Montgomery development news

[bystander1]

Originally Posted by thoraudio

Don't know that we've seen this render before.



From The Decatur Daily, accompnaying this article.





Nothing new in the article.... but the building... I dunno... nice and modern.... ehhhh..... I dunno...

I know Bronner likes to build "fat" buildings, but that doesn't look too bad...

...a shame we have to get info about our city from another city's media, but that doesn't surprise me.

[Capital Heights]

Not as bad as I feared.......subterfuge??????

Dare I say it? Based upon this rendering I think Bronner may be about to construct a building in Montgomery that I actually like.

[ExpatBaman]

Originally Posted by thoraudio

Don't know that we've seen this render before.

What an eyesore. It's scary to think that this thing could be on Dexter Avenue for decades to come. What's RSA trying to do, make the city and state into architectural laughingstocks? It looks like a giant trash compactor (transformer?), or an insect exoskeleton clutching ("embracing" according to the architect) a giant snowglobe.

What sort of person would propose such a piece of — for Dexter Avenue? Do these people have no respect for our heritage and traditions? Public pressure succeeded in getting the hideous initial design changed for the RSA Battle House Tower in Mobile. Hopefully the same will happen here.




150+ years of tradition down the drain. Shameful that such a lousy building may be taller than the Capitol.

[bystander1]

...you sound like you don't like it.

[Scoots71]

Based on the Decatur rendering and the RSA view down Dexter, I am starting to not mind this building. If you look at it, the part of the capital that is being blocked was already blocked by the other buildings that were already in front of the capital.

besides, as much as I would rather this be built in another way, it's probably time to accept that times will change a little bit. The basis of the view up Dexter is primarily the same. Maybe it's not such a bad thing after all.

[midwestrabbi]

Since I do not live in Montgomery my opinion does not really matter, but as for an outsider now looking in I want to say this. Dr. Bronner and RSA ahve done what no one was willing to do for more than two decades. When my business was downtown no one was willing to spend any money on the buildings in the downtown area. That includes the Aronovs, Lowders, and in my buildings case it was the Lawyer Hills family,among others NO one cared. Dexter and Montgomery Street were becoming ghost towns, and when Mayor Robinson wanted to build the present Civic Center, a city councilman named Folmar voted against it. At that time I was a member of an organization named Montgomery Unlimited. So you can see why I get excited when I read about the growth that is happenning there. But I would like to ask Bronner a question, instead of building six or seven 8 floor buildings why not just build two 20+ floor buildings so downtown will look like a more impressive city than it does with its ONE true high rise?

[ExpatBaman]

The RSA buildings built in downtown Montgomery since 1978 have actually stunted the revitalization of downtown. RSA has flooded the market with office space (with public money) and crowded out the kind of private renovation efforts that have been seen in Birmingham and Mobile over the past two decades.

According to the RSA rep at the forum the other night, RSA has spent $1 billion downtown since 1988. OK, well I have one question: WHERE'S THE BEEF? Downtown is more dead now than it was then. Why should we spend more public money on bad development?

Unfortunately, RSA is still stuck in a rut of obsolete 1960s/70s development ideas, trying to build suburban buildings downtown. Exposed parking decks and buildings with no uses at street level are part of the regrettable past. It's time that RSA left the era of 8-track tapes and pet rocks behind and joined the rest of us in the 21st century.

I could care less if RSA gets another cash cow. I do care if downtown is damaged for decades to come by a lousy, out of scale building that destroys the vista up Dexter Avenue that makes Montgomery such a special place.


Edit: I'm critical of RSA because I care about the future of downtown. RSA is to be commended for many things, including the RTJ Golf Trail and millions of dollars of TV advertising for state attractions. However, the leadership team at RSA took over in the 1970s and seems unable to move beyond the development ideas of that period. We need RSA to recognize the progress that's been made in development techniques over the past 30+ years, and use our public funds on projects that we can all be proud of - not on projects that will lead future generations to ask, "Why in the hell did they do that?"

[midwestrabbi]

But is not this the style of most larger cities ? Though I see little continuity with the building styles in any city in this country . Unlike most cities in europe where one style will flow throughout a whole city.I agree that the style of buildings built in downtown Montgomery have the urban look. Around here ( Denver ) most high and mid rise buildings have street level shops and restaurant in them. It appears Montgomery is stuck in a time warp.

[bystander1]

Originally Posted by midwestrabbi

But I would like to ask Bronner a question, instead of building six or seven 8 floor buildings why not just build two 20+ floor buildings so downtown will look like a more impressive city than it does with its ONE true high rise?

