Wow. The Governor is coming June 30 to recognize Eagle Place's energy efficient design. I imagine he will avoid commenting on the colors; however the Lafayette City Council has asked the developer to switch up some of those ugly hues.
While I was a loud voice complaining about the color choice, my understanding is that the developer chose options from a palette that was approved. Two questions: 1) Do we really need City Councils making second thought judgement calls on people's paint choices? And 2) if so ( I would argue no - everyone has an opinion and mine's no more valid than the developers) , in what context would those colors ever not been ugly? Why are they allowed, ever?
Although I still say the overall design and paint choice makes for an unimpressive entrance to Lafayette, if those colors were initially allowed, then let'em go. There must have been a decision on the range of allowable colors for developments way back when that reflected the low level of concern officials had about color choices. Otherwise these never would have made the cut.
More seriously, let's find out if the new tenants are employed in Lafayette and if they lived in Lafayette in the first place.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
21 comments:
Those colors were approved by the city planning manager and the developer. They were told by the planning commission to choose earth tones after the developer tried to have a shocking color group approved. This is what they came up with. Welcome to Lafayette Govenor Ritter.
I don't know about "shocking," but that's basically accurate. "Shocking" to me is neon green or bright pink.
The answer to question number 2 is never. Because color perception is completely subjective, and on top of that heavily dependent on site context, someone will always find absolutely any color choice ugly. As long as we agree that no one person's aesthetic preferences are superior to another, nothing will escape this criticism.
As far as the particular color choices at Eagle Place, I find the yellow the most offensive, but there are those who think it's the blue, and so on...
The answer to the first question is that the great thing about our constitutional form of democracy is that it is flexible enough to allow for all kinds of collective enterprises and collective choices made by people at various geographic levels, and best implemented through the mechanism of government. While I'm more than a little sympathetic to the libertarian view, I would defend the ability of local governments to practice aesthetic regulation. You can live in place that exercises those powers, or you can live elsewhere, but the imposition of a color choice on a new development is not a huge encroachment on the economic value of property rights.
As a more practical answer, I'm not sure color selection is a terribly productive area to focus regulatory review, but you can see from the reaction to Eagle Place in the community that aesthetics do matter.
By the way, I suppose congratulations are in order for the efforts of Councilors Phillips and Bensman to get the palette changed at Eagle Place. My understanding is that this only applies to buildings that have not yet been painted (other than the red community building), so it will be interesting to see if this has the intended effect, or if the contrast with the units that are staying painted the same will only make the presentation more jumbled.
Dan, as you should know, reporters often don't get the facts quite correct. The same with this article.
First, the developer made the offer to address the color scheme. I had never personally contacted them about it. I don't know who talked to whom to have them make the offer. I certainly researched what happened with our Planning Department. The two local newspapers focused articles and pictures of it. The feedback I got from e-mails and resident comments ran 10 to 1 against the scheme. To suggest that only two council members expressed concern is in error as more than two did when we took the tour of EP and later the vote.
Since the side of the building closest to So. Boulder Road, 15 feet from the sidewalk, has yet to be painted, a suitable color was no real sacrifice on the part of the developer. We didn't even discuss what they had planned to do.
The building that we pushed to have addressed was the RED one. We asked that the sides visible to the neighborhood to the east and not visible to the renters be redone, not the front visible to the renters or from miles around from the west. The developer didn't like it because they would have to repaint it and use two coats of paint. (Of course, they forgot they got $120,000 in fee waivers.) A great financial hardship to repaint the RED, I guess.
Councilor Phillips made a motion and I seconded it that the south side of the building closest to the neighbors be redone. We lost on that one, 5-2. (Maybe we should get some of that $120,000 back.)
We talked about the colors here a while ago so no use in discussing how the architect's submitted renditions don't compare well with the colors on the actual building.
Two other interesting things I observed. The rental office floor had a crack running through it already. Slab on grade is highly suspect in Colorado. And the rental agent told me that some of the renters were young people moving out of their parent's houses.
By the way, I am contesting issuing more COs until the construction area is deemed safe for renters. The logic of renters moving in with construction people in hard hats running all over the place, heavy equipment, and construction debris escapes me. The units they want to rent are far to the south past all the incomplete buildings still under construction.
Oh, Gov, why'd you have to say you were coming? All it did was start the color commentary again.
I've already spoken my mind on this subject, and don't want to rehash it, but want to comment on one of Alex's statements.
