Its bad enough the city added a new traffic light at 21st and the Pedestrian path that was unnecessary and causes traffic to back up twice in a one block space. Now some developer thinks its time to tear down deco-period apartments that have added charm and character to the area for 80 years. They are always rented and seldom troublesome but it appears we don't need residential multi-family housing in this stretch. WE NEED CS (SHOPPING CENTER) ZONING ON THE SIDE OF A HILL where turning onto and out of Boston Avenue is already pretty dicey.
Of course, across the street on the south side of 21st at Boston has multiple vacant lots where the last developer tore down buildings and failed to build a high rise development. And a suitable bunch of vacant lots and empty buildings already exist next to the fire station on 18th and Boston. No. They just won't do. We need to tear down more buildings to capitalize on the charm the previous buildings once contributed.
It just won't suffice till we can recreate the rape of the Cherry Street neighborhood. Do I sound bitter? Anyone know details on this newest project?
The ones with the red tile roofs? Hopefully the zoning change won't be permitted at this location. I doubt the neighbors will want it when there is already a retail corridor a couple blocks away along Boston between 15th and 18th.
Obviously I am in favor of this development. It makes Aqua angry. :P
Quote from: SXSW on May 27, 2014, 10:36:32 PM
The ones with the red tile roofs? Hopefully the zoning change won't be permitted at this location. I doubt the neighbors will want it when there is already a retail corridor a couple blocks away along Boston between 15th and 18th.
On the north side of 21st. Nothing special but they contribute to the variety and character of the area. The area to the north on Boston is a mix of office and residential.
Quote from: guido911 on May 28, 2014, 03:28:23 AM
Obviously I am in favor of this development. It makes Aqua angry. :P
Me? Angry? Just cranky and malajusted. We have a lot in common. ;)
who would want to tear those down? Especially with all of the empty lots on the other side of the street?
(https://cbks1.google.com/cbk?output=thumbnail&cb_client=maps_sv&thumb=2&thumbfov=60&ll=36.133352,-95.985661&yaw=8.5&thumbpegman=1&w=300&h=118)
Pitchfork and torch time!
The most important thing in my opinion is how any new development is situated there, aka, will it be pedestrian friendly or not, building up to the sidewalk, etc. In a pedestrian friendly area it would also make sense for there to be living above retail. This wouldn't need to be a change from residential to shopping, it could be both.
On a similar concern, it occurred to me the other day when thinking about people who complain that any zoning for pedestrian friendly areas (requiring buildings be up to the sidewalks in some areas for instance) is "government intrusion telling property owners what to do" or government trying to "pick winners and losers" etc.
The thought was this...
"We have minimum parking requirements for instance because this helps make auto centric, suburban style development operate efficiently and effectively." Well, having buildings placed up to the sidewalk is one component of allowing pedestrian/cycle centric, urban style development to operate efficiently and effectively as well."
Seems we readily acknowledge that there are regulations which help auto centric development/culture work well, but are loathe to acknowledge that there is any need for any regulations to help pedestrian/transit centric development/culture work well. And we certainly don't seem to want to consider that the current auto centric regulations actually hurt any developer or area in the city that would want to have successful pedestrian friendly development occur for the auto centric regulations are actually harmful to creating good pedestrian/transit friendly development.
This area around 21st and Boston would be another area that would greatly benefit imo from being a more transitional type area that could endeavor to be more pedestrian friendly. Even though at first it would still be frequented mostly by those in automobiles, having new buildings be pedestrian friendly and up to the sidewalk, with any parking behind, would be a way to allow for this area to be able to effectively evolve to be more transit/pedestrian friendly (and friendlier to the neighborhood) over time.
I bet a shopping center there will be a great place to buy e-cigarettes, a Subway sandwich, and get a tattoo.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on May 28, 2014, 09:10:42 AM
I bet a shopping center there will be a great place to buy e-cigarettes, a Subway sandwich, and get a tattoo.
Let's hope they get a T-Mobile, Great Clips, and a California Nails salon as well.
Quote from: Conan71 on May 28, 2014, 09:15:06 AM
Let's hope they get a T-Mobile, Great Clips, and a California Nails salon as well.
And tanning. My God, we need more tanning.
Quote from: DTowner on May 28, 2014, 09:59:00 AM
And tanning. My God, we need more tanning.
