Someone is proposing a development on the sacred turf of Southdowns and the NIMBYs are in full jihad mode.
Gee, what else is new?
Seriously, can someone—anyone—tell me the last time these zealots failed to launch a full-scale, shock-and-awe assault against anything other than a shed being built on or near their blessed Southdowns?
Post one of those tiny, impossible-to-read yellow zoning notices and they see red. They plot. They plan. They put up signs. They use Web sites, mass e-mail campaigns and a public hearing blitzkrieg strategy to sack the opposition. And once it’s on, they’re as relentless as Glenn Dorsey chasing down a quarterback.
Make no mistake, Baton Rouge’s finest NIMBYs are from Southdowns. Shenandoah? Wimbledon? Puh-lease! True, your Old Goodwood NIMBY is pretty strong, but nothing compared to the pros from Southdowns.
They’re loud, they’re proud—we’ve gotten used to it.
Their concerns are like songs we know by heart: hopelessly clogged roads; toilets erupting like Vesuvius; rain showers causing Katrina-like floods; a crime rate worse than New Orleans’; children and pets no longer able to run free on taxpayers’ streets. And then there’s the mother of all NIMBY cries: Give me single entrance … or give me death!
Usually it’s pretty entertaining watching these Southdowns NIMBYs at work. But that’s when they’re fighting Wal-Mart, a strip shopping center, or some developer looking to plop 15 condos or an office building onto a lot designed for a house.
It’s a tragedy, however, when they’ve set their sights on stopping exactly the type of development this city ought to be encouraging.
Tommy Spinosa wants to build Rouzan, a traditional neighborhood development, on 120 acres known as the Ford Property, which runs along Perkins Road between the Southdowns and Woodchase subdivisions. In short, the developer responsible for the innovative and incredible Perkins Rowe project wants to build the ultimate smart growth-inspired neighborhood on the greatest piece of undeveloped property in the city of Baton Rouge.
Rouzan will be a city within the city, featuring houses, condos, small retailers, offices, a school, a church, a library and several parks. Along with Willow Grove, another TND under construction on Perkins just past Bluebonnet Boulevard, it will set the standard for future development.
Yet the Southdowns NIMBYs aren’t happy. They’d prefer Spinosa build an ordinary A-1 subdivision with 480 houses that connects only to Perkins Road. Why? Well, if you don’t like the standard reasons, they’ll throw this one at you: “The developer has never built a TND before.”
True, but Spinosa was savvy enough to hire three of the nation’s most respected smart growth companies (Looney Ricks Kiss, PlaceMakers and New Urban Guild) to help plan and design what he says will be Baton Rouge’s “Mona Lisa development.”
Without question, as proposed, Rouzan, with 800 residential units and 100,000 square feet of office and retail, will be an incredibly dense development. I get that those numbers might make some squeamish, especially in an area where traffic is already a problem. Several people I respect share that view and even Spinosa has hinted he’s willing to compromise by downsizing slightly, but there’s a reason why Southdowns calls its Web site stop-rouzan.com.
Sadly, what these NIMBYs want is exactly the kind of development more progressive cities like Portland won’t allow. Incredible.
Thus far, Spinosa, who knows how to count votes, has twice deferred on asking the Planning Commission for TND zoning, the latest delay coming last week at the request of Mayor Kip Holden, who hopes to broker a compromise. Good luck with that one.
If it were me, I’d give a fraction on the density but nothing else. After that, Spinosa should go before the Planning Commission in December and simply state the following:
“I’m here to build the best community ever built in Baton Rouge. If you don’t approve it, I’ll sell the property to someone who will build another sprawling, lifeless neighborhood in which people don’t know their neighbors. It’s your choice.”
Let’s hope the Planning Commission and then the Metro Council have the guts to embrace quality development—even if it means upsetting the NIMBYs.
Comments
Posted by blue_ink_pin on November 20, 2007 at 2:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Articles like this continue to give me hope that we still have progressive thinkers in our community. Beginning with the Baton Rouge Area Chamber's onslaught of cities dating back four years ago, I was encouraged by the small steps our community was taking toward changing the way we think. This culminated in their latest trip to Portland, where smart growth and infrastructure was the focus. And wouldn't you know it. As soon as a new vision comes to Baton Rouge, the south BR elite found a way to stall an otherwise novel concept for the future of our community. These same individuals want growth, but not at the expense of change. Well, you can't have one without the other.
As the Baton Rouge area takes positive steps forward in thinking independently, we need to relish the opportunity to form a vision that is different from other areas of the country. We have a chance to curb the suburban sprawl that will eventually kill larger cities as their infrastructure simply can't change to accommodate the community. As a mid-sized city, Baton Rouge has the chance to take the first steps to stopping the suburban sprawl model.
It is my sincere hope that the southdowns area, largely populated by rental homes to college students, starts to realize that change is necessary if growth is to occur. I can only imagine the negative onslaught that will ensue when Lee Drive is needed to be widened. Don't hinder our progress southdowns. As a proud southdowns resident for 7 years, I am hoping for a change. Allow this to be the first step in that direction.
