Madison IS Conservative-Really! (Portland, King, Union: real estate, condos, hotel)

[Chelito23]

In this article, people talk about how Madison does not really want change regarding growth or development. It mentions that the city has a fear of height, is stuck in the past and is oblivious to the market place. Here is a paragraph that explains why the development projects have a hard time coming to fruition:

One problem is that city committees that help shape plans and review projects tend to be stocked with members who are disproportionately progressive and from the near East and West sides, lacking political, philosophical and geographic diversity, City Council President Tim Bruer said.

As the Edgewater decision approaches, more people are looking at Madison's development process

[Chelito23]

I wasn't trying to offend, I was referring to it being conservative towards development despite it being known as a liberal place...and I cited an article in the local paper from today where this same information and ideas was expressed...

Madison is Liberal on one hand, but when it comes to development it is very conservative. Moderator cut: see comment

Here is the exact quote:

In its attitude and plans, the city seems fearful of height, wedded to the past or deaf to the marketplace, critics say.

"Madison is not a liberal city," said attorney Ron Trachtenberg, a former City Council member who represents developers. "We are an extremely conservative city. We don't want change."

[Nala8]

I don't find this offensive, Chelito; nor am I surprised. Madison does seem to be a curious mixture of liberalism and conservativism, which often makes plans for change out to be positively received at the outset and then eventually blocked by controversies created by those who fear or are against change. I work for an organization that is involved in the Edgewater project. At the risk of being slammed here, or offending, I'd say that things still look promising.

[Megan1967]

I have to confess not to know all the details of the Edgewater project but, of course, I do have an opinion despite that fact (funny how most people do...).

I can not begin to fathom why tax payers should shell out literally millions of dollars to support a for-profit business. I don't think the Edgewater is a historical landmark that needs to be preserved. It is an old hotel, period.

Is that a conservative view point or sanity?

[lymelyte]

Ron Trachtenberg, wow, that brings back memories. When he wasn't shilling for developers you could find him out in the parking lot checking tire treads for nickels.

I left Madison in 2001 but as I recall, Madison didn't seem to have any shortage of new development. A big chunk of State Street was turned into condos or something, they stuck some more condos in the parking lot of Hilldale Mall, etc. It's pretty funny in this country, if a city isn't pandering to speculators it's considered "backwards" or in this case, "conservative."

[Milwaukee City]

Since when is being conservative= no change? I am a conservative and I wlecome change and all my friends aren't living in a Mayberry state of mind either. I know we are talking about more than just political "conservationism". Just b/c a city wants to conserve or preserve something doesn't always make it bad. It's a case by case issue. For instance if Madison doesn't want any buildings over 10 stories then why should they? just so they feel and can say they are "progressing"? I think it is important to conserve or preserve a cities historical buildings and history. You need a nice balance of the two.

BTW: you get what you pay for when you elect these goofs. Be careful who you vote for.

[Nala8]

Megan, I don't think the article (or Chelito) is saying that anyone who opposes the Edgewater project is a conservative. There may be some good reasons to oppose it that have nothing to do with one's political leanings. I like to look at both sides of an issue, weigh the pros and cons, and then decided where I stand accordingly.

Here is what most people mean by the word conservative:

[SIZE=3]con·ser·va·tive[/SIZE] (kn-sûrv-tv)
adj. 1. Favoring traditional views and values; tending to oppose change.
2. Traditional or restrained in style: a conservative dark suit.
3. Moderate; cautious: a conservative estimate.
4. a. Of or relating to the political philosophy of conservatism.
b. Belonging to a conservative party, group, or movement.

5. Conservative Of or belonging to the Conservative Party in the United Kingdom or the Progressive Conservative Party in Canada.
6. Conservative Of or adhering to Conservative Judaism.
7. Tending to conserve; preservative: the conservative use of natural resources.

n. 1. One favoring traditional views and values.
2. A supporter of political conservatism.
3. Conservative A member or supporter of the Conservative Party in the United Kingdom or the Progressive Conservative Party in Canada.
4. Archaic A preservative agent or principle.

(Source: Free Online Dictionary)

[Chelito23]

I personally have no stake in this project, but here is how I view it:

There is a nothing special hotel that has prime property on Lake Mendota, downtown. Currently that property is not open to the public nor is it's lake access or views.

