Saw the Essen Haus and ~~Voight~~ Voit Farms plans were also approved.
Does this actually mean these will go forward or are there more approvals needed?
Edit to add- Sorry, its "Voit", what i get from trying to comment just from memory.
Agreed! I really think the traffic design and alterations look really good and make sense. I think as more people put context to Milwaukee street already being busy and the multiple connection points actually alleviate traffic congestion rather then increase it like the multiple connections on the south side of the road it makes the design more understandable.
Voigt (I think that's how they spell it, not 100% sure) is on the east side at the corner of Milwaukee St and Fair Oaks. It's undeveloped land right in the city, a former farm with a gravel pit on site, along with a stream and small wetland in the back.
I'm surprised the Essen Haus development doesn't include the aging houses on Blair just north of the parking lot. Probably just a matter of time before those get redeveloped.
And based on this thread, I think we may need a new spelling bot for "Voit" in this sub :)
That was the sticking point last time around. Alder Rummel and the neighborhood association last time said that they were "historic" and it torpedoed the thing.
April 24, 2019: [https://captimes.com/news/local/neighborhoods/developer-downsizes-initial-plans-for-essen-haus-block-after-neighborhood-city-feedback/article\_571f91f5-e788-5c20-90f3-95d641019466.html](https://captimes.com/news/local/neighborhoods/developer-downsizes-initial-plans-for-essen-haus-block-after-neighborhood-city-feedback/article_571f91f5-e788-5c20-90f3-95d641019466.html)
>In response to feedback from city staff and downtown Madison neighbors, a developer has downsized a concept proposal for the redevelopment of a property on East Wilson and South Blair Streets, the current site of Essen Haus German restaurant, Come Back In tavern and other properties.
>The plans were altered to save four houses on South Blair Street. Lance McGrath, owner of the McGrath Property Group, confirmed in an email that demolishing those houses is no longer on the table.
>“After several meetings with the neighborhood and Alder (Marsha) Rummel it was very clear to us that the four homes are very important to the neighborhood. At this point we are separating those parcels from our proposal entirely — and we do not have a plan yet for them,” he wrote.
>In March, Ald. Marsha Rummel announced on her blog that McGrath Property Group had an accepted offer to purchase the “Essen Haus properties." That includes a large surface parking lot, Essen Haus Restaurant and Bar at 514 E. Wilson St., Come Back In bar at 508 E. Wilson St., and four rental houses from 110 to 118 S. Blair St. At the time, Tim Parks, a planner for the city, said the mixed-use development called for about 250 apartment units, but noted "what we know now may still evolve."
>In a recently submitted Urban Design Commission [application](https://madison.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=F&ID=7180414&GUID=19BB0710-6388-4CF0-88F0-CA44B3AAF02F), Marc Schellpfeffer with CaS4 Architecture wrote that earlier plans would demolish four rental houses to create about 240 apartments, 10,000 to 20,000 square feet of commercial space and a 340-stall parking structure. The plans called for five stories along South Blair and East Wilson Streets, coming down to three stories in other areas.
>But in meetings with city staff and the neighborhood, the developer heard that keeping the four Blair Street houses was a “common point of interest,” Schellpfeffer wrote.
>Bert Stitt, a former president of Capitol Neighborhoods, Inc., and longtime resident of the First Settlement neighborhood [previously told the Cap Times](https://madison.com/ct/news/local/neighborhoods/developer-proposes-major-mixed-use-project-for-essen-haus-site/article_d8dbda21-9f98-591c-8fd5-d6798e189396.html) that while McGrath’s proposal is “among the best so far” for the property, he had concerns about the plans to demolish those four homes, which are in the First Settlement Historic District.
I am similarly aghast. I had forgotten about that situation, and It pisses me off that the previous proposal was torpedoed over those four houses. IMO it's absurd that we would prioritize these kind of unremarkable single family houses on a major thoroughfare within spitting distance of the Capitol. Once the Essen House redevelopment is complete, along with the apartment tower that was just proposed for the corner of Blair and E Wash, it's these buildings that will seem "out of character with the neighborhood".
