Small is great. Its got to be one of the top inducements to encouraging entrepreneurship.
2 Likes
Another clothing store opening a permanent location in the Warehouse district named Flourish Market at 307 W. Martin St. This was apparently a female clothing store on wheels before.
4 Likes
It was actually on Tucker St, in the same apt building that Voda was in, which is now itself moving to North Hills. So that’s two soon to be available retail spots in that Tucker St apt building (the grey concrete/steel one- can’t remember the name)
A Place At the Table, will be expanding into the retail space that is next door this summer.
9 Likes
That’s so great to hear! Love that concept and happy they’re finding success.
2 Likes
The Devon. I lived there for 2 years. Nice place.
I’m on board with this too. My main concern so far has been the lack of any retail spaces, and that what we have does’t fall into much of a concentration. Hargett just east and west of Fayetteville is a good example of what you can get, and it only has half the retail spaces it used to, with all the north half of the street gone. Anyway, I’ll amend my old thought of *more, to *more and smaller and clustered.
2 Likes
I just went by the Ealdwine store. The collection is outstanding though I’ll probably only be able to purchase from there once…
4 Likes
Really would like to see Mendell voted out. She just seems to say no to everything.
10 Likes
Lol who does this woman think she is telling Scott Crawford what to do?
9 Likes
I’m hoping for a big shakeup this year. With McFarlane leaving I’d like to think there will be more interest than usual.
3 Likes
It sounds personal. There’s more to worry about the Station across the street with an outdoor bar and seating for 100+. Also the Indy’s article has some false reporting in there I’m sure @John can tune in on.
“Indeed, Mendell also had concerns about a rooftop bar that didn’t directly affect her property. Last year, she sided with residents of The Paramount in Glenwood South, who complained that a new boutique hotel’s planned rooftop bar would ruin their view of the downtown skyline.”
-That is not true.
- The planned hotel was facing Peace St. away from the skyline.
- The argument was over the noise, lighting and hours.(Correct me if I’m wrong)
2 Likes
People who chose to live downtown and then complain about noise 
…lol. I really hope this doesn’t change Crawford’s plans. Pelagic was originally looking into expanding into that building and putting a rooftop patio there as well.
11 Likes
Yeah the reporting in that article isn’t stellar. I find it troubling that Mendell is weighing in at all. I understand that she does have a personal interest since she owns property near by but she needs to decide if she wants to serve the city with a spot on the city council or serve her own interests. When there’s even a possible conflict between the two she should recuse. If you aren’t willing to sacrifice some personal gain in order to serve the city then you shouldn’t be in public service.
10 Likes
Am I reading this correctly that now the entire dining area will have to have an 8 foot board fence around it? I would think that would severely hurt the ambiance and keep there from being any view.
She is out of control with her NIMBYism.
3 Likes
You can see it here from the rendering. Seems to enclose the rear portion the most where the residential area begins.
4 Likes
Thanks! That is helpful, so that is the post-hearing/current design? If so, that is more reasonable than it sounded in the article.
I stand by the statement that Mendell is a NIMBY.
2 Likes
Thanks @Drew
While I didn’t read that article, and if the lifted quote from the article is word for word, that is not an accurate statement made by The Indy.
You are correct that the project is on the north side of The Paramount and not facing a downtown view. The participation and objections by the association was per the process that the city has in place in response to the property owner requesting a variance from the 3 story zoning in the UDO. The developer was pursuing 5 floors, and properly engaged The Paramount as immediately adjacent neighbors. This follows the city’s process.
While I looked at this variance request as an opportunity to get a better project through concession to a more thoughtful and integrated design with our building, some of those who faced north saw it differently: especially those on the floors that would possibly have a building right outside their windows and balconies.
To be fair to The Paramount, it’s important to understand that the two other developments, that have occurred adjacent to our property in the last several years, have skirted stated city processes, and/or violated the UDO. From my perspective, that’s the absolutely most annoying thing.
According to the city’s process, it should come as no surprise to anyone that there is always a possibility that there will be resistance to a variance request, especially when it’s immediately adjacent to someone’s home. And, by design, that process was followed to a conclusion that resulted in another floor added to the building (from 3 to 4), along with an associated height restriction and rules for a rooftop amenity.
Now, I understand that there’s a contingent here that is hostile to the notion of anything being denied to a developer who wants to go beyond the UDO. I also understand the enthusiasm for energizing the core of the city. Really, I get all of that. However, every request has context, is individual, and should be treated as such. Every challenge to a variance shouldn’t result in immediate scorn and calls of NIMBYism without understanding the full context. To be clear, the UDO provides a baseline of control for owners/developers to develop their property WITHOUT consent or engagement of their neighbors. It takes a significant level of NIMBYism off the table. The UDO allows a predefined and undisputed set of expected outcomes so that decisions about purchasing and/or developing land can be made more rapidly. It moves the negotiations between developers and neighbors to a position where the neighbors can’t shut something down out of NIMBYism. Essentially, it’s pro development by taking community review and comment off the table for conforming projects.
That said, if that’s not satisfactory, then I suggest action to change the UDO. It’s perfectly valid to have those discussions in the public square and make revisions where they make sense for today.
3 Likes
Which building are you guys talking about? All I see is a cute old house torn down and the lot left in arguably worse condition than before. Was this process a success?
The McDonald’s across the street was redeveloped without individual notification to each owner at The Paramount as was required by the city’s process at that time. The project also delivered a suburban model site plan that’s incongruent with the Peace Street street scape plan by being all about its drive-thru. As a result, a suburban project was dropped dead center on Peace St., on a key corner, thus destroying 2 streets at the same time. I had zero issue with a McDonald’s being redeveloped on that location. I had, and still have, huge issue with its replacement being a suburban incarnation yet again.
Secondly, the Revisn project delivered a hotel within a neighborhood mixed use category. Technicalities or not, it’s a hotel, not an apartment building. For two years I searched for information about this project, just out of curiosity and found ZERO information about it. At one point, there was a cryptic website and I used it to send a message requesting information. The request was ignored, and the website soon disappeared. It’s obvious to me that the developer knew that their project would be questioned if it were publicly known what it really was. Of course, once it was completed, it’s an “oh well, what can we do about it now?” sort of thing. To be clear, I am not saying that I’d necessarily object to the request to the appropriate rezoning for a hotel. It was a secretive project that purposely kept its real occupancy hidden from public to skirt the city and its neighbors. That in itself is underhanded and insulting.
My whole point is that, if a city is going to have a process that makes certain promises to its citizens, then that process should always be followed. If you don’t want to follow it, don’t have the process, and don’t set expectations. And, when the process is followed, don’t fault citizens and residents for participating in it.
5 Likes