Piedmont Park high-rise, take two
September 26, 2007 at 2:19 pm by Mara Shalhoup in NewsTivoli Properties CEO Scott Leventhal is hoping that what clearly wouldn’t fly for Gwinnett megadeveloper Wayne Mason might fly for him.
Nearly a year ago, Mason’s plans for a pair of 38- and 39-story condo towers were foiled after neighborhood activists argued that the towers would compromise the character — and infrastructure — of the mostly single-family-home surroundings. (Mason’s plan also put a temporary hitch in plans for the proposed Beltline, the 22-mile loop of transit and trails that would circle the city.)
Now, on the other side of the park, Leventhal wants to build a 25-story apartment tower.
According to a story in today’s AJC, Leventhal is trying to sweeten the deal. Mason had tried to sweeten his offering, too, but in a different way: Mason, who had owned a portion of the Beltline’s proposed path, wanted to give the city the Beltline property in exchange for permission to build the towers.
Leventhal, who wants to develop 250 apartments on 13th Street between Piedmont Avenue and Juniper Street, is extending to the city an olive branch of another variety:
Among the incentives he has offered in exchange for a rezoning of the property, Leventhal is proposing a “step down” architecture that would reduce the building’s height closer to the park and a half-price rental rate on 10 percent of the building’s units for Atlanta police officers and firefighters.
It seems doubtful that residents, whose input is required in the rezoning process, will embrace a project as dense as Leventhal’s in exchange for 25 apartments set aside for firefighters and cops. Then again, the neighborhood on that side of the park has more multifamily development, and Levanthal’s tower, though tall, has far fewer units than Mason’s twin towers.
September 26th, 2007 at 5:12 pm
I don’t understand the resistance to apartment development in this area of Midtown. Directly behind Tivoli’s proposed development, on 12th St, is Luxe condominiums, already under construction, which will include 117 units and rise 16 stories above the neighborhood. And Tivoli’s development would be dwarfed by the already existing Mayfair, which rises between 13th and 14th St to 34/35 stories. The prices of rental units would be in line with other units in the area and would satisfy an existing need for apartments in Midtown, while providing reduced rent for firefighters and police, which is more than any other developer has proposed.
September 26th, 2007 at 6:15 pm
there is no resistance to development in this area. There is resistance to development at densities TWICE AS DENSE as that which is allowed. 250 units on less than an acre of land, on a small street . The mayfair has entrances on 13th street and 14th street (a major street), and is still less dense than what tivoli is asking for. If they wanted to build 117 units like the luxe, there would be no opposition. 250 apartment buildigns is a lot more.
Second, at the meeting it was 10 UNITS not 10%. Big difference. Furthermore, its not mentioned in the official application at all.
September 26th, 2007 at 8:33 pm
I was at MNA’s land use committee meeting where some of the discussion took place.
We could argue technical details all day. One of which involves a concept called Transfer of Development Rights. In order to build at the density they’re proposing on that lot, they would have to purchase the rights to develop with that much density from other lots within the zone. TDR is a great tool for preserving historic resources (for example, the Margaret Mitchell house) without making sacrifices in the amount of density required to achieve the vision.
And TDR is allowed within the vision. It’s specifically created for cases like this.
There is a bigger aspect of the vision that — from what I could tell — hardly anyone at the meeting really understood. It’s the vision of creating a neighborhood with lots of amenities within walking distance. I don’t know what it is. There’s something about the idea of new development that brings out the NIMBY in people. And once they wear their NIMBY hats they are driven by unfounded fears and forget the vision. What’s really ironic is the amount of opposition that came from people living in high-rise buildings, which encountered many of the same objections when they were proposed.
What the neighbors should really pay attention to is the first few floors of the development. The design of the bottom floors is the most crucial aspect of creating a pedestrian-friendly environment, where there is not so much need to make accommodations for cars.
LC’s correction is true — Tivoli is proposing ten units of affordable housing, not ten percent. To really take full advantage of any density bonuses they could receive, Tivoli would raise the number of affordable units to twenty percent… which would mean they could propose, instead, building 300 units, with 60 affordable housing units. If they give discounts to residents without cars, I think it would be awesome.
September 27th, 2007 at 5:07 pm
I thought high density development is the Holy Grail…..oh wait, that was a different CL blog post….my bad
September 27th, 2007 at 7:03 pm
Dale…Reread Joe’s comment above. It’s all about where you put it and the existing conditions.
