fringe Area Comprehensive Plan 2020”

Scott Wood and Larry Timperman come forward to explain the plan.

Wood: Some areas deserve greater scrutiny, including downtown. Scott rationally and patiently explains the history of plans and zoning.

Timperman: Overall concept was explained at a public meeting advertised extensively and loudly (JB, Atlanta daydreaming). He explains the focus on the downtown. How use of areas can tie into the river heritage. Example, Greenway. Connecting Main Street back over the levee to the river. Another need is concentrationthat will require parking. Design elements have been coming in during information gathering ("a number of public meetings" giggle). Explains color coding of the chart, emphasizing reinforcing the downtown fabric already there.

Coffey pounces and asks how much money is being asked for. PARKING GARAGE!! PARKING GARAGE!!

Wood: No blank checks, just a blueprint. Cuts off the Wizard.

Benedetti: A vision.

Price: Please address Mr. Bledsoe's concerns.

Wood: The fact of the matter is that several private property owners have asked for assurances so they can develop. The plan helps with this.

Price: What about that historic thing?

Wood: Historic Preservation is not about zoning.

Timperman: The other point is that infill needs to be appropriate, and that cheap knockoffs of history are not desirable. Nowadays, the national standard is not to duplicate old things.

Wood: There is a falseness about that ... we're good builders today, too. We can design and build good buildings and come up with things that work.

Timperman and Wood explain design principles that neither Bledsoe nor Price WANT to understand. Whether they do or not is another matter. This misunderstanding is intentional, and it is political in nature.

Wood: Passionately defends green buildings and explains why it's a good idea, and not necessariyl one that applies only to deep pockets. Louisville kept hammering at their plan until it is now a model that can work here.

Zurschmiede: Just a recommendation, eh? Nothing to hold anyone to it?

Nope.

Timperman: Green could be using basic energy efficient concepts like bulbs and windows.

John Gonder: What about light rail?

Timperman: 10 to 15 years!

A light rail discussion ensues, and then Mose Putney comes forward. I believe it is bad strategy for Mose to speak about specifics, including the dreaded parking garage bogey man, when all we have here is a resolution of unspecific intent. At the same time, the Bobo project makes no sense without it.

Putney: Mentions a two-way Pearl Street

Noooooo ... not that, Mose. The natives will revolt.

Putney: Uses the phrase, "slow travel urban drop-off plaza." He calls it a "conceptual idea."

Eyes mist over. Them's big words, don't ya know. Someone needs a tall boy, and now -- but it isn't me. It is impressive of Mose to speak this language to these people. Some of them understand it. Price visibly yawns.

Coffey: Will this group ask for any money for any of this?

Putney: Meanders into the trap Coffey set, although he tries not to, and mentions public/private partnership to, yes, build a parking garage.

Robert's Rules of Order out the window.

Coffey: "Does any kind of development occur that doesn't ask for handouts?"

Coffey says that Louisville spent a "billion dollars" on 4th Street and it still doesn't pay. Putney counters with the history of urban redevelopment failure, and how no one thought about Europe. The urban movement the last 10-15 years puts us into a place to fix it. This is a new kind of developer. Sustainable, green, renewable.

All of this plays into Coffey's grandstand.

Coffey wants developers to come ask to pay to come into New Albany. Coffey goes ballistic. Putney and Coffey argue.

Price: Is there any other developer, was there other ideas?

Wood: This one came to us?

Price: Anyone else have any ideas?

Wood? Sure. Others took themselves out of it (one of whom Coffey chased out of a meeting three years ago). These guys have the financial wherewithal. The language about the VFW has been removed. There has been a grant applied for, to put toward such projects (water resources).

Jack Messer: $$$?

Putney: $40 million.

Gonder: "New Albany is scaled right for something like this?"

Putney: Umm, yes. In Louisville, something could be built far away from the core. Here, there's a center. There could be some monumental buildings here. These becomes icons, things that enhance what didn;t get trashed during misplaced urban renewal.

Coffey's thinking: One of them people. One of them people.

Benedetti: Call for a vote.

Only one vote. Resolution. Roll call.

Against: Coffey (citing underhandedness)

Abstain: Price ("don't like to tell me kids they're going to Disneyland before I know I can afford it")

7-2, yes.

Master Plan on-line.

Courtesy of the Tribune, here's the New Albany Master Plan Proposal that annoyed Dan Coffey, who spooked the VFW, which now gets an Internet cafe as part of the deal.

Tanks, brownstones, video poker machines and stunted theatrics.

It doesn't exactly qualify as John Galt stopping the engine of the world, but considering the dumbed-down circumstances of politics in the Open Air Museum, conspiring with the Wizard of Westside to hold up approval of the masterplan for a month just might qualify as the heaviest legislative lifting that Stave Price has done this term.

Price: I won’t hold up masterplan; Scribner Place phase two likely to see Nov. 2 council vote, by Daniel Suddeath (News and Tribune).

A few years hence, when the VFW proposes moving the tank, using its (by then) far-too-large-for-its-declining-membership parking lot, and building brownstones to capitalize on the downtown housing boom, should we say no, you cannot.

