schnitzelbank

[Mark Miller]

Whatever happens to the "said" property, it doesn't change the fact that St. Mary's or Mary Freebed physically paid money for it and now owns it. If your HPC won't let them tear it down for whatever reason, what do you think they will do to it? My guess is they will do nothing and let it rot and decay in place and in 10-20 years, go back again and apply to tear it down to for parking or maybe they will place a building on it. Eitehr way it doesn't change the fact that the building is vacant and the hospital ownes it.

I have an idea... Why doesn't the district set up a council to approve or disapprove of any parcel with a building over 50 years old on it. Before the parcel can be sold the potential owner will have to show the council what he or she will do with the property if anything. That way the council will know ahead of time what every developer's plans are in the given historic district and we won't have to spend so much time talking about it after the property is sold and money changed hands.

There will come a time, if it hasn't happened already, when developers will over look certain areas, because of all the rules, restrictions, loops holes and politics that he/she will need to go through to get anything done. I am not saying that you give everyone the right to do anything they please, but the tigher the ropes, I think the less developement you will welcome.

It is not the district's, nor the city's, responsibility to baby-sit landowners or potential buyers. IT IS the buyer's responsibility to properly complete due-dilligence as part of any purchase of any property. That is just the way it is. Criticizing rules, regulations, restrictions, etc. and then suggesting yet another layer of government seems a bit contradictory. The system works just fine as is, if people pay attention to what they are doing. Saying that you did not know that it is in district is just not a good enough excuse.

As far as development looking over certain areas, the opposite seems to be true. There is a ton of investment in historic districts, despite all of the restrictions or more likely, because of them.

As far as an owner letting it sit and rot,k there are ways to handle that, IF it is a protected property. Demolition by Neglect is the mechanism that has worked best in the past.

[civitas]

It is not the district's, nor the city's, responsibility to baby-sit landowners or potential buyers. IT IS the buyer's responsibility to properly complete due-dilligence as part of any purchase of any property. That is just the way it is. Criticizing rules, regulations, restrictions, etc. and then suggesting yet another layer of government seems a bit contradictory. The system works just fine as is, if people pay attention to what they are doing. Saying that you did not know that it is in district is just not a good enough excuse.

As far as development looking over certain areas, the opposite seems to be true. There is a ton of investment in historic districts, despite all of the restrictions or more likely, because of them.

As far as an owner letting it sit and rot,k there are ways to handle that, IF it is a protected property. Demolition by Neglect is the mechanism that has worked best in the past.

I assume that the HPC will have another shot at this area. The really significant historical structure is the one on the corner. It is where the Schnitzelbank began and it is in the way of the roundabout that is being built next summer. Some (all?) of it will need to be demolished.

This is the last building at this intersection. If removed there will be nothing but surface parking lots at the corner. What a rotten front door to a couple of great institutions.

Contrast this approach to the appropriate and efficient urban land utilization at the Spectrum/Butterworth campus.

The yellow in the image below is the additional right-of-way that is needed for the improved road.

[GRDadof3]

I assume that the HPC will have another shot at this area. The really significant historical structure is the one on the corner. It is where the Schnitzelbank began and it is in the way of the roundabout that is being built next summer. Some (all?) of it will need to be demolished.

Roundabout? Love it!

[civitas]

Roundabout? Love it!

Three roundabouts. One at Jefferson, one at Lafayette and one at Madison.

[GRDadof3]

Three roundabouts. One at Jefferson, one at Lafayette and one at Madison.

Nice! All along Wealthy? Is this worthy of a new thread?

[civitas]

Nice! All along Wealthy? Is this worthy of a new thread?

The project as I understand it will rebuild Wealthy from Division to Madison. Other streets are involved as well. The funding is in place for 2007.

The roundabouts were first suggested during ICCF's design charrette for the Wealthy/Jefferson area http://www.wealthyjefferson.org/.

Wasn't there a Wealthy Streetscape thread?

[GRDadof3]

The project as I understand it will rebuild Wealthy from Division to Madison. Other streets are involved as well. The funding is in place for 2007.

The roundabouts were first suggested during ICCF's design charrette for the Wealthy/Jefferson area http://www.wealthyjefferson.org/.

Wasn't there a Wealthy Streetscape thread?

Ah yes:

http://www.urbanplanet.org/forums/index.ph...c=24252&hl=

I just didn't see the roundabouts part.

[AlexPKeaton]

I like the roundabouts, but the building on the corner should be saved. We don't need a roundabout for every intersection. If Wealthy street gets built up in the future it would be nice to have at least one older building there, even if it isn't particularly noteworthy, it's still built in a different style than anything new.

-nb

[Allison Slater]

are most drivers going to know wtf to do with a roundabout? I have a feeling some will be confused haha

[dbrok]

Looks like Schnitzelbank will get torn down after all: Link

[Mark Miller]

While I conceptually support the ideas about the round-a-bouts on Wealthy, we should all hope that if the last remaining building in that intersection is lost and the round-a-bout built on Jefferson and Wealthy, that new buildings get built ASAP on ALL four corners of that intersection. Otherwise what will we have? The round-a-bout surrounded by parking lots, which is a very scary void in a neighborhood that really can not afford it.

[DwntwnGeo]

While I conceptually support the ideas about the round-a-bouts on Wealthy, we should all hope that if the last remaining building in that intersection is lost and the round-a-bout built on Jefferson and Wealthy, that new buildings get built ASAP on ALL four corners of that intersection. Otherwise what will we have? The round-a-bout surrounded by parking lots, which is a very scary void in a neighborhood that really can not afford it.

