Episode 141 - Green Giant?
Hello from your summertime producer of New Mexico In Focus! That was wonderfully warm welcome from Kevin McDonald, but I know that I'll have the best help around -- our great hosts, panelists, and guests make the show. I'll just do what I can to give them some good ingredients - they are the real masters in the kitchen.
Planning the growth of our city by creating sustainable "green" building - it sounds like a no-brainer. But getting things built in Albuquerque involves more than putting a good building on a piece of land. This week on New Mexico In Focus, hosts Gene Grant and David Alire Garcia talk to builders, neighbors, city planners, and others concerning a proposed project near UNM that is causing a lot of controversy, especially over the size of the building. Listen to both sides of the issue, and then check back for our follow-up information on the city council meeting that will take place Monday, June 16, where city councillors will vote on whether or not to adopt a zoning change that will determine the future of the project.
If you miss our TV broadcast, and want to learn more about this issue and other topics The Line panelists take on in their lively discussion, check back on our home page in the next day or so. We'll have it up soon. Meanwhile, you can check out a Powerpoint summary of Albuquerque's Planned Growth Strategy that's chock full of information about our city.
And before you leave this blog, make sure to view Josh Keenan's entry on The Cradle Project and the excellent video that accompanies it.
Until next time!
Kathy Wimmer
Planning the growth of our city by creating sustainable "green" building - it sounds like a no-brainer. But getting things built in Albuquerque involves more than putting a good building on a piece of land. This week on New Mexico In Focus, hosts Gene Grant and David Alire Garcia talk to builders, neighbors, city planners, and others concerning a proposed project near UNM that is causing a lot of controversy, especially over the size of the building. Listen to both sides of the issue, and then check back for our follow-up information on the city council meeting that will take place Monday, June 16, where city councillors will vote on whether or not to adopt a zoning change that will determine the future of the project.
If you miss our TV broadcast, and want to learn more about this issue and other topics The Line panelists take on in their lively discussion, check back on our home page in the next day or so. We'll have it up soon. Meanwhile, you can check out a Powerpoint summary of Albuquerque's Planned Growth Strategy that's chock full of information about our city.
And before you leave this blog, make sure to view Josh Keenan's entry on The Cradle Project and the excellent video that accompanies it.
Until next time!
Kathy Wimmer
posted by Kevin McDonald at
3:33 PM
2 Comments:
I am disappointed that in preparation for this important forum that considers growth issues and quality of life issues for neighborhoods that you didn't do your homework.
First, the Silver Hill Historical District includes my house in the 2100 block of Lead SE; it is not just the well-known Silver Avenue with its open space median. Indeed, the boundary of the historical neighborhood runs down Gold Avenue and zigzags to exclude the 2000 Gold site because it was, and still is, a parking lot. If there had been structures on that site when the neighborhood received the national designation (and state designation) as a historic neighborhood, without doubt that real estate would have been within the historic boundaries. Admittedly, within the historic neighborhood, the individual homes such as the Tingley house that have separate designations on the historic trust lists are on Silver Avenue. The house immediately adjacent (across Buena Vista) to the east, the house adjacent to the project to the west (across Terrace) are in the historic neighborhood. The Silver Avenue homes across the alley to the south are "nicer homes" within the historic neighborhood.
Silver Hill is not a post world war II neighborhood; 1928 is when my little house was built on Lead. The local elementary school, Monte Vista ES, opened in 1931 to meet the population of the Sycamore and Silver Hill neighborhoods as Nob Hill and to the north of Monte Vista was just starting to be developed.
No one prepared for the inFocus show by finding out the details of the extensive process of mediated dialogue that was engaged in for more than 8 months by the developers, architects and neighborhood (association and individuals). I'm not going to detail the specifics; they are on record. But the neighborhood associations in the University area (Silver Hill, University Heights and Sycamore) and neighborhood residents not belonging to the associations, have a long history of working with developers to achieve infill that recognizes the context of the neighborhoods (ie Bricklight on Harvard SE) to everyone's satisfaction. These are not "NIMBY" people. These efforts date back to the infill efforts that started after WW II to provide density for student housing. That's why existing density in the neighborhood already exceeds the density considered necessary for LEEDS certification; and the Gold Project calls for 3 times the existing density! These people, associations and individuals, have been intensively involved in sector planning efforts.
The upshot of the mediated meetings between the neighborhood and Sheffield developers of 2000 Gold is that the neighbors' request for scale adjustments that would bring the project closer to the architectural and typical residential lot features were met with minimal changes (from 53' to 47', some terracing). This is not a significient change to the massive scale of the project that will tower over 18' neighbors to the south, east and west.
Your show did not begin to address the parking issues that have been well documented in the record.
It disturbs me that this developer has pushed the 'greeness' of the project and wants everyone to gloss over the Sector Plan, other legally adopted zoning policies, AND the extensive record of the process with the community and within the EPC decision-making process. It's now being sold to the public as a 'solution to global warming.' The issues deserve a deeper consideration of the facts and the record of the process to date.
I see greed using the rhetoric of 'green.'
Sandra Simons-Ailes
I wish that this program had gone into more depth with the issue. For example:
1) Is it likely that this "green giant" is even feasible as marketed? What college student has $160,000 to buy a 600 square foot condo? Who wants to spend that kind of money on a hamster cage, when you will probably not be staying in the area once you graduate? Not to mention the other properties in the city that have more square footage and land attached, that can be bought for the same amount of money.
2) Do the city and developers have a right to violate a neighborhood's current sector plan in order to accommodate a "green" future? What does the city owe to it's current stakeholders versus it's imaginary future stakeholders? Are civil rights being violated here, and what does that do for the well-being of a community?
3) And what about density issues? How much density should a city be allowed to have when it is smack in the middle of a desert? Why does the city have a density limit of 30 units per acre? Is it for good reasons, or not so good?
Frankly, I was underwhelmed by this program. To me, it seemed biased on behalf of the development, and needed to stay shallow in content to remain so. If this development is good for Albuquerque then it should be able to withstand harder scrutiny, and I hope In Focus will do a more in-depth coverage of this issue to prove it.
Post a Comment
<< Back to Main Blog