Madison Up or Out, Revisited

Madison: Grow Up, or Out generated discussion and we should it explore it some more:

• Many commented on the Capitol height restrictions. I do not see them as an issue. In other words, we have plenty of opportunity to build denser without violating them, though I would still like to see the impact of a computer generated view.
• The East Washington corridor is an example of an area with capacity for greater densities without approaching the height limitations.
• If we look at the 1966 rezoning of the city, the new R-6 left an area in the Isthmus and UW, if it was built to capacity, to house 200,000 people. Obviously that was never realized though the rezoning provided the opportunity to create higher densities allowing for more students to remain in walking distance to the campus.
• I doubt we will get a bad Chicago feeling since we already require setbacks and green space. And many Chicago neighborhood areas are very quite attractive. Clark Street, 53rd Street are neighborhoods with mixed retail and housing and densities that range from single family homes to high rise. Note how tree lined streets and setbacks softens the impact of the larger buildings next to the smaller ones.
• Infill development must be more diverse. Dan is correct, not just condos for retirees and young singles or couples. We must look at apartments for families. Not everyone can afford to own a home and not everyone can have a home om the isthmus.
• Higher densities in the older part of the city are essential if we are committed to keeping their schools open. More family housing. When I purchased my home on Riverside Drive. It cost $23,000, almost my annual salary. Today those homes go for $250,000 - $320,000 and more.  A tad more than most people's annual income.
• Rarely does small retail work. Retailers need to be near one another to create a larger market. That is the beauty of Trader Joe's impact on Monroe Street. One of the failure's of retail on the Square is that there is no 'across the street.'   That is why ground floor retail is often a failure. But it works in New York where there is ground floor retail in every building and there is the density to support it. That Mallatt's has survived is a miracle. And that is why Willy Street works. Lots of retail at Crystal Corners.

The developers have two complaints. First some of the design regulations and zoning rules. Secondly, the uncertainly in the development process. The changing requirements, the changing minds, the reviews and continued referrals is a big part of their beef. They know they have to live with the first issue.  As I said in the first post, the issue is in part the density restrictions, but the larger issue is the two years of study and then no decision.

Comments

[Dan Sebald]

I agree with all these points.

Of course Chicago has some very nice areas. Diversey near Lincoln Park, east of Michigan Ave is calm and diverse, U of C area seems nice, Grant Park festivals are a blast; there's too many places to mention. But the heart of Chicago just gets to a person (well me at least) after a while. The main reason is the NOISE. There's always something being reconstructed with jack hammers blaring and so on. Traffic noise is always the worst. (If the country could transition to clean transportation what a difference that would make.)

The last bullet point is noteworthy. In the category of Mallatt's also put Fraboni's. These stores last because they provide an essential service or are unique and attractive. (Need more of these!!) Paul mentions Trader Joe's, but that stretch of street is what didn't work, in my opinion. The entrance to TJ's is uneventful and almost hidden. The east end of the building doesn't add much to commerce, doesn't maintain continuity. Before that was a surface lot, but that lot was used for events like Monroe Street festival. The widened street in back and visibility to Monroe Street destroys the secludedness that was there before. The thing is, I can recall the neighborhood meeting where residents asked for more retail, made comments on this and that. All that gets ignored.

And yes, exactly--stretches of retail. Imagine if near Fraboni's on Regent those offices spaces across from the Kohl center had some retail. These are busy stretches of road. Why not make use of the fact that lots of traffic passes there?

The square a failure? But that is the perspective of someone seeing it through the 70s and 80s. How about in the 40s and 50s? I see stories in local papers of old codgers reminiscing about this or that on the square. (Rose colored glasses I'm sure.) One could site many vibrant downtowns fallen into decay in the latter half of the 20th century.

Also, I think setbacks are over-rated (trees, no), or at least I'd like to see some authority give a presentation illustrating how, why, when and where they work. Nice, appealing buildings are fine. Judy Olson appeared at a UDC meeting a few months ago explaining that residents in her district didn't want setbacks on a particular building. I can understand why.

[Bob]

That's all well and good, but who do you like in the Preakness?

[Dan Sebald]

A timely New York Times article by Penelope Green about noise and noise abatement in living spaces:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/17/garden/17QUIET.html

Noteworthy topics are an NYC noise code and bit of discussion about what goes into sound proofing a residence. A Cap Times article of a week or two ago by Mike Ivey mentioned Monroe Commons' acoustic problems, and Green's article should give insight into the solution, which is more expensive after construction is complete.

(However, I'm not sure lead-lined Sheetrock is a great idea. Why not stuff the walls with asbestos while they're at it?)

Naturally, the best solution is eliminating noise in the first place, e.g., a muffler on every vehicle including mopeds... which should only have 4-stroke engines.

BTW, when are the trial hybrid buses going to hit the streets? (Rhetorical question.) I'm curious how quiet they are.

[mgm]

When I drove to Madison last year on John Nolen, I was amazed that the view of the Capitol is already obscured.