Maxpak is going to be rentals

[pjmorgan.livejournal.com]

Just came back from presentation by KSS and their new Maxpak partners (Gate Residential) on proposed changes to the Maxpak development that will be put before the zoning board on Thursday evening. They were presenting on the remaining 184 units to be developed. (15 townhouses have already begun construction in partnership with another firm, those will stay individually owned.) They want to construct the remaining now from 2011-2013, and those will be rentals.


I expected it to be a boring, non consequential meeting about floor area ratios changing by .01% and colors changing tints. The changes they are asking for are actually what commonly are called favorable: slightly decreased heights, a little more landscaping, some architectural changes that seemed OK and non consequential to me.

The potentially huge change I learned is that the remaining units will be rentals. I guess this was announced last week in a press release (posted on ward5online.com) but this was the first I learned of it, and only by accident in the Q&A portion. It wasn't part of their presentation because I guess they don't need permission to change from one kind of residential to another.

However, I feel the community should have more time to digest this, and I feel that allowing 199 units, which is above allowed zoning, was allowed with the expectation everything would be condos. But the zoning meeting is in 2 days.

I'm not sure yet how I fell about 184 rentals, 384 bedrooms added to my neighborhood. I have positive and negative feelings...I'm sure those could be debated in this thread. One positive is that that when the green line and community path extension happen a couple years later, the rental turnover will bring people who don't favor cars, whereas condo owners wouldn't turnover as quickly.

I think I just want more time to think about it. I realize its been a long process, and I kind of think that it's absurd that a process should take this long, but given that it does, for this HUGE detail to change so late feels like a bait and switch. I realize the current market dictates this and that they could always convert to condos later on. And these will be high quality buildings. And I'm not sure I really have a problem with it, but I'm not sure yet.

Comments

[m00n.livejournal.com]

Probably hundreds, even! I second this comment. It seems to me that most of the concerns about apartments over condos are based on certain assumptions about the flighty poor people who supposedly live in rental units. It reminds me of the "concerns" expressed about extending transit lines and community paths that usually center around some paranoia that it will "bring crime into the neighborhood."

I think few would dispute that the worst thing for the community is a vacant unit, so it is in everyone's best interest to let the developer do what it thinks is necessary to make sure those units are filled.

I do have to agree with Ron, though. Mixed use should have been required.

[koloratur.livejournal.com]

Me too. I'm a renter. Because I don't have $400,000. But I do participate actively in the community, take good care of my home, improve the yard, garden, decorate for holidays, shovel my sidewalk, etc. If the units are well built and sensibly priced, you're going to get mostly good apples.

[thetathx1138.livejournal.com]

Yeah, mixed use strikes me as a better option as well.

I'm assuming the OP's concerns have more to do with residents who have a stronger connection to the community, but I view those as pretty unfounded, myself.

[fefie.livejournal.com]

I would also prefer to see mixed use there, but the residents in the immediate neighborhood did not want it when negotiations between KSS and the neighbors were underway a few years ago.