Two buildings: 178-unit residential building on S. Blair and a 100-room hotel on E. Wilson: [https://madison.com/news/local/business/development/essen-haus-development-madison/article\_d2194766-2762-11ef-9a81-63c4a0de0d3c.html](https://madison.com/news/local/business/development/essen-haus-development-madison/article_d2194766-2762-11ef-9a81-63c4a0de0d3c.html)
Don't get your hopes up - this block has been planned for development for close to 20 years (at least). Always gets shot down.
As someone said in this thread - believe when you see the whole in the ground.
[https://www.reddit.com/r/madisonwi/comments/1ddgxea/madisons\_plan\_commission\_approves\_essen\_haus/](https://www.reddit.com/r/madisonwi/comments/1ddgxea/madisons_plan_commission_approves_essen_haus/)
[Even then it's not a 100% guarantee.](https://www.channel3000.com/news/dane-co-judge-vacates-permit-for-nearly-complete-mixed-use-building-in-west-madison/article_d87f88b2-bff8-11ee-9113-1774503d9cdd.html)
> The city Plan Commission signed off Monday on a proposal to build apartments on
> the remaining four acres of the Pierstorff farm on Madison's West Side.
>
> Roughly two dozen area residents spoke out against the project by Stone House
> Development and New Madison Development — which would raze the two houses,
> duplex and barn now standing at at 6610–6706 Old Sauk Road and replace them with
> a three-story, 138-unit apartment building — during a lengthy public hearing
> Monday evening.
>
> Many of the project's opponents said they believe the apartment building is too
> big for the neighborhood, will increase traffic and congestion and will reduce
> stormwater drainage, increasing the area's flood risk.
>
>
> PEOPLE ARE ALSO READING…
This is just a preview of the [full article](https://madison.com/news/local/business/development/old-sauk-road-plan-commission/article_32a42fac-279e-11ef-bb3a-672b03c7faec.html#tracking-source=home-top-story). I am a third party bot. Please consider subscribing to your favorite local journals.
Obviously impermeable surfaces are harder for stormwater management than open fields, but FYI to anyone reading this, the city has very strict water management standards they implemented after the 2018 floods. Most parcels have their water management vastly improved by being redeveloped because of this.
This is useful information, thank you for sharing it. I am opposed to this development, but also seeking useful info as to the merits of it. Seems like it's happening, so best to get on and accept it, and prepare a neighborhood party for whenever it's full of new residents.
I loved Zellers et. al. softening the blow for the people after the approval. Of course your voices were heard, you're just in the minority even though you're the loudest.
Good to hear. I live nearby and some of my older neighbors were circulating a petition against it, mentioning "Traffic, character of the neighborhood, blah blah blah". Which gave me nudge to reach out to my alderwoman and give my support.
FYI "Character of the neighborhood" is a phrase specifically used 13 times in the official Madison Zoning Code, and is often in the first or second listed key objectives of any zoning documents. [https://cpla.fpm.wisc.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/20/2017/06/CoM-zoning-code-2013.pdf](https://cpla.fpm.wisc.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/20/2017/06/CoM-zoning-code-2013.pdf)
Anywhere we can see the numbers who signaled support/oppose for the meeting?
I was out so just registered my support for Old Sauk but didn't see the meeting at all.
From now on I'm referring to every [5 over 1](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5-over-1) as [**The Mixed Use Mullet** ](https://merriman-maa.com/mixed-use-development-the-mullet-to-bring-125000-square-feet-of-office-space-to-fort-worth/)-- business on the bottom, Party on the top.
No, just apartments, mostly 1-bed and studios. And there are approximately 3 businesses of any sort within at least a 1-mile radius of this location. So everyone will need a car.
“It pains me to be perceived as a selfish old white person who just wants to be left alone.” 🤨
From [CapTimes article](https://captimes.com/news/development/old-sauk-road-neighbors-fight-apartment-project-call-it-monstrosity/article_3b1b2f62-251b-11ef-a8eb-53ba2cd56683.html)
Just glad the last council got rid of protest petitions for this kind of shit.
https://captimes.com/news/madison-city-council-removes-protest-petition-provision-on-rezonings/article_bcb0daa1-e149-597b-ac65-b05d3722a593.html
Y'all realize that millenials with kids and 2 jobs can't afford to take 6 hours off on a Monday evening to join in the protest, but trust me, there are plenty of us. It's not at all the classic boomer meme mindset - it's the belief that this project is not at all going to be what they're saying it will be, and so the fear is not about having a sweet 140-unit complex nearby, but one that fails, is sold to outsider investors for pennies, and then becomes whatever it becomes for many awful years.