Alex says, "...but you can see from the reaction to Eagle Place in the community that aesthetics do matter."
Insert cynicism here: I'd say it only matters to a small, vocal, minority. The vast majority of people who live in these towns only care about their own jobs, their own families, and their own future. Proof of this appears every council or planning commission meeting when so few people show up to express their opinions.
Ever notice it's the same people expressing their views, regardless of the topic? Where's everybody else? Living their own lives, minding their own business and not interfering in everyone else's business, that's where. Stop cynicism here.
Where are the congrats to the developer for offering a compromise? He didn't have to do this. Many developers would not have. Here's a developer who's trying to be a good neighbor.
Also interesting to see these units selected by some BECAUSE of the colors. There's a lesson in aesthetics here. It's in the eye of the beholder. Not everybody wants the boring sameness of "earth tones". (Oops, I just made a judgment call.)
Want more proof? Take a look at some of the colors used in Prospect in Longmont, or Erie Village, north of old town Erie. Some of us refer to Erie Village as "Toon Town", but I respect the right of those people to chose those colors. I just wouldn't live there.
Too bad this eco-friendly, affordable housing project isn't getting the recognition it deserves because of the color commentary.
A comment of "Maybe we should get some of that $120,000 back." may be said tongue in cheek, but it's out of place. Fee waivers were, no doubt, only given because of the affordability factor of these units. As far as I know, despite the color issue, these are still affordable housing units.
Or, is this whole color discussion, even from the neighbors, just a smokescreen for having affordable units in the neighborhood? If a neighboring development had suspect colors, but the homes were priced $500k & up, would we still have these discussions?
Again, I point to Prospect and Erie Village. Would those projects, if in Lafayette, get the same heat on their color palettes and asethetics? If not, perhaps the issue at EP is not the colors or design.
It is too bad that the color choices have dominated the Eagle Place discussion, but if the developer didn't want to make a statement he would have selected a more mellow color combination. The Bronco blue and orange together are really bad. The other problem with Eagle Place is that so many buildings are crammed so close together. Is that part of the energy efficiency?
d-b,
Your claim that it only matters to a small, vocal, minority is typically how it is.
There is the son of an elderly woman telling me his mother broke into tears at the site of her husband's grave at the unmaintained Coal Creek Cemetery. There is the resident who brought pictures of the gridlock and traffic hazards at Baseline and Caria. There ARE the residents of Arbordale Acres objecting to their treatment by their management companies.
The EP developer reacted to the negative publicity. As I mentioned, they didn't offer any compromise. Painting a side of a building yet to be painted with a color of their choosing from the approved color pallette is not a concession. Changing the RED in their minds was persecution and they refused to do it. Let's be real.
And this anecdotal comment that a renter loved the color scheme. But no comment about the 100 unit development abutting EP that abhored it. The developer chose the color scheme and it turned out to be a public relations fiasco right now. Repeat, their decision. (The failure of Coke classic should be blamed on the consumer and not Coke?)
Does anyone really believe that painting one side of a building and repainting two sides of the RED building will make much difference?
Kerry, still hung up on the colors? Subjective, nobody wins this discussion.
Dreamer - the density is necessary for an affordable housing project to be viable, even with $120K in fee waivers.
I ask again, think there would be this commotion over the color of million dollar homes? Or the density? After all, density is necessary for sustainable development, right?
Nobody wants to comment on my supposition that this really stems from this being an affordable housing project?
If aesthetics are of such concern, how about the city doing something about the blight on S. Boulder Rd. and Sir Galahad? Much worse looking than any color scheme.
Doktor: I can start a new thread regarding the affordability aspect. I think we're all comfortable being pointed in the issues we want to discuss. The color commentary is really about the colrs, not a PC way of condemning the development based on other characteristics. Hence my final question about whether the first tenants work in Lafayette.
d-b.
Read again. Just pointing out that the developers did not make any meaningful concessions on the colors. So let's not accept the spin on the subject and shed any tears for them. Essentially nothing has changed except more spin.
As for the fuss or the colors, it's on a gateway to the city on S. Boulder Road.
As for density, where did that come from? It's an apartment complex after all.
The true test of the construction will be what it looks like 3 years from now. I went through a couple of the unfinished buildings to see what it looks like before all the cosmetic stuff was completed.
As for who is renting, around 30-40% are supposedly Lafayette residents. Starts at around $800 including utilities. I was surprised when the agent mentioned young folks moving out on their parents. In Denver they called those single's complexes.
