Vice Mayor Jim Gray, whose day job is running a big construction company, says he learned a long time ago that development projects ”are a lot more about process than project.“
Two of Lexington’s biggest development projects came up Tuesday during the Urban County Council’s last work session and meeting before the summer break. What was striking was the radically different approaches the two projects’ developers have taken to ”process.“
One project is CentrePointe, Dudley Webb’s proposed 35-story luxury hotel, condo and retail tower that would occupy a block in the center of Lexington. The other is the proposed Lexington Distillery District on a blighted section of Manchester Street between Rupp Arena and the Newtown Pike Extension.
Conceived privately and announced March 4 after closed-door discussions with the Downtown Development Authority and the mayor’s office, CentrePointe has faced broad community opposition and suspicion.
Young people are upset that popular music and entertainment venues such as the Dame were evicted from the block. Preservationists want some elements of the block’s historic buildings incorporated into the new structure, as has been done in many other cities, rather than being bulldozed.
Citizens and urban planners complain that the design Webb unveiled is too massive for the site and doesn’t follow the city’s Downtown Master Plan. Architects think CentrePointe’s design is uninspired, at best. The soon-to-be-displaced Farmers Market wants a new home.
Stung by the opposition, Webb responded by making a few changes to his plan. But he insists on clearing the block and starting fresh. And he says it’s too late to consider alternative suggestions from architects, preservationists or citizens.
Webb’s approach to ”process“ prompted the Fayette Alliance on Tuesday to withdraw support for CentrePointe. The Alliance had conditionally supported the project when it was announced, saying urban infill is important to preserving farmland, its main goal.
In a sharply worded rebuke, the Alliance criticized CentrePointe’s developer for failing to involve the public or address community concerns. The Alliance urged city government and Webb to ”establish a transparent and structured public participation process to meaningfully address“ those concerns.
In stark contrast to Webb’s style is the approach being taken by Barry McNees, Brooke Asbell and their partners in the proposed Lexington Distillery District. It would create a mixed-use neighborhood of restaurants, clubs, stores, loft homes, pedestrian areas and perhaps a farmer’s market or even a small showcase distillery along Manchester Street.
A century ago, the neighborhood housed three of Kentucky’s biggest bourbon distilleries, the last of which shut down a generation ago. Many of the old distillery buildings remain, and there is lots of vacant space for new development.
In a presentation to the council Tuesday, Asbell said his group wants to reuse the old buildings rather than bulldoze them, to create a unique area that will bring people downtown and pay homage to Lexington’s history and culture. The developers are working to integrate their plans with other nearby projects such as the Town Branch Trail and the Newtown Pike Extension’s signature bridge.
Like CenterPointe, planning for the Distillery District began more than two years ago.
During that time, the Distillery District’s developers have held several workshops to gather design ideas from professional and student architects and have met frequently with local leaders, surrounding neighborhoods, arts groups and other interested parties. Open community forums will be scheduled soon, after studies help firm up more project details, Asbell said.
Tax-increment financing, known as TIF, will be needed to make the project economically feasible, Asbell told council members. That’s because the developers can’t cover the cost of such things as putting utilities underground and building pedestrian areas.
Kentucky’s TIF law allows local governments to partner with developers to pay for such improvements with a share of future taxes that will be generated by the project.
When CentrePointe was announced, Webb said he wanted a TIF partnership to pay for underground parking and other public improvements. Then, faced with opposition, he said he could do the project without TIF financing. Since then, though, he’s indicated he does want TIF.
Stung by their own exclusion from the CentrePointe ”process,“ council members voted Tuesday to have seven of their members meet with Webb and any other developers seeking TIF financing to negotiate terms of any deal openly and with respect to Lexington’s ”history and heritage.“
After the council briefing, Asbell described the Distillery District developers’ philosophy this way: ”It’s not going to work without the support of everybody. Our approach is to say, “Here’s what we’re planning, and we want to work with you.’“
That’s a lot better than the CentrePointe approach: We know best. We don’t care what you think. Here’s the deal; do you want in or not?
July 9, 2008 at 10:37 am
“broad community opposition and suspicion”
Yes, started by you and the HL based on untrue accusations and character assassinations.
July 10, 2008 at 5:30 am
While I hesitate to point fingers, I too question this “broad community opposition.” A few loud and prominent opponents do not make “community opposition.” My observation so far is that many are simply indifferent. Even friends that frequent the Dame seem to be taking it in stride for the most part. I would much rather see downtown infill on arguably the most blighted block in the CBD than generic sprawl further out into horse country.