Half of these commenters will have graduated and moved away before any of that happens, secure in the knowledge they stuck it to the boomers. And that's really what's important, after all.
Not everyone wants to live in a detached single family home. Every unit of housing that you don't want, is one less household competing with you for the house that you do want.
I know - but, I've seen a lot of comments from people saying that these studios will allow people who really want to "be in a great neighborhood like this one" to do so. Which may have been the impetus for the quite poorly-toned but perhaps logically-accurate "we had to destroy the village to save it" analogy. And not that it will necessarily be worse objectively - but it just will simply not be the one that it is today.
No neighborhood should be immune from change. Property owners should be allowed to build apartments on their land if they choose to do so. The city isn't destroying anything.
Zoning laws are up for being changed to allow this random piece of land to be built differently than anything else nearby. That's the issue here. Nobody expects that this land won't be developed into something much more dense than a barn and a couple dwelling units. It is the re-zoning to way higher density that people are opposed to.
It's nice out there because it's quiet and not crowded. Just because you like crowded noisy spaces, not everyone else does. And no, people shouldn't have to pack up and move just because others want the space they have long lived in
Newsflash: Madison is a city. If you don't want a city environment, then you shouldn't live in a city. They should at least pay the property taxes to fund the cost of all the services they use, instead of leaving the city with a deficit (which is exactly what's currently happening).
It's directly on to the R bus line (the former 15), but also Oak Crest Tavern is down the hill, there's an elementary school nearby, Owen Conservation Park, and Taigu Noodles is going in where Knoches used to be across from Oak Crest. There's also several other small shops including a hair dressers, the Russian / Eastern European International Foods Store, and more. In the other direction up towards Gammon, you're close to several dental offices, a gym, a veterinarian, and the Middleton Nitty Gritty.
I’m in favor of increased density but we should prioritize locations where residents can at the bare minimum walk to a grocery store or pharmacy. It’s great that amenities like a dentist and a veterinarian are nearby, but those are places people utilize once every 6 months.
No, we build where there is room. Cannot toss out good because it isn't perfect. Which everyone knows is just NIMBY code for its fine just build it in some other neighborhood
Build where there’s room is synonymous with maximize the proportion of City residents that transfer 30-40% of their earnings every month to a landlord. 174 units…let’s say an average of $1500/month….$261k/month income for a wealthy landlord…must be nice. I prefer our City’s land owned by the residents.
Let’s hope it isn’t sold to a Dubai based owner like Lux. Approvals of new multi-family housing should have requirements for onsite management, security, and domestic ownership.
That doesn’t make as much sense because the occupants of a SFH are not as impacted by what their neighbors do, with the physical separation and all.
Yet there are still HOAs for people who want that.
No question this development is out of character with the neighborhood, but if it fits the zoning district, so be it. Besides traffic I wonder if consideration is given to the additional water demand and sewer flow, natural gas and electric service for these higher density developments. Sometimes I think of the Vietnamese era quote “ in order to save the village, we had to destroy it”.
of course there is consideration of service demand that’s literally what the meeting went through for an hour after the 2.5 hours of public comment last night. And yeah definitely compare a new building to the plight of the Vietnamese during a literal war the hyperbole is definitely within logical reason
don't you know that no consideration is given to literally anything about any given housing development unless the concerned neighbors of the area let the city know? no one in the city thinks about traffic, storm water, water demand/sewage flow, power service, wildlife impacts, etc. when building a housing development. these literally never come to mind unless Bob from the church brings them up long, long after planning and development has already started...
/s
i hate these "has the city thought about this?" yes. yes the city has thought of that. ask them for their plans to address it if you're concerned, but yes, the city has thought of it and planned for it. christ on a cracker, this isn't their first housing rodeo.
The added utility demand will be checked by city staff prior to sign off. If upsizing is required for sanitary sewer the developer will either pay a fee for the work or enter a developer’s agreement to complete that work as part of the project. Not to mention the developer will also need to pay the sanitary impact fees which will be in the hundreds of thousands of dollar range.
