Quote:
Originally Posted by biggus diggus
I think you picked up about half of my point, probably my fault for not explaining better.
Imagine an apartment developer wants to raze a drive thru liquor store on 7th Avenue and the community goes nuts and stops it. This is called protecting the character and integrity of your neighborhood.
Now imagine a developer wants to raze blocks of a neighborhood full of quirks and charm and history so he can build generic buildings that could fit in any other big city and people go nuts. This is called protecting the character and integrity of the neighborhood.
I do not see it any differently if you boil it down to the main point which is "what's here has significance, we aren't okay with replacing it with more homogeneity."
|
First off, I don't care one way or the other about this project. Frankly I think a lot of 'Old Town' nowadays is about as charming as the old pink drive thru liquor store on 7th Ave, but to each his own.
Secondly, the area in question isn't a neighborhood, it's a business district. So the 14,000+ people who signed the petition in favor of the referendum don't and can't live in or even near the proposed development. Additionally, it's not the whole of Old Town in question, but 10 acres along the canal. This is what what was reported back in 2019 on AZCentral:
"Carter Unger, president of Spring Creek Development, which is behind Southbridge II, told The Arizona Republic the referendum movement was frustrating as he is committed to transparency and working with business owners about their concerns.
"We went through the city council process, we did way more outreach than was required, we had overwhelming support. Now they’re attempting to usurp the way these processes work," he said. "The saddest part of all of it is they’re just going to hurt the merchants on Fifth Avenue."
Also:
'...A handful criticized the project as too tall and dense and said it would change the area's unique character and push out local businesses. Most supported the project, arguing that Scottsdale is no longer a sleepy town and that rejecting the project would stifle growth.'
I'm also guessing that a lot of those in opposition haven't even been to the old town area recently. However, just like the people who live in the suburbs of Phoenix assume downtown is still as dead as it was 15 years ago, the opposition also has an outdated picture of what Old Town is actually like now. I wouldn't be surprised if half of them were unaware that there are already 12-15 story midrises on the north side of the canal. Again, just guessing.
To me, redevelopment means knocking stuff down and putting something else there. If the Old Town PAC meant they only want rehabilitation or repurposing of existing structures then they sure haven't communicated that very well as far as I can tell. If that's what they really want then it seems that a push for historical designation of the properties in question would be something they should have done/be doing in addition to or instead of the referendum. As long as the developer stays within the Type I or Type II zoning already approved for that area of downtown, I don't think there is much anyone can do as things stand. The only reason it went to the council is because of the request to change the zoning to Type III. So if they want to 'build generic buildings that could fit in any other big city' they are within their rights to do so as long as it conforms to current zoning since it is their land after all.
I'm not necessarily disagreeing with what you're saying, but my point is that if those in opposition want what you say they want and feel the way you say they do, then they better start doing a better job of communicating that and take steps to protect what's there. Otherwise they
will end up with some low density generic junk instead of what seems to be a fairly decent proposal.
Sorry for the long post and it isn't as succinct as I'd like, but I'm bored as hell after being almost totally inside for the last 7 days
Stay healthy everyone!
Prev
Linear Mode
