tampa city planners
In his intro, Smitty made reference to Sandra Thompson’s recent column about the inconsistency and (lack of) planning in the downtown core. Reader Joe suggested we reprint the entire article. I don’t think we’ll do that, but we here in the sticks could not agree more with Sandra. Some highlights:
…two dime stores don’t make an Art Deco district.
What is more iconic to Tampa? A cigar factory or a dime store?
…buildings have been rejected downtown because they’re too tall… on mostly residential Harbour Island, apparently no building is too big.
…the game goes on. I’m not sure who’s going to win, but I think I can tell you who’s going to lose - the same people who’ve been losing this game all along.
If you give a damn about the direction of this city, please go read the entire article yourself: Rules keep shifting for our own Boardwalk, Park Place.
And if you have anything to do with city planning, read it again.
And if you know someone on city council, print it out and mail it to them.
Tags: development, tampa
Loading ...
March 29th, 2006 at 7:09 pm
This is a touchy issue. Too much “planning” can mean restrictions on the property owners right to dispose of their land as they see fit. How much control should the city excercise over the way buildings look or where they go? At some point you reach a line where it changes from the city trying to guide development to the city trying to dictate it. Maybe the best arguement against (or for) this level of city involvement will be the final outcome of the Kress building issue. As much as the paper and the mayor and the developer cried about the historic designation that the city council voted for the fact is the building won’t remain vacant with all the other activity around it. When those buildings open the kress building’s value will increase quite a bit and it will become something, historic building or not.
March 29th, 2006 at 7:52 pm
You make a very good point, Edit–but what’s so odd about the city council is that there’s not “too much” planning, there’s no consistent planning. On some things, there’s too much (height limits in the North Franklin neighborhood, et al), which cuts into property development entirely (witness Kress); on the other hand a total absence of sense seems to hold sway in Channelside, where what “plan” exists has been contravened to the point utter uselessness. They really do keep changing the rules.
March 30th, 2006 at 10:49 am
I agree! No consistency AT ALL! Perfect example is the “The Place Phase 2″ tower. The architectural design was amazing, beautiful building! The City Council meeting was packed with people past midnight to support the project and city council declined, on the basis on needing more info about the project. They had all the possible info they could ever want. The developer had been going through the application process for approx 12-18 months. But yet they approve the Towers of Channelside and The Martin. In the same general are, less appealing design and similar heights(Towers) Makes NO SENSE!!!
March 30th, 2006 at 10:51 am
And riddle me this: The Channel District has a 60-foot height limit, as everyone knows, and, as everyone knows, it doesn’t mean a thing. High-rise condos are going up willy-nilly. The Martin, at 22 stories, got the go-ahead a couple weeks ago. At the same meeting, Phase II of the Place, at 33 stories, got put on hold. We’re way over 60 feet, so why start counting now? The proposed building is so architecturally stunning it was painful for one council member to not say yes. Imagine that - a building so gorgeous it can’t get built in Tampa.
March 30th, 2006 at 1:15 pm
last comment by Sandra Thompson
March 30th, 2006 at 4:34 pm
I watched the city council meeting where Phase II of The Place was continued, yet again, and was disappointed when it became obvious it didn’t have the votes for approval. It’s time to lift the height restrictions in the Channel District and encourage density, affordability and beauty. I wish Saul-Sena could have been swayed enough by the beauty of the building to let go of her notion that the outdated vision of Channelside as a quaint little maritime village is something council must hang on to. Height by itself is not a bad thing. Monolithic blocks with buildings that rise straight up from setback to setback are bad, bad, bad, even if those buildings are only 60 feet tall.
March 10th, 2007 at 7:52 pm
[...] I’m glad to hear this news. Now, if only someone would buy and save all the cigar factories. [...]