Rosenberg’s is old and everything, but there’s nothing particularly interesting or historic about that building other than it’s been there for a long time. When it’s torn down, some other building will become the next “oldest continually occupied commercial building in downtown Lexington that has more than four windows, owned by only six families, and built in the neo-federalist-revival-whatever-blah-blah.”
I moved to Lexington almost seven years ago. I am a bit of both a history buff and architecture buff myself and have come to love the history all around us here in Lexington. I go for walks and drives and runs and bike rides all the time just to take it all in. When I do, I go to the horse farms or places like Gratz Park, the old residential neighborhoods along Richmond Rd, or the N. Broadway corridor around Transy. The one time I remember walking down “Morton’s Row” as I guess it is called now, it was the first year I was here in town. I remember thinking what an eyesore it was compared to even the blocks around it. I was hopeful that somebody would do something.
Now six years later somebody finally is, but everybody suddenly wants to be nostalgic about that place. I don’t get it. Maybe there is a lot of animosity toward the Webbs, I don’t know. I’ve not been here long enough to understand. Fair enough, but at what cost? At least we have developers willing to invest money in our town. Let’s not run them all off. I’m optimistic about downtown and in fact, after living in the Hamburg area for a while, I just looked at a condo there this week. We have to be willing to give some things up though.
I think the Manchester St. project is a great idea by the way.
July 10, 2008 at 9:19 am
Fred, No one is against Centre Pointe. No one. Many people though want Centre Pointe to be modified so that the entire hotel and condo tower be built on the block, but that some of the retail and office space proposed in the bottom 4 floors be altered or reduced to all for incorporation of SOME of the historic buildings into the project, renovated, rehabilitated. You’ll see if you read everything that Preserve Lexington has said, that they have been consistent about this, since the beginning.
July 11, 2008 at 12:05 pm
Bill T: “broad community opposition and suspicion”
“Yes, started by you and the HL based on untrue accusations and character assassinations.”
Comments like this without any evidence are a dime a dozen. The fact is, if there were “untrue accusations”, the Webb’s would be suing somebody. The very nature of how they chose to pursue the BloatedPointe project speaks volumes about their “character”. I’m sure there are many former Kentucky Central shareholders, employees, insured, and others that would provide some interesting comments as to their “character” also.
The “broad community opposition and suspicion” is a result of the Webb’s own history of shady practices, the “behind closed doors” proposal, and their absolute disregard for public opinion on this massively over sized white elephant. I have lived in Lexington most of my life and don’t know a single person that isn’t opposed to the project. In light of the fact the four current downtown condo projects are struggling and considering Lexington doesn’t have the tourism base or the population base of the cities the Webb’s so frequently like to use as examples of why this project will be so good for the city also create suspicion as to the financial viability of the project. The suspicions are further enhanced by the Webb’s initial request for TIF funds in light of what happened with festival Market as does the city council and design revue boards curious tacit approval in spite of the very vocal opposition by local architects and planners, the Land and Nature Trust, Preserve Lexington, and others. Now the Fayette Alliance, one of the biggest supporters of the project have withdrawn their support. It would seem all these factors stand in sharp contrast to your unsubstantiated premise.
Fred: “My observation so far is that many are simply indifferent. Even friends that frequent the Dame seem to be taking it in stride for the most part. I would much rather see downtown infill on arguably the most blighted block in the CBD than generic sprawl further out into horse country.”
I would question your comment that people are “taking things in stride.” Considering the project has been shoved down our throats, literally “bulldozing” over the opposition of many people, especially the fans and patrons of the Dame (who are these patrons YOU speak of????) and the appeal by Preserve Lexington, and because there is apparently nothing we do to stop this monstrosity, perhaps a better phrase than “taking it in stride” would be “forced acceptance.” I can think of many ways the citizens of Lexington are “taking it” as a result of the Webb’s self absorbed insistence on building this over sized, unnecessary, and overpriced edifice to themselves, but “in stride” is not one of them…..
As for infill vs. sprawl, I think most people would agree with you. However, I think most would disagree the size, scale, design, and targeted market the BloatedPointe project is geared towards is the best or most logical option for reducing sprawl or revitalizing the downtown area.
July 11, 2008 at 3:42 pm
Rob, it sounds like John57 is against CentrePointe no matter what is done with some of the historic buildings.
July 12, 2008 at 7:52 pm
Martin, Let’s ask him.
John57, would you be against the Centre Pointe project if it included a high rise hotel and condo tower and some retail and office closer to the ground if some of that retail and office space were inside a renovated Dame building, Busters and Rosenbergs?