I've been wanting to know the same thing.
The RSA HQ and the Dexter building could have made a new building of about 20 floors. Add in the hotel and you've got 32 new floors RSA has added to the downtown scene.

[ExpatBaman]

Originally Posted by midwestrabbi

But is not this the style of most larger cities ? Though I see little continuity with the building styles in any city in this country . Unlike most cities in europe where one style will flow throughout a whole city.I agree that the style of buildings built in downtown Montgomery have the urban look. Around here ( Denver ) most high and mid rise buildings have street level shops and restaurant in them. It appears Montgomery is stuck in a time warp.

RSA is stuck in a time warp because they prefer to build suburban buildings downtown. The architectural style isn't the issue here. RSA buildings are focused inward, with no street level uses. Retail/restaurants are internalized and cannot be seen by passing pedestrians. RSA tries to eliminate as much street level parking around their buildings as possible. I could go on and on.

I suggest that you educate yourself about the difference between urban and suburban buildings. A good place to start is with Andres Duany's Suburban Nation.

[ExpatBaman]

Originally Posted by midwestrabbi

But I would like to ask Bronner a question, instead of building six or seven 8 floor buildings why not just build two 20+ floor buildings so downtown will look like a more impressive city than it does with its ONE true high rise?

Why would you want to concentrate a decade of development into one building? Some people want to get the cart before the horse in downtown revitalization. The first priority is renovating historic buildings. As the revitalization progresses and developers begin to run out of properties to renovate, infill development will kick in big-time, as it has recently in Mobile.

If RSA really cares about downtown revitalization, then they would spend this $200 million on renovating existing buildings (they could probably renovate every single property on Dexter Ave and more) and wrapping their Dexter Ave parking deck with a liner building. There would probably be a whole bunch of money left over. The RSA spinmeisters like to complain about those vacant old buildings. Why don't they put their money where their mouths are?

[midwestrabbi]

I Totally agree, but these same older buildings sat empty for about 20 years while the land owners in MGM did NOTHING to improve them. The OLD Guard cared nothing for downtown. I have a question ??? What has been done to the Old Montgomery Theatre Building ( Old Webbers Store Corner of Monroe and Perry ) This is my favorite old Building in MGM, it would be a perfect place to bring back what it once was. Another building that I liked was the Kress Building. Every city I go in has a Kress Building and some are more impressive than others. Again Dexter could one day rival Canal Street in N.O. especially if they place the Street Car tracks back down. One more thing, Urban Renewal did one good thing for Dexter, before there were no trees, and the sidewalk was narrow and Dexter was six lanes and in some pics they parked cars in the middle of the street ( 1950s and 60s ) .

[thoraudio]

The Montgomery Theater is owned by the city, and has been stabilized from further deterioration, and is currently for sale.

Kress building is also for sale at the bargain basement price of $1.5 million It has not been stabilized, and is suffering structural damage.

[Chad Emerson]

I agree with Bystander about people not just talking but doing. That's why I have personally invested in options for downtown buildings (including the five points firehouse--wish I could do more than options but three little kids are expensive

And, this is why I respect people like Anna Lowder, Harvi Sahota, Byron, Sam Adams and others--because they invested when many others would not.

Unfortunately, the ability of RSA to build private market projects essentially without having to comply with zoning and other land use regulations gives that entity an unfair advantage over these developers (and other prospective ones).

That is the biggest shame here.

I completely understand that if RSA is building a government building then they should have exemptions.

But, what is the justification for allowing them an unfair competitive advantage in the private office/commercial market over other developers?

The simple answer is that there is none and, by allowing it, we disincentivize other developers from investing downtown because RSA has such a tilted regulatory playing field in their favor.

They can build 12 stories (or 24 for that matter) of leaseable space on their lot but other developers cannot do that.

Why would you invest in a situation like that where your competitor on the private development market essentially has no rules to comply with?

[Capital Heights]

Chad, I know and respect the fact that you are entitled to your opinions; however, you would have more credibility on the issue if you actually lived in Montgomery rather than the Waters which is just more suburban sprawl and is actually part of the town of Pike Road which is more of a threat to the ongoing health of Montgomery than anything Bronner and the RSA might do.

[Chad Emerson]

Capital Heights,

The reason I always post using my real name is because I want to be completely transparent about who I am and what I am advocating.

In this instance, the question of why RSA should have a competitive advantage over other actual/prospective downtown developers for PRIVATE MARKET projects has nothing to do with where someone lives or doesn't live.

That's a red herring in every respect.