Posted by anonymous on November 20, 2007 at 5:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Maybe Mr. Ball lives in a lifeless neighborhood where he does not know his neighbors, but those of us in Woodchase, Southdown and Pollard Estates know ours, and that is what Spinoza will destroy.
TND will allow retail space, bars and liquor stores in existing family neighborhoods. The fat cats and politicians that talk about family values only really care about more money when it comes down to it.
They call it a "traditional neighorhood developement". That is the ruse of Rouzan. Rouzan is not the Hood, it is the Ruse. A ruse to build a strip shopping area with high density housing behind it. The shopping areas will eventually if not immediately ruin the surrounding neighborhoods for single FAMILY housing and families. TND zoning allows there to be bars, liquor stores and smut peddlers in the middle of existing single family homes where children ride their bikes. Let the newsstands, the bars (Gold Club)and the purveyors of gratuitous violence and sex (e.g. video games and newsstands) stay on the other side of Perkins Road. The bars and the liquor stores don't make you squeamish do they Mr. Ball? Who needs or wants families with children?
Southdowns is improving now that there are less rental units. Why go backwards and ruin it with rental apartments in the Ruse?
There is no commitment or restriction that there be a library, a church or the parks for the Ruse. There is already a school nearby. And another school, Glasgow Middle, will have worse flooding problems from the developement.
The ruse of Citiplace was that Spinoza said he would build a high rise garage and there would be lots of open green spaces. There is no garage and so it is all paved with specks of green space. Don't believe him and fall for his new ruse of a library, church, school and parks.
Perkins Rowe is another ruse. It looks like an industrial park with smoke stacks and warehouses. If you have a warehouse you have to convert to living space that is quaint. But why build a living space to look like an ugly warehouse with a smoke stack in front of it?
Stop the Ruse.
Posted by blue_ink_pin on November 21, 2007 at 1:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"TND zoning allows there to be bars, liquor stores and smut peddlers in the middle of existing single family homes where children ride their bikes. Let the newsstands, the bars (Gold Club)and the purveyors of gratuitous violence and sex (e.g. video games and newsstands) stay on the other side of Perkins Road."
I am honestly ashamed that people like this exist in our city. So closed off from society that they associate a TND with bars, strips clubs, and liquor stores. Wow. The notion that video games and newsstands are denigrated to "purveyors of gratuitous violence and sex" is a testament to your approach to a 21st centure lifestyle in 17th centure type of way.
I can imagine you are the same type of person that would read a Kurt Vonnegut book and associate his satire based on absurdity as fact. Approaching life through 17th century spectacles is what has kept Baton Rouge behind the pack for many years. Thank you for continuing this trend today.
Posted by hearth on November 21, 2007 at 2 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Respectfully, Mr. Ball, would you want Rouzan built in your backyard? After the development is completed would you purchase an existing house immediately adjacent to Rouzan, but not in the development? If the development is completed as designed, will you promise not to complain about traffic on Lee Drive?
Posted by mk on November 24, 2007 at 5:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)
As someone who is open minded enough to see both sides of the issue regarding the proposed development on Perkins, I find JR Ball's article incredibly one sided, judgmental, and ignorant. He makes the argument that this development is exactly what Baton Rouge needs, obviously a number of people disagree. Instead of trivializing their concerns maybe you could take the time to look at the large picture and re-think your attitude concerning development in Baton Rouge. Ball makes the comment that the Southdown residents opposed Wal-Mart, considering that Wal-Mart abandoned the Southdowns location and left behind a big vacant eyesore that no one is likely to redevelop anytime soon, how can you possibly blame them? I agree with much of what the first post has to say (blue_ink_pin), but am not entirely certain that this particular development constitutes smart growth. In my opinion, one of the problems with the rate of growth in the Baton Rouge area is the unwillingness of the powers that be to assess infrastructure and make determinations to promote smart growth and limit new development in areas with limited infrastructure. There are plenty of parts of downtown, Government Street, and particularly Florida Boulevard that are underdeveloped and more importantly have the infrastructure to handle new business and housing, but developers continue to build large developments in areas that can not handle them. Why keep expanding outwards when there are so many areas in Baton Rouge that need revitalized? The Perkins and College Drive intersection near the proposed development is one of the most congested in town. I'm not even completely opposed to the development (this is at least on a portion of Perkins that is 4 lanes with a center turn lane), but I do believe it should be studied in greater detail. Looking at the unfettered development taking place further up Perkins past Bluebonnet and again across the Ascension Parish line, it doesn’t appear that any assessments of traffic impacts are taken into account at all. It seems like Louisianans have developed such a fear of scaring away business that they have become willing to allow developers to develop virtually carte blanche. This is a ridiculous attitude. Baton Rouge is a desirable market and developers are going to develop even with increased restrictions or requirements (of course I’m talking about reasonable requirements). City Council and their counterparts in outlying parishes have the power to ensure that responsible development occurs that benefits the people of Baton Rouge without eroding away what we already have. Traffic has become one of the biggest complaints in the Baton Rouge area, but people fail to realize that the answer to our traffic problems isn’t more or wider roads. The answer is simple, encourage development in areas that already have the infrastructure in place and discourage or restrict development on typically residential two lane roads like Perkins and Highland.
