Quote:
Originally Posted by ardecila
Because River West is hemmed in is exactly why it needs some usable public space. What park space does this area have access to? There is none east of the Kennedy.
You want dense development, you have to make the neighborhood desirable and that starts with a small handful of well-designed public spaces. There is already good transportation and a good mix of convenience retail.
Why? This happens to be a logical spot for a plaza, right at the center of the neighborhood with good transit access and adjacent to the neighborhood's most beautiful landmark. Why does it matter whether that landmark happens to be a church? It could just as easily be a historic library, or a water tower. In the urban environment, buildings define open space. That's why so many plazas fall short, because nobody considered the quality of the surrounding architecture and just treated the open space as a virtue in itself.
And with regard to the eminent domain aspect - if, for some reason, the city decided to take and tear down the CVS for a signature mixed use development, all very above the table, would you still be opposed? Is this about principle, or simply about your counter-reaction to parks advocates?
|
Park space is something you can spend 5 min walking to; density is something that matters on a block by block, even building by building level; and transit is pivotal down to the foot by foot level when it determines what is and isn't TOD. That's why you want your density right on top of your transit, and your open spaces a few blocks away.
In this particular case, Eckhart Park (with it's own statuesque old church) is less than a 5min walk from the intersection, and if the city is looking to add more park space in the area there are a couple of vacant/parking lots on the riverfront that I'd much rather they spend their time and money on (one just 2 blocks north, and one near the Ohio ramp across from Ward Park).
I don't have a particular problem with eminent domain when used wisely, but the "some reason" justifying it's use had better be convincing rather than just a hand wave. Thinking the building behind the building you're looking at is more attractive is not a particularly convincing reason for the city to take and destroy the front building. And pushing development back from transit with a large plaza is not just unconvincing but harmful.
And there are also problems with building civic places around private buildings. Generally things are the other way around (private buildings built around civic places, or even civic buildings in civic places).
If you're knocking down the neighbors and closing streets to give one specific land owner a free extra large front yard to be maintained indefinitely at the city's expense, that raises obvious questions about bias and corruption, and such questions become especially odious when the separation of church and state is involved. I'm not wild about some of the freebies Wrigley Field has been getting, and in many ways they've taken less than what you're asking to be given to the church here (they buy and maintain their own land, and have been denied permanent street closures).
And then there're the question of permanence. Churches are even less constrained than other private owners on what they do with their property given their landmarking exemptions. And they've been selling off or knocking down a lot of churches these days (like the one I mentioned off Eckhart Park). What happens when they church decides they can't or won't maintain their building anymore? Does eminent domain even work against a church, or is the city stuck paying whatever they demand and trying to find some use for an obsolete is attractive building if they don't want their plaza's centerpiece removed?
Prev
Linear Mode