You wanted the tank to stay where it is, remember?

Uncouncilman Price abstains as Plan Commission overwhelmingly recommends riverfront redevelopment plan.

Considering the fact that the riverfront redevelopment plan described below has been considered by both the redevelopment and plan commissions, and that council persons are assigned to sit on both, isn't it the case that council president Dan Coffey's twaddling about not being informed of it is disingenuous even by his colossal standards of dishonesty?

At any rate, attendee Dan Chandler left the following comment on yesterday's post, "Plan Commission considers the riverfront redvelopment masterplan tonight," and it seems the ideal response to my request for readers to provide coverage of a meeting I couldn't attend. The Wet Knob, was good, though.

Tonight was just a vote by planning commission to recommend to council. This is a land use plan. It's only a tweaking of the existing comprehensive plan with regard to an area along the levee. It is not, nor would be an affirmative vote by the council, be authorization to fund a parking garage/plaza that is envisioned as a part of the plan. The financing needed to implement the plan, except as noted below, was not discussed tonight.

There were maybe 70 people in the audience. Architect Larry Timperman, who developed the land use plan, gave a brief description. Next, Jack Bobo’s architect Mose Putney described the $30M Bobo project. Mose noted that they had a potential tenant interested in taking 80,000 square feet.

In all, there were maybe 5 speakers, each of whom only took a few minutes. Mike Kopp spoke, noting that if he had 10,000 square feet of leasable space, a woman’s apparel retailer from Chicago would move in tomorrow, but that space currently is not available. If these developments took place, that space would be available. Carl Malysz told the commission that the plan has the Mayor’s full support.

There were only a couple questions from the commission. One member asked for clarification on the “high rise” portion of the plan. Steve Price asked Carl if this was the time to discuss costs. Carl estimated the public costs of the parking garage roughly at $12M (800 parking spaced at $15,000/ea.). He noted that if Bobo’s project and the New Horizons project both went in, there would be $70M in direct private investment from those two projects alone. How the $12M would be financed was not discussed (TIF, etc.). Price did not ask a follow-up question.

At one point, a speaker asked for a show of hands of those in favor of the project and virtually everyone in the audience raised his or her hand. No one spoke in opposition to the plan.

The commission voted in favor of recommending the plan to the common council. All votes were in favor, except for Steve Price who abstained. No one voted against.

The commission moved to the next topic and virtually the entire audience exited the meeting.

Plan Commission considers the riverfront redvelopment masterplan tonight.

I'd love to attend this plan commission meeting, but it simply can't be done. NABC has a visiting dignitary coming today, and it's also the release of this year's Wet Knob Hop Harvest Ale, celebrating the founding hop farming mothers and fathers in Floyds Knobs.

In other words, beer drinking duty calls. Any available pinch-hitters? Professor Erika has already published her response: Don't you take my cigarettes away, Doug England..

New Albany hopes planning makes perfect; Public hearing on New Albany’s downtown masterplan is Tuesday night, by Daniel Suddeath (News and Tribune).

It’s been kicked around development and city staff circles, but today will be the first time the public will have the opportunity to weigh-in on New Albany’s Scribner Place phase two plan.

It’s a blueprint designed to steer the city’s future development from East Sixth Street west to the Sherman Minton Bridge. Potential investors, city planners and organizations such as Develop New Albany have been involved in formulating the plan, and the measure was approved by the city’s Redevelopment Commission in July.

The Plan Commission gets its shot at the masterplan at 7 tonight in the third-floor Assembly Room of the City-County Building. A hearing will precede the vote, allowing residents to state their concerns or ideas.

Redevelopment Commission OKs land conveyance for Main Street development.

Holliday, Goodman, and crew are moving forward with help from the City and the exploration of options for new government digs continues.

New Albany panel approves downtown redevelopment plan, by Grace Schneider (Courier-Journal).

For the past 18 months, a group of investors has assembled the major elements of a $45 million plan to convert a block on New Albany, Ind.'s Main Street to condominiums, shops, a boutique hotel and a parking garage.

Their vision moved a step closer to reality today with the city Redevelopment Commission's approval to convey six lots in that block to New Albany Horizons LLC — in exchange for having the property cleared of residual contaminants.

Candidates, masterplans, and learning to see while not hearing any of it.

Two instructive events took place in New Albany last night. One was a meet the candidate affair sponsored by the Uptown Neighborhood Association to better facilitate communication with District 72 State Representative candidates Ed Clere and Bill Cochran. Cochran was reportedly a no show.

The other, a not well publicized meeting at the Library to discuss the future of riverfront land including Main Street and the levee from the Sherman Minton Bridge to East Sixth Street. (Thanks to those who emailed.) A September Tribune article by Daniel Suddeath provides some background on the plan for a masterplan.

The bluegills were busy installing an exhibition of blind and visually impaired artists sponsored by The American Printing House for the Blind and weren't able to attend either one. It opens today at the Seelbach at 1:00 pm and runs until noon Saturday in Mezzanine Salon D.

Now would be a great time for a singalong, assuming someone out there knows the words from the meetings. The comments floor is yours.