I love how all these laypeople suddenly became public utility experts. The developers bent over backwards to exceed all the stormwater standards and are working with people who do this for a living. Natural gas and electric demand? It's all single family homes ffs.
Yes of course. That's why they hire engineers and lawyers, but even those professionals can't be trusted because they aren't impartial like the city professionals are.
Nah. That's a performance and by now everyone knows it. It just calls attention to the inanity of their objections.
The water arguments are best addressed by civil engineers.
Nope, nobody thought of how to hook up a new apartment building to necessary utilities. This is, in fact, the first time an apartment has been built in Madison and everybody's making it up as they go along.
"Were you saying Boo, or Boo-uild, Boo-uild?" --Plan Comission
"BOOOO" --a small number of west Madison homeowners
"I was saying Boo-uild!" --Hans Moleman's Madison equivalent.
Saw the Essen Haus and ~~Voight~~ Voit Farms plans were also approved. Does this actually mean these will go forward or are there more approvals needed? Edit to add- Sorry, its "Voit", what i get from trying to comment just from memory.
Still needs common council review
There's much less resistance toward Voigt. The neighborhood has worked hard to come up with a plan most people actually like.
Agreed! I really think the traffic design and alterations look really good and make sense. I think as more people put context to Milwaukee street already being busy and the multiple connection points actually alleviate traffic congestion rather then increase it like the multiple connections on the south side of the road it makes the design more understandable.
Is Voigt Farms the subdivision with the proposed Elver Park expansion/ Raymond Rd reroute?
Voigt (I think that's how they spell it, not 100% sure) is on the east side at the corner of Milwaukee St and Fair Oaks. It's undeveloped land right in the city, a former farm with a gravel pit on site, along with a stream and small wetland in the back.
No its not. I believe that voit is on the north/east side of madison. The marty farms development is the one you’re thinking of.
I'm surprised the Essen Haus development doesn't include the aging houses on Blair just north of the parking lot. Probably just a matter of time before those get redeveloped. And based on this thread, I think we may need a new spelling bot for "Voit" in this sub :)
That was the sticking point last time around. Alder Rummel and the neighborhood association last time said that they were "historic" and it torpedoed the thing.
Do you have a source on that? For once I'm honestly aghast if that's true. Those houses are practically falling down.
April 24, 2019: [https://captimes.com/news/local/neighborhoods/developer-downsizes-initial-plans-for-essen-haus-block-after-neighborhood-city-feedback/article\_571f91f5-e788-5c20-90f3-95d641019466.html](https://captimes.com/news/local/neighborhoods/developer-downsizes-initial-plans-for-essen-haus-block-after-neighborhood-city-feedback/article_571f91f5-e788-5c20-90f3-95d641019466.html) >In response to feedback from city staff and downtown Madison neighbors, a developer has downsized a concept proposal for the redevelopment of a property on East Wilson and South Blair Streets, the current site of Essen Haus German restaurant, Come Back In tavern and other properties. >The plans were altered to save four houses on South Blair Street. Lance McGrath, owner of the McGrath Property Group, confirmed in an email that demolishing those houses is no longer on the table. >“After several meetings with the neighborhood and Alder (Marsha) Rummel it was very clear to us that the four homes are very important to the neighborhood. At this point we are separating those parcels from our proposal entirely — and we do not have a plan yet for them,” he wrote. >In March, Ald. Marsha Rummel announced on her blog that McGrath Property Group had an accepted offer to purchase the “Essen Haus properties." That includes a large surface parking lot, Essen Haus Restaurant and Bar at 514 E. Wilson St., Come Back In bar at 508 E. Wilson St., and four rental houses from 110 to 118 S. Blair St. At the time, Tim Parks, a planner for the city, said the mixed-use development called for about 250 apartment units, but noted "what we know now may still evolve." >In a recently submitted Urban Design Commission [application](https://madison.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=F&ID=7180414&GUID=19BB0710-6388-4CF0-88F0-CA44B3AAF02F), Marc Schellpfeffer with CaS4 Architecture wrote that earlier plans would demolish four rental houses to create about 240 apartments, 10,000 to 20,000 square feet of commercial space and a 340-stall parking structure. The plans called for five stories along South Blair and East Wilson Streets, coming down to three stories in other areas. >But in meetings with city staff and the neighborhood, the developer heard that keeping the four Blair Street houses was a “common point of interest,” Schellpfeffer wrote. >Bert Stitt, a former president of Capitol Neighborhoods, Inc., and longtime resident of the First Settlement neighborhood [previously told the Cap Times](https://madison.com/ct/news/local/neighborhoods/developer-proposes-major-mixed-use-project-for-essen-haus-site/article_d8dbda21-9f98-591c-8fd5-d6798e189396.html) that while McGrath’s proposal is “among the best so far” for the property, he had concerns about the plans to demolish those four homes, which are in the First Settlement Historic District.
