I am sorry I haven't gotten back to you before now - I have had visitors from out of town and businesses to attend to, but I have not forgotten you.I want you and my readers to know how much I appreciate your response to my letter a few weeks ago inquiring about information Evergreen Group has been reporting in the news and in promotional flyers. I was suspicious about the square footage quoted that compared the revised Block 137 design with that of Lake View Village and you offered to send me proof of the legitimacy of your figures.
You sent me the proof that Lake View Village does, indeed, have 236,000 sq. ft. For the sake of my readers, this figure includes the parking garage on the Lake View Village block. Len - This is where we part ways with our comparisons.
Lake View Village has about 99,000 sq. ft. and that Block 137 has about 290,000 sq. ft., making it 3x bigger than its neighbor next door. While I admit your figures are absolutely true, you measured total DEVELOPED area, while I measured total RENTABLE area. You also seem to have forgotten to include Block 137's parking in your comparison so the Lake View Village number was increased by including parking space, while the Block 137 number was not. You are juggling apples and peaches.
By including parking in the mix, we get into very muddy waters. Lake View Village has 365 PUBLIC parking spaces total, while Block 137 redesign eliminated 60 spaces and has only 155 PUBLIC parking space and 275 private spaces. Most of Block 137's parking will be for tenant use - 275 spaces, with 26 pushed out onto the streets because our city planners determined downtown has adequate transit options (uh huh) and can handle the extra parking load the development would bring (right). I realize space in the apartment garage will be dear with only .7 to 1.3 parking spaces per dwelling unit. Will the tenant parking be rented to tenants like landlords do in Portland? And do you count the on-street parking that has been substituted for garage space as public or private parking space? So much to think about!
As you can see, throwing parking into the area calculations confuses things immensely, so for the sake of simplicity I will stick to RENTABLE INTERIOR SPACE to compare the size and volume of the two developments. Perhaps we can tackle the parking issue in a later discussion as that is another issue I'm sure we can have fun debating. We can even talk about bicycle parking (I see Block 137 has increased bicycle parking for residents with the redesign - do facilities for "active transportation" allow you to cut out automobile parking?). We can throw in transit and it will be a very lively discussion indeed!
Well, I have to get back to my day job, but I just wanted to let you know how grateful I am for your follow-up with me as I know you are a very busy man. I hope you are having a great time with your family this summer - children and grandchildren are a blessing in one's life and special moments are fleeting.
My kind regards,
Up Sucker Creek
- Bicycle parking is increased. The development is providing four times as many resident bicycle spaces than required by city code
No comments:
Post a Comment