As time draws near for the City Council's consideration of the River View plan, here's where I stand. I'd like to lay out a much more reasoned, lengthy explication of my position, but the sand has fallen through the glass.
I expect to vote for the inclusion of the River View project into the T.I.F. district, which is the only vote before the Council now. That district will include the shelved project by Holliday and Goodman.
The ball will then be in the court of the entity referred to as Mainland Properties. That entity will need to convince banks that it can sell unfinished condo space in a soft market at the rate of $257.14 per square foot. Incidentally, the penthouse unit priced at $1.26 million is parsed out at $260 per square foot. For my money, I'm springing the extra three bucks to get whatever constitutes a finished product.
At the depth of the current recession in mid-2009 the price per square foot for houses in New Albany was $78 per square foot. By May 2011 it had rocketed to $82 per square foot. LINK HERE
I believe in the renaissance of downtown New Albany. I believe in order to keep that renaissance rolling we must think big. I believe we, in the seats of decision makers, in this time, must insist that what we do today is prudent and beneficial not only to ourselves and our contemporaries but to our descendants generations beyond the horizon.
Please consider the inventory of available land opening on to our river heritage, our river view, and decide if this is the best opportunity, if this is the best time to extract that parcel of land from the commons of the citizens of New Albany, present and future, and place it into private, for-profit hands.
Please consider the vital role that the citizens of New Albany must play in determining the current and future use of this critical piece of land in the city's heart. And consider that you must step forward to help the City make the right decision.
Many have weighed in, both for and against the project. Think about those in the unbelievable year of 2213--our Quadracentennial-- who will look back at what we have done today. Will it have been right? Will have stood the test of time? Was it a wise move? Was it a quick grab for fleeting gain?
If the citizens of New Albany decide to move forward with this project, in recognition of the momentous decision before us, I believe it is reasonable to ask the developers to hold a design competition to maximize the civic value of this piece of ground. Sure, this is New Albany, Indiana, in the broad view, the epitome of no place special, but it is a place ready to make a community commitment of $12 million to back up a private commitment of $40 plus million in a fervent attempt to save its downtown, its heritage.
If New Albany steps up to the plate, will Mainland Properties follow?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Thank you for your continued thoughtfulness on the matter, John. I think you probably know my answer to the commons question by now, but here's an excerpt from something I wrote recently that I think might point a way forward, a compromise of sorts:
...in terms of the RV site itself, there are workable alternatives. The proposed development is essentially a T-shape, which will all be privately owned under RV. I know there are plans to include language in the contract for public access to the plaza but I think we can all agree that a challengeable clause is inferior to deed in hand.
Why not keep the center portion of the land (the north-south part of the T) under public ownership and sell the remaining land on either side to Mainland or someone else for development?
If the City decides to build a garage/plaza on its portion (which can be done for less than the proposed $12 mil), it would make the surrounding land more valuable and it could still be TIF'ed to help cover costs. For reference, we currently have enough in EDIT reserves to probably pay cash for it.
Since the city would be providing stacked, covered parking very nearby pre-existing, municipal surface lots, they could then sell those for private development helping ensure a market for new garage parking spaces, reaping the profits of the land sales, spreading risk and reward, actuating more intensive (i.e., better) urban land use and putting a comparable amount of land in private, revenue generating hands while ensuring to the extent possible that the public can maintain the riverfront connection for generations.
That is at least a plausible alternative that accomplishes the same goals as RV while providing benefits that RV does not. Simply comparing RV to nothing isn't really acceptable as far as I'm concerned nor does it really constitute much of a choice, especially since the administration has actively precluded the consideration of alternatives with ongoing, behind-the-scenes dealings and lack of promotion of the available sites.
One of the main reasons the city is engaged in this debate is that the City owns the land under discussion, under consideration and under option to Mainland Prop.
Since the units proposed are condos, owners essentially own only their space within their walls.
Since the River View project needs to be built upon a base structure in order to gain the river view, which is all they are really selling, might it be possible for the City to lease the property to Mainland? The lease payments could be pledged to the TIF district until the construction cost is paid off. The lease payments from Mainland or other users would continue as long as the structure stands and there would be no challenge to citizens' use and access to the plaza since it would be owned by those citizens.
I thought about that, too, John but building the garage to support the weight of multiple buildings drives garage costs up. The lease amount would need to reflect that, though it would help maintain the commons.
Plus, I'd still like to see the middle section of the plaza kept more open than in current drawings. In terms of visual connections, multi-story barricades higher than the levee is now don't really "reconnect" us with the river.
Post a Comment