tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33706982.post3440628101092894073..comments2023-08-14T09:18:49.114-04:00Comments on Columbia Compass: Developers: Welcome to ColumbiaB. Santoshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13568466324432338324noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33706982.post-87639663345220428042007-08-12T13:42:00.000-04:002007-08-12T13:42:00.000-04:00two thoughts:1) If Columbia were incorporated as a...two thoughts:<BR/><BR/>1) If Columbia were incorporated as a city - and was able to annex the out-parcels - would it be able to pressure the owners to conform to the planned city's aesthetic intentions?<BR/><BR/>2) I think the main visual clutter between the Whitney and Governor's Grant is that the two developments make conflicting statements to the streetscape. Governor's Grant acts like rowhouses in D.C. or Baltimore - close to the street, open, public - whereas the Whitney is subdued, set behind a wall, etc. The rhythm of door/window/door you see at Governor's Grant doesn't exist at the Whitney because there's a wall, garage doors, etc.<BR/><BR/>I guess what I'm saying is that things like building materials, window sizes, etc. aren't as important as the way buildings approach the street and define public and private space. Take out the walls and run some sidewalks up to front doors and balconies and the Whitney would relate much better to Governor's Grant.Dan Reedhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10594208011755406956noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33706982.post-87619011251786282512007-08-11T10:52:00.000-04:002007-08-11T10:52:00.000-04:00Do you mean the Walgreen's (not CVS) that was prop...Do you mean the Walgreen's (not CVS) that was proposed in Hickory Ridge?<BR/><BR/>On properties within Columbia not bought by the Rouse Company way back when, there is already a lot of protection against surprise commercial hodge podge. The existing protection lies in many of the objectionable proposals requiring zoning changes from residential to commercial to be approved by the Zoning Board.<BR/><BR/>A far more prevalent and continuing concern for the villages may actually be just-outside-Columbia and workplace-centric, remote-from-residential commercial development of groceries and restaurants eroding economic viability of the village centers.<BR/><BR/>In part due to this external or remote competition, as village center grocery store anchors have come and gone, Columbia residents, CA, and the village centers owners and tenants have contended with making compromises to attract new groceries. Some concessions have included ceding CA open space for village center commercial expansion, allowing larger grocery stores to be built that provided additional products that drove local businesses in those centers out of business, and reconfiguring village centers to have much less Columbia-like features and instead much more resemble every other car-centric vanilla strip mall. <BR/><BR/>For the many people who live in close proximity to these village centers (the areas around the village centers are the most population dense in Columbia), such compromises to maintain village center viability against the encroaching competition lessens the Columbia experience.<BR/><BR/>So, how to keep the village centers viable and aesthetic in the more competitive world of warehouse clubs, big box stores, nearby groceries viable due to nearby residential development over the past 20 years, nearby gourmet groceries, etc.? That's a question into which some village boards' committees have put considerable time, thought, and effort. The only magic bullet is an involved and informed community.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33706982.post-44662134933923346482007-08-11T00:00:00.000-04:002007-08-11T00:00:00.000-04:00I've been saying it for years now, outparcel devel...I've been saying it for years now, outparcel development is and will be the major development concern for nine villages during the foreseeable future. Remember the CVS in Hickory Ridge and almost a strip shopping center behind the Dorsey Search Village Center. I don't think the outparcels should come under the CA lien, but I do think any development should be within some review that insures the development stays within the "spirit" of the New Town Zoning<BR/>master plan. The community has done well by this plan. The potential hodge podge development of the various outpacels should not be allowed to ruin the hard work done during the past 40+ years.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33706982.post-2753408002773489802007-08-08T23:03:00.000-04:002007-08-08T23:03:00.000-04:00I'll see your ecru and raise you an aubergine.Part...I'll see your ecru and raise you an aubergine.<BR/><BR/>Part of the value of HOAs are they typically require more than either one resident or one HOA board member to give the a-ok to pink flamingos. <BR/><BR/>I, too, think it's better to let people choose for themselves between HOA communities and HOA-free communities, deciding if they want to sacrifice some choices in order to have the protections HOAs offer.<BR/><BR/>But HOAs typically are imposed on residents after the initial community has been established, not developers beforehand. <BR/><BR/>So, this would be a change, bringing HOA-like requirements to bear on developers early in development (or redevelopment) of an area. And requiring such design oversight for a larger area than a typical HOA covers. In this case, it would start with the large Route 1 corridor, and then spread to other areas of interest in the County (Route 40 corridor and one other I think have been mentioned).<BR/><BR/>For the Route 1 corridor, however, is such HOA-like design oversight by the County necessary? Or are the requirements included in the recent TOD zoning applied to the Route 1 corridor sufficient to provide the desired outcomes?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33706982.post-17445257623273702332007-08-08T21:51:00.000-04:002007-08-08T21:51:00.000-04:00Ecru? That's worth some bonus points to dig up a ...Ecru? That's worth some bonus points to dig up a color like that.<BR/><BR/>I agree with Mr. Armiger that it's not necessary. And, it adds a HUGE layer of unpredictability to the system. Remember, developers have to spend thousands of dollars on architectural design fees, just to get a concept plan. If their designs are subject to vague or arbitrary aesthetic guidelines, that money is down the drain. <BR/><BR/>I understand the goal, but consider this. The four corners that you mention were not all built at the same time - public tastes and design trends change over time (almost monthly it seems). How bland would a city be if all the buildings used the same color or materials? <BR/><BR/>What if a board member liked those pink flamingo lawn ornaments. Imagine the design horrors that could result. <BR/><BR/>You can probably tell I'm not a huge HOA fan - for the simple reason that I think they go too far and over-regulate home owners to death. I cancelled a contract on a house because the Covenants PROHIBITED a starburst pattern in the wood spindles on a deck. As if that type of pattern would devalue the neighborhood. It's actullay borderline communistic that to buy a new house in 95% of this Country, people have to sign away all their rights and subject themselves to the whims of rampant regulators. <BR/><BR/>I don't have an HOA, and honestly, all of the homes and properties are well kept. <BR/><BR/>Ecru - i just wanted to say it again for the heck of it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com