Tagged: scarpe nike 2013sbvpn
June 19, 2013 at 9:59 pm #359
At the second community meeting held on June 18, 2013, we unveiled our ideas for a potential alternative design for the site. The new plan proposes a mixed-use building with retail concentrated on the corner of 43rd and Baltimore, 65 parking spaces concentrated under the slope of the site and below the building in the back, 5 floors facing the park and 9 floors on the eastern part of the site away from the park. This potential scenario includes 178 residential units and 8,000sf of retail. If condominiums were included, the unit count would decrease (since they require more square footage).
Please use this forum to provide feedback about the direction we are taking, the building massing, the unit mix (condo vs. rental), and the overal proposal.
March 27, 2014 at 5:04 pm #450
Last night’s presentation of the latest plan showed a lot of thought, not only for the project, but also for the surrounding community. The idea of sharing parking with the Health Center makes so much sense and helps create an alliance with an existing neighbor. Moving the fitness center location and bringing down the overall height of the complex also makes it much less intrusive in relation to surroundings. Angling the site so that views of Clark Park from Baltimore Ave are preserved shows sensitivity to what the community really values, and a sense of what can be gained with a project like this. This would actually provide a better view than what we had before, considering the fact that the fence along the length of Baltimore Ave was opaque to protect identities of women & children at the (now demolished) shelter.You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
March 5, 2014 at 8:59 pm #418
I absolutely agree with Soren above. I find it alarming that this has been ”supported” when it is not even a NEED for the community. A NEED could be a green house and community run and supported garden. The greenhouse could hold community events all year round and after school programming on sustainability or arts, etc. It is absolutely sad that this large lot should to shoulder with the cultural heart of Baltimore Avenue will be defaced with a large glossy building for condos and a parking lot.You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
June 21, 2013 at 3:49 am #367
I was at this meeting last night and it was quite a rhetorical stunt to behold. While, I am not a homeowner in the neighborhood ( I will not be able to afford to buy a house in this city anytime soon), I have lived here for almost a decade. What I saw last night was disturbing. It seems that the Spruce Hill Homeowners Association are selling out their own concerns regarding the potential disruptive aspects of this project by agreeing to allow for more units in exchange for underground parking and retail.
While, like most of those in my generation, I cannot afford to be a homeowner, it seems odd to me that so many of the neighborhood’s homeowners would rather see a Radian-like monstrosity dedicated to condos (with up to 11 floors!)on clark park instead of a simple four story apartment rental building with no parking or retail.
By listening to the rhetoric from last night, it seems obvious that these homeowners are not going to get their fantasy, which would be a condo-only building-and the notion that a development can and should “deter” certain undesirable renters (families, undergrads, etc.) seems a bit ridiculous and even, dare I say, a bit immature-even though I can empathize with the reasons for doing so.
It is obvious that the developers want the Spruce Hill Association to give them the “green light” (even if this “green light” is not required anyway) to build a more audacious project. But does this neighborhood really need a 180-unit “Radian-esque” statement of architectural brutality, which would look even more absurd in the mostly low-rise environs of Clark Park.. or even worse…another half-empty, half-baked Piazza?You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.