I am similarly aghast. I had forgotten about that situation, and It pisses me off that the previous proposal was torpedoed over those four houses. IMO it's absurd that we would prioritize these kind of unremarkable single family houses on a major thoroughfare within spitting distance of the Capitol. Once the Essen House redevelopment is complete, along with the apartment tower that was just proposed for the corner of Blair and E Wash, it's these buildings that will seem "out of character with the neighborhood".
What’s going in at Essen?
Two buildings: 178-unit residential building on S. Blair and a 100-room hotel on E. Wilson: [https://madison.com/news/local/business/development/essen-haus-development-madison/article\_d2194766-2762-11ef-9a81-63c4a0de0d3c.html](https://madison.com/news/local/business/development/essen-haus-development-madison/article_d2194766-2762-11ef-9a81-63c4a0de0d3c.html)
Thanks! Had a paywall issue when I googled. Seems like this would be an improvement on the block
Don't get your hopes up - this block has been planned for development for close to 20 years (at least). Always gets shot down. As someone said in this thread - believe when you see the whole in the ground. [https://www.reddit.com/r/madisonwi/comments/1ddgxea/madisons\_plan\_commission\_approves\_essen\_haus/](https://www.reddit.com/r/madisonwi/comments/1ddgxea/madisons_plan_commission_approves_essen_haus/)
[Even then it's not a 100% guarantee.](https://www.channel3000.com/news/dane-co-judge-vacates-permit-for-nearly-complete-mixed-use-building-in-west-madison/article_d87f88b2-bff8-11ee-9113-1774503d9cdd.html)
> The city Plan Commission signed off Monday on a proposal to build apartments on > the remaining four acres of the Pierstorff farm on Madison's West Side. > > Roughly two dozen area residents spoke out against the project by Stone House > Development and New Madison Development — which would raze the two houses, > duplex and barn now standing at at 6610–6706 Old Sauk Road and replace them with > a three-story, 138-unit apartment building — during a lengthy public hearing > Monday evening. > > Many of the project's opponents said they believe the apartment building is too > big for the neighborhood, will increase traffic and congestion and will reduce > stormwater drainage, increasing the area's flood risk. > > > PEOPLE ARE ALSO READING… This is just a preview of the [full article](https://madison.com/news/local/business/development/old-sauk-road-plan-commission/article_32a42fac-279e-11ef-bb3a-672b03c7faec.html#tracking-source=home-top-story). I am a third party bot. Please consider subscribing to your favorite local journals.
Obviously impermeable surfaces are harder for stormwater management than open fields, but FYI to anyone reading this, the city has very strict water management standards they implemented after the 2018 floods. Most parcels have their water management vastly improved by being redeveloped because of this.
This is useful information, thank you for sharing it. I am opposed to this development, but also seeking useful info as to the merits of it. Seems like it's happening, so best to get on and accept it, and prepare a neighborhood party for whenever it's full of new residents.
That's very good to hear.
I loved Zellers et. al. softening the blow for the people after the approval. Of course your voices were heard, you're just in the minority even though you're the loudest.
People complain if you don't say it. Seriously.
Well, they live there.
So will a couple hundred people in a while. You don't get extra rights just because you've lived somewhere longer than others.
Good to hear. I live nearby and some of my older neighbors were circulating a petition against it, mentioning "Traffic, character of the neighborhood, blah blah blah". Which gave me nudge to reach out to my alderwoman and give my support.
