Quote:
Originally Posted by Komeht
1. What's with the distinction between vertical or horizontal housing? Do you think there's some inherent bias against people who live in vertical housing? Here? On this board? Skyscraper page - right? I mean - really where is this coming from?
2. Your right to a rational discussion (I think you get that here) doesn't give you a right to agreement. It doesn't even get you a right to empathy if unwarranted.
3. The developer wants to replace a Taco Cabana - a Taco freaking Cabana - on town lake - with VMU. Sorry for those people who thought they got to keep those views forever - but - the rest of us we benefit.
4. Far too often too much weight is given to neighbors (who always oppose something next door) and not enough weight to the wider community.
5. NIMBYism began in an era where new development almost always meant new crappy development and the trade-off wasn't a fair deal. But it has a life of its own now and that's unfortunate, because the urban development today isn't what it was in the 1980s. And this PUD is exactly the kind of thing the city should be doing everywhere. And even here - Jeff Jack wants to deny the process. He doesn't just think that the developers shouldn't be granted the variance - Jeff Jack thinks they shouldn't even have the right to ask for the variance in the first place. He opposes PUDs for lots like this when the whole purpose is to get development exactly like this.
6. As for all of us having to ask how would we feel if a particular development went in - you know what - too bad. That is not my job. All I have to do is look at it from MY perspective. And from MY perspective, we're trading a Taco Cabana for exactly the kind of thing I want in this city - dense VMU. And if they don't like it - that's fine. But I'm not going to agree with them.
This is an attractive development. It is exactly where we need to be developing. It is exactly what we need to be doing more of. It is unfortunate that when a developer wants to do the right thing they are punished and when they want to do the wrong thing (low density, set backs, lots of parking) they are rewarded with easy permits.
You want empathy for that position?
|
I don't think you understood what Michael is trying to say which is a much broader statement than a simple commentary on this particular development. Not all development is good development, even when it involves redeveloping an underutilized property. For example, not all uses are compatible with neighboring development and I agree with Michael that we need to exercise our right to protest a change when that happens.
In this case I think we can all agree that this proposal, if built, will be a very good thing for that corner and the argument against it is weak at best. Density in and near downtown is good, it's unlikely that this development will negatively impact its neighbors, and the use is very appropriate and compatible with nearby development.