September 28th, 2007 at 6:01 pm
Thomas – I was joking, ….kind of….mainly commenting on the NIMBY people in the original article. Otherwise, I would have directly addressed specific statements made by others.
October 2nd, 2007 at 9:33 pm
I just got back from the NPU meeting where the board voted 5-6 to oppose the development — to their peril.
This development is nothing close to an equivalent to being the Mason towers in the park. Neighbors opposing the project made their arguments based on sets of numbers they did not understand. More important: they believed the numbers they quoted from city ordinance adhered to the Blueprint Midtown vision.
The Midtown Development Review Committee — that’s jargon for the gatekeepers of the vision — came to a strong consensus that the zoning code for this particular area of Midtown was broken. Repairing a zoning code takes a very long time.
The DRC also agreed that the Tivoli property fit the vision of Blueprint Midtown.
The real problem here is that the neighbors who opposed the project were blinded by numbers and ordinances — they could not see the vision.
October 3rd, 2007 at 10:42 am
For the 13th street neighbors – it’s very simple. Use the mechanism that’s in place -TDR to obtain the FAR desired and don’t rezone. There’s very little math there and I don’t know of anyone that doesn’t comprehend it. We simply don’t want to dismantle the Midtown Bluprint – if it’s broken – then fix it!! Don’t engage in what many view as spot zoning (a debatable term in this instance) and set a precedent. We strongly support development in our area and share the urban vision. Sounds like we were at two different NPU meetings last night – but people with differeing opinions tend to “filter” what they hear differently.
October 3rd, 2007 at 10:55 am
As a pro-development Midtown resident that lives in a 36-story highrise nearby (Mayfair Renaissance) and as one of the leaders opposing Tivoli Properties’ 13th Street development as proposed, I want to clarify the area residents’/owners’ concerns. The nearby, affected community is extremely excited about the development opportunities in our neighborhood that will profit private development while contributing positively to area property values and the Midtown vision known as Blueprint Midtown.
We are NOT opposed to the development of high-rise luxury apartments on the site. However, we DO OPPOSE the rezoning application for the proposed 13th Street development. At this point, the rezoning issue is the only issue being voted upon (not design, etc).
To preserve the zoning codes in our neighborhood, we ask residents to please consider joining the opposition to this zoning request.
Please resist being misdirected from the central matter of the Rezoning Request by distractions about housing for public servants, traffic studies, traffic signals, streetscapes, etc. These are relevant issues for another day, but Tivoli’s request to the NPU and Zoning Review Board is to rezone property for a single development. Tivoli does not need the the NPU or ZRB’s permission to fund or implement the other items.
Tivoli’s rezoning request doubles the currently zoned density, increasing the allowable number of units on the property from 100+ to approximately 250 (This has nothing to do with height; it has to do with how much volume a developer places within the height and property).
Here’s why concerned residents respectfully requests that people OPPOSE TIVOLI’S ZONING REQUEST:
â— City approval will constitute a form of “spot zoning,” which will allow the area’s development to exceed current zoning. As the increased density is requested simply to add more rentable/saleable space (as admitted in the formal rezoning application), ALL future developers would likely be granted the same density for the same reason (within our neighborhood, all future development is “close to” the Juniper transition line), thus nullifying current zoning and Blueprint Midtown vision.
â— Granting Tivoli’s zoning request would establish precedent for other developers to site in Superior Court if City of Atlanta denied their similar zoning requests. At a September 27 meeting with more than 70 residents from both Mayfair Renaissance and Mayfair Tower, after clearly residents would not leave the issue alone, Tivoli’s own attorney stood up and stated that there would be nothing to prevent just such a situation. This is the precedent-setting danger to approval of the zoning request.
â— Through Transfer Development Rights (TDR) Tivoli could obtain the desired density without need for a rezoning application AND, additionally, protect a historic property in Midtown. Tivoli simply chooses to do it “on the cheap,” at the cost of our neighborhood’s zoning controls.
â— EVERYTHING Tivoli proposes can be done without anyone’s permission if the firm so chose. • Tivoli needs no permission to make units available at below market rents for Police and fire fighters. • Tivoli needs no permission to offer to fund a traffic study in the area to find the best means to accommodate traffic on 13th. • Tivoli needs no one’s permission to offer to pay for a traffic control signal at 13th & Juniper. • Tivoli needs no one’s permission for increased density on the current site if the firm utilized the city’s Transfer Development Rights program. • Tivoli is simply attempting to achieve its ends at others’ expense, when the tools are in place to do exactly this project as desired without any rezoning request.