As for affordable housing, that's a whole other subject.
Maybe the color discussion here can be taken at face value, but I think Doktorbombay's point was about the broader commentary in the community. Do people use one issue as a subterfuge for more general (or less politically correct) dislike of a project? Entire books have been written about the subject! For what it's worth, I think Doktorbombay was well within the bounds of the discussion with his comment.
While I also agree that aesthetics may be too subjective to effectively regulate based only on public policy, that applies more to certain types of aesethic choices (e.g., "high saturation blue is better than tonal green") than aesthetics in general. There is something to be said for uniformity or controlled variation, rather than complete chaos. Again, I'm not sure that is necessarily a superior aesethic, but it is an aesthetic choice that various jurisdictions have pulled of with some success as a promotional tool and sense of identity.
As to Sir Gallahad versus Eagle Place aesthetics, the example is apples and oranges. Eagle Place is subject to review and regulation as a new subdivision and site plan, whereas action to improve conditions at Sir Gallahad would involve remedial action of some sort. There are some good questions of that flavor though. Are we going to be more worried in Lafayette about colors after this incident, when there are various fees (and fee waivers) and review criteria that have a more direct impact on the community but won't be getting nearly the air time of colors and aesthetics? It's a possibility.
Finally, while it will be interesting to know what the demand for new housing options is among current Lafayette employees and residents who would qualify for Eagle Place, I'm not sure how that data would be used in any meaningful way in the future...
Sorry, Dan. Very difficult to stay on topic, when it's subjective like colors. Not much meat in whether we all agree on what colors are acceptable. Fact is, we won't.
And staying on the color question, nobody answered the question about whether the color issue would even be discussed if these were million dollar homes.
Those of you who think the colors at EP are questionable, should give a sense of whether you think the colors at Prospect or Erie Village are acceptable.
I find the question of whether, or not, the tenants at EP are existing Lafayette residents mute. Once they move in, they're Lafayette residents. No longer "outsiders", but voters. And, voters who live in wildly colored housing units. Beware!
If one wants to get into the affordable housing discussion, the matter becomes how much can Lafayette absorb and afford.
The EP folks said the majority of the applicants/renters will be coming from Boulder County, not Lafayette. And it is easy to conclude that 100, 200, 500, or 1000 units would never be enough to satisfy the County needs. So how does the city absorb the cost of services to citizens in that income range. Lafayette has a relatively low median income per household as it is.
The city is going to struggle financially for at least 3 years, probably more like 5. So one can be compassionate about helping/assisting folks in the lower income ranges. But how does one reconcile cutting key city services for that very group?
Concerning your post, Kerry, this is another topic that could footnote an old thread. I would contend that just because people are low-income does not necessarily mean they are not proportionally contributing to City tax base.
For one, property taxes are paid by the landlord, and valuation of the number of units in a MF setting is not going to account for whether there are Section 8, CHAFA, or whatever other subsidies involved.
While I agree that criteria could be developed for fee waivers, such as those granted in the case of Eagle Place, I don't think the $120,000 up-front subsidy should be confused with the "cost of services to citizens in that income range." Since this is multifamily housing we're talking about, in an area with existing services, that cost might actually be low relative to less densely populated areas of the City.
Also, as a Colorado city, Lafayette depend heavily on sales tax. That revenue structure, along with the dominant retailers in Lafayette, indicate a regressive tax structure relative to income.
Are we assuming, a priori, that the City is cutting key services? If so, I'm interested how we already know that will affect Eagle Place residents more, less, or whatever relative to anyone else in Lafayette.
The majority of property tax goes to BVSD. The city benefits slighty from increases in residential development. Building fees etc. are one timers.
Lafayette's housing values are low compared to most of Boulder County as is its aveage median income and sales tax revenue per capita. All these statistics are available at city hall.
EP is on the city border next to Louisville. Their shopping center is closer to EP than any other. EP residents will find it easier to spend much of their disposal income in Louisville. Simply a matter of geography (unless they go to the new WM which will keep most of the sales tax for the next two years).
As for the budget challenge, that is not a priori. The city admin has been sending out the signals and making firm statements regarding 2008. I've been down to city hall to review it. Some of my peers have chosen not to tune in to that challenge. The only unknown now is the size of the budget ax. The warning flags are up. Four budget workshops are scheduled. Just a matter of time. Two months from now.