Posted by Fred on November 26, 2007 at 7:37 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Very few of us in the neighborhoods surrounding the proposed Rouzan development believe in this latest assault (driven by the Southdowns Civic Association who has done more harm than good over the last 20 years.)
For more information see www.for-rouzan.org
Posted by jrball (JR Ball) on November 26, 2007 at 10:18 a.m. (Suggest removal)
To the individual who asked: Yes, I would want Rouzan built in my backyard. More importantly, I would consider living in a development like Willow Grove or Rouzan. As for the Lee Drive traffic situation, it's already a nightmare, and one that could be eased by adding a third lane dedicated for left-hand turns. Would the people of Southdowns support the widening of Lee Drive to accommodate a left turn lane?
Posted by jrball (JR Ball) on November 26, 2007 at 10:20 a.m. (Suggest removal)
FYI... the abandoned Wal-Mart site at Perkins Road and South Acadian is going to be redeveloped by Commercial Properties. They are working on plans for a mixed-use development.
Posted by Papadeaux on November 26, 2007 at 12:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I have two problems with this editorial. The first is the use of the term NIMBY. The so-called NIMBY is usually a concerned citizen that falls into two categories; those who know what a particular project is about and those who think they know but don’t – both opposing it but having a vested interest in the area.
From my discussions with numerous neighbors in the Southdowns area, I believe most of those against this development fall into the second category. There is so much wrong information about this project it is mind-boggling (this is supported by this editorial and many of the postings). I know the developer has tried to have three meetings with the neighbors and they usually start off well, but are sidetracked by people who are opposed to this development. The last informational meeting went pretty well, since those opposed could not get a foothold due to the open nature of the meeting.
When the Mayor-President requested the last rezoning meeting should be deferred I thought finally our elected officials are going to get involved and organize an informational forum so that all people could get the facts and make an informed decision, but it appears that it was cancelled for strictly political reasons (upcoming elections), which is a real shame.
My second problem with this editorial is when this development was portrayed as a “City within a City”, which is so wrong and goes to the core of some of the concerns I’ve heard from my neighbors. This project would be accurately described as “A Neighborhood amongst existing Subdivisions.”
We have friends that live in a TND in Lafayette, Louisiana called River Ranch. This is a wonderful neighborhood that integrates well into the surrounding subdivisions. I wish I could afford to live there but my job and income make it prohibitive.
This project is a once in a lifetime opportunity for this area and is too important to leave it uninformed citizens to decide.
Posted by mikeelbr on November 26, 2007 at 12:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I am in favor or TNDs in Baton Rouge. I lived in Dallas for two years after graduating from LSU in 1999 and saw these types of developments EVERYWHERE(e.g. Addison circle, McKinney Rd, Mockingbird Station). Having lived at Mockingbird Station and visited friends in many others in the Metroplex, I never saw where the development had a negative impact on the surrounding area. Note that most of these developments were not brand new but inhabited for at least 5 yrs and up to 15 yrs. We are way behind in this innovative idea for mixing residential and commercial space. Please support TNDs and MUDs as they are tried-and-true in many cities.
Posted by backyardhell on November 26, 2007 at 1:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)
It's nice to see fine journalism getting to the source. How about talking to people that have actually had to DEAL with one of Mr. Spinosa's projects before proclaiming that this is what our community needs!
Here's the information for anybody who wants to be informed as to what they're in for because I want to warn the residents of Southdowns just what they're going to get with this development.
Calling the cops at 4 a.m. because the construction crews are working all hours. Oh, by the way, they do nothing. Neither does emailing the Mayor's Office. Only the head of DPW actually took it upon himself to contact the company. They stopped the 24/7 work for 3 weeks. Then it resumed.
The years of dust and debris.
The traffic nightmares.
The floodlights pointed at your homes.
The natural barriers between the neighborhoods and the development destroyed.
All the promises that turned out to be fallacies.
How about putting up a development without EVER submitting a full site plan? How is that allowed in EBR? $$ talks.
Maybe TNDs are great for "the community" but such developments are logistical nightmares for the people that already live there. Mr. Ball, you just don't get it. Yeah, not in my backyard. Ever again. I'll fight them to my dying breath after the crap I've been through for the past four years. JTS has proven to be nothing but pain and heartache for our subdivision and our political representatives should be ashamed of themselves for turning deaf ears on our concerns from the get-go. We're not happy, we're miserable. We warned them repeatedly what it was going to turn into. We were right.
Who ever heard of an "urban" development in the middle of the Ex-urbs? You realize Perkins Rowe is OUTSIDE the BR Corp limits right? It smacks of old-time back door deals and residents be damned.
So remember, you get what you pay for. So unless you have enough money to pay to STOP Rouzan, they have enough to pay to build it no matter what you want. That is the legacy of Perkins Rowe. This is the future of the Ford property.
Posted by jdopdyke on November 26, 2007 at 2:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Ball has it 100% right. I've lived in Dallas, Seattle, Los Angeles and metro New York. I