â— Midtown Alliance states it does NOT support proposed 13th Street zoning application, as a matter of policy. The Midtown Alliance’s Director of Urban Design stated in writing on September 28th: “As a matter of policy, Midtown Alliance does not support rezoning within Midtown SPI-16 and/or Piedmont SPI-17. The intent of this policy, established by our Board of Directors, is to maintain the integrity of both zoning districts. The establishment of these zoning districts six years ago was a direct result of an inclusive partnership between the City of Atlanta, the Midtown Neighbors Association, Ansley Park Civic Association, NPU-E, area residential/commercial stakeholders, Midtown Alliance over the course of 3 years, and 80+ public meetings.”
â— In a September 26th AJC article, Midtown Neighbor’s Association (MNA)—whose Board voted not to oppose the zoning application—revealed they do not represent upper Midtown near the park and are willing to sacrifice “our” neighborhood in MIdtown, so long as “their” part of Midtown is preserved: Quoted directly from the article, “Developer tries to calm Midtown high-rise foes,” “Elston Collins, president of the Midtown Neighbors’ Association, said residents are receptive to a proposal that would help preserve Midtown’s “eclectic mix” without diminishing the character of its historic district.” Translation: so long as no threat exists to their interest in historic midtown, MNA is unconcerned about sanctioning a threat to upper Midtown near the park.
â— Opposition to Tivoli’s Zoning Application is widespread in the affected area. The Board of Directors for these large condominium communities have signed a resolution against the rezoning: Mayfair Renaissance, Park Central, Colony Park I, Colony Park II, and Ansley Above the Park—representing well over 1000 dwelling units. Moreover, hundreds of individuals from the surrounding area have also signed the petition against Tivoli’s rezoning application.
â— Development of the 13th Street property is economically viable within current zoning/density as demonstrated by David Cochran’s “Luxe Condominiums” currently under construction directly adjacent to the Tivoli site.
Moreover, we are not confused about any “numbers” as Joeventures claims. For me personally, I gew up in a development family where my father, along with Mel Simon, built the majority of malls around the U.S. in the 70’s and 80’s (not that I’m particularly proud of malls…). Moreover, I was involved with him as he built projects with Jim Rouse that settled in the several-hundred-million-dollar category per project range during the 80’s and 90’s. I’m not confused in the slightest—nor are most of my compatriots—with any numbers. Only the Midtown Neighbors’ Association would like to confuse the matter with obfuscation and reference to non-issues unrelated to the rezoning request itself.
If we lose this one, we lose zoning control of our entire developing neighborhood. THAT is the one issue.
(BTW…the Design Review Committee has not determined that anything other than inclusion of certain park areas needs adjustment in the Blueprint Midtown…another point of disingeenuous obfuscation by the Midtown Neighbors’ Association).
October 3rd, 2007 at 11:03 am
Blueprint Midtown has served as a catalyst for change in Midtown since 1997. Through analysis of past projects, strategic planning and the participation of thousands in the Midtown community the Blueprint paved the way for new housing, desirable office space, transportation improvements, and a pedestrian-friendly streetscape program. The plan also inspired the largest rezoning in Atlanta’s history, ensuring the realization of the Blueprint vision in both the letter and spirit of the law.
Tivoli Properties application for rezoning would dismantle the Blueprint and the vision by doubling the current density (Floor to Area Ratio) from 3.2 to 6.4. This is not a height limitation. It is how much volume/area the developer can build out within the height and width of the lot. Tivoli has offered no reason for needing the increase and has admitted the property can be developed within the current zoning. The adjoining property currently under construction and within the same zoning plan on 12th Street (Luxe Condominiums) is being built fully within the existing zoning requirements. Allowing this increase would set a precedent to enable any developer to build with profit as their only directive. Blueprint Midtown is both a vision of what can be and a detailed guide for creating that future. Rezoning would lay waste to all of the careful planning and designing that has gone into the plan. The developers offer of 0, then 10 and most recently 13 units with reduced rental rates for fire and police, would only materialize for the duration of the building as an apartment building. The developer has conceded that the market should stabalize and be ready to absorb new condo’s in 6-12 months. The developer is not building apartments for charity. It is unreasonable to think the building will not be flipped from apartment to condo before it is even completed, just like Metropolis South was. Midtown Alliance, the steward of Blueprint Midtown is also opposed to any rezoning as a matter of policy.
