Quote:
Originally Posted by City Wide
Tools? How so? So you think Toll cut the height and number of units just as a matter of responding to market conditions? If Toll, or whoever, is not requesting a variance, meaning the proposed building fits within the areas zoning and meets the building and other codes, I don't know how the City can approach a private party a suggest a deal. As much as I would like something in this case such a "tool" would be open to great misuse and favoritism. I guess the City through one of its departments could approach Toll and let it be known that the City would look positively on a request for a variance if Toll would do X Y and Z.
The civic design review is suppose to address points having to do with how a building looks and works, but we all know how toothless that process is. Toothless to the point of being meaningless.
|
In what fair and transparent way could the CDR be give actual veto power over projects? I can't think of any. Not sure when people came up with the idea that people (no matter how few) should be able to stop buildings they don't personally like from being constructed. Zoning codes and building regulations are the "teeth" that guide development. The CDR process is just an opportunity for the City and developers to possibly improve planned product for the public good. I would say in general the fact that the information is so public and so widely covered has made developers and architects try a bit harder. But giving 5 people on a panel the power to stymie development based on their personal whims is a bad idea and ripe for abuse. There are architects on the panel- should they really be empowered to shut down projects designed by competitors? If the CDR had the power to demand expensive changes that could lead to stalled or cancelled projects would that be considered a victory?