subscribeGluttons for Punishment
by dusty on Dec.17, 2009 , under Uncategorized
It’s no secret I have a penchant for things that are big and flashy. I like my football games high-scoring, my bonfires barn-sized and my final showdowns epic… and possibly filled with lasers.
So prior to the big Edgewater redevelopment city council debate, you bet your sweet bippy I did what I could to fan the flames of hype that swirled up around the story. How often is it, after all, that a zoning issue gets that kind of attention and stirs up that kind of opinion, for and against, among the general populace? I had friends I have never known to take an interest in politics let me know their feelings about this project.
But in terms of what I expected from the “Super Bowl of City Council Debates” and the 11-hour marathon session the council delivered, I was quite frankly taken aback. While one would be hard-pressed to label the council’s deliberations “insubstantial” or the public discourse anything but “robust,” it doesn’t take a doctor to tell you the process itself was “unhealthy” on a very basic, physical level for those involved.
So when Alder Michael Schumacher told me today he was leaning toward moving for a reconsideration of the vote, my first question for him was, “How many death threats have you gotten already?”
Schumacher and two other Alders were absent from the big meeting on a motion that failed by two votes. It’s very likely that with a full house present it would have gone through. So even though it’s Schumacher’s privilege to move reconsideration, the notion of taking the issue up again raises mixed emotions in me.
While I feel very strongly that Hammes Company’s proposal is a piece of architecture worthy of a vibrant and growing city, part of me never wants to hear the word “Edgewater” again. I know I’m not the only one getting burned out on the issue and the constant struggle around it, and that’s not just the (pretty minor) hangover talking.
But the thought of this project getting bullied out of existence just doesn’t sit well with me. Maybe it’s reached a point where that’s inevitable, and if so, that’s too bad. As Madison’s landmarks ordinances are written the awful cliche holds true. The Edgewater redevelopment would be “out of character with the neighborhood,” though one could argue the existing hotel is already “out of character with the neighborhood.”
The thing is, all of my favorite buildings in Madison — the capitol, the Monona Terrace, the Red Gym, US Bank, the Overture Center, Machinery Row, the court house — all of them are grossly out of character with the surrounding buildings. If I wanted architecture that “went along” with the rest of the neighborhood, I’d live in the suburbs, and I assure you it will be a cold day in hell if that ever happens.
And I’m still waiting for someone to tell me how a brand new hotel plaza and tower would detract in any way from the other historic architecture in the Mansion Hill neighborhood. This isn’t Colonial Williamsburg, for God’s sake. Variety is the spice of life. If you want an example of what happens when a place goes too long without any fresh development, take a drive through Beloit, or Superior, or Rockford (IL), or Bloomington-Normal (IL), or Waterloo (IA), or any of the other midwestern cities that would step all over themselves to get one developer interested in building any project at all, let alone one of this caliber.
I understand that here in Madison, we have a history of fighting the man. I enjoy fighting the man myself. Hammes company is a corporation, corporations are driven by a desire to make money and the desire to make money is very often the root of all that’s evil. But I don’t see anyone lining up a grassroots effort to raise millions of dollars and build an architectural landmark that makes my city a more colorful place to live.
Using a corporation to our benefit as a city — and I do think that’s what we should strive to do, as they strive to use us to their benefit all the time, and in a perfect world, it’s mutually beneficial — is contingent on having rules in place that strike a balance. The Landmarks Commission, in rejecting the proposal, was following the rules set before them. And when it came time for the full city council to consider overturning their ruling, one of the swing votes that derailed Edgewater as it stands belonged to Alder Satya Rhodes-Conway, whom I admire and respect greatly but completely disagree with in this case.
She says a constituent advised her that if she couldn’t articulate why the Landmarks Commission should be overturned, she should vote against overturning. I see that as a backwards way to approach the subject. I think if a developer approaches the city with millions of dollars to sink into buoying the local economy and improving the aesthetic quality of life, the city should have to be able to articulate an actual harm that would befall the city if the project goes forward in order to stop it.
Leveling a historic neighborhood to build a strip mall does harm to a city. Improving a squat, lifeless, aging building within a historic neighborhood does not. And if the city’s process is not able to arrive at that conclusion, than I maintain that it needs to be reexamined and possibly fixed for the sake of the vibrancy of the city.
In the meantime, I’ll be content to talk about something non-Edgewater-related for the next handful of weeks.
3 Comments for this entry
Leave a Reply
-
-->
Blog Archives
-
2010
-
May 2010 (4) - January 2010 (2)
-
- 2009
- 2008
-
December 17th, 2009 on 4:35 pm
I disagree with your characterization of the issue. The developer did not approach the city with millions of dollars. The developer approached the city with their hand out looking for 16 million taxpayer dollars. The promise of economic cake (jobs, increased tax revenue) is a lie. Most of the jobs will be low-paying and will likely go to immigrants who send a large chunk of their paychecks to family back home, limiting the multiplier effect. The hotel will cannibalize business from other downtown hotels, so there will be no net increase in room tax. The increase in property taxes will be largely offset by interest on the 16 million borrowed dollars, as well as the higher interest rates the city will have to pay on its other debt service as a result of overextending itself. And it sets a dangerous precedent using TIF funds for this project. Inn on the Park and the Madison Concourse Hotel will have a strong case to ask for similar treatment.
Also, I strongly object to the idea that a way should be found to ignore the law. I had more than enough of government officials at the federal level ignoring the rule of law in favor of their pet policies and projects during the eight years of the Bush adminstration. I don’t want to see Mayor Dave and his new developer cronies apply that imperial philosophy to city governance.
December 17th, 2009 on 10:47 pm
OJ, a 93 million dollar project minus 16 million in TIF is 77 million dollars in capital and mostly loans the developer has had to mobilize to get this far… and approach the city with. You better believe the people that money belongs to are getting sick of being jerked around. As to TIF, I haven’t decided one way or the other whether I support TIF for the Edgewater. 16 million certainly seems like a lot. But the precedent it would set is not all that alien… Edgewater’s developers claim the 16 million in TIF is to pay for the public space they’ve included in the design. Just like I’m willing to hear Edgewater out and debate the issue, I’d be willing to hear out any other hotel in town that wanted to make such an improvement to the public infrastructure.
At any rate, whether TIF should go toward Edgewater is months from being debated, if it EVER happens.
As to “ignoring the law,” this isn’t warrantless wiretapping or some other white and black issue. Zoning law is rife with conditions, exceptions and legal cul de sacs. Variances are granted all the time. If it weren’t that way, developing anything would be next to impossible. Zoning law isn’t about stopping development, it’s about facilitating, organizing and bettering it. And I sincerely believe a process that fails to bring this project to a point where we can debate that TIF for it is missing a wheel somewhere.
December 17th, 2009 on 10:49 pm
But good comment, and you’re probably right about the room tax… Factoring out the “landmark” factor that the hotel might draw in a few guests of its own right that wouldn’t have come otherwise.