It is very exciting that Tivoli has chosen to build on the adjacent property and we welcome the addition to the neighborhood WITHIN the current zoning.
We simply OPPOSE REZONING when no reason has been given, other than to add to the developer’s profit margin.
October 3rd, 2007 at 2:05 pm
If you don’t want a precedent to be set, then allow the rezoning. If what you say is true — that all you oppose is the rezoning, not the actual development — then the last thing you want to see happen is a precedent to be set in the courts. Had you negotiated with the developer in good faith (as opposed to the screaming and shouting you engaged in last night), you would have helped set a better precedent: one of neighbors, developers and the local government working together to improve the neighborhood.
Had you opposed the rezoning because you didn’t want the development to begin with — perhaps you think the proposed land use is somehow incompatible with surrounding land uses — you would have a more convincing argument.
In your opposition, you have not adequately demonstrated how the development would harm you or the neighborhood. Opposing a rezoning request for the sake of opposing a rezoning request is a typical NIMBY tactic. That’s the only reason why the NPU voted to oppose the development — your arguments appealed to the NIMBYs on the board.
October 3rd, 2007 at 3:37 pm
Joeventure, I don’t find your reasoning to be logical or convincing. But, I appreciate your thoughts and opinions. Keep expressing them as I will certainly continue to express mine: very progressive, very pro-development opinions for well-considered development within well-considered zoning codes.
October 3rd, 2007 at 4:57 pm
Joe, we dont have to demonstrate how it harms us. They have to demonstrate why they are entitled to it. They didnt.
The DRC never voted on it, and surely never said that Tivoli project represents the blueprint. The Midtown Alliance, of which the DRC is a part, oppposes the rezoning.
Tivoli cannot get any density bonuses for this project. There are no density bonuses in this area regardless of how many workforce housing units they build.
You are the one confused. You clearly have not ever read the ordinances.
October 4th, 2007 at 8:03 am
Steven, thanks for your appreciation. In many ways, I believe the zoning codes could be much better-considered.
I would almost go so far as to consider the concept of zoning antiquated because it has taken on a much different form than the original intent of zoning. Back in the age of soot-belching factories, creating “zones” became necessary as a tool to separate uses that were truly incompatible — put the nasty, polluting industries as far away from people who don’t need to be near them without making them completely inaccessible from one another.
That sort of zoning is entirely justifiable as being within the government’s police power — to protect the health, safety and welfare of the community.
It didn’t take very long before zoning began to separate all uses, not just the incompatible uses. Legalisms being what they are, it’s not an especially far reach to then rely on numbers and black-and-white rules to try to govern the built environment.
It’s also easy to rely on those numbers to say, “if the numbers are violated, our neighborhood will go to hell.” I say cities went to hell during the 20th century in part because we tried to use those numbers in place of common sense.
In school, I took classes in urban planning — majored in it. They taught us about all these tools within the framework of zoning… setbacks, FAR, TDR… it’s all a convoluted mess. That the concept originated from something so simple and necessary is an irony in itself.
The wisdom that MNA is working from is the understanding that design issues are more important than zoning ordinances (I’m not arguing the ordinance doesn’t matter to MNA — the board clearly did not take the decision they made lightly by any stretch of the imagination). Had the 13th Street neighbors paid attention to what mattered, they could’ve made an argument rooted in common sense, in addition to the ordinance. Then their arguments would have been able to grab a larger majority vote at the NPU.
It’s absurd to think a huge crowd could be gathered and riled up as much as they were the other night just to oppose rezoning out of principle. “We support development, but when you try to rezone we’ll bring out the pitchforks.” Frankly, it’s kind of difficult to speak from a viewpoint of logic in the face of so much irrationality.
October 4th, 2007 at 11:02 am
I am a new resident to both Atlanta and 13th Street. I bought here because I believe Midtown is soon to be Atlanta’s best place to shop, work, live, and play. Great things are planned for Midtown. I live at Parc Vue and Tivoli’s proposed building would be right next door. I don’t mind at all having a nice new building to replace what’s currently there, athough I will miss the beautiful huge trees. There is no way concrete overides that, but that is the price of progress sometimes.
I think developers should be required to build structures that are pleasing to walk by and have some setback so as to allow for trees and landscaping. Parc Vue was built prior to the zoning codes in question, but it has a very pleasing appearance to walk by on the way to the park. There are trees, grass, dirt and professional landscaping. The residents enter their garage from the side and there’s no evidence of a garage from the front. Next door to Parc Vue is The Luxe and they are building under the current zoning with no problem. It does disturb me that Tivoli wants to have their garage accessed from the front and would have the first 6 floors devoted to garage space. Plus, it would be cold concrete walls all the way to the sidewalk. To me that is not a pleasing inviting appearance.