That is, if the renovation of those 3 buildings were included as part of the Centre Pointe project, would you be against it?
(Hint: your best answer is one word, with 2 letters)
July 12, 2008 at 10:33 pm
“John57, would you be against the Centre Pointe project if it included a high rise hotel and condo tower and some retail and office closer to the ground if some of that retail and office space were inside a renovated Dame building, Busters and Rosenbergs?”
An unqualified answer is emphatically YES! You ask a ridiculous question because I am not opposed to it based strictly on the historic buildings. In fact, that you would ask such a silly question after all I have written about the completely unrealistic size, scale, and target “customers” of the project as well as the very questionable potential for its economic success shows just how little you have actually considered the various “problems” with the project and shows the totally disingenuous nature of your question.
However, if it were built on a scale, size, and for income levels appropriate to Lexington as well as without taxpayer funding, and if the number of rooms in both the condo and hotel sections were limited to numbers reflecting that Lexington has never seen more than 60% occupancy of the current hotel/motels, and if the Webbs could document how their project will be able to sustain itself economically when the four current, much more realistically sized projects are struggling as well as providing documentation and guarantees how such a large and high end project that will depend on very wealthy non-residents to be a financial success will be, and if they can document how with the economic crisis we are facing along with the fact high gas prices which are already affecting tourism and will only continue to rise combined with Lexington’s limited tourism how they will actually be able to draw customers , and how BloatedPointe will actually help revitalize the downtown area considering the condos, hotel rooms, restaurants, etc. will be well out of the price of the vast majority of Lexingtonians so needed for the downtown areas success, and why it will not just benefit the few owners and investors involved, then I would consider it.
Your “best answer” is not only ridiculously self serving, there is no real basis to say the “best answer” would be no…..
July 12, 2008 at 11:38 pm
I thought you were interested in preserving those buildings.
You have some ground to stand on when you ask for inclusion of some of these existing buildings. That ground includes respect for cultural history, proven standards in the industry for return on investment in development projects that include a preservation component (it is greater with than without), enhanced architectural contribution to the street and city, proven value of combining old and new architecture.
Those are arguments that stand some greater than zero chance of being effective, and can also contribute to the overall de-aggregation of too much investment in a single monolithic project - that is, it retains a fail-safe of a multiplicity of buildings on the block, which can deliver both a sense of authenticity and real economic resiliency over the long term.
The thrust of your argument undermines itself, simply because you offer no achievable solution. You seem to offer up only rigid opposition, in the face of rigid single minded clear cutting offered by the Webbs.
You, like the Webbs, do not seem ready to envision meaningful, useful, valuable compromise.
An achievable compromise is the retention of the 3 buildings on the western edge of the block and their renovation and re-use, with the rest of the block available for hotel, condo, retail and office development according to the Webb’s development criterea.
It is not incredible that Lexington could use another hotel downtown and it also is not incredible that there is a market for high end condos that is not currently served. Making arguments against the hotel and against the condos is so far out of my area of expertise that there is no reason to make arguments about it.
Expertise is no requirement though. In fact, the best arguments usually come from non-experts, generalists who connect dots, synthesize meaning, raise provocative questions. The reason there is no point in arguing it, is because strategically you are more likely to get what you want if you cede this point.
You say you don’t want a bloated project that carries risk of failure beyond the boundaries of the block. Well. if you argue to save the 3 or 4 buildings on the western edge, you’ve reduced the footprint of the project by over 20 percent; you’ve diverted some of the investment into renovation and reuse of significant buildings that matter to many people, you’ve conserved the possibility of multiple owners of multiple buildings on the block in the future which can help make the block more resilient to economic and functional changes over the long term, and you have allowed the possibility of a high rise hotel and condo that realistically is likely to contribute to the economic viability of the commercial uses of the renovated buildings.
July 13, 2008 at 3:56 am
“I thought you were interested in preserving those buildings. You, like the Webbs, do not seem ready to envision meaningful, useful, valuable compromise.”
Not at all. I never said I wasn’t, however preservation seems pretty much a moot issue at this point. To begin with, show me where at this point there is any chance the Webbs will preserve the buildings they are already starting to tear down? Show me the plan for BloatedPointe that incorporates those buildings into its design? Show me where they have scaled back the design to blend in with the existing structures downtown.
All I have seen so far is the mention they might “use a few bricks” and keep the Rosenberg facade, the least attractive of the possibilities.
