Latest in a series of posts on the Armory
Latest in a series of posts on the Armory
So there was considerable kumbaya from the Head Table at the end of last Thursday’s Planning Commission meeting on the Armory, what is probably the last public meeting before construction begins.
Two of the Commission members really and no doubt sincerely applauded the value of the resident participation.
For example, just before the vote that perhaps once and for all green-lighted the developer, one member said, I “really appreciate the comments from the public today, some very good suggestions, some great dialog here today . . . we’re communicating.”
Whoa! Not so fast.
The residents spoke. But the best they have is hope that the developer was listening and will/might act on their recent ideas and suggestions.
What the neighbors were left with was hope.
Why couldn’t the Planning Commission add some conditions based on resident input?
For instance, the neighbors thought they had a “verbal agreement” with the developer to work together on the barrier fence between the new construction and the adjoining properties.
Likely, nobody mentioned that agreement to the architect. She said that the fence “probably will be that shadow-box type of fencing” that apparently the neighbors had previously talked about.
It is not obvious that the developer remembers such an agreement. And Gadfly is no expert in voice tones, but the developer’s “I’m open to discussing it with the neighbors” doesn’t sound to him all that enthusiastic. Listen, see what you think.
And all the PC chair can say, while explicitly agreeing with the neighbors, is that kind of fence “would be something I would hope the developer would consider.”
Why could it not have been a condition of approval that the developer and neighbors agree on the fence type?
Then no need for the neighbors to hope.
A second example.
The subject is tree removal.
Look at how in these words from the PC chair, hope — fragile hope — is the soft pivot (literally in the center of his statement) around which glittering encomiums (good SAT word) about the value of resident ideas orbit.
“The dialog that we’ve had here this evening is important. It’s so important to hear what the neighbors and the taxpayers and the citizens have to add. One thing that was mentioned . . . I hate those lantern flies. I hope the developer does something to remove those trees so that those things don’t come back. Little things like that, those are details, and I won’t even say like small details, those details are vital.”
Damnation, if what the neighbors had to say is so important, if the tree “little” detail is so “vital,” then why not make it a condition of approval that the developer do a certain action?
Instead of hoping that it will be done.
Does not the PC have that power?
A third example.
And the most significant.
Jeff Pooley describes the “suburban strip-mall type parking area” along Second Avenue in the proposed design and says the “Planning Commission has the opportunity to prevent what could be a kind of a self-inflicted wound,” for all authorities would agree that best practice is to move the building to the street and put parking behind. Even Gadfly knows that from his summer reading in Jeff Speck that he reported on in these pages multiple times.
But all Jeff can do is hope. “Putting suburban strip-mall parking along the street is a great mistake,” you heard in his conclusion, “and one we hope you would prevent.”
Now this is a big point. A major revision of the design. And one determining the look and feel of a gateway to the West Side.
If ever there was an invitation to “great dialog,” there it was.
Wouldn’t it have been a great moment — for Gadfly a defibrillator moment — if the PC chair had turned — politely — to the architect and asked for her professional response to Jeff’s comment?
Instead there was a polite “Thank you, Mr. Pooley,” and the chair moved on.
That kind of design comment/question might as well be spoken in another language in meetings like this.
Gadfly is reminded of his recent muddle over 548 N. New (see the sidebar to refresh on this pertinent series of posts). By the time that Bill Scheirer, Kim Carrell-Smith, and Jerry Vergilio questioned the design, it was too late in the process.
The process is then too far along for a proposal to be questioned much less for it to fail.
Something is wrong with such a process in which such significant and informed public commentary is not aired and addressed earlier.
Planning Commissioner backpatting was well meaning but a bit self-serving. Communication is two-way. The PC didn’t act when it could have. Didn’t speak when it should have.