In fact, it reeks of developer greed. They know the rules and for reasons of their own greed they seek to change the rules for their project. That doesn’t fly with me. It doesn’t fly with the neighborhood either. If The Luxe can be built on the terms of the current zoning and it’s good enough for them (a much classier building anyway), then it should be good enough for Tivoli. I understand that many developers first come in with apartment rentals so as to skirt by the codes and get other concessions during construction. But their intention all along is to convert to condos. Well, this is a no-brainer. Obviously, you make more money with 250-300 apartments (condos) than you do with 125-150 on the same footprint.
This whole issue boils down to money and greed. I appears to me that Tivoli cares nothing for the community. All they seem to care about is filling their pockets with more money. Come back with a reasonable plan and adhere to the Midtown vision like everyone else is doing. Then you can build your building. You can still make money. You just won’t be stealing it at the expense of the neighborhood. But that’s the right thing to do. Set an example. Be a good citizen. This is Atlanta, Georgia — not New York City.
October 4th, 2007 at 11:30 am
It does disturb me that Tivoli wants to have their garage accessed from the front and would have the first 6 floors devoted to garage space.
This is the sort of argument that sways me. It’s an issue of design and how the pedestrian environment is either enhanced or threatened. That’s a helluva lot more practical and sensible than arguing over FAR and zoning.
The Mason towers had a similar problem — by accommodating cars too much, they would have made automobiles more necessary.
I would certainly hope this problem can be corrected.
October 4th, 2007 at 11:38 am
Oh… by the way, since you mentioned NYC, and as long as you’re talking about greenspace…
Check out this recent video from StreetFilms. There’s a whole event that happens every year where New Yorkers turn parking spaces into miniature park spaces.
Oh yeah… and this video shows off a surface parking lot that was turned into a pocket park — something we could use more of.
October 4th, 2007 at 12:32 pm
It’s good to find some common groound, Joeventures.
However, I want to emphasize that currently, the issue being voted upon is soley one of zoning, not of design. THAT is why we have refined our points to the zoning matter.
Now, while I respect that you don’t feel zoning codes are appropriate in this day and age, I would maintain that they are indeed necessary. The approach to establishing zoning codes must change from one of imposition from only an engineering and urban planning perspective (which is the old methodology) to one that is more inclusive of stakeholders, representative Non-Governmental Organizations (NGO’s), and government agencies.
THAT second and more modern means of zoning code formation was utilized to establish Blueprint Midtown that was then codified into law by City Council. The process for our current code was well-vetted over a three year period with a process of more than 80 public meetings.
I would further posit that it is because of this codified Blueprint Midtown that Midtown has developed appropriately and rapidly from a footnote of underutilization and dilapidation between Downtown and Buckhead to a vibrantly developing national example of progressive zoning and focused effort to reinvent an area. The plan is still young, very successful, and working as anticipated.
It is the benefit of this excellent planned zoning that we wish to protect as it is the law which has protected and enhanced our lifestyles and property values.
I’ve lived in a city with laissez fair zoning codes. It’s name is Houston, and it is a disgusting but excellent example of the failure of developers and businesses to properly grow a city and create an inviting, satisfying living environment.
My compatriots and I will not allow unfettered business interests to ruin the codes which have stimulated development of our neighborhoods and areas and established the beginnings of an excellent urban lifestyle.
October 4th, 2007 at 1:52 pm
Joe,
In regard to your comments regarding working with the developer….
“Had you negotiated with the developer in good faith (as opposed to the screaming and shouting you engaged in last night), you would have helped set a better precedent: one of neighbors, developers and the local government working together to improve the neighborhood.â€
The truth is the neighborhood was never advised or consulted about this project during the 8 months of closed-door negotiations between the MNA board and the developer. The MNA claims this project was listed on their website and that it is the residents’ responsibility to monitor the site. The minutes of the MNA Land Use committee meetings are archived on the MNA website.
I have reviewed those reports from March through October and the first mention of this rezoning was posted on Aug. 30, exactly 5 days before the NPU-E meeting on Sep. 4 when this rezoning request was originally scheduled for a vote.
