The Longmont City Council has approved a request by the Longmont Downtown Development Authority to send out an RFP regarding the LDDA's vision of a mixed use parking garage/retail/residential center on Kimbark street. This comes after about 2 years of analysis and research of options. Last year Phelps Development was hired by LDDA to draft final design options. Turns out Phelps sees a residential portion as a non-starter, and as such their involvement will likely fail to result in them being the lead developer on the project which will certainly involve public financing.
What remains to be seen is how many other developers will come to the table with a residential component. Much like Lafayette's RFP for Countryside Village, just because some citizens think something seems like the right thing to do doesn't mean the idea is economically feasible. In this case, LDDA is getting feedback they don't want to hear from Phelps. So they'll see if anyone else has the answer they want.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
20 comments:
If older downtown areas were economically viable on their own, there’d be no need for urban renewal authorities. Private investors would step in and develop these areas. The purpose of urban renewal authorities is to assist in the economic viability, so as to attract investors.
Although not a downtown area, the same applies to Countryside Village. But, even with some city participation, there were no RFPs submitted. Is the vision too vague? Is the vision so unviable, even with city participation it’s a no go?
Part of the vision is a city park on some of this land. Parks are feel good, but provide no direct economic benefit. If this is a requirement, does it change the viability by itself?
At least Longmont had the vision to engage a developer in the process. They may not like what they’re hearing from the developer, but at least they’re getting feedback from experts in what works economically. Small towns certainly don’t have the expertise on staff to determine economic viability of private projects. Outside help should be welcomed.
In Longmont’s case, there was no guarantee Phelps would get the project. They were being paid to put together options. So, I don’t believe their feedback is biased, just honest. Time for LDDA to revisit their wish list.
Perhaps it’s time for Lafayette to bring a developer in to review their vision and determine it’s viability. Or at least tell them what’s causing developers to shy away. With this info, Lafayette could decide if their vision needs to be tweaked, or if their investment needs to be larger to assure their vision is built.
"Keep asking until you get the answer you want."
Sounds kind of like a comp plan.
It would be a false premise to believe that Lafayette could dictate a movie theater and ice cream parlor in any given development at the Countryside Village site. But the City acknowledged at an appropriately early time that it would also look at the need for compromise.
In any redevelopment, many questions will rest on where the City sets the line on compromise. Only in theory are the "vision" and the implementation unified in every detail.
It seems like Loveland or Fort Collins has a mixed use structure like the one described on Longmont's wish list. There is a mixed use structure in downtown Loveland(?). I could be wrong, but it seems to me like an urban mixed use structure, including residential, might be marketable in Longmont.
To me, one of the key questions on the flipside is the city's tolerance for blighted, vacant land. We can hold out for all kinds of visions in city plans (subject to constitutional protections), if we're willing to let space sit idle. Builder's Square, in Westminster at 90th and Wadsworth, has been abandoned for at least five years.
So, if Builder's Square in Westminster were converted to a park, would anyone use it? Would it spark economic activity around it?
The city's current vision statement for Countryside is not economical viable and overlooks four simple well-known facts. So it should be no surprise that right now, nothing know is happening. The staff work deserves an F for not highlighting all of these as show stoppers.
At the same time, developers have had proposals approved and are moving forward in many parts of the city, just not Countryside. We're talking about development in the Lafayette Tech Center, two assisted living complexes (maybe on one), major mixed use housing developments, 287, etc. So clearly by their actions they believe what they are doing is economicly viable. They continue to send the message about Countryside. So yes, it will sit there for years.
At the same time, Public Road is moving towards the same fate. However there is still time to move pn that.
There is a difference between "economically viable" vision and having someone who wants to build the vision. Longmont’s new RFP could be, like Lafayette’s RFP for Countryside Village, part of a discernment process about where the vision stands on the spectrum between market-ready and completely infeasible.
For example, in Lafayette, it's possible that Countryside Village would work as the proposed land use, but there is just not enough reward in it (yet) to attract purely private investment to get the job done. That is, as Doktorbombay points out, one reason we have urban renewal authorities.
