My previous post started to address the question raised as part of the Edgewater debate: is the development review process in Madison broken? With an attempt at starting a conversation, I featured the Park Central development in the Marquette neighborhood as one success story of the process.
David Waugh commented on the experience in the Tenney-Lapham
neighborhood with recent development projects. David cited the Colony Condominiums at 627 E. Mifflin, being developed by Great Dane Development, as a success story. The neighborhood endorses the 66-unit project, designed to comply with the proposed East Washington Avenue BUILD Plan and ranges in height from 3 stories along E. Mifflin to seven stories at the rear lot line. The three story elevation consists of a series of rowhouses with individual entries enhancing the streetscape.
627 E. Mifflin Street existing
In their endorsement of the project, the Tenney-Lapham Neighborhood Assocation cited the following positive elements:
• Owner occupancy
• Townhouses with private entryways on East Mifflin
• Diversity of floor plans
• Lower building massing on East Mifflin graduating toward higher massing on the block interior.
• Distinctive, quality architecture with interesting details
Details of the project provided by the neighborhood can be found here.
Another Tenney-Lapham project, on the 700 block of East Johnson Street, involved more controversy because it removed 11 homes. David states that the developer, Stone House Development (also the developer of Park Central Apartments) “worked with the neighborhood and it sailed through all city processes.”
Planning for the large-scale, full-block redevelopment of the Don Miller Subaru site on the 800 block of East Washington involved extensive neighborhood input. Although the project failed due to a financing dispute between the City and the developer, Gorman and Company, the neighborhood process was positive (perhaps the developer is relieved not to have all those condo units on the market right now–now we have a chance to focus more on employment needs).
So far, we have 4 examples of recent medium- to high-density development projects that successfully worked through the city process. Common elements between these projects are:
- existence of and adherence to a neighborhood plan that includes design guidance and standards
- early involvement with all stakeholders, including the neighborhood
- willingness on all parties to be flexible and work together towards a project that meets multiple objectives (quality of life, financial, environmental)
I would love to hear from others about their experiences with the process, whether positive or negative, so we can expand the list of what works and doesn’t work.
Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. famously said “hard cases make bad law.” I believe that when all is said and done (and lets hope that day comes soon!) the same will probably be said about the Edgewater experience. It was a hard case and it would probably be unwise to draw too many conclusions from it.
There is no doubt that the review process can be more strenuous when a project is outside of the parameters of current zoning and past planning. But, is that not to be expected?
On the flip side, sometimes the best architecture and land use happens on interesting if not difficult sites or in unexpected areas. Great cities are almost always put together like Rubrik’s Cubes. One decision creates the unforeseen possibility of another move. Over planned urban areas rarely feel dynamic and interesting. Instead, they take on a suburban air.
It would be great if we could have both the benefits of planning and the exciting possibilities of spontaneity. It would also be satisfying if we could all agree that historical preservation and supporting progress are not in conflict with each other. Madison has a lot of smart people. We should be able to find this balance.
———————–
I would like to mention a couple of projects where there have been good out comes.
The first one I played a role in. I was part of a neighborhood committee, the Preservation and Development Committee of the Marquette Neighborhood Association, that vetted the project that is currently being built at the corner of S. Baldwin and Williamson Street right across from the Chrystal Corner Bar.
We early on supported the builder, Scott Lewis, and recognized that in order to have underground parking the building would need to be larger than those on the other three corners. Instead, we shifted our focus to encouraging him to develop a really good design. We asked him to take chances and surprise us with his choices of design elements and building materials.
I believe Scott Lewis would say we were supporters of him developing the best project that is feasible for that site and that the neighborhood was not an obstacle but made the project better. I hope he makes a lot of money on it.
Here is a link to a Mike Ivey article about the final approval. It has a rendering of what the building will look like. http://host.madison.com/ct/business/article_7a520032-c871-11de-968d-001cc4c002e0.html
I would like to mention one other project because the newest phase is just now being finished and I really love it.
Capitol West is just a great project that has had many different phases that are now adding up to an exciting whole. It is truly architectural eye candy. Also, if you walk around the site you will really appreciate that even though it is quite large it really works on the human scale. I would be interested in knowing how the “process” helped or hindered this cool addition to our city. I do know TIF money was used. I also know that changes in use occurred at different stages of the project.
Here is a slide show of Capitol West. http://host.madison.com/ct/business/article_7a520032-c871-11de-968d-001cc4c002e0.html
——————-
So, is the process “broken”?
My sense is that in many if not most cases it works just fine. In some cases it works less than ideal. I don’t think you can design a process that will work perfectly in every situation. Instead, what is needed is strong leadership at both the city level and at the neighborhood level.
A little more good will on all sides also wouldn’t hurt.
The development process is ‘broken’ only from the point of view of the developers and their toadies, Decider Dave and the appropriately named ‘Common’ Council.
It’s ‘broken’ because the developers don’t have carte blanche to do whatever they want to do regardless of the neighbors of their projects. It’s ‘broken’ because city process was set up to give us the people of Madison a decisive role in the development process.
People with money are cry-babies, defensive about anything or anyone who says ‘No’ to them, and exceedingly careless with the truth. We no longer have a republic, we have ‘government of the people, by the political hacks, for the Moneyed Interests.’
City government has what I call a ‘Decider/Enabler’ structure; Decider Dave listens to what Downtown Madison Inc says to , and relays it to the Council, and they enable him to do it. This is a codependent relationship, and the addictive substance is boodle for the political hacks’ campaign funds and the like.