I feel like I'm so behind on this zoning stuff. I had somehow forgotten or overlooked that the entirety of the Cedar/Larch corridor is already zoned DT, that is a comforting fact. I also agree on the lot sizes, being able to get two houses on the 60'-80' lots you see a lot of on the south side would make them more appealing for redevelopment, along with bolstering tax revenue. More units/taxable value per linear feet of roads/utilities the better.
One specific zoning wish/request that I have, and may have mentioned at some point, is regarding the collection of a dozen or so single family properties on the northside of Willow west of Seymour/N Grand River. I'd like to see them rezoned to MX; these properties are up to 500' deep, on the river and in Old Town. They'd seem to me a good case for a targeted effort to redevelop.
Thanks for the renders. @citykid implied existing code shouldn't allow these designs so we'll see how it plays out I guess.
I'm hoping the city can convince the LHC to sell their remaining property in this neighborhood. They cannot build another building that concentrates even more low income housing all in this small area. I thought we learned from how projects ended up back in 60's and 70's. I wonder why they're not putting their offices on the ground floor of one of these buildings?
Those affordable apartments are so incredibly bad. They're soulless and ugly, and it looks like a communist block building, or a prison block. They're going to remake Cabrini-Green...
I know that in many places they have architectural standard boards that must be followed in order to get a permit, such boards would not have to be doctorial but might work with the developer to come up with a decent design for the same price. Plus, this looks like some sort of A-I kind of drawing, I think developer would do better if they had a human drawing their concepts.
While the renderings are bad, that's not why I call them projects, the design just makes things worse. Walnut Park, while a nice looking building, has had its problems. And I don't think it's as highly subsidized as these buildings will be?? Having 100% rent assisted properties isn't good for anyone involved, it often ends in a bad environment for the residents which has negative affects on the immediate surroundings and the area at large. Just spitballing, but I'd say the max should be around 50%-60% rent assisted units, the rest could be any mix of market rate or workforce housing. I get that these are far along in the process and probably can't be changed, but this shouldn't happen again and such developments should be discouraged everywhere in the city. I'm all for some sort system/ordinance that incentivizes/requires the inclusion of workforce and/or low-income housing into otherwise market rate developments but it'd have to reasonable and well thought out.
Thanks for the information. It looks like a terrible plan. I wonder what they need this building for. I have always disliked the placement of the street and the church. These days they could close one side and still have no traffic problems. It was all kind of racist in the first place, clearing the oldest black neighborhoods for improved traffic flow seems to have been done with little thought for the people who lived there and for a future that now and even as it was built, was overbuilt. Then they "gave" the folks that space for the church to "reconnect" the neighborhood. If we can see how bad these plans were and are why can't the city planners
This is exactly the kind of little negative thing that I've seen too much of in this city in recent years, it's part of why I feel so torn on this city's future. If this kind of stuff is making to committee I can only imagine the other kinds of mistakes and short sighted decisions going on behind the scenes. I mean, a pole barn on a prominent downtown corner? Are they serious?
They should be encouraging the church to sell the land for development or build church owned apartments there, but instead they recommend approval of this pole barn. Why even have zoning laws? Why bother to adopt a form based code? You'd be hard pressed to propose a building that was more against the spirit of the form based code than this.
It's revolting to see that satellite view cropped like that, it makes it impossible to ignore how horrible of a use of land it is.
I honestly couldn't get behind a pole barn anywhere in front of the church, especially near the street, under any circumstances. As you said, the church's poor planning is not the city's nor the neighborhood's problem. An attached structure on the backside of the church would be the best outcome imo.
Does this mean Granger will be footing the bill for the demolition then? I sure hope so. They did absolutely nothing to maintain that. I worked right near it for years and it was always a problem with things collapsing and the homeless getting in...not to mention all the other critters.
I agree...it is a shame though. It really is one of the last few buildings right up there on Grand. I hate to see another field or poorly maintained parking lot. As long as it's a Granger property, it's going to be an eyesore.
Comments
One specific zoning wish/request that I have, and may have mentioned at some point, is regarding the collection of a dozen or so single family properties on the northside of Willow west of Seymour/N Grand River. I'd like to see them rezoned to MX; these properties are up to 500' deep, on the river and in Old Town. They'd seem to me a good case for a targeted effort to redevelop.
I'm hoping the city can convince the LHC to sell their remaining property in this neighborhood. They cannot build another building that concentrates even more low income housing all in this small area. I thought we learned from how projects ended up back in 60's and 70's. I wonder why they're not putting their offices on the ground floor of one of these buildings?
They should be encouraging the church to sell the land for development or build church owned apartments there, but instead they recommend approval of this pole barn. Why even have zoning laws? Why bother to adopt a form based code? You'd be hard pressed to propose a building that was more against the spirit of the form based code than this.
I honestly couldn't get behind a pole barn anywhere in front of the church, especially near the street, under any circumstances. As you said, the church's poor planning is not the city's nor the neighborhood's problem. An attached structure on the backside of the church would be the best outcome imo.
I agree...it is a shame though. It really is one of the last few buildings right up there on Grand. I hate to see another field or poorly maintained parking lot. As long as it's a Granger property, it's going to be an eyesore.