“It is not incredible that Lexington could use another hotel downtown and it also is not incredible that there is a market for high end condos that is not currently served. Making arguments against the hotel and against the condos is so far out of my area of expertise that there is no reason to make arguments about it.”
“Expertise is no requirement though. In fact, the best arguments usually come from non-experts, generalists who connect dots, synthesize meaning, raise provocative questions. The reason there is no point in arguing it, is because strategically you are more likely to get what you want if you cede this point.”
Really? What do you base this on?? What is your argument showing why “it is not incredible that Lexington could use another downtown Hotel”? You are right about one thing, no expertise is needed as all of the information I have used to make my arguments is public knowledge and well documented. Do you have information that suggests otherwise? Here are some simple questions that really don’t require ‘expertise” to ask yourself when trying to provide a basis for your assertions: Where will all those customers who will pay exorbitant rates for all the new “expensive” rooms Lexington “can use” come from and for what, especially considering the existing hotels have never achieved more than 60% occupancy? That doesn’t require “expertise”, it’s a simple math problem. Explain to me why you think the project is economically feasable, but most imprtantly, provide your reasons why this project will do anything to help reviatalize downtown and improve the economy for the city and downtown as a whole and not just the investors.
Instead of dealing in pie in the sky speculation, come down to earth and show me how and why Lexington is big enough, has enough high income people to support high end condos when the current projects are already struggling, what the tourism or other possibilities there are that will bring in enough hotel customers to make the project viable and not just further increase the competition for the room space we already have that never achieves more than 60% occupancy, and how this project will revitalize downtown for all but a few of the wealthiest citizens? Convince me why with the economy in a downfall, mortgage financing in a shambles, real estate values plummeting, and high gas prices a permanant reality due to the exponentially growing demand for oil in China and India a project like BloatedPointe has any chance of succeeding. If you can do that, then you might have a valid point. Until then, I stand by my well documented and logical arguments. and remain unconvinced of the “need’ you see. You yourself stated the Webb’s “do not seem ready to envision meaningful, useful, valuable compromise.” Unless they make a sudden and 180 degree turn around which even you suggest is virtually impossible, while you have good ideas, I don’t see where they have any practicality or relevance to what is actually being done.
July 13, 2008 at 4:21 am
Rob, listen, I forgot a couple of things that in fairness to you I need to mention. First, I need to provide you with some sources for my information. Essentially, all the information I use to make my arguments has been published in the Herald Leader. However, a simple google or other search engine search will give you countless other references for many of the things I have said.
Second, the problem as I see it is because the Webbs have been so unyielding to any ideas other than their own and have taken such an “all or nothing” (actually “all and we’re doing it whether you like it or not”) approach to this project even to the point of obstinateness, I see no possibility for the ideas you propose unless the project is somehow stopped completely and stated over from the ground up, no pun intended……
July 13, 2008 at 12:19 pm
Your ideas and mine are not reflective of the position of the well-organized Preserve Lexington, as fas as I can tell from what they say and do consistently.
And I think their position has a better than zero chance of affecting change that will both improve the project and mitigate some of the risks you mention, risks which I believe do extend beyond the boundaries of this project because of its economic scale and single ownership. If it fails after it is built (it may fail before it is built because of our collapsing economy) the negative impact would extend beyond the block to the rest of downtown.
That being the case, I think Preserve Lexington’s position is the smartest one: advocate inclusion of 3 or 4 of the buildings on the west side of the block. As I said this will both make the overall Centre Pointe project more likely to succeed over the long run and more resilient, and less damaging in the worst case.
Arguing over the number of roomos in the hotel and the number of condos is something the Webbs are likely going to continue to do themselves, internally as the market changes.
July 13, 2008 at 6:25 pm
While I still am really opposed to the project as a matter of principle because of the other factors I mentioned including my belief it will do nothing to “revitalize” downtown, I agree Preserve Lexington is trying to change things in a positive way. Whether they can remains to be seen, but considering this project is going to happen regardless of my wishes, Preserve Lexington’s approach is probably the best.
