After months of public debate and criticism, plans to start filling in the Route 34 Connector with new development sailed through the City Plan Commission Wednesday night.
In two separate actions, the commissioners gave their approval to the “Downtown Crossing” development and land disposition plans, paving the way for developer Carter Winstanley’s proposed biomedical building — called “100 College Street” — to straddle the filled-in mini-highway-to-nowhere just east of the Air Rights Garage. 100 College (pictured in above artist’s rendering) and the street changes surrounding it are the first phase of Downtown Crossing.
The commissioners also unanimously approved adding one more block to an already approved map for a new zone — called a BD‑3 zone — for Downtown Crossing, allowing for more biomedical development.
That additional block, bounded by College, Temple, George, and North Frontage, already contains the Temple Medical Building at 40/60 Temple and other medical and research tenants.
“If this is the future of our economy it makes sense out of fairness to include this block so it remains competitive with the new district,” said Downtown Alderman Doug Hausladen.
Thomas MacMillan File Photo
Marchand: Satisfied with answers.
100 College is to be Downtown Crossing’s debut building, a $135 million project to begin filling in the Route 34 Connector. Under the deal, developer Winstanley would cooperate with the city and the parking authority on a plan to build 100 College, at an estimated cost to his company of about $100 million. The city would agree to complete a number of specific traffic improvement, including widening and adding bike lanes to North and South Frontage roads. The city and the parking authority would together spend an estimated $8.2 million on preparing the area. Another $26.4 million would come from the state and federal governments.
The commission’s only rookie, Westville Alderman Adam Marchand, pitched most of the questions to a full line-up of economic development players. His queries were largely informational.
Even after a year of negotiations and more than 70 public meetings, Winstanley’s plan and all of Downtown Crossing remain controversial, although that controversy was unusually muted at Wednesday night’s meeting, with nearly 20 people from all across town speaking in favor and no one opposed. Click here for a previous article with Winstanley’s and the city’s perspective. They argue that the tax rolls and employment rolls will benefit. And click here for a critique by Urban Design League’s Anstress Farwell and others. They say that the plan repeats the mistake of the urban renewal era by favoring car traffic over pedestrians and cyclists; that it doesn’t connect downtown with a neighborhood, as originally promised; and that it gives a private developer too much say over the design of downtown streets.
Thomas MacMillan File Photo
Winstanley.
Even though Marchand confessed he had not read all the 500 pages of the development agreement but only a summary, he said he was satisfied with the “substantial” answers provided by team Downtown Crossing Wednesday night. They told him parking in the newly included block should not increase; that it is highly unlikely that the city will be “on the hook,” as he put it, for any cost overruns the developer might incur doing his part of the tunneling and driveway work; and, no, Winstanley absolutely does not have “veto” power over city decisions.
Independent experts disagree; read about that here. Local land-use lawyer Frank Cochran said the language — which includes stating the city “shall not” proceed with designs the developer “reasonably” believes will harm his project — seems designed to give the developer “the ultimate say-so.” He said it’s something aldermen should have clarified or removed.
Here’s the language in question: “[T]he City shall not design the City’s Traffic Improvements in any manner that the Developer reasonably believes would negatively impact the Development Parcel, the Development or the [State Traffic Commission] application for a major traffic generator certificate for the Development.”)
Marchand asked officials Wednesday night to “allay” his “fears” that that means a veto.
“It is effectively not a veto,” deputy economic development chief Mike Piscitelli reassured him.
“I wish I had a veto!” said Carter Winstanley. “If the city changes something, I don’t have the ability to veto. I have the ability to walk. I’ve been at this for seven years. I’m not going anywhere. It’s anything but a veto.”
The next stop for both the agreement and the zoning amendment is the Board of Aldermen.
By then, Marchand claimed, he and his colleagues will have more fully examined the 500-page plan. “We need to dig into that as a board. There’s a lot of enthusiasm for the project, but in matters of public safety, we have to see the actual language,” he said.
How disappointing. These commissioners have ignored the spoken and written concerns and objections, of literally hundreds of city residents, and helped to further degrade the area.
For what? For a multi-millionaire developer to get a free parcel of land?
I am a bit confused by Mr. Marchand's statement--that the developer has no veto power--considering he just approved an agreement that actually does give the developer a veto.
Testimony in favor of making modest changes to Route 34 here:
http://davidstreever.com/node/27