Downtown Transition Areas

As Glenwood Brooklyn wants a DT transition area next door, this recent meeting introduces the issue and then discussion ensues. I’m watching it now so I can’t spoil it. Here’s the agenda item and I’m starting a new topic to talk about how downtown should or should not “transition” to nearby residential neighborhoods.


Yes, but let’s put the transition area on THEIR side of the line. After all, they are the ones who want it.


The transition area, requested by residents of Glenwood-Brooklyn is below. Note there are two areas, basically south of Peace and north of Peace. The committee is going to recommend to council to approve a transition area for the highlighted properties to the north of Peace but not for the south of Peace.

I appreciate Councilor Patton’s clarity that these transition areas are only recommendations, not hard requirements. (like zoning) Therefore, taller development may still happen.

I don’t know, this just feels like a power play here to benefit the few at the expense of the many. That rail line is a nice hard set buffer and they continue to claim that shadows and height will “damage the neighborhood” whatever that means. :roll_eyes:


That proposed (pink) add-on is mostly along West Street? (plus the Glenwood block that has MoJoes and Raleigh Beer Garden). Nah, overkill. I’m all for preserving Brooklyn historic district sure, but I agree–a power play.


This sort of downzoning limit flies completely in the face of the UDO they approved.

The city council is Ok with townhouses being built in the center of 5 Points neighborhoods that are clearly not on the transit corridor but want to consider restricting the capital blvd section CLEARLY on the biggest future transit corridor?!!!


The UDO already contains ‘transition’ recommendations for this area. Those properties against the RR on West can already build somewhere between 3-7stories ‘by right’ and the triangular lot in question of the prior rezoning attempt can go to 12 stories, IIRC.
This request is a ‘negotiating’ tactic based on the lack of engagement / discussion from the (dastardly - sarcasm font) developers proposing the prior rezoning and to serve as a roadblock (or standard, depending on your point of view) to future rezoning requests along this corridor.
I see the benefit to more height and residents along this corridor in the future and the ‘positive tension’ that opportunity will create for Glenwood Brooklyn residents. I certainly can see the benefit to increasing zoning entitlements that might make for some pretty wonderful public / private spaces in the vicinity but maybe this is a great test case to be transparent about the public and private benefit to the increased entitlement and let’s also acknowledge that we shouldn’t just ignore standards of transitions without discussions of give and take…? An area plan would probably help here because it would paint a picture for residents of what to expect. It would also take 10-15 years and we already have UDO guidelines, so round and round we go…There is more density coming to this district whether in 2024, 2030, whenever - seems what’s in the best interest of the many over the few is to lean on the standards rather than exceptions so everyone understands what to expect.

This is NIMBYism at its most transparent.

I’m coming to the council meeting when there is one.

That needs to be called out. Capital is a major corridor there trying to mess up federal funding. Same people who complain about traffic and more transiy, don’t really want it in the neighborhoods or transit development you can have the cake and eat.