Spray tan or tanning beds? How about both?
Quote from: Conan71 on May 28, 2014, 10:00:41 AM
Spray tan or tanning beds? How about both?
Absolutely!
Gotta have a "threading" place too. Conan needs to get his eyebrows did.
(http://cdn.styleblueprint.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/bad-eyebrows.jpg)
What on earth needs to be built there that can't be done on the vacant lot on the other side of the intersection?
Quote from: DowntownDan on May 28, 2014, 11:51:56 AM
What on earth needs to be built there that can't be done on the vacant lot on the other side of the intersection?
Its probably one of these reasons. Maybe the spot building on it is $300,000 and they want $3 million for an empty lot across the street (seen a few of these recently). Cause all that no building makes it worth 10x more, they don't want to sell that land, or want too much for it.
Its a perfectly awful spot for a shopping center. Its an uphill left turn from Riverside. Its a downhill entry from Lee school at a practically blind corner on Boston. Unless they purchase the half million dollar property immediately to the east or the offices to the north, its no more than a strip center at best. If they do purchase those properties, the pedestrian path crosses right through them.
It may explain why the traffic signal went from a user operated stop light for pedestrians to an automatic interval traffic light which no one asked for. Because of another traffic signal at Cincinnati a block away, it causes traffic to back up in both directions. Traffic from Riverside now waits uphill for no particular reason.
I have lived near Lee for nearly 38 years and now have to go around Boulder park to 18th to avoid a suburban style traffic jam at rush hour. We had hoped to see the old Louisiane torn down and a nice shopping area added from there southward where it belongs. Really dumb to ignore existing vacant land to increase traffic and diminish the 'hood. But we seem to do a lot of that.
Where did you see this, on the TMAPC agenda or is there a sign up for the zoning change? The neighborhood should fight this.
Sign just popped up in front of the property this week. Hard to see. I jog past it. Hearing on June 5 iirc.
Its not part of Maple Ridge but they should certainly be involved.
Quote from: AquaMan on May 28, 2014, 01:18:02 PM
Sign just popped up in front of the property this week. Hard to see. I jog past it. Hearing on June 5 iirc.
Its not part of Maple Ridge but they should certainly be involved.
Out of town all week, if you could post any more details I'll relay to those I know living in Maple Ridge.
Quote from: SXSW on May 28, 2014, 01:27:41 PM
Out of town all week, if you could post any more details I'll relay to those I know living in Maple Ridge.
Thanks. It's Wednesday June 4th.
I just checked the TMAPC website, it looks like this is the northwest corner of 21st & Boston not the red-tile roof apartments across the street. I'd be interested in what retail is planned, and their site plan. It could be okay if it fronts 21st and Boston, or if a restaurant, has outdoor seating facing the park with parking to the north.
Quote from: AquaMan on May 27, 2014, 07:23:37 PM
Its bad enough the city added a new traffic light at 21st and the Pedestrian path that was unnecessary and causes traffic to back up twice in a one block space.
Have you ever tried crossing that path during peak hours? I would assume not. I ran that trail for years and it was awful to cross.
Quote from: davideinstein on May 28, 2014, 03:55:20 PM
Have you ever tried crossing that path during peak hours? I would assume not. I ran that trail for years and it was awful to cross.
Good for raising the heart rate?
Quote from: SXSW on May 28, 2014, 03:24:50 PM
I just checked the TMAPC website, it looks like this is the northwest corner of 21st & Boston not the red-tile roof apartments across the street. I'd be interested in what retail is planned, and their site plan. It could be okay if it fronts 21st and Boston, or if a restaurant, has outdoor seating facing the park with parking to the north.
Gosh I hope you're right. The sign is in front of the apartments.I agree that location would be better.
Quote from: davideinstein on May 28, 2014, 03:55:20 PM
Have you ever tried crossing that path during peak hours? I would assume not. I ran that trail for years and it was awful to cross.
About three times per week. I didn't mind the pedestrian actuated lights for those with strollers or kids but the automatic interval traffic light is overkill and counter productive.
Quote from: AquaMan on May 28, 2014, 04:03:12 PM
About three times per week. I didn't mind the pedestrian actuated lights for those with strollers or kids but the automatic interval traffic light is overkill and counter productive.
The light seems redundantly redundant. ;D
Abundantly so.
