Not just by those who live and make money downtown, but by everyone who uses it! Input sought by the end of the month . . . and of course, the business community is getting their input in, I’ve seen at least one draft . . .
Here’s the site for the Downtown Plan.
This is the booklet with the latest recommendations.
The comment period ends November 1st.
These are the contacts listed for input:
Bill Fruhling, Principal Planner
Madison Municipal Bldg., Suite LL.100
215 Martin Luther King, Jr. Blvd.
PO Box 2985
Madison, WI 53701-2985
E-Mail: bfruhling@cityofmadison.com
Phone: 608.267.8736Michael Waidelich, Principal Planner
Madison Municipal Bldg., Suite LL.100
215 Martin Luther King, Jr. Blvd.
PO Box 2985
Madison, WI 53701-2985
E-Mail: mwaidelich@cityofmadison.com
Phone: 608.267.8735
Or you can give input here.
WHAT SOME IN THE BUSINESS COMMUNITY ARE LIKELY TO BE SAYING
They have people very invested in the outcome who have the time to scrutinize the plan. And they have. Some of their comments predictable . . . some of it of concern . . . here’s some highlights:
– Plan needs be evaluated from an economic and tax base perspective. The current mantra.
– More than 50% of the area of the downtown is limited to 5 stories or less and other areas where heights are higher are already built so the plan “severely limits” the potential to grow the tax base and we’ll all pay higher taxes.
– They want incentives to do building green buildings.
– They want less setbacks in major view sheds.
– They want to re-evaluate which buildings are contributing in the historic districts so they can tear down more buildings and do more infill development.
– They don’t think the areas listed as potential development are enough, they think there are more areas that should be included.
– Preservation of buildings in the Mifflin St area is too nostalgic, we can retain the “creative culture” and have density.
– Concerns about designating more landmarks, they want to “educate” property owners about what this really means.
– Worried about a tree preservation ordinance and building inspection enforcing landmarks ordinance
– They want the city to provide a parking plan for downtown, not look at the projects as the developers are building them or they want assistance (i.e. money) for building underground parking and if Transportation Demand Management plans are required those costs shouldn’t be put on the businesses, city should pay.
– If they require large-scale projects to have open space, they should get TIF for it to be quasi-public.
QUESTIONS
Is nothing off limits downtown in developers minds? Should the whole downtown just be gigantic buildings, 5 stories or more? Should any buildings be saved? And how much should the city (YOU!) pay so they do the right thing like provide adequate parking, preserve views, provide open space and build environmentally sustainable buildings? It seems that the development community views the entire downtown as something to be torn down and replaced and they want the city to pay them to do it. That might seem harsh, but at some point, I think their advocacy is just going too far. Shouldn’t there be some balance here on all these issues? And why not add density in the rest of the city?
To answer your last question, entitlement, they marched into Sunlight and now they being the 60’s greed monsters and proteges act as if they are entitled to a nursing home called State Street because no longer is Madison the Center of the Universe, they are.
To be honest with you, I don’t see how giving input with a mayor who doesn’t listen to all sides will help. I am open to suggestions but do they hear themselves talk?
Your questions are right on, and they will ignore them.
Imagine San Francisco being told they are too nostalgic about their “Miffling Street”