With this project, a hotel that has seen better days would be improved and enlarged and *public* access would be provided for a lake terrace. In essence, creating a badly needed public place along the lakefront...which is ironic since Madison has so many lakes and lakeshore, yet so few areas to enjoy it outside of one downtown park and the Student Union.

Unfortunately, I think the local neighbors are against anything that isn't a single family home or low rise condo to be built in "their" neighborhood. I think that this project would not negatively affect this area. I think it would actually improve the neighborhood with the new accessibilty to the lake and encourage the right kind of development-infill vs. more sprawl on the edges of Madison or the suburbs. But some people get so wound up about an 8 or 10 story "tower" (lol, funny how a building that size is even called a tower). If you live in the central business district of the state capitol, you know you are on prime real estate. Yet it seems as if the residents think that any sort of reasonable desnity will turn their neighborhoods into Manhattan.

I don't know why people are always so against projects that are of this size. It isn't like it's a 35 story tower, totally out of place. The developer was working with the city, the neighbors and jumping through all the hoops, but some people just won't let up until their specific agenda or stamp is put on the project and although that may be convenient for them, it gets to a point where everyone is chimming in and all the new requirements and modifications make a project to be no longer viable.

I don't support public tax dollars for subsidizing private projects either. But I don't think this project was derailed because of that issue, it was the developer giving up after all the hurdles and endless hassles.

Madison is pro business if the proposal is small scale. Anything that isn't minor is fiercley debated by everyone and their mother. Some say this is good, some say this is bad, but the bottom line is, there needs to be a balance and too much authority given to a select group of people distorts the reality.

This reminds me of the bills that they try to pass in government...they can be so good, but then someone has an agenda or axe to grind and will only get on board if it's modified, then lobbists appear, special interests, other policiticians support if something is added...and when that happens it wrecks the bill sometimes and something that was perfectly good went down the tubes. Same thing happens in Madison. Everyone has to give their stamp of approval and this is not a small town anymore, this is the capitol of the state with a population of over 200,000...and the small group of people who can afford to live on the isthmus should't have the only say...since they are the the same people who make up the neighborhood groups, the approval committees, the aldermen, etc.

Downtown Madison is everyone's neighborhood. I am sure if some far noth side neighborhood wanted to legalize casinos or 24 hour alcohol sales, people outside of that neighborhood would want to opine about that as well. This is no different. What happens downtown affects the edges of the city as well, and all citizens and residents should have a representative vocie on the approval committees.

I have a feeling that when the city zoning or planning is revised and brought more in line with reality, as they are currently doing, according to the article, more projects will be viable and won't bite the dust so fast. I guess we will see.

[Nala8]

I have a feeling that the Edgewater project is not all washed up yet (no pun intended). Neither is the new space for the South Madison branch of the Public Library. Just on hold, I believe. Too bad political in-fighting and the usual jockeying for position or power have temporarily ruled the day. We shall see.

[craptacular]

In general, I like Madison and the area, but the City is full of hypocritical NIMBYs. They keep electing people who want to restrict growth in the suburbs and direct growth to the central city on the basis of "fighting sprawl" and "walkability", but then anytime anyone proposes anything that increases mass, height, density, etc, they complain about neighborhood preservation. Madison claims to be all about central planning, but the neighborhoods have a lot of power. There are lots of single-family detached-type houses (even if many are actually rented out as one or more units) within a mile or two of the Capitol. These neighborhoods vote 90% liberal, but have heart-attacks if you propose anything at or near the site of a single-family home. They like to talk-the-talk about "transit-oriented development", infill, etc, but they only want it in someone else's neighborhood.

One of the problems with development in Madison is the Capitol View Preservation law, which limits heights of buildings within one mile of the Capitol. You can't build much more than 10-12 stories downtown. You would think, then, that if they truly want to increase density, they would have to allow larger buildings in more areas to compensate for that. Again, no one wants to touch the single-family and so-called historic neighborhoods.

Portland, OR is the dream of many prominent Madisonians. Of course, if you look at downtown Portland, you have a hard time finding ANY single-family homes, certainly not any neighborhoods of them. Madison is in the process of allowing "Neighborhood Conservation Districts", and when these become prevalent, it will be almost impossible to redevelop anything near anyone's house.

I don't have a problem if the residents of Madison like what they have and want to preserve it. What I do have a problem with is when they and their elected leaders try to push their agenda on other communities and try to stop what they do, using the claims of what "is best for the region".