Nonetheless, I am curious how building a park substitutes for the heavy lifting more typical of urban renewal (grants, condemnation of key blighted properties, streetscape and infrastructure). My comparison above to Builder’s Square in Westminster was probably not on a level paying field in many respects, but it does occur to me that there are some sites where no reasonable amount of public investment is going to change the suitability of the site for immediate development.
It strikes me that the efforts of Lafayette and Longmont are trying to be market-driven, by seeking out developers and developing plans in that capacity. To me, Lafayette was just engaged in a comp planning process on Countryside Village. However, the City specifically elected not to call it that, and not to tie the comp plan to this vision.
Anyone skeptical of the outcome of the consultant process in Lafayette should be happy that the plan was developed in a way that tests the vision without committing the City to it. If WalMart brought a potential buyer into the City, in the C-1 zone with commercial planning designated on the comp plan, I don’t think the City would be trying to scare them away.
Since that conversation apparently hasn’t occurred (referring to the item in this morning’s Daily Camera), the only question is if it’s going to be a waiting game, or if the City should (or even can, given the circumstances) invest in something that will realistically hasten new use of the property. I don't see lack of residential as a reason to shut down the process in Longmont, and I don't see the park as essential in Lafayette, but I don't fault the desire to find the right catalyst in either community.
Nice theory. But the implementation is the key.
When the city funds consultants to develop a plan which leaves out major constraints and goes out with an RFP on a building it doesn't even own, then the process is outrageously flawed. Especially with a URA which was financially stripped years before (intentional?).
Developers just like any good investor or businessman do their due diligence and are market driven. Testing the market without recognzing the know constraints is simply being deceitful. Result to date: zippo.
It's interesting to see all the spin and backtrack that is being given this while the clock ticks. Now it's wait until the W*M building is vacated. No one said that back in November. And the fact that it was going to be up for sale was known for two years.
If you look at the W*M sales brochure they took to the big sales event in Vegas, it is quite a stretch to believe it had anything to do with the current "vision".
Here is an interesting article to read:
http://www.i2i.org/articles/2-2007.pdf
You can always trust that Independence Institute for quality, unbiased information.
So, what is the Alexandrian Solution, then?
Implementation is key, yes. I think the choices at this point are try for the City's vision, sell the City's interest and/or let the property sit vacant, or come up with a new vision. What will it be?
Some value can be extracted from the City of Lafayette's generic/specific "redevelopment" process. I'm not saying it's perfect, and I think limitations of the consultant study should be understood (as in, why is this always aired like some secret knowledge? Go ahead and tell us what you think, and what you know, and what you think you know...).
My honest opinion is that mixed use is a good direction for Countryside Village, whether there is a particular best way to get there or not. I don't understand the value of upfront investment in a park in Lafayette's plan, and I'm not sure why the frontage along South Boulder Road goes to the County, but I've said most of that before. Finally, blight could be the result if WalMart has a different vision and the City does not listen to it.
Please attach a price tag to any new visions.
The issues and obstacles for Countryside have been discussed ad nauseam on this blog, council workshops, and URA meetings. Last November, the Countryside site was even exempted from growth management. The 300 building permits. The Camera referred to one of the problems. Where's the secret?
So why keep repeating them? Plus only the developers haven't ignored them to date, i.e. no takers.
W*M is going to take a shot at selling their building. The city has been trying to sell the OA building for 3 years now. If W*M finds one, do u think they'll back off a sale to meet a vision plan?
Caveat Emptor
And your solution would be....
What's yours, Anon? Perhaps you have $6M to $12M to contribute? If so, call city hall.
The cost of the current exercise if you include consultant costs, staff costs, county costs, etc. is close to $100,000.
Perhaps the first step is to recognize that right now, this isn't working?
Does anyone remember the original redevelopment scheme the private consultants recommended to the Urban Renewal Authority? I recall LURA being told they need to be flexible and even consider clean light industrial uses as future prospects for Countryside Village. An example of a sportswear manufacturer was used if I remember correctly.
Members of LURA, newly seated council members specifically, rejected the recommendation. They did not like that the recommendation included reusing the existing buildings and parking areas. I remember David Strungis brought drawings of what he thought the renewal effort should look like, lots of snazzy stuff, little parking. Chris Cameron wanted a place to take her children to buy an ice cream cone but not spend a lot of money. Jay Ruggeri wanted a fountain.