Now, that said, I obviously disagree with you on whether The Waters constitutes sprawl.

Indeed, from my house, I can and do walk to get sundries like bread and milk, walk to the YMCA, walk to Community Bank & Trust, can walk to visit the dentist, walk to rent a movie, walk to buy breakfast, lunch, or dinner, walk to go recreate in all types of different natural ways, walk to Bible study, walk to movie nights/concerts/parties and so on.

And, when working at my home office, my commute--by walking--is roughly 20 yards.

Plus, within the next few years, residents to where I live will likely be able to walk to a new elementary school.

In other words, I can and do walk to a wide variety of daily needs.

Sprawl, on the other hand, is defined as development that is single-use and which requires a car trip to access other types of complementary land uses.

I suspect that you will also label Hampstead as sprawl because it is not an infill project. However, at Hampstead, we will be able to walk to even more destinations and, for those that we cannot, will generally not have to drive more than a couple of miles to access them.

It will be one of the country's best multi-use communities and will represent a development where residents can walk and bike to a wide variety of office, residential, civic, and retail uses.

That said, do infill projects also work well? Yes, I strongly agree with that and that is why I am personally investing some of my limited resources in downtown projects.

However, places like Hampstead represent complete communities that are being designed to meet many daily needs within a short, convenient, safe, and interesting walk or bike.

I will be glad to buy you a cup of coffee to discuss how new greenfield development--if done in the right way--can also represent sustainable growth.

Now, regarding your Pike Road statement, that's just unfortunate and ill-informed. I have donated hundreds and hundreds of hours organizing events, speaking to civic and professional groups and providing consulting advice to a wide variety of River Region communities--in most cases for free or at a dramatically reduced rate.

I have no idea who you are because you choose to post--and make disparaging comments like your most recent post--behind the secret veil of an anonymous username.

What I do know is that I have and continue--like many others on this board and elsewhere--to work my — off to try and make this great region and even better place.

And, in this instance, the RELEVANT question is why should one entity be allowed to ignore development laws when developing a private market project while ALL other developers must play by the enacted laws, ordinances, and regulations.

If you have an explanation to that question, I'd enjoy discussing it.

In the meantime, have a nice evening. I'm off to walk to get a pizza, movie for the evening, and a nice Shiraz.

[g-man435]

^^Man, what a boring post. Where's soulja boy when you need him?

[Capital Heights]

My limited research reveals that there is no universally accepted definintion of sprawl. It does seem to me that any development that occurs away from the urban core and leaves in its wake abandoned housing stock, empty school buildings, vacant retail space, lower property values and underutilized infrastructure is a negative thing, whether or not you define it as sprawl. A high density residential development way beyond the urban fringe, with little racial and no economic diversity, outside the taxing and regulatory authority of the urban center that requires its residents to hop in the car and drive to thier jobs in the city aint good either.

I am not sure what my statement about Pike Road has to do with your organizing events and working at a discount. But, I believe the long term viability of this city is threatened by Pike Road and its efforts to siphon off the wealthy and the healthy. I did notice that the town of Pike Road is attempting to collect sales taxes on purchases at the Home Depot at Chantilly and return a portion back to Home Depot. Is that fair and responsible governance?

Now, to your question. Why should RSA not have to abide by local development rules? I suppose the answer is that the legislature, in its wisdom, has recognized the supremacy of the state over its creation: cities. It might just be semantics but I believe the RSA must and will observe all laws and regulations that govern its activities. As the law stands, no city can regulate the activity of an agency of the state.

For the record, I, too, work very hard for this community. I would hope that we can disagree without being disagreeable.

Bon appetit.

[Chad Emerson]

Mr./Mrs. Capital Heights,

Under that definition of sprawl then Old Cloverdale or the Garden District in their original inception would qualify as sprawl as they both leap-frogged existing development and developed in the greenfield where the trolley car lines were extended to.

As designed, places like The Waters, Hampstead, and others are designed to represent a complete settlement upon completion.

This is exactly the approach taken for early trolley car suburbs that represent some of our country's best historical planning efforts.

Based on your username, it appears that you live in Capital Heights.

What specific daily trips/purchases do you typically meet via walking/biking?

That's a key question because while some people may live closer to downtown Montgomery (or, in my case, Faulkner's Jones School of Law where I teach) than me, they also drive much more often--usually because they cannot safely and/or conveniently walk to get something as simple as a gallon of milk or loaf of bread.

[g-man435]

Man, what a boring thread. We need to pump it up some. Get some excitement going.



-And I expect update pics tomorrow.