Living in the shadow of Kendrick Place
Attorney Jeff Brown, a prominent downtown property owner, paid a visit to the Public Works Committee last night concerned about upcoming Triangle Street construction somewhat related to the the new Kendrick Place 5-story mixed use building.
In addition to the inconvenient major building project next door dwarfing his commercial buildings the utility companies are also busy at work burying above ground wires as part of a $1.5 million state grant funded endeavor.
And after that beautification project is completed the town will undertake reconstruction of the Triangle/East Pleasant Street intersection at the gateway to UMass.
Like any good landlord Mr. Brown said he's concerned with "making my tenants happy." And losing any parking spaces directly in front of their storefronts would make them very unhappy.
Jeff Brown (left) appears before PWC last night. Guilford Mooring (top center)
Last year Town Meeting rejected a request for easements and possible buying/taking of property along the E Pleasant/Triangle Street intersection as part of the reconstruction project. That negative vote was the first of many Town Meeting actions taken since then as payback for the approval of Kendrick Place.
DPW Chief Guilford Mooring told the Public Works Committee last night that no additional private land would be required for a roundabout (thereby avoiding Town Meeting) if indeed that becomes the approved plan for the intersection.
And the bike lane along the east side of Triangle Street in front of Mr. Brown's buildings will now fit without requiring any of his property, so those convenient parking spots are not endangered.
The Public Works Committee will hold two meetings dedicated to reviewing the project, one in July and the other in August. The Amherst Select Board has final authority and construction would commence next year.
The decision to put that building on the corner of Triangle was a poor one. If nothing else, the aesthetics of the area is now far less pleasing and welcoming into downtown Amherst. The way it dwarfs all of the other area buildings makes me wonder about the capacity of the decision makers.
ReplyDeleteLarry, it's important to refer to the new building by its now formal name: The Monstrosity
ReplyDeleteDear 3:39 and 4:09
ReplyDeleteIt really does seem surprisingly big now. And, with all the scaffolding and plastic, and appears like a monstrosity.
But, with all due respect, I think its the best building to be constructed in downtown in generations.
Lets meet again in a year, a discuss its merits then.
--One of the decision makers (with full capacity)
3:39 said he wonders about "the capacity of the decision makers."
ReplyDeleteJust to be clear, the decision makers are the members of Town Meeting - who voted overwhelmingly to change the zoning to (i) allow 5 story buildings in downtown, and (ii) to create and later expanded the Municipal Parking District so that development could occur downtown without the burden of requiring parking.
And I disagree with your statement about aesthetics - this was a VACANT LOT full of weeds and used as a pissing place by bar crawlers. It's a huge improvement!
I wonder what the plan is for the traffic hazard created by that building... Ever pulled out of bertuccis back parking lot exit? Go try it out! Its quite fun not being able to see the cars coming at you at 35 mph until it may be too late
ReplyDeleteActually, as Anon 4:09 p.m., I was being ironic (which appears to require its own font), because the building was condemned in those terms (The Monstrosity) repeatedly in Town Meeting.
ReplyDeleteI think the aesthetics should be judged when the building is finished. But the look of the building now has served the political purposes of certain individuals so we can't wait for that. We don't know who is going to live there, BUT some have already told us that students will be there, because that too serves their politics.
In order to promote your politics, assume facts not in existence and see whether anyone notices.
My recollection of the look of the space the building now occupies was not particularly attractive in its original condition.
Does anyone believe that you can actually make necessary adjustments to deal with any problems created by a building that thankfully occupies a vacant lot full of weeds used as a pissing place by bar crawlers?
ReplyDeleteOr is negativity a requirement for comment on this blog?
Their considering a rotary there?
ReplyDeleteFire them all, they clearly lack any cognitive ability.
Roundabout, not rotary.
ReplyDeleteA round about will make drunks and old drivers easy to pick out.
ReplyDeleteGranted, I'm not from Amherst, but in reading this highly entertaining blog it's striking how much the prevailing sentiment is against the elderly. Wait'll You get there. It Is the goal, isn't it? The alternative is not what we're after. Despite what Pete Townshend wrot back in the stone age.
DeleteSeem to work fine at UMass and Atkins.
ReplyDeleteIf these negative commenters had been among the first settlers to America, they wouldn't have gotten past the beach.
ReplyDeleteWhat examples of small towns with situations similar to Amherst's do the not-this-kind-of-growth crowd point to when they say 'no' to development?
ReplyDeleteThe parking spots will be there but they will be used by the folks living, shopping and visiting Kendrick Place.
ReplyDeleteThe only parking slots at kendrick place are two handicapped ones. I don't know the fate of the four ZIPCAR slots.
ReplyDeleteONE EAST PLEASANT St. will be two and one/half times as big as Kendrick due to waivers to the zoning bylaw granted by the planning board. Our bylaw allows 50 feet height but these buildings are 60 feet! Bylaw requires 20 foot setback abutting an RG district... this one has 4-5 feet where the bylaw says zero (a different section not abutting RG) or if you have a setback must be ten feet. etc. etc. the list goes on. Blame this all on the Manager literally lobbying the Planning Board which he appoints and reappoints!! Obviously, this is not a conflict of interest for a quasi-judicial board!!
SO WHAT CAN TOWN MEETING DO ABOUT THIS? nada! WHAT CAN A TOWN COUNSEL TO ABOUT THIS? also nada..
Sure, 12:39, lets talk about conflict of interest! I bet you are a town meeting member. But when have you or any other town meeting member EVER publicly recused him or herself from a vote? For instance a zoning petition effecting one's one lot, wouldn't you think at least one person would recuse themself? Not a chance.
ReplyDeleteAnd what about open meeting laws, the TM has its own secret YAHOO! group that nobody else can see. They discuss whatever they want and nurture their conspiracy theories about town government and none of us can see. Way different from the public process followed by the planning commission and the select board.
So don't throw stones you hypocrite. Our taxes are too damn high already and we need econ development to give us any chance against the university.