MNA has claimed they tried to have a meeting with 13th street residents to discuss the project, but that the residents cancelled the meeting. Yet not one board member from any condo association on 13th street, nor any other resident we can find, was ever invited to, or aware of, this meeting. The MNA has never advised who was invited to this mystery meeting.
The reality is the MNA had cut a deal with the developer to support the rezoning in exchange for the inclusion of affordable workforce housing in the project. Neither party wanted the neighborhood to be involved because there was no “wiggle room†in the deal. No increased FAR meant no discounted apartments for police and firefighters.
The MNA Land Use committee voted not to oppose the rezoning at their meeting on Sep. 24.
A last minute meeting between the developer and residents of two of the neighborhood condos was held on Sep. 26, two days AFTER the MNA committee had already voted to support the rezoning.
The full MNA board voted not to oppose (their term for supporting the rezoning) one day later on Sep. 27.
This is why the neighbors were justifiably angry at the disingenuous and false claims by the MNA that they had tried to include the neighborhood in the process.
You are absolutely correct that if the MNA and the developer had negotiated with the neighbors there might have been a possibility of compromise, but the paternal arrogance of the MNA board prevented that from happening. The NPU-E board member from Ansley Park stated it well when she said she hoped the MNA had learned a lesson from this experience. This could certainly have been handled in a better way if the MNA had operated with transparency and been inclusive in their dealings with the residents of the 13th street corridor.
October 4th, 2007 at 7:36 pm
Well, then, I hope y’all are lobbying members of the City Council right now. My bet is ZRB will recommend a denial of the application. Ultimately, the application will go to the Council. And you can probably count on Tivoli lobbying members of the City Council right now.
I’ve finally heard arguments that convinced me the application should be opposed.
Good luck and lobby hard.
My personal viewpoint on zoning in general, by the way, (which is not fully fleshed out here) hasn’t changed.
February 15th, 2008 at 7:23 am
Now that the Tivoli project has become political fodder for the City Council and Tivoli is finally giving in to the NIMBY’s of 13th & 14th Street Atlanta is going to pay the price. Tivoli has succumbed to the pressure to purchase TDRs to obtain the density they have been requesting. $2,000,000 will go to the Academy of Medicine and 13 affordable units for Atlanta Police & Firefighters are gone. So be the politics of Atlanta City Council.
That aside, the real interest in this entire conversation is the perverse position of a few NIMBY’s in my building and others that Blueprint Midtown and our zoning must be preserved. Yet, on the very same day that the Tivoli project was dealt with at the City Council the Council approves the rezoning of a mega project within the same area under Blueprint Midtown. At 131 Ponce de Leon, Council approves rezoning of a Blueprint property that doubles density and increases height from 100 feet to 600 feet! This rezoning was an entire city block, not a 100+ feet change that Tivoli was requesting. Not one word of opposition, not one email was sent by the people so outraged by the Tivoli project.
Now that it’s all over, the discussion is done; the voices so opposed in these blogs are exposed for who they are: NIMBYs.
Send your thanks to them, in the true tradition of Atlanta one small entity (The Academy of Medicine) will reap a $2million bonus by selling their TDRs. Of course our police and firefighters can keep driving a 1 ½ hours each way to and from work while they look for higher paying jobs closer to home. The NIMBY’s claim that Tivoli can still provide the units; duh guys, there is something called profit. If you’re so against profit why don’t you drop the price of the condo’s you have for sale for the police and firefighters?
So many issues, so many complicated ordinances……….the bottom line is that the NIMBY’s are finally exposed for the hypocrites that they are. They cry foul when a simple rezoning with significant public good is offered in their backyard, but don’t say a thing when the same rezoning (on a much larger scale in the same SPI) is in front of Council on the same day. The NIMBY’s cry precedent setting on 13th Street, but stay silent as the real test of precedent goes through without opposition. The end result is that the developers got what they wanted: the rezoning precedent within Midtown’s SPI-16 which opens the door for rezoning within the entire Midtown area and the NIMBY’s got the middle class police and firefighters out of their jumbo mortgage neighborhood.
February 15th, 2008 at 10:20 am
I think many of us on the south site of the neighborhood are aware how much density is needed.
Just take a look at the stark contrast between the northern and southern sides of Midtown. As much as some of the neighbors (especially my neighbors to the north) hate density, they should be aware of the role density plays in making life on the northern side much better.
Being a southern Midtowner, I’m glad to see development finally rolling into Ponce. I just wish the project on the Mansion block was bigger, and with a mix of uses.