I am not a planner by any means, but here is a thought: Since there is open space to the south of the intersection (I believe both corners are parking lots, but could be wrong though), could the round about be placed off-centered to save the building in questioned? I know it would "look" better having the round about centered with all four roads intersecting it equally, but could it produce the same traffic flow and look without having the building altered or torn down. There are probably many reasons on why it wouldn't work correctly, but I thought I would give the suggestion anyways.

[Mark Miller]

I assume that the HPC will have another shot at this area. The really significant historical structure is the one on the corner. It is where the Schnitzelbank began and it is in the way of the roundabout that is being built next summer. Some (all?) of it will need to be demolished.

This is the last building at this intersection. If removed there will be nothing but surface parking lots at the corner. What a rotten front door to a couple of great institutions.

Contrast this approach to the appropriate and efficient urban land utilization at the Spectrum/Butterworth campus.

The yellow in the image below is the additional right-of-way that is needed for the improved road.

If these round-abouts are proposed for Madison, Jefferson and Lafayette and if they are in the configuration of the drawing above, then there is a problem. The building on the northwest corner of Madison and Wealthy is built to near the right of way and would be in the way of this size of round-about. This building isn't going anywhere. Neither are the houses on the other two corners.

I think that the original charrette proposal had much smaller round-abouts, designed by Peter Swift. I think Peter is better equipped to do these than whoever is doing them now.

[civitas]

If these round-abouts are proposed for Madison, Jefferson and Lafayette and if they are in the configuration of the drawing above, then there is a problem. The building on the northwest corner of Madison and Wealthy is built to near the right of way and would be in the way of this size of round-about. This building isn't going anywhere. Neither are the houses on the other two corners.

I think that the original charrette proposal had much smaller round-abouts, designed by Peter Swift. I think Peter is better equipped to do these than whoever is doing them now.

The only one that impacts a building is at Wealthy and Jefferson. Peter Swift is the new traffic engineer in Bagdad (really!). He carries a sidearm while working.

The roundabouts are designed by Michael Wallwork, PE from Alternate Street Design. He is a well respected expert who has worked around the world. He is implementing Peter's work.

http://www.roundabouts.net/roundabouts.html

[Nitro]

I hate to be the detractor here, but I don't see any advantage to having these roundabouts here. It's not that I don't like roundabouts, because I do. These should be elsewhere.

European roundabouts are generally used where two busy streets came together to help the flow of traffic. Wealthy is the high traffic street. I can't imagine the traffic on Jefferson is anywhere near what Wealthy is, so what is the advantage? Green space? I think think of plenty of other ways to do better green space.

Just because you can do something, doesn't always mean that you should.

[GaryP]

I hate to be the detractor here, but I don't see any advantage to having these roundabouts here. It's not that I don't like roundabouts, because I do. These should be elsewhere.

European roundabouts are generally used where two busy streets came together to help the flow of traffic. Wealthy is the high traffic street. I can't imagine the traffic on Jefferson is anywhere near what Wealthy is, so what is the advantage? Green space? I think think of plenty of other ways to do better green space.

Just because you can do something, doesn't always mean that you should.

Isnt the ICCF planning big things at this corner? Maybe its anticipation of things to come in the near future, but otherwise I think you make a really good point.

[gvsusean]

I hate to be the detractor here, but I don't see any advantage to having these roundabouts here. It's not that I don't like roundabouts, because I do. These should be elsewhere.

European roundabouts are generally used where two busy streets came together to help the flow of traffic. Wealthy is the high traffic street. I can't imagine the traffic on Jefferson is anywhere near what Wealthy is, so what is the advantage? Green space? I think think of plenty of other ways to do better green space.

Just because you can do something, doesn't always mean that you should.

ummm...... i beg to differ having lived in europe for a year or so, and traveling all over, I saw roundabouts in the most of obscure places. they require no lights and are safer than intersections, roundabouts everywhere please

[vexom]

I hate to be the detractor here, but I don't see any advantage to having these roundabouts here. It's not that I don't like roundabouts, because I do. These should be elsewhere.

European roundabouts are generally used where two busy streets came together to help the flow of traffic. Wealthy is the high traffic street. I can't imagine the traffic on Jefferson is anywhere near what Wealthy is, so what is the advantage? Green space? I think think of plenty of other ways to do better green space.

Just because you can do something, doesn't always mean that you should.

If you look at the layout of the roundabout designed for Wealthy and Jefferson it is designed for wealthy having heavier traffic. The outside lane exits onto Wealthy always. Thats the cool thing about round abouts, they can be changed to adjust for traffic needs.

[civitas]

If you look at the layout of the roundabout designed for Wealthy and Jefferson it is designed for wealthy having heavier traffic. The outside lane exits onto Wealthy always. Thats the cool thing about round abouts, they can be changed to adjust for traffic needs.

The Wealthy/Jefferson roundabout is bigger because it has a dedicated left turn for traffic eastbound on Wealthy going north on Jefferson. It also has a dedicated right turn lane for westbound traffic turning north on Jefferson.

[Mark Miller]

The only one that impacts a building is at Wealthy and Jefferson. Peter Swift is the new traffic engineer in Bagdad (really!). He carries a sidearm while working.

The roundabouts are designed by Michael Wallwork, PE from Alternate Street Design. He is a well respected expert who has worked around the world. He is implementing Peter's work.

Are the other ones smaller so that they do not have as much of an impact?

It is good news that Alternate Street Design is working on them, I am sure they will be properly executed.

Peter Swift was working in Bagdad. Since mid-May he has been recovering in Frankfurt, Germany, after suffering a heart attack in Kurdish Iraq.

[vexom]

Ah, yea, your right I think that it could be designed better.