I just want to point out that, between the activists who are worried about the environment plus vague development plans, the careful planners who want to make sure Downtown South happens in the smoothest way possible, and the people who are like “LET’S BUILD THIS NOW SCREW THE NIMBYS”, I’m seeing one of those 3 groups having an entirely different conversation that’s not based on specific issues and (lack of) design features.
And that side is not the activists.
The City is considering overlay districts that could make affordable housing a viable thing in this district, plus we deserve more detailed plans (and sexy renderings!!) about how DoSo will actually be laid out. What’s wrong with just taking those ideas to come forth with a specific proposal? Like @orulz said, sure there’s lots of things that sound cool about Downtown South, but there’s also a lot of unknowns that were more clear before Council approval for places like the North Hills expansions. What’s wrong with asking for more details?
It’s from a different thread, but I think what John said about how Chapel Hill once opposed an urban interstate but also has development policies like form-based codes is good to keep in mind here, too:
If Kane incorporates those community ideas into his designs and people still complain, then that’s showing bad faith that is probably worth ignoring. But for now, aren’t those people bringing up genuine questions that could be answered in cool and meaningful ways? I don’t understand why so many people here are jumping to that conclusion now without making room for that.