Having been told this comment from a Lafayette resident who voted against the annexation in February (because they could see the spot from their backyard) it strikes me that the detailed debate in the Viable Alternatives thread is simply lost on most people. I hear the notion of how a city should just put x in y location based on very little thought beyond the convenience of one hypothetical errand that may be run one day. You can see the confusion when you ask "If you had a business you wanted to locate where you saw the best opportunity for success, would you want the city to tell you you had to put it elsewhere because theyhave an empty plot they want to fill?"
The failure to get any traction on the Countryside Village site can be understood in this context that no matter what sounds nice, a market demand either presents itself or it doesn't. Without significant additional homes nearby or traffic from some type of South Boulder Road eastern extension, the Hwy 287 alignment has had it's predictable impact on the SBR/South Public Road corner. It had to have been foreseen. Championing SPR's "old town" charm is that stretch's best hope, I believe. I can't imagine any more dramatic architechure /commercial use being supported by the neighbors on either side of the road.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
I'm not exactly sure where you are going with this:
"I hear the notion of how a city should just put x in y location based on very little thought beyond the convenience of one hypothetical errand that may be run one day."
It's not a matter of convenience, the locations are 2 miles apart. It's about the appropriateness of that location. We already have a commercial area that a new store can utilize now. Why plow up the fields outside of town first and then infill later?
I understand your argument that you can't tell a store where to put themselves. But you can tell them where it is allowed and not allowed. From the vote, it seems that most would agree that this site is suitable, and we have to accept that. Why bring this up? do you think people would not go to a lowes in Countryside Village? I believe that would work well for them. I certainly don't think they should be forced to locate there. I think you forced words into someone's mouth.
Championing the road extension may be the best hope for South Boulder Road. Other than that detail, I tend to agree with Dan's analysis. It does matter what we can do with the land for the next 10 to 15 years, or beyond the foreseeable future. If the site will remain vacant and blighted, that will have some impacts.
That part about convenience I also don't quite get, Cyclorado, because that's not the way I look at it either. The locations of the Waneka land and Countryside Village are two miles apart, they affect different resources, they have different adjacency issues, and I think it's great to ask why we shouldn't strictly sequence growth if it would be good for the City of Lafayette. That's true. The City really could and maybe should look into revitalizing the South Boulder Road corridor more favorably than the same development proposed in other areas of the City. Especially if that would make Lowe's, for example, voluntarily look at the Countryside Village site more favorably. In this case, Lowe's would probably go to Erie... (We are beating a dead horse just a little here.) I hear you, Cyclorado.
Weld County is the second fastest growing county in the U.S. That said, does it surprise anyone that Lowe's would rather build on Highway 7 than at Countryside Village?
The key to revitalizing Countryside Village is going to be flexibility. Removing residential growth restrictions was a start.
Cyclorado: That was truly a statement made unprompted to me. I haven't put any words in their mouth; some people really believe the govt. already does or should just tell businesses where to locate. Furthermore, their rationale is invariably based on their myopic vision of what would be convenient, or perhaps even more vapid - what would look nice.
This is the aggregate of anecdotal comments to me over the years. I still have a person who tells me that "the city should put a hardware store on east Pearl Street" because McGuckins is too far away. This person lives in downtown Boulder, of course. How often does one person go to a hardware store? Enough to justify mandated locations? It is a preposterous and arrogant notion, regardless of the completely flawed economic possibilities. It is that kind of view that makes me feel for our Planning Boards and City Councils. They hanve to deal with such mindsets in a professional way - as volunteers.
Concern over how something might look is vapid?
If you care about what is happening in town, it's not a burden to listen to other perspectives. I have no problem hearing about the unfiltered views of people who might value a situation differently.
Fact distortion is what drives me insane, but we see it surprisingly rarely in Lafayette.
A Lowe's in the location of the old WalMart might be more convenient for some people, that is true. To the extent that convenience is a major factor in consumer store selection, it's a legitimate point. This point may not represent anything with economic or legal force. But if convenience for me is the absolute and only factor, Lowe's should go at Countryside site.
Obviously, the contributors here understand that small truths such as this do not add up to the whole picture of what is going on at the Countryside site.
Is anyone wondering when the City will disclose the results of the RFP process? Lots of vacancies on the way in the South Boulder Road area.
Alex,
I got a call yesterday from Quentin Young, the Lafayette News reporter. We got to chatting about the responses to the RFP. He told me to see what he wrote in today's Lafayette News.
The responses to the RFP were due April 9. I waited until the 18th to query city hall. I assumed that if there had been some responses, my e-mail would have been lit up with the details and the "we told you so" excitement from city hall. That had not happened.
This is the response I got back:
"Given that Wal-Mart has still not stated a sales price for the property, I am not surprised that we only received one proposal. I will put that in your mail in the Admin office for your information."
Since I had not received it in the mail by a week later, I told Quentin about this "one proposal". He told me it was not a proposal but a request for more clarity of the RFP.
He had attended the vendors' RFP meeting. He said the room was crowded. Only four questions were asked. But he had also canvassed the attendees. He says one-fourth were from the county. He said most of the others were contractors and engineers handing out their business cards, hoping to contact possible developers for work on this project if they submitted a proposal. Obviously none did.
Now back to the response I got from city hall. If WM had not put their property on the market (there is a for sale sign there now) and had not listed a price, why send out an RFP in January if that is a show stopper? The logic escapes me.
So let the rhetoric fly and the wagons circle. Quentin knows more about the status now than I was told. Now you know why there was no news from city hall.
The purpose of getting the RFP out was to establish the vision early so that potential developers knew what our expectations and plans are for that area. Yes, we could have taken a hands off approach and sat around hoping for the best. I prefer to take a proactive approach and then modify down the road.
Thank you for the information Kerry.
Frank, how would issuing the RFP "establish the vision early" in a way that was not accomplished with the approved city plan? Was the plan to see what type of feedback you would get?
The plan was approved by the Planning Commission, and the ballot vote passed to allow additional residential units above the annual cap for this particular project. Developers don't like uncertainty and are risk averse (which may be why you don't see very unique new projects proposed, and strip malls all seem to look alike). By getting an idea of where the city wanted to go with this property it was intended to remove some of the uncertainty and stimulate developers to step out of the 'box'. In parallel the city is working with the county on the placement of their building, so this vision was also part of the process to get their buy in and make them part of the redevelopment process. There are a number of possible alternatives that can play out. One is that the county is interested in trading part of their land behind the Sonic for the Old Albertsons which would be demolished and the county building built there. Another piece of the puzzle is when the Old Walmart is sold and what the new owner wants to do with that property (hopefully influenced by the vision we have established). The ideal result would have been that this RFP attracted a large developer to work with us and the county to do the whole property. Failing that, this can still be implemented piece meal over time. The least attractive (but still possible) is that the county sticks to its original plan (behind the Sonic) and the dead boxes continue to decay and they are purchased at a discount with less desirable uses. Our hope was to prevent this by the process we went through.
Post a Comment