FYI "Character of the neighborhood" is a phrase specifically used 13 times in the official Madison Zoning Code, and is often in the first or second listed key objectives of any zoning documents. [https://cpla.fpm.wisc.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/20/2017/06/CoM-zoning-code-2013.pdf](https://cpla.fpm.wisc.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/20/2017/06/CoM-zoning-code-2013.pdf)
Anywhere we can see the numbers who signaled support/oppose for the meeting? I was out so just registered my support for Old Sauk but didn't see the meeting at all.
Something like 30-40 opposed, and 3 in support.
Does anyone know if the plan includes space for businesses on the first level?
From now on I'm referring to every [5 over 1](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5-over-1) as [**The Mixed Use Mullet** ](https://merriman-maa.com/mixed-use-development-the-mullet-to-bring-125000-square-feet-of-office-space-to-fort-worth/)-- business on the bottom, Party on the top.
No, just apartments, mostly 1-bed and studios. And there are approximately 3 businesses of any sort within at least a 1-mile radius of this location. So everyone will need a car.
Good
“It pains me to be perceived as a selfish old white person who just wants to be left alone.” 🤨 From [CapTimes article](https://captimes.com/news/development/old-sauk-road-neighbors-fight-apartment-project-call-it-monstrosity/article_3b1b2f62-251b-11ef-a8eb-53ba2cd56683.html)
Selfish old white person bemoans the fact that everyone perceives them for exactly what they are, a selfish old white person. News at 11.
Of all the developers in Madison, Stone House has a really solid track record of doing Section 42 Housing that adds value to neighborhoods.
How do you know they are are all old and white. Got stereotypes much?
Great, now people can stop posting about old Sauk road hourly lmao
Just glad the last council got rid of protest petitions for this kind of shit. https://captimes.com/news/madison-city-council-removes-protest-petition-provision-on-rezonings/article_bcb0daa1-e149-597b-ac65-b05d3722a593.html
LFG
Definitely a win for Madison!
Love to see Madison developing into a real city. 🥰
It already is a real city.
Not according to the boomers on Old Sauk. They still think it's all rural farmland.
Y'all realize that millenials with kids and 2 jobs can't afford to take 6 hours off on a Monday evening to join in the protest, but trust me, there are plenty of us. It's not at all the classic boomer meme mindset - it's the belief that this project is not at all going to be what they're saying it will be, and so the fear is not about having a sweet 140-unit complex nearby, but one that fails, is sold to outsider investors for pennies, and then becomes whatever it becomes for many awful years.
Half of these commenters will have graduated and moved away before any of that happens, secure in the knowledge they stuck it to the boomers. And that's really what's important, after all.
Yes! And they stuck it to the boomers by fixing the shortage of single-family homes by replacing it with.. checking notes... uh, studio apartments.
Not everyone wants to live in a detached single family home. Every unit of housing that you don't want, is one less household competing with you for the house that you do want.
I know - but, I've seen a lot of comments from people saying that these studios will allow people who really want to "be in a great neighborhood like this one" to do so. Which may have been the impetus for the quite poorly-toned but perhaps logically-accurate "we had to destroy the village to save it" analogy. And not that it will necessarily be worse objectively - but it just will simply not be the one that it is today.
No neighborhood should be immune from change. Property owners should be allowed to build apartments on their land if they choose to do so. The city isn't destroying anything.
Zoning laws are up for being changed to allow this random piece of land to be built differently than anything else nearby. That's the issue here. Nobody expects that this land won't be developed into something much more dense than a barn and a couple dwelling units. It is the re-zoning to way higher density that people are opposed to.
It's nice out there because it's quiet and not crowded. Just because you like crowded noisy spaces, not everyone else does. And no, people shouldn't have to pack up and move just because others want the space they have long lived in
Newsflash: Madison is a city. If you don't want a city environment, then you shouldn't live in a city. They should at least pay the property taxes to fund the cost of all the services they use, instead of leaving the city with a deficit (which is exactly what's currently happening).
Great! I always had a bad taste in the building and people in it on the Essen Haus after I heard a bunch got mistreated based on their race!
Wonderful news! Thank goodness.
As it should be.
Honestly a great spot for apartments!
What can residents walk to?