So if we keep adding low income folks and have to chop the library or rec center, is that benefiting all those who use them today? No free lunch.
Yes Dok, I would consider a million dollar mansion painted Bronco blue and orange to be an equally poor color choice as blue and orange affordable housing. No difference there. I understand that the developer wanted to squeeze as many units onto the site as possible. I don't think the end result is attractive. The appearance from South Boulder Road is one of claustrophobia. That's my opinion on it.
Kerry, what services would residents of Eagle Place use disproportionate to the general public? More police, fire, ambluance, water, sewer, wear and tear on roads? I don't understand.
But Dreamer, the only way the city has a say in what color those million dollar homes are painted is via a PUD or similar structure. If someone buys a piece of property, not in a planned development, for a single family residence, they can paint it whatever color they want.
Our HOA opened the color palette once the HOA was free of the builder. The builder was very narrow in the choices offered. Some of the colors offered on the new pallette, and in fact used on some homes, are obnoxious to me. But, I respect the rights of individual property owners. And in so doing, I have to live with their choices. Just like they have to live with my choices.
Friends of mine, in Indian Peaks, complained to their HOA about a neighbor whose new color they didn't like. But, the color was within guidelines, and there was nothing they could do about it. The neighbor shortly thereafter sold, probably feeling the love. My friends thought the home color would change for the better. Turns out the new owners bought it because of the color.
Also, "affordable housing" is relative. If it's true that Lafayette has among the lowest average home prices in the county, as well as near the lowest median income, isn't all the housing in Lafayette considered "affordable housing" relative to the rest of the county?
Lower income residents pay a higher proportionate share in local taxes. Whether it's a higher percentage of their income on sales tax, or if it's property taxes built into their rent.
d-b,
It's not more than. It's more people sharing the same pie. Each starts to get a smaller piece. Similar to the Social Security problem these days, fewer and fewer people able to pay for more and more retirees.
Let's take the ambulance service. Lafayette has at least two more times the number of uninsured residents who use the service than Louisville had. They are subsidized by the city now. Add more of those folks and the subsidy increases.
Take the Rec Center. 20% or so of the revenue is from Erie folks. When the Erie Rec Center opens, those folks are going bye bye. Can Rec Center costs be cut 20%? Will the fees have to go up, hitting the low income users the most?
The services the town provides are not going to increase. The cost of those services is increasing faster than total revenue. The city has more than its fair share in Boulder County of low income residents. Keep increasing that percentage and sooner or later the service balloon pops.
There is often criticism of residents who live in the upscale part of town. Last year they stopped buying the high priced cars. Motor vehicle use tax to the city dropped like a rock, part of the problem last year.
So we will see what budgeting time brings. The County is looking to build a 180 unit affordable housing project in town right now.
Let it be noted that while Kerry Bensman implies my article says he personally contacted the developer and that only two council members expressed conerns before and after the Eagle Place tour (he and Frank Phillips were the two who were vocal with their concerns before the tour) anyone who actually reads the story will search in vain for such assertions.
LN:
"Nevertheless, AFTER some neighbors of the development called it an eyesore and two Lafayette city councilmen expressed concern, T. Amory Host, principal of the development, offered to compromise on the project’s color scheme, even now that many of the buildings already bear coats of bright oranges, primary blues, yellows and greens."
I would be extremely flattered if my concerns did influence Host. The article implies he did learn of my concerns somehow and reacted to them. He first asked if the council had read his article in LN. He handed out copies to 5 of them (I had read it already). Then he proposed a willingness to address the color scheme. But he said it would require unanimous council approval of its position on the matter, not a majority. (So a developer sets council ground rules?) I suspect he thought Frank and I would be outvoted, 5-2.
Since I opposed EP from the beginning, why would Amory care about my concerns?
Believe it or not this comment has nothing to do with color! That subject has been truly been beaten to dust. I just wanted to provide correct information on one of the comments. At the tour for Council the developer did address the issue about the makeup of the applicants, and according to them the majority are indeed current Lafayette residents. Sadly the one thing that did not get as much press as it should have is the energy efficiency of the complex (which may have been a larger reason for the Governor's visit). The buildings are extremely efficient (Low-e glass, high insulation value, highly efficient mechanicals, and solar panels on each building providing savings to the residents). While I was not in favor of the development (I felt it should have been split between ownership and rental) it really is a model for energy efficiency.
Post a Comment