Quote from: SXSW on May 28, 2014, 03:24:50 PM
I just checked the TMAPC website, it looks like this is the northwest corner of 21st & Boston not the red-tile roof apartments across the street. I'd be interested in what retail is planned, and their site plan. It could be okay if it fronts 21st and Boston, or if a restaurant, has outdoor seating facing the park with parking to the north.
That would make more sense. There is a small building there that has been some different things but nothing noteworthy that I can tell as far as architecture or history. I think it'd be nice for a restaurant there with a patio view of Veterans Park.
Also, I run the trail quite often and I like the light. I drive by there a lot and rarely have experienced a backup of traffic.
Go by there at 5:05 to 5:30 pm. Its hilarious. Cars backed up for two blocks each way and no one crossing the street. Then, another light a block further. You can almost see people mouthing the words, "pancakes?" I can't turn left on Boston or Detroit to get to my area.
But its not the light, its that they have made it automatic rather than pedestrian actuated.
note: not actually pancakes but the normally accepted txt version of dismay and irritation. ;)
Quote from: AquaMan on May 28, 2014, 06:08:40 PM
Go by there at 5:05 to 5:30 pm. Its hilarious. Cars backed up for two blocks each way and no one crossing the street. Then, another light a block further. You can almost see people mouthing the words, "pancakes?" I can't turn left on Boston or Detroit to get to my area.
But its not the light, its that they have made it automatic rather than pedestrian actuated.
note: not actually pancakes but the normally accepted txt version of dismay and irritation. ;)
If that's true, I'd agree that the joggers should have to activate it only when necessary.
Quote from: AquaMan on May 28, 2014, 04:03:12 PM
About three times per week. I didn't mind the pedestrian actuated lights for those with strollers or kids but the automatic interval traffic light is overkill and counter productive.
Perhaps I am misunderstanding what you're saying, but that light is not automatic. You have to push the button. Sometimes it may look like it's automatic because the light lasts much longer than the time needed to cross.
Quote from: AngieBrumley on May 29, 2014, 08:55:33 AM
Perhaps I am misunderstanding what you're saying, but that light is not automatic. You have to push the button. Sometimes it may look like it's automatic because the light lasts much longer than the time needed to cross.
They changed it last week. Now it changes by itself and still lasts too long. You can interrupt the cycle by pushing the button but even when no one is around it will cycle.
The NW corner is three seperate parcels totaling about 24,000 sq ft or a little more than half an acre. They are owned by an LLC whose registered agent also owns the single family home to the north of this land. Adding that dirt would up it to almost 3/4 of an acre. I know of the ownership group, not sure what their plans are. They have owned and developed many properties in midtown and operated businesses and restaurants in midtown over the years. I would expect something good to come from this change.
Glad to hear that. Maybe it will stimulate some action on the other vacant lots nearby.
Quote from: AquaMan on May 29, 2014, 10:36:10 AM
Glad to hear that. Maybe it will stimulate some action on the other vacant lots nearby.
Are the lots across 21st still for sale? I really liked Paul Coury's latest plans for the rowhouses similar to what he still building on the hill above along 22nd. It is pretty close to being built out with the last couple under construction. Rowhouses on 22nd are probably an easier sell than busy 21st but at least you'd be across from the park.
Quote from: AquaMan on May 29, 2014, 09:14:54 AM
They changed it last week. Now it changes by itself and still lasts too long. You can interrupt the cycle by pushing the button but even when no one is around it will cycle.
Who's the genius that decided that was a good idea? >:(
Quote from: AquaMan on May 29, 2014, 09:14:54 AM
They changed it last week. Now it changes by itself and still lasts too long. You can interrupt the cycle by pushing the button but even when no one is around it will cycle.
Yes, it is horrible now. Totally pointless.
They could at least sync it up with the other light right up the road, but it's not.
I agree, terrible idea.
Why would they change that light from the push-button?
More brilliance from the city.
Perhaps a path user made the request? Vandals have almost ripped the push button unit off the post.
ahem... building
Hearing the sign has now been moved and is now by an office building next door and not the apartments....
I noticed that. Good news and my views are now on the record as to the apartment building!
I wonder if it affected the actual notice period required.
I ran through 21st street crosswalk this morning. The push buttons have been replaced and are working again.