July 17, 2008 at 11:13 pm
well, i personally do not know anyone against this project so the mention of “broad community suspicion and opposition” really confounds me. i have lived in lexington my entire life and i have practically given up on the herald leader ever getting anything correct. in fact, the poor news reporting is so bad they often become a part of the story. the HL has actually convinced some that there is broad opposition outside a bunch of poorly organized nit-wits. did anyone read that correction that was buried deep within the paper the other day about how lexington actually WAS reimbursed its investment in festival market. funny how that didn’t make the front page like Tom Eblen’s pathetic, misguided, and boring articles with tired analogies. i mean, really, the HL editorial board is a joke. or should i say an enigma….does it even really exist? and Jim Gray is an idiot. he thinks pandering to the public is protecting it. does he really think we don’t know he would prefer a 21C on the block? he can take his red plastic penguins elsewhere. no one in Lexington thinks that building or hotel is in good taste nor would want it anywhere near our downtown so why is he the resident champion for good architectural taste? i mean, look at his building downtown and it will leave you scratching your head. and finally, where the ____ were all the preservationists when hamburg got developed? or the federal bldng downtown that has bars on the windows of the first floor? or when that beautiful african american church downtown became a fast food chicken joint? i mean for goodness sakes, people, get a grip. preservationists in lexington are beyond foolish. while they are fighting this stupid battle to save buildings that are not original and that are too far gone something worthwhile will be lost- like farmland. just get a grip. be glad someone wants to put tons of money from somewhere else into our downtown and not develop horse farms. and, after reading these blogs for weeks now, i think rob snyder needs more work- does anyone have a job for him?
July 18, 2008 at 2:24 pm
Sensible,
You’re right. About everything. I am wrong, about everything.
Everything you say is right, and sensible.
End of discussion.
July 22, 2008 at 8:00 pm
Rob,
You lose.
July 22, 2008 at 10:35 pm
Lexington loses, because of mulishness.
And in the long run the developers will lose because of it too.
No one ever doubted that they could get their way and do whatever they want. We only asked them to want a little more. We wanted them to take the high road and lead, not as if this were a contest for winning and losing, but as if it really mattered to all of us and that we could all win and the sum of the win win would be much greater than the win-lose zero sum.
They’re not interested, so we’ll all pay the price.
Such wasted potential.
July 22, 2008 at 10:51 pm
obstinate
One entry found.
obstinate
Main Entry:
ob·sti·nate Listen to the pronunciation of obstinate
Pronunciation:
\ˈäb-stə-nət\
Function:
adjective
Etymology:
Middle English, from Anglo-French obstinat, Latin obstinatus, past participle of obstinare to be resolved, from ob- in the way + -stinare (akin to stare to stand)
Date:
14th century
1 : perversely adhering to an opinion, purpose, or course in spite of reason, arguments, or persuasion
— ob·sti·nate·ly adverb
— ob·sti·nate·ness noun
synonyms obstinate, dogged, stubborn, pertinacious, mulish mean fixed and unyielding in course or purpose.
obstinate implies usually an unreasonable persistence .
dogged suggests an admirable often tenacious and unwavering persistence .
stubborn implies sturdiness in resisting change which may or may not be admirable .
pertinacious suggests an annoying or irksome persistence .
mulish implies a thoroughly unreasonable obstinacy .
July 23, 2008 at 2:40 pm
Rob,
You still lose.
July 23, 2008 at 9:57 pm
No actually Tim, I win.
July 25, 2008 at 6:09 pm
Hmm. Impressive, elevated conversation. Who can defend lack of transparency in this kind of decision? For Pete’s sake, developing countries are ahead of you guys. Check out http://accessinitiative.org for more on how to public participation the right way.
July 25, 2008 at 6:54 pm
how do you find out who has stock in the webb companies? i’d really like to know. wondering if any board members or judges has a special interest in this project.
July 27, 2008 at 12:31 pm
Mike,
Would you really like to know or are you trying to tarnish the reputations of individuals? What is more apparrent is the completely one-sided stance of Jim Gray, vice mayor and developer. Hmmmm……the obvious question is whether he is serving his own interests or that of the public. Also, all this talk about the Museum project in Louisville…does Jim Gray have an ownership interest in that? You probably would like to know that though would you?
July 30, 2008 at 12:02 am
no one owns “stock” in the webb companies (except the webbs) since it is privately owned– just like this downtown block. nice last ditch effort at trying to make things seem seedy. some people just can’t wrap their brains around the fact that intelligent city officials have listened and evaluated both sides fairly (unlike what is presented to the public by the HL) and made sound decisions. the courthouse overlay committee voted unanimously in favor of the centrepointe project and judge goodwine also determined the law was on the side of the webb companies. the fact that shady dealings are being suggested is really just poor sportsmanship. maybe we should be scratching our heads and thinking that the HL is not getting the accurate story out there. if you are confused- blame it on the pathetic misrepresentations of the HERALD-MISLEADER. they are intentionally not printing editorials and op-eds that are favorable to centrepointe. the public has been duped by our wonderful newspaper.