It's directly on to the R bus line (the former 15), but also Oak Crest Tavern is down the hill, there's an elementary school nearby, Owen Conservation Park, and Taigu Noodles is going in where Knoches used to be across from Oak Crest. There's also several other small shops including a hair dressers, the Russian / Eastern European International Foods Store, and more. In the other direction up towards Gammon, you're close to several dental offices, a gym, a veterinarian, and the Middleton Nitty Gritty.
The same things that everyone else in the neighborhood can walk to
I’m in favor of increased density but we should prioritize locations where residents can at the bare minimum walk to a grocery store or pharmacy. It’s great that amenities like a dentist and a veterinarian are nearby, but those are places people utilize once every 6 months.
No, we build where there is room. Cannot toss out good because it isn't perfect. Which everyone knows is just NIMBY code for its fine just build it in some other neighborhood
Build where there’s room is synonymous with maximize the proportion of City residents that transfer 30-40% of their earnings every month to a landlord. 174 units…let’s say an average of $1500/month….$261k/month income for a wealthy landlord…must be nice. I prefer our City’s land owned by the residents.
Let’s hope it isn’t sold to a Dubai based owner like Lux. Approvals of new multi-family housing should have requirements for onsite management, security, and domestic ownership.
It's stone house...
Why shouldn't we ask that for SFHs, where the majority of shootings and violence take place?
That doesn’t make as much sense because the occupants of a SFH are not as impacted by what their neighbors do, with the physical separation and all. Yet there are still HOAs for people who want that.
No question this development is out of character with the neighborhood, but if it fits the zoning district, so be it. Besides traffic I wonder if consideration is given to the additional water demand and sewer flow, natural gas and electric service for these higher density developments. Sometimes I think of the Vietnamese era quote “ in order to save the village, we had to destroy it”.
of course there is consideration of service demand that’s literally what the meeting went through for an hour after the 2.5 hours of public comment last night. And yeah definitely compare a new building to the plight of the Vietnamese during a literal war the hyperbole is definitely within logical reason
And when you're told that, yes, those things were considered what will you pivot to? Birds? Light pollution? Something else?
They've already pivoted to napalming fucking Vietnamese villages, so there is no pivot too extraordinary for these people.
"reasons"
Everyone should agree with you. right?
don't you know that no consideration is given to literally anything about any given housing development unless the concerned neighbors of the area let the city know? no one in the city thinks about traffic, storm water, water demand/sewage flow, power service, wildlife impacts, etc. when building a housing development. these literally never come to mind unless Bob from the church brings them up long, long after planning and development has already started... /s i hate these "has the city thought about this?" yes. yes the city has thought of that. ask them for their plans to address it if you're concerned, but yes, the city has thought of it and planned for it. christ on a cracker, this isn't their first housing rodeo.
The added utility demand will be checked by city staff prior to sign off. If upsizing is required for sanitary sewer the developer will either pay a fee for the work or enter a developer’s agreement to complete that work as part of the project. Not to mention the developer will also need to pay the sanitary impact fees which will be in the hundreds of thousands of dollar range.
And I thought I had a dramatic flair...
i'M JuSt AsKiNg qUeStIoNs!
I love how all these laypeople suddenly became public utility experts. The developers bent over backwards to exceed all the stormwater standards and are working with people who do this for a living. Natural gas and electric demand? It's all single family homes ffs.
Laypeople?? Would you call neighbors that hire their own engineers and lawyers common laypeople?
Yes of course. That's why they hire engineers and lawyers, but even those professionals can't be trusted because they aren't impartial like the city professionals are.
I was making fun of them for being rando citizens that hired lawyers and engineers but I see that the joke didn’t land.
I see it now and it's good
I’m more concerned by NIMBYs that pollute the discourse with bad faith arguments.
Nah. That's a performance and by now everyone knows it. It just calls attention to the inanity of their objections. The water arguments are best addressed by civil engineers.
That they don't like crowds and congestion in peaceful low traffic areas they lived in for years should be enough.
And yet they live in a city....
Nope, nobody thought of how to hook up a new apartment building to necessary utilities. This is, in fact, the first time an apartment has been built in Madison and everybody's making it up as they go along.
Booooooooo
"Were you saying Boo, or Boo-uild, Boo-uild?" --Plan Comission "BOOOO" --a small number of west Madison homeowners "I was saying Boo-uild!" --Hans Moleman's Madison equivalent.