zoning change at 21st and Boston

[AquaMan]

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?

[SXSW]

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.

[guido911]

Obviously I am in favor of this development. It makes Aqua angry. 

[AquaMan]

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.

[AquaMan]

Obviously I am in favor of this development. It makes Aqua angry. 

Me? Angry? Just cranky and malajusted. We have a lot in common. 

[carltonplace]

who would want to tear those down? Especially with all of the empty lots on the other side of the street?

[Conan71]

Pitchfork and torch time!

[TheArtist]

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.

 

[RecycleMichael]

I bet a shopping center there will be a great place to buy e-cigarettes, a Subway sandwich, and get a tattoo.

[Conan71]

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.

[DTowner]

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.

[Conan71]

And tanning.  My God, we need more tanning.

Spray tan or tanning beds?  How about both?

[DTowner]

Spray tan or tanning beds?  How about both?

Absolutely!

[Gaspar]

Gotta have a "threading" place too.  Conan needs to get his eyebrows did.

[DowntownDan]

What on earth needs to be built there that can't be done on the vacant lot on the other side of the intersection?