And thus the current redevelopment plan was born. It would be interesting to look back at the consultants' recommended plan and see if it is viewed more favorably now that the pie in the sky vision has reaped no fruit.
For the record, the elements Dreamer-Believer references (ice cream shop, minimal parking, fountain) were not specifically incorporated into the current sketch plan. Those "pie in the sky" ideas were the first round, then the project was reborn in approximately May or June of last year, with the consultant talking a lot more about flexibility. While members of LURA may each be convinced of the benefits of certain detailed design and land use decisions, these really aren't an impediment to implementation of the City's very general current plan.
So I'm not sure what consultant plan is referenced, other than to say that no plan has set expectations any more realistically, and no other plan has been more amenable to interpretation to accommodate market-driven development, than the current plan.
This is why it would be useful if to know what four simple well-known facts will cause problems according to Councilor Bensman. There was a lot of hype about what the City was doing and going to do with the Countryside Village site, but that wasn't the value in the process. Some of the best value was determining what baggage needed to be left behind to get the project off the ground.
D-B,
I don't believe the 3 original concepts were ever posted.
Here is the report:
http://www.cityoflafayette.com/files/workingdoc.pdf
I also don't recall any discussion on light manufacturing. There was some suggestions about windows and building colors. I was focused as to why the consultants weren't told it would cost $12,000,000 to do the scrape off before thinking about anything. The minutes of that meeting are posted, 7/11/06.
So then after spending $30,000, LURA approved another $5K-$6K to redo it. I voted against that. Then they came back with this. The maps are at the end:
http://www.cityoflafayette.com/files/redepln.pdf
Actually the sketches of these were done by staff at city hall on flipcharts and turned over to the consultants to add the numbers. At the formal presentation, the issue of $6M in city investment was put on the table but low keyed.
This all began back in April, 2006.
Alex,
The issues have been discussed on this blog previously so I suggest you recheck.
So now you know two: $6M of city money for infrastructure and $12M for scrape off if necessary.
As for the current vision being practical, you may believe it but to date no developer does. No bids either. Stare at the current maps on the link I posted and look real close.
Well, the park as a giant green blob on the map might be unnecessary baggage, but I'm not sure if I'd classify that as a well-known fact. Trying to encourage some clarity, that's all. (On that note, I might have the dates wrong above as to when the project was resurrected on more market-driven terms - maybe it was more like September last year.)
One criterion I haven't applied to this discussion so far is whether the redevelopment plan is "practical"? That term does not add any clarity in my opinion. In my estimation, a "practical" plan is one any developer would want to follow, while a "pie in the sky vision" is one no developer would want to follow. Lafayette's plan is hovering somewhere in between, where the plan might be economically viable but it has only attracted one tentative developer inquiry.
What I find interesting about this discussion is the emphasis placed on fault-finding. I have been quite skeptical of the process, and that's well documented. Bottom line: It's easy to blame people for the lack of success so far and the long road that is likely lie ahead, but none of that changes the fundamental economics of the situation. If and when some opportunity reveals itself, it would be best for the focus to be on the implementation hurdles, not all the hot air that has accompanied the process so far.
Look again. Closer. There are 9 or 10 property owners. Several own their own pads. To implement the vision, they would have to be bought out or pushed out by eminent domain. Some of the pad owners are getting nervous about all the confusion.
In either case, if they left Lafayette, the city would lose the sales tax they generated. In the maps, the areas were colored over to disguise the problem.
The criticism is how far does one going down a dead end path and how much time and money is wasted in the meantime. And issueing misleading statements as it de-gressed. I don't support this type of process when it wastes money. My ex-boss used to call it "a fool's errand."
As for the "one proposal", I have a copy and it is not a proposal. It's a cover letter on top of the CV of the developer. The cover letter basically says "Call us when the city has the money."
If it was your $100,000 being wasted, perhaps folks would have a different opinion.
It's easy to be pennywise and pound foolish. As you've so frequently pointed out, Kerry, the City has dumped millions into South Boulder Road already, with questionable results. If the $100,000 spent so far on the Countryside Village site has allowed the City to test some concepts without diving in with suitcases worth of cash, there is some value in the process.
Look closer at what? The property lines? The final sketch plan was phased to deal with this problem. You can criticize all you want the notion of paying too much to buy out the owners of Public Road frontage, or, on the other hand, not having enough frontage to succeed without converting those properties. It is a "practical" difficulty.
Ironically, none of this conversation would be possible if the site hadn't been studied. I seem to be getting pegged for defending the vision when all I'm doing is defending the value of a process that is almost impossible to guide directly to its target.
One philosophy that is certain to produce few results is never leaving the starting gate for fear of making a mistake. Studies can be very flawed, and diminishing returns may start to apply at some point, but studies are a lot less risky with public funds than, for example, preemptively acquiring long-term ownership positions in large commercial real estate assets.
The problem is not that a study was conducted but that recommendations made by industry professionals were ignored. It is correct that there is not an ice cream parlor or a fountain drawn on the approved plan, but is that "visioning exercise" not what ultimately produced the proposed park space next to the liquor store and auto parts shop? I believe it was.
At any rate, my point is that it might be a wise move at this time to brush the dust off the originally proposed plans the consultant came up with, Kerry says there were three, I don't remember specifically how many were presented. I do remember the consultant verbally recommending flexibility being key, LURA's unhappiness with the existing structures not being scraped and the process veering down a narrow path based on specific desires of LURA members.
At some point early in the process the consultant said that light industrial uses should not be ruled out. I remember this specifically because it felt very foreign to me as a concept for the area. Now I wonder if it might have traction. That's not an endorsement of the idea, but I do think it is worth exploring.
Light industrial was mentioned by the consultant in the joint kick-off meeting. I believe it was a sports apparel manufacturer, and I believe the context was that mixed use to include light manufacturing could be a sort of incubator for small business. This was not Pearl Izumi coming in with boatloads of cash to build a new world headquarters (esp. considering that most of their assembly is probably done outside the U.S.).
Please, someone go ahead and dust off the original concepts. This will show that the final sketch plan was a huge compromise from the standpoint of being developer (and pad lot owner) friendly.
As for the how the park ended up being a driver on the final plan, I have no idea where that came from. It is the City's property, so maybe the notion is that the City can fall on its prior investment to push the other private owners toward the vision. Really, though, I'm shooting in the dark trying to explain it.
Enough of the naysaying and fault finding. Let's hear some possible solutions.
As a former president once said,
"There's no limit to what you can do if you don't care who gets the credit."
Developers/investors look at the entire market when determining economic viability. Countryside Village doesn't stand on it's own.
There are things the city could be doing to make the project more viable, without touching the land.
Alex, I don't know if this was originally your idea or not, but extending So. Boulder east to Broomfield could help. Increasing traffic flow past the property will increase it's value. As it is, it's just far enough away from 287 to be a problem. When retailers say "location, location, location", they really mean it. You can impact success by what corner of a busy intersection you select, that's how important it is. And, out of sight of 287 wouldn't attract me as a retailer.
On the other hand, if So. Boulder Rd. is not going to be extended further east, why not include Coal Creek Center in the vision? So. Boulder Rd. could almost dead end in the development. There would need to be access from the east side, for sure, but redeveloping both sides of So. Boulder at once wouldn't necessarily require So. Boulder Rd. to maintain it's current configuration of a straight line. And, it would put some of the new retail right on 287.
Or, and this will be radical to some, perhaps realigning So. Boulder to curve to the north and flow directly into Public Rd. would help both redevelopment areas.
Also, it certainly would help if the available retail space on Public Road was leased. "For Lease" signs just a block away from Countryside don't give potential investors a comfortable feeling. Perhaps LURA could offer incentives for small businesses to fill these spaces. Wouldn't probably take that many dollars, but would show fully leased property nearby.
My vision of this space looks similar to the Shops at Walnut Creek in Westminster. Across 36 from the Westminster Promenade. You actually could get an ice cream shop - they have a Cold Stone Creamery franchisee. Put a fountain in the middle of a roundabout, and you're good to go.
But that park idea's gotta go. Converting existing commercial space that should be producing sales tax revenue to a park is irresponsible fiscally. Oops, that's naysaying.
Post a Comment