Dennis Tester wrote:
And I think that bureaucrats telling CVS that their storefront design wasn't suitable for the corner of University and Snelling when the other three corners are occupied by total architectural monstrocities was outrageous if not hilarious for its chutzpa.
I wish we had more sensible people like Debbie Montgomery around, frankly who don't think this is all just a giant SIMS game. In fact, I wish she had run for mayor.
I'll respond, but let's focus specifically on the CVS issue so we look at it in due depth, without muddling things. This is about economics, as much as anything else.
So, your argument is that because University Avenue already has "total architectural monstrosities", we should never try for anything better? Implictly, you are saying we should be okay with windowless brick walls, without any direct access to the street, as CVS proposed? Even when we have legal and basically free ways of improving the outcome?
Using land use law to influence these decisions such as this is a basically free, legal way for the City to take action. CVS asked the City to sell its alley to them and join two lots to get their store built - CVS was asking the City for a favor. I believe you disagree with the use of these tools because, as a conservative, you don't like government intervention. I don't want the government to recklessly intervene in private business affairs either. But there is a legal time and place where the public good trumps private interest. And frankly, the City was under no obligation to sell the alley to CVS.
These decisions took place based on and with the support of extensive community input - labeling the decisionmakers "beuraucrats" is a way of distracting from the long community history of support for the decision.
Let's look at the overall economics of University Avenue. Would CVS' initial proposal have been the best for property values along University Avenue in the long term? Blank walls with no access from the street, as CVS proposed? Or would an intersection that feels a bit more like Lexington & Grand, or Hennepin & Lake better promote property values? Increasing number of properties that are more oriented to the street attracts more pedestrians, as well as drivers. This pulls in new segments of people and customers.
This is about economics as much as anything else. Left alone, University is vastly underperforming in terms of its design, retail amenities, residential properties, and overall property value- they're all connected. It should be contributing far more to our tax base, and have far fewer empty lots. Good planning can improve the City's economic dividends in the long term. With a little planning, we can get a street that's more pleasant, and in the long run, attracts more development, and a greater tax base. Even if in the short term, working to ensure that kind of environment is a bit inconvenient to a few developers.
Bob Spaulding Downtown
-------------------------------------------------
JOIN the St. Paul Issues Forum TODAY:
http://www.e-democracy.org/stpaul/
-------------------------------------------------
POST MESSAGES HERE: stpaul@mnforum.orgTo subscribe, modify subscription, or get your password - visit: http://www.mnforum.org/mailman/listinfo/stpaul
Archive Address: http://www.mnforum.org/mailman/private/stpaul/
