The DRC hearing last night was standing room only and an overflow crowd at was forced to watch the proceedings on TV from the city hall lobby. The hearing was aired live on cable TV, so ther's no telling how many others decided to tune in. To counter the chilled ambient temperature in the room, the moods were hot.
Everyone was there - W and K / The Ecergreen Group and their team of architects, traffic engineers, lawyers, and other consultants, and probably investors, plus LO citizens, non-citizens, architects and general proponents of the 5-story massive mixed-use mountain. The opponents were there too, but the hearing ended before everyone spoke, so the hearing will be continued on January 29, at 4:00 pm at City Hall. Be aware that this a continuation of the same meeting, so no new testimony will be heard.
I was particularly impressed.d with the level of professionalism and technical knowledge that the Development Commission members displayed. They had obviously done their homework; their questions covered not only the big stuff (congestion, height, etc.) but caught the nuances of the heart of the issues. This was the Supreme Court weighing a case on its merits. I will be interested in their decision after hearing their incisive and thorough beginning.
This Blogger was not surprised and therefore not entertained by most of the testimony. The development team gave a technical overview of the site and buildings, then the the developer, Patrick Kessi, and his technical team of consultants took the floor with more illustrations and talk. The kind of talk one does when trying to ask for a favor. Citizen proponents gave in person, the same rhetoric that was in the paper - nothing new here. The questions from the commissioners were far ranging:
Another pleasant surprise was the number of architects, design professionals and citizens that did NOT like the repetitive and, shall I add, suffocating, design limitation for downtown. "Gable-itis" is how one architect described it. In fact, the original redevelopment plan (by other architects) specifically warned against requiring a particular design style and promoted a mix of styles with uniformity in only the (public) streets, lighting, medians, signage and pedestrian features. Boy were they singing my tune! Who ever made up this "Lake Oswego Style" should be hung from the highest, steepest pitched gable in town! Time to rewrite that code - before even one more "LO Style" development is built!
This Blog was most interested to read the excerpt (below) from an article in today's Oregonian, with comments from the 2 opponents of the development who had time to speak. It is important because it refers to a type (mixed styles of architectural design) and scale (1-3 stories) that is what the citizens wanted when the district was formed, and expect to see now. This vision of Lake Oswego (including Lake Grove) is livable and delightful and human!
Everyone was there - W and K / The Ecergreen Group and their team of architects, traffic engineers, lawyers, and other consultants, and probably investors, plus LO citizens, non-citizens, architects and general proponents of the 5-story massive mixed-use mountain. The opponents were there too, but the hearing ended before everyone spoke, so the hearing will be continued on January 29, at 4:00 pm at City Hall. Be aware that this a continuation of the same meeting, so no new testimony will be heard.
I was particularly impressed.d with the level of professionalism and technical knowledge that the Development Commission members displayed. They had obviously done their homework; their questions covered not only the big stuff (congestion, height, etc.) but caught the nuances of the heart of the issues. This was the Supreme Court weighing a case on its merits. I will be interested in their decision after hearing their incisive and thorough beginning.
This Blogger was not surprised and therefore not entertained by most of the testimony. The development team gave a technical overview of the site and buildings, then the the developer, Patrick Kessi, and his technical team of consultants took the floor with more illustrations and talk. The kind of talk one does when trying to ask for a favor. Citizen proponents gave in person, the same rhetoric that was in the paper - nothing new here. The questions from the commissioners were far ranging:
- What is the definition of a mansard roof?
- How would event parking for Millenium Park be handled?
- How and where would frequent restaurant and retail store deliveries and garbage be handled?
- Where in Lake Oswego is there a 20' alley? (About the width of the public walkway that also includes street furnishing)
- How well does courtyard retail do?
- What is the impact of shade (from the shade study) on other parts of the city?
- Glazing exception conforms to design, but why doesn't design conform to glazing requirements?
- Parking access is offset from Lakeview Village, but what about congestion on 1st?
Another pleasant surprise was the number of architects, design professionals and citizens that did NOT like the repetitive and, shall I add, suffocating, design limitation for downtown. "Gable-itis" is how one architect described it. In fact, the original redevelopment plan (by other architects) specifically warned against requiring a particular design style and promoted a mix of styles with uniformity in only the (public) streets, lighting, medians, signage and pedestrian features. Boy were they singing my tune! Who ever made up this "Lake Oswego Style" should be hung from the highest, steepest pitched gable in town! Time to rewrite that code - before even one more "LO Style" development is built!
This Blog was most interested to read the excerpt (below) from an article in today's Oregonian, with comments from the 2 opponents of the development who had time to speak. It is important because it refers to a type (mixed styles of architectural design) and scale (1-3 stories) that is what the citizens wanted when the district was formed, and expect to see now. This vision of Lake Oswego (including Lake Grove) is livable and delightful and human!
Years ago, the city intended to build the area into a commercial center, Bolland said, but the developers behind the proposal said only about 10 percent of the space in the new buildings would be commercial.
"The concept was that this was going to be the retail commercial core of our downtown," Bolland said. "And that was seen as a catalyst to redeveloping the rest of the downtown. So, it seems that, particularly with this proposal, we've drifted very far from that vision that really was hugely supported in the community at the time."
The struggle between the "streamlined" zones and codes, and "removing barriers to mixed-use" development vs the still practiced single-type zones is emerging as a town-character-busting movement. Current planning trends favoring urbanized suburbs are running smack dab into the center of our town. Much to the public's surprise, the codes already reflect a lot of that flavor, but the "code streamlining" and "removing barriers to mixed-use development" that is taking place now ( still in draft form but heading for approval) will bust the door open to more mixed use in every part of town that can conceivably be called commercial. To save the suburbs, small towns, and OUR small town, massive buildings like the Wizer Block proposal need to be stopped before they start -in our codes.
This is the firs step, but hang in there, when this one is finished, no matter the outcome, the code updating must be addressed if we want to preserve what's left. This is OUR town - we have home rule. The planners should give options, not direct them.
Well stated!
ReplyDelete