Alot can be said about the the Edgewater project, but I’d start here. Worst. Public. Process. Ever.
225 MEETINGS?
Is that a joke? Do people believe that is 225 public meetings about the project? Or is that what they are supposed to believe? Is that how that is going to be spun? I mean, who took the time to count those meetings and for what purpose? I’d be interested in finding out how many of those 225 meetings were with Capital Neighborhoods or the Mansion Hill Neighborhood Association or public meetings.
The first meeting I attended was the first week of September 2008. I was alder in the area for 8 of the 10 months this project has been talked about so far and I maybe attended 20 – 30 meetings. There were about 8 meetings with the neighborhood steering committee and one or two with the whole neighborhood. But, admittedly, one was just a big sales pitch about the company (too slick, as Verveer notes). One or two with the TIF and Planning staff and about 8 more meetings with the developer. I’m sure there were several other miscellaneous meetings thrown in there, but I certainly didn’t attend 50, or 100 or 150 meetings. Just exactly what were these 225 meetings? I know he met with the Mayor about 10 times while I was involved, never with the Mayor, staff and myself at the same time (again, divide and conquer). I know he got Downtown Madison Inc and the Chamber of Commerce to, for the first time ever, support the project specifically. And then there were the meetings with the newly formed neighborhood group (organized by Bob Dunn) of property owners who have business interests in the area, largely not people who live there. Those meetings were happening every other week meanwhile Dunn wasn’t meeting with the neighborhood association because Dunn was always out of town when they wanted to meet.
So, lets be clear, there was not a transparent, elaborate community process where input was gathered and responded to and changes were made to the project as a result. I think Dean Mosiman captured it best when he said “Hammes spent months quietly seeking support from political and business leaders in the neighborhood . . . ” But I’m not sure that “adjusting and refining plans along the way.” means that the plans for the hotel changed, because based on the picture in the article, its the same project it has been since about the 3rd or 4th attempt I saw about 6 months ago, when the public process was put on hold until after the election.
Sadly, there was a clear divide and conquer strategy. With people drawing lines in the sand, opposing or supporting a project that we largely haven’t seen any details on. By the time this project hits the City process, people will not be wanting to talk about any of the details of the project that are reviewed by staff and the city committees, they will just spout the various talking points that are the same as they were last November. Instead of talking about the many details and concerns yet to be worked out below.
I had hoped that in April, there would be a meeting with all the parties involved, alders, Mayor, staff, neighborhood association and business community. A meeting held before the students left town. A meeting where all the parties aired their grievances and we started to sort out, as a community, where the real issues lie. Instead of “he said, she said” and different information being provided to different groups.
At this point, its just a mess and I’m not sure how you get a decent community dialog out of it. The political lines are drawn and I’m not even sure the parties involved know what they are fighting about, it’s just a fight. And sadly, all the issues below are kind of secondary to the ridiculous situation we now have ourselves in.
VIEW
Where is the Tower going to be? Is it in the public right of way that was guaranteed in an agreement in the 1960’s or not? Much of the discussion about the project is really about the fact that there was an agreement years ago that guaranteed public access and a view to the lake in exchange for allowing the Edgewater to build in the right of way. The street used to go down to the lake and the city still owns the land under the Edgewater.
Years ago, after the agreement was struck, the Edgewater built a building that was taller than it was supposed to be, blocking more of the view than they were supposed to and provided crappy access to the lake and basically hid the public access to the rooftop that was supposed to be public.
And then there is the matter of the view shed to and from the capital. I repeatedly asked for view studies, and was told they were working on them, but never got to see them. Mostly because I think they were working on moving the building over so that there weren’t building into the right of way, requiring them to build on the National Guardian Life property (also partners in the Edgewater project). The building I last saw was about 20 feet into that right of way, blocking the promised view to the lake. But that was more detail than was shared more generally with the neighborhood. So, its easy to see how the neighborhood would be concerned about blocking the view when they were working in an information vacuum.
If they found a way to move the building over, then a major portion of the discussion about the view is over, but not all of it. There still remains the question of how much whatever is on the plaza will block the view and the issue of public access. I suppose there is also a bit of a question of how close the 11 story addition to the 7 story building is to the water and how much of the peripheral view is blocked – but again, we need some view studies to determine that. And I haven’t seen those.
AND PUBLIC ACCESS (PLAZA, STAIR AND PIER)
My big concern about public access is that we do not repeat the sins of the past. How will we guarantee that the “public stair” and “public plaza” and “public pier” don’t come to be viewed by the community as being for hotel guests only. What kinds of design features and signage would ensure that we don’t end up where we are now, with the public not knowing about the access to the rooftop and the stair to the water. I don’t think my concerns were ever addressed in this matter. There was some resistance to signage that would make it clear that it was public access, after all, you can’t have an exclusive upscale hotel where they publicly advertise that the public has general access.
My other concern was about how that plaza and pier would be managed. Would there be private events there where the public access was blocked. If so, how often and under what circumstances? Who decides when these events occur? Do they need city permission? After all, the public is going to be giving TIF dollars for these portions of the project and I think there is a fair expectation that they have access to the property built with public dollars.
MESSY TECHNICALITIES
So, the city still owns portions of the right of way and in order for the developer to build on the property the city needs to vacate the street. The laws and process for that are fairly specific and I presume the developer is working on getting that all worked out with the neighboring property owners, but it is also a public process. The city has to agree to vacate the property and I believe there are real questions about what we get paid for it and what the conditions are. When the project first started, the Mayor swore up and down we would never do it, now he appears to be in support of the project, so I’m not sure what they have worked out – but it needs 11 votes.
There is also the problem with the height restrictions. The building is already 7 stories and they want to add 11 more. That’s an 18 story building that goes all the way up to the capital height limit. I’m not sure that is necessarily a bad thing – except it blows any height standards for the neighborhood completely out of the water. And, without standards that mean something, developers have carte blanche to build whatever they want. And the community needs standards, even if we have to change them, we can’t just ignore them. [Note, Soglin has been a paid lobbyist for an 11 story building on Iota court and that is likely why he is in support of the height in the Edgewater project. Tho, I think he has some of the issues confused about which height restrictions apply and why. He’s concerned about the 5 story cap in the downtown design zones which apply on Iota Court for the project he was paid to lobby for and for this project, it is about the 50 foot height restriction in a historic district. You’d think he’d get the details right after all these years.]
Then, there’s the issues that go along with shoreline development. And, I’m not sure what else the staff might come up with once they actually get to review the project. But my guess is, that there are many other issues that will need to be resolved that will only be determined once the plans are submitted and staff have a chance to review the details.
RENOVATION OF HOTEL
This part looks exciting. Again, haven’t seen any details, just a pretty picture, but I think that it could be exciting to renovate the older portion of the hotel and restore it to its former glory. Again, need to see the details.
IMPACT ON NEIGHBORHOOD
Buses, Traffic, Noise, Parking. All legitimate concerns, all manageable, IF there is a decent dialog about them. I know that there are plans for the buses to be able to park underground. And there is a significant increase in parking, but without knowing the final count of the rooms, the number of employees and the proposed uses, its hard to know if there is enough parking. And the noise and traffic discussions I think got lost in all the fighting about the view. They are important issues that still need to be addressed. And I hope they don’t get lost.
TIF
Verveer said $5M, I had heard up to $11M. And I suspect, if the building was moved out of the right of way, the cost of the plaza has increased. The curious thing here is that 50% of the TIF is usually used by the developers and 50% is usually used for public infrastructure (streets, etc). I think the way this project is being proposed, this isn’t in the 50% used for the developer, its the 50% used for public infrastructure. But again, we didn’t get that far in those discussions to know much more.
MANIACI MIA – VERVEER ON THE JOB!
Verveer wasn’t involved with any of the discussions about the Edgewater while I was alder. I’m glad to see he stepped up to fill the void. I really wish they had scheduled a neighborhood meeting before the students left (I’d have had the meeting end of April, 1st week of May – instead Maniaci spent her time working on the Mifflin St. block party which is in Verveer’s district.) and I hope Verveer’s years of experience can help steer the discussion back towards a neighborhood oriented, transparent, inclusive (yes, business community and property owners too), balanced process that includes a true dialog instead of political fighting and grandstanding. And there we are, back to the beginning. Worst. Public. Process. Ever.
The only way to discuss this project in a meaningful way is to fix the public process, and soon. People need to be talking to each other, instead of about each other. Otherwise, they’ll just be talking at each other as the project moves forward, ignoring serious concerns that will fail to get addressed.
Note: Sorry this is so long, I actually have other issues to talk about with the project as well, but felt that some basic understanding of some of the issues was important. But this is just the beginning of what I hope is a better inclusive, transparent community discussion.
