Saturday, November 17, 2012

Community Guidelines For Maryville Property

It's pretty obvious that the previous developer's attempt at acquiring and building on the Maryville property was shambolic, from the pressure put on an alderman not even two months into his term to make a binding decision on one of the biggest projects in Uptown, to the lack of willingness by the developer to meet with the community as a whole, to the discrepancies discovered between the renderings and the blueprints, to the ever-changing scope of the project. 

It's fair to say that most of us want to see development on at least two of the three parcels making up the Maryville property, but the previous project was in our opinion too tall, too changeable, and too untrustworthy, and was rightly rejected by the majority of the community representatives on the Zoning & Development Committee.

Yet out of all of that came something good:  Community Guidelines for future developers of the Maryville property, with input from the alderman's office, Uptown United, the Zoning and Development Committee, and Uptown residents.

Take a look at it on the Uptown United website.  It explains the sizes and locations of the three parcels comprising the property and suggests how each could be used.  It also addresses the issues of height, the use of TIF funds, traffic density, and much more.  It may help alleviate some of the questions that are coming up in the comments about the proposed new development from JDL.


  1. It is easy to talk the talk about what should or should not be on this property. As a multi-condo owner and also living right across the street from this Maryville Property, we would hope our voices are heard as we are the ones effected by whatever is built there for many years to come. This proposal does not sound all that bad to me and I would hope we see all the aspects of this developement before being built.

  2. Why was it too tall in your opinion?

  3. the NIMBYs tried to pretend like density wasn't the issue but there it is... "too tall"

  4. "Density" and "height" are two completely different concepts. Remember high school?

    It is ridiculous to put a 500-foot tall building next to four-flats, townhomes, and 250-foot tall buildings, especially when there are three parcels with large footprints there for the taking.

    This latest proposal has 770 units, which is about what Sedgwick called for in its failed plans. The difference is that the maximum height of the tallest building is 315 feet. Same density, different heights.

    You can sit there and call people offensive names like NIMBY and say "You are wrong and I am right" and you can have a stalemate where absolutely nothing gets accomplished. (See 2010-2012 U.S. Congress as Exhibit A.)

    Or you can do what seems to have been done here, create guidelines that are acceptable with the majority of the community stakeholders and present them to potential developers so they know what is expected, going in.

  5. true...i'd much rather have something super tall and slim, instead of a squat monstrosity like wilson yards.

  6. 72,000 sq feet of retail does seem counter to the community guidelines. My guess is this is a throw away position for JDL. That way they can walk away from it, saying they gave something to the community in negotiations.

    My larger concern is 1. Why the TIF is needed and 2. Why do they want to insist on 20% low income housing instead of paying into the fund so some other neighborhood can share in the love...

  7. Cities, in general, look to have much more density in the future. It doesn't seem responsible to waste 3 large parcels of land when you can build up in my opinion.