My small observation about the bedroom windows issue: Since a windowless bedroom is probably the least desirable one in the suite, I think it gives a chance for someone to pay less rent (whether formally or informally) in an otherwise pricey building. And how often are students lazing about in their rooms during the day, anyhow? These features cost the developer money, so no complaining about the rents after the city forced them to put those bells and whistles on! If we’re interested in the well-being of students or other renters, perhaps the low-hanging fruit are the “slums” people are referring to. (Although if those landlords are forced to clean them up, I’m certain they’d pass the costs along, anyway.)

And thank you for pointing out the inherent greenness of increasing density anywhere you don’t need a car to get to class or work. LEED seems to be a tool for allowing people to feel good about building in the middle of nowhere.

I asked last night for digital versions of the renderings and floor plans, but was put off – I suspect because they might make some changes before submitting to the planning department. I’ll post renderings as soon as I can get them. For now, here’s a photo of the project showing views from each side: [image]

In the abstract case, the question of windows on interior lot lines brings up one of the dis-satisfactions I have with the A2D2 revisions: the “step-back setback” is not a zoning tool I’m fond of – I think it leads to buildings that look like they’re setting back on their haunches lazily, or look like they’ve been chopped off oddly, and leads to problems like, “what about windows?” Think the Federal Building, or the Q-Bert Building (One North Main), or old City Hall.

By comparison, check out a historic building like the First National Building at the corner of Washington and Main Street: built in 1929, it is proudly front-loaded, with 10 stories straight up from the sidewalk, and it steps down towards the interior lot lines. Not only do I find this arrangement aesthetically much more appealing, but it’s the natural solution to “where do you put windows?” – well, you just don’t put your building smack up against the interior lot lines, is where.

The counter-example, of course, is the oft-maligned Tower Plaza Condominiums, which demonstrates that front-loading can possibly be taken too far, but I don’t think many of that building’s detractors would like it any better if the tower were centered on the lot rather than up against the street.

From a Nov. 6, 2008 city council report when Village Green’s City Apartments project at First & Washington was approved [emphasis added]:

Aside from sheer height, aesthetic objections included the south wall of the building, which would be windowless – a blank wall. This was a design feature that planning commissioner Ethel Potts also lamented in her comments at that meeting. In response to the explanation that building codes prohibited windows in buildings built that close to the lot line, Potts said that it was the developer’s decision to go that close to the line, and that if windows were a priority, the building could have been set back from the line.

Not window-related, but relevant to City Apartments: At last night’s city council budget meeting, Village Green’s City Apartments project received some discussion in the context of a question about a contingency to take on some additional debt to borrow the $3 million expected from the sale of that First & Washington property – if it does not come through sometime soon. The site approval has been extended once by city council through December 2009, with a provision that the city administrator can authorize two 3-month extensions, which he has done. When the second extension runs out at the end of June 2010, the council will need to act if there is to be an additional extension.

At the council’s Monday budget meeting, the city’s CFO, Tom Crawford, indicated that he’d had recent conversations with Village Green and that they were feeling positive.

Zaragon Place 1 is sort of notorious for not having windows in every bedroom—it is one of the things people complained about before it was built and people who live there now also complain about. When I asked one of the developers about windows in Zaragon Place 2, he said that there would be windows in every bedroom and then murmured under his breath that the law had changed and they had to include windows in every bedroom. So I’m glad to see that, but kind of a shame that had to be legislated. When I asked them if any windows in the building would open, there was one resounding yes, one resounding no, and then some discussion back-and-forth. I guess it is still to be determined.

The building will have almost no green/sustainable features and they are not planning to apply for any LEED or other certification. They might have a white roof for reflection, maybe some sustainable trim in the apartments (the rubber floors), and it will be made of concrete. Given the location, the fact that they are using unused space, and being close to transportation, those would probably qualify them for a basic LEED certification (which is what the Moravian proposed—it isn’t very stringent). They were pleasantly surprised when I told them the building would be directly next to two Zipcars.

I thought the above-ground parking was interesting. They said it was much cheaper than underground parking and for their purposes it was a good use of the second and third floors. I’ve seen this in Chicago and Boulder and it seems to work well. You can’t usually tell it is parking from the outside.

The retail space looked reasonable-sized. It was clear they would like to see a restaurant there, but are open to whatever the market bears. They are willing to divide the space or keep it as one bigger area. The glass will be clear. They said they realized on Zaragon Place 1 that even a bit of tint can negatively affect the interior tenant so they will go with all clear. Other than that, the general look will be very similar to ZP1.

In general, I think it is a good building in the right place. I like the mix of apartment sizes. I like how it is stepped back and follows the design guidelines. I like that it fits in the zoning. I like that there is retail on William. I do think the proposed rent is crazy and can’t imagine there are so many people out there who can pay $1000/bedroom, but these downtown properties seem to be renting for that so you can’t blame them for going with the market. Sure, I would change some things if it were my building, but it isn’t, so I’m happy enough with this one.

This is what my neighbors and I have been saying for two years: build tall, dense buildings where we have all agreed as a community that they should go–DOWNTOWN. There is no need to raid the neighborhoods, granting windfall variances for inappropriate projects when there are opportunities like this available in D1 and D2 districts.

Hard to say how this will impact the numerous other downtown projects already approved that are just waiting for financing, but if the market is there, hopefully these will soon move forward, too.

I also look forward to seeing Peter Allen’s new Kingsley Lane project come forward. Based on locations, these projects will focus on two different market segments, students and lower-salary workers, but both are on vacant land, properly zoned for the uses being proposed, and would not destroy thriving neighborhoods.

Hallelujah!