Comments on: The Trauma of the Rezone http://hugeasscity.com/2008/09/14/the-trauma-of-the-rezone/ > so much wonderful packaged in such a mess Mon, 15 Mar 2010 19:48:17 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: What The Corner Really Needs | hugeasscity http://hugeasscity.com/2008/09/14/the-trauma-of-the-rezone/comment-page-1/#comment-60773 What The Corner Really Needs | hugeasscity Sat, 28 Nov 2009 22:12:28 +0000 http://noisetank.com/hugeasscity/2008/09/14/the-trauma-of-the-rezone/#comment-60773 [...] mixed-use project was proposed for the vacant site, but since it was only zoned for only 40 feet, a contract rezone was required.  This added a full year to the project schedule,  and unfortunately that additional [...] [...] mixed-use project was proposed for the vacant site, but since it was only zoned for only 40 feet, a contract rezone was required.  This added a full year to the project schedule,  and unfortunately that additional [...]

]]> By: Tony http://hugeasscity.com/2008/09/14/the-trauma-of-the-rezone/comment-page-1/#comment-1697 Tony Mon, 15 Sep 2008 08:56:47 +0000 http://noisetank.com/hugeasscity/2008/09/14/the-trauma-of-the-rezone/#comment-1697 The problem here is not that we have too much neighborhood involvement. The problem is that we don't have a system that makes neighborhood involvement efficient. There is no reason that updating neighborhood plans should take 20 years. Neighborhood planning could be and should be a continuous, on-going process that never ends and never has to start up again. Establish a stewardship group for each neighborhood and review and update every neighborhood plan every year. If changes need to happen like upzoning, let it just go through the annual process. Once we get the structures in place, we should be able to have the best of both worlds: neighborhood involvement and rapid response. Second point: the city also needs to do a better job of tying public benefits (such as parks, community centers, and especially transportation investments) directly to development and upzoning. If the city came to neighborhoods and said: upzone in exchange for a park, or upzone in exchange for a light rail station, the conversation would be much different than it is now, because neighbors would feel they were making a trade rather than losing their history. We need to think differently if we are going to survive, not only about density, but also about neighborhood planning. Like density, if neighborhood planning is done right, it can be a very good thing. Done wrong and it's a nightmare. The problem here is not that we have too much neighborhood involvement. The problem is that we don’t have a system that makes neighborhood involvement efficient. There is no reason that updating neighborhood plans should take 20 years. Neighborhood planning could be and should be a continuous, on-going process that never ends and never has to start up again. Establish a stewardship group for each neighborhood and review and update every neighborhood plan every year. If changes need to happen like upzoning, let it just go through the annual process.

Once we get the structures in place, we should be able to have the best of both worlds: neighborhood involvement and rapid response.

Second point: the city also needs to do a better job of tying public benefits (such as parks, community centers, and especially transportation investments) directly to development and upzoning. If the city came to neighborhoods and said: upzone in exchange for a park, or upzone in exchange for a light rail station, the conversation would be much different than it is now, because neighbors would feel they were making a trade rather than losing their history.

We need to think differently if we are going to survive, not only about density, but also about neighborhood planning. Like density, if neighborhood planning is done right, it can be a very good thing. Done wrong and it’s a nightmare.

]]> By: jcdk http://hugeasscity.com/2008/09/14/the-trauma-of-the-rezone/comment-page-1/#comment-1696 jcdk Mon, 15 Sep 2008 04:34:45 +0000 http://noisetank.com/hugeasscity/2008/09/14/the-trauma-of-the-rezone/#comment-1696 You mention the trouble neighbourhoods (i.e. the public) may have with upzoning. But what about the folks on the right hand of the city not agreeing with the folks on the left hand? The Columbia Plaza in Columbia City is zoned 65ft, but the Landmark DRC aren't happy with any of the developer's 65ft plans; they argue 65ft doesn't "honour" the scale of "adjacent properties." So, I guess that is my second question, how can upzoning compliment existing low-rise development? You mention the trouble neighbourhoods (i.e. the public) may have with upzoning. But what about the folks on the right hand of the city not agreeing with the folks on the left hand? The Columbia Plaza in Columbia City is zoned 65ft, but the Landmark DRC aren’t happy with any of the developer’s 65ft plans; they argue 65ft doesn’t “honour” the scale of “adjacent properties.” So, I guess that is my second question, how can upzoning compliment existing low-rise development?

]]>