Is this the issue Buzz Goss is complaining about? Apparently the building that burned on Gay (near Summit Hill) is not viable without 2 more stories added to the top. It's been sitting there how long, a danger to the community (as the Jackson buildings).

This will kill downtown.

Included in those guidelines is a committee that can approve or not actual building design and/or facade design. That is the thing that Buzz and company disapprove of. So do I.

A hallmark of successful urban areas is diversity. It goes for building design as well as inhabitants. It would appear to violate certain rules of Complexity Theory to have a relatively compact board deciding what is okay for our downtown. However, there are some good folk being proposed for the board. Other developers I have spoken with are in favor of the guidelines as they stand in no small part due to the makeup of the board. However, another concern of mine is what happens to our fair burg in a few years when that board is made up of the offspring, brothers-in-law, spouses, and relatives of our village idiots? Is there some reason I don't know of why that should not be a concern of mine? What are the rest of you telling yourselves to make that ok with you?

No, this will not kill downtown either way. While it is time to stop begging, pleading and paying developers to take over our historic treasures to do with as they will, it isn't time to make any development in unattractive to anyone with a profit motive.

Urban design guidelines make sense. Codes enforcement makes sense. Building design guidelines outside of what Andres Duany spoke of in his lecture here make me very uncomfortable.

Now give me my $0.02.

CAFKIA

----------------------------------------------------------- 

It is impossible to defeat an ignorant man in argument.
  - William G. McAdoo

I dont see why the city needs to do this. What is the problem. The new buildings look good so why mess things up with new rules to make it hard. Why fix something that is not broken. Give one example. Where did it come from and who is pushing it.

The board makeup requirements are pretty good. Perhaps my nepotism fears are needless. I'm still concerned with the Complexity aspect of it and 2nd knxnicole's question. What are they trying to fix with this?

Cletus, I stipulated already that this would not kill downtown either way. And I never said we should not have guidelines. I would argue for urban design guidelines, it is building design guidelines that I am skeptical of. Keep in mind that I don't want to see a fullscale or minature Thompson-Boling arena in downtown (or anywhere else for that matter). I consider it to be the ugliest building in knoxpatch. However, if it were converted to pedestrian scale where it addressed the street and windows or display areas were added to give some warmth to the pedestrian experience, it would still be an incredibly ugly building but, I would not oppose it's privately funded inclusion in my downtown. I am not the arbiter of aesthetic and I am not in favor of someone else being that. This time I have to agree with the republicans (not going to hear me say that often) and say that the "market" will stop anyone from building TBA in the downtown, however, if someone is determined to spend millions of dollars in the community doing just that, I'll bitch, but that's all.

CAFKIA

----------------------------------------------------------- 

It is impossible to defeat an ignorant man in argument.
  - William G. McAdoo

rachel-

i'll take the bait but first i'm curious to know what problems you see that the need to be addressed? what warrants the additional bureaucratic and politcal layers in the process of redeveloping our vacant Downtown buildings?

thanx for asking reasonable questions about serious issue.

kindest regards,
buzz goss

Rachel-

I personally question the merit of the Summit/Henley/Main area having urban qualities which deserve special codification. However, to my knowledge none of the downtown development community, including me, object to any of the proposed guidelines. We just are not certain that the facts on the ground warrant making the process of restoring or building within Downtown more difficult. we have endorsed the concept of mandatory urban design guidelines (standards which affect how buildings address our streets and sidewalks) but advised caution before instituting additional layers of bureaucratic and political involvement in the building permitting process. Particularly since there are no private restoration or new construction projects completed in the past 20 years, which are egregiously inappropriate to their context or Downtown at large. Essentially we are saying, "why make it more difficult for those of us who have to live with these regulations, when there is no clear evidence that a problem exists?"

You've asked a reasonable question, "which parts of the guidelines are a problem for you?" The short answer is, none. Given the way the proposed document is currently written it's easiest to suggest that the "public realm" section should be mandatory, while the "private realm" should be voluntary, at least for now. However, the honest answer is that a blend is most appropriate.....all of the proposed items which delineate how buildings should address the street are reasonable and recent history suggests should be mandatory. These typically address "build to" lines, sidewalk level transparency, entrance locations/hierarchy, massing and rhythm. the remainder should be voluntary (I hope you will forgive me but citing all these specifically is not really possible.)

Secondarily, it has often been said that, "if the guidelines are voluntary, are they really guidelines?" To which a colleague replied, "If they mandatory they are regulations, NOT GUIDELINES." Both are rhetorical statements and not very useful to the process of evaluating the complex issues at stake. During the September steering committee meeting one MPC staff person made reference to peer cities, which have instituted either voluntary or mandatory design guidelines, with the caveat that those with voluntary guidelines wished they were mandatory. Chattanooga was specifically mentioned as a peer city, which prefer their voluntary guidelines be mandatory. This prompted me to call a friend who owns property but does not develop in downtown Chattanooga. I explained that we were going through the process of exploring both possibilities (mandatory/voluntary) and asked the open ended question, "What does your experience suggest is appropriate mandatory or voluntary design guidelines?" He responded, "Voluntary design guidelines ought to ensure a good finished product without unnecessarily encumbering the process." This implies to me that voluntary implementation will not necessarily prevent mistakes. Therefore, it is important that we proceed with caution, adopt standards which are necessary (urban design is critical) but not overly meddle in the process (additional layers of government is not necessarily warranted) and that the community has to involve itself (we have to care). From my perspective the results with the new Hampton Inn support this view.

Finally, it has been suggested that design guidelines seem to be working in other areas of Knoxville, so therefore, are appropriate for Downtown. This isn't the case for 2 simple but important reasons. 1st, unlike any of the neighborhoods mentioned Downtown has a history of changing in step with bigger social, cultural and economic shifts in the local community. Except for Market Square, we are not like Savannah, Charleston or New Orleans. However, photographic and historical data suggests that, unlike architectural styles, the urban design aspects of downtown have changed little over the years. 2nd, the issues faced downtown are infinitely more complex and varied than those of any residential neighborhood. We've learned that what's good for Mechanicsville or 4th and gill, etc. is not necessarily appropriate for Downtown.

Rachel, I opened this discussion by asking a rhetorical question to which I don't really expect an answer. However, I challenge you, as a committed advocate for Downtown, to ask yourself, are we certain that additional layers of bureaucracy and politics in the redevelopment of Downtown will make it better? You may be confident that the answer is yes, but my experience from the trenches leaves me uncertain.

BTW, the currently adopted regulations require owners to maintain their property in a safe, non-hazardous condition. Unfortunately, this is rarely enforced. Brownlow School, mentioned by rocketsquirrel (love that moniker) was allowed to deteriorate by the School Board and/or Knox County not the current owners. Design guidelines will not change this. Enforcement of the current regulations can.

Kindest regards, Buzz Goss