Quote:
Originally Posted by H2O
I think this filing is in direct response to the proposed CVCs. I know Velocity was already thinking about this, because an architect friend of mine was talking to them about moving the credit union branch over to the site with the existing CVC, so that they could sell the existing branch site for a high rise. That would not be possible with the proposed CVC. But this is moving much faster than would normally be the case.
|
Very good call on the politics of it, IMO.
It's one thing to overlay new CVCs if there's not much interest in the land being affected. It's entirely another to squash active development plans from multiple developers in land that you've already prioritized for redevelopment.
IMO, the new CVCs haven't really been thought through, and are at cross purposes with what the city's already said they want to happen with that area. I know they tend to be a sentimental favorite on the council, but honestly they deserve to challenged.
Threaded Mode