Palm Avenue Parking - Tomorrow (April 3) the City Commission, meeting as the CRA, will discuss what objectives they want to achieve as take another run at redeveloping the city's Palm Avenue property. Of course public parking is critical, and affordable housing has been discussed, though some question the economics of that at this particular location, and have suggested that building affordable housing in the downtown core, on the most expensive land, would be little different from looking for affordable housing on the water. Some of the earlier proposals for the site included hotel rooms, which are also important with Sarasota losing hotel rooms in other locations. Of course we can't really analyze the economics here, but obviously every objective can't be met - there's only so much land. What are the most important things to you for this site? (Beyond the most obvious of course, which is that the project this time is successful!)
posted by Michael McNees at 9:51 AM
13 Comments:
Please see the Save Our Sarasota suggestions posted at the Save Our Sarasota blog site.
We would highly encourage affordable housing to be included at this location. Since the city already owns the land, this could be accomplished.
We also question whether 400 parking spaces is the correct number for this location. Existing and proposed public parking close by this lot seems more than adequate.
Other areas of downtown need parking and overloading this small section of downtown with public parking will likely lead to much higher car congestion.
sos1 - We've heard very different sentiments from merchants in the area, who feel that significantly more parking is desperately needed. I believe our parking master plan calls for around 300 public spaces, so if you figure 125 are to be provided to the Opera in exchange for their existing parking easement rights, there go 400 spaces.
When you say proposed public parking close by this lot, where do you mean?
No problem Gretchen, all subjects welcome. I'll pass your comment on to the Channel 19 people.
SRQgirl - you'll be happy to hear that one of the commissioners this afternoon made sure hotel rooms were added to the mix for redevelopment consideration on the Palm Avenue site as we prepare our request for proposals.
Public parking spaces close by (the Palm Ave lot) would include the Whole Foods parking and the proposed Pineapple Square parking.
Within two blocks of Five Points there will be 1000+/- new public parking spaces.
There is a timing issue, but it seems we are putting a whole lot of new parking in one small area.
SOS1, now I get your point, and agree that the Second Street parking lot is closer to the Palm Ave. area than it seems to some. Our Parking Master Plan did some pretty detailed counting of demand and availablility of spaces and identified Palm Ave. and the now existing garage on 2nd as highest priority areas, along with the Burns Square area, which we had pursued the Orange-Dolphin property to address.
Slib - Here's what I've heard from some people, which may connect back to what srq said - that the focus on Main Street you mention, and the resultant "banning" of arcades, took them out of consideration for places that are not Main Street, but where they might not only work but where the habitable space created is not just a bonus but potentially critical to quality redevelopment based on other constraints. I think that is why the commission didn't close and lock that door, but rather talked about defining appplications where arcades might be allowed. I can't find too much argument with that - do you agree?
There was too much focus on Main Street and also too much focus on the theory that the property owners would build horrible looking structures without considering our human needs such as green space.
I am not a believer that Main Street is too small because the street is very large with two lanes of traffic and parrallel parking...for argument sake, that is a large street. A small street would be an alley or two lanes without parking on either side. What is small about Main Street is the property lot sizes. Those properties are almost non developable because they do not have the debth to do much without taking away the back alley and connecting to the properties after that. Should Main become developed and someone bought a whole block, I personally still feel some arcades would be a wonderful think and a necessity for the developer considering what they gave up with their CCBD zoning.
What has not happened yet is the realization by the property owners of what was given up from a developers perspective with the new zoning DTC from CCBD. The properties on Main will struggle with the new code and how to make a project viable. This is okay but something that has to have some understanding and not just an "oh well" attitude by the public that does not own property in our downtown or is not a developer.
And, while some keep defending the elimination of arcades it is true the focus was on Main Street but what part of Main Street? All of Main Street? And, if only Main was studied why did you not get the property owners to agree with you that they did not want arcades on their street? And if it was mostly Main Street, why the focus to eliminate them everyplace? Why not ask for them to be considered on a case by case basis?
Also, the reason aracades work in other cities and countries is not because of the huge open spaces because the reality is most of the arcades are down narrow streets that are one or two car lanes or allow no cars at all because they are too narrow. The comment that they are only around piazzas is showing your lack of understanding architecture around the world and the human scale of important cities that have a proven history of people not going crazy from tunnel vision.
Also, to compare our little city with large metropolitan cities that have parks larger than our entire core is somewhat of a misguided conversation. We are a small city that should be a city that is compact and bustling with people and activity. We are surrounded by neighborhoods and parks and the waterfront. You only need to walk several blocks to get air should one feel overwhelmed by the mass of our new found success.
All this talk about our downtown yet no real initiative to get our bayfront turned into a more wonderful park for pedestrians instead of cars. Our bayfront should be little streets with slow traffic, more lawn area and more cross walks that are easy for people. To have this huge 41 run between the city and the bay is way more a problem for our future dwellers than if the buildings are too close.
Gretchen, I agree the jury's out on 1350 Main - all we know about it so far is that it's a pain in the rear as a construction site. Once it's a collection of homes that energy will change considerably, as it has on 1st Street. So we'll see.
This conversation on arcades is turning into the most constructive I've seen on the subject, I will be encouraging others to read it. Gretchen, I'm disappointed someone would attempt to dissuade you from participating because people aren't identifying themselves. You know I agree with you on the issue, but the fact is pseudonyms are much more the rule that the exception in blogville. I would point out that nearly everyone is anonymous on the oft-quoted SOS site, including the author of their own posts.
Gretchen - I mentioned the SOS blog only as a reference point, with no intention of being critical of anyone. As I said, I agree with you that it would be great if we all know with whom we were having the conversation. One of the downsides of anonymity is what you've just pointed out - the tendency to want to guess "who is that?" and what is their REAL agenda?? - all of which takes away from the discussion of the issue.
Sorry Gretchen, I missed your question - As far as the money the city eventually gets for the Verna development rights, there really hasn't been any conversation yet that I'm aware of. I think the timing of it al is very uncertain, at least to me. Once we have a handle on probable timing and flow of funds, we will need to have that conversation with the commission, and the communityy as well, I'm sure.
If I can figure out how to post photos on this blog then I would show many examples of arcades that are all over this world in very special neighborhoods. The photos would show the elegance, shelter from the weather, and foliage. You can list just about every country and city that has wonderful areas that include arcades over public space. Sarasota being one of them until we tore down the historic structures. For the person talking about this it would be useless to just list cities, you need to see for yourself the photos. Or experience them. If you travel and only do tourist routes then you really do not get into the gut of a country. And for those that do not do this, how can one have such a strong opinion against something without having many references to draw such conclusion? Not a critisim but an observation worth thinking about. Part of Sarasota's problem is people want things their way without much imagination for what can be or acceptace for change but change is inevitable. The change could be unique and different than what everyone is used to. I would like change that is different instead of everyone getting excited about developments that bring chains like the Cheese Cake Factory. But I guess this is America, we want what we know.
Gretchen - Many thanks for your comment about the E.O.D. picture. The power of that place (the American military cemetery in Normandy) is almost overwhelming, and the picture seems to have captured at least a little of that for people, which I'm very happy about. (The opening and closing scenes of "Saving Private Ryan" were filmed on that site, and are pretty tough to watch with dry eyes.)
Post a Comment
<< Home