It would be funny, if it weren't so depressing, that the publisher of a newspaper named "City" would trot out such anti-urban arguments to oppose the Morgan apartment project on University Ave. Density is bad? Replacing a surface parking lot with apartments and underground parking is bad? Mixed-use neighborhoods are bad? (Jane Jacobs spins in her grave.) Maybe you should change your name to "Suburbs Newspaper."
When I first heard about the Morgan project, I thought, "what a perfect place to build apartments." It's close to three grocery stores, to the restaurants of Park Ave., to downtown, and walking distance to museums, galleries, and coffee shops.
The stretch of University between Culver and Goodman is already a mix of different uses and building types--factories, old commercial buildings, single homes and duplexes, museums, apartment buildings, a literary center in an old jail house. More people (that evil "density") might bring even more amenities that people could bike or walk to.
This is what makes a vibrant, liveable city. This is what moves us towards a more sustainable way of life. Not surface parking lots.
Regarding the "visual proximity" to the Eastman House: I love the GEH; I'm a member. But I don't believe either the expanse of asphalt parking lot bordering East Ave., or the new film archives building, were part of the viewscape when George lived there. If the GEH were willing to restore Mr. Eastman's farm and stables, I would be more sympathetic to their objections to being able to glimpse an apartment building through the trees at the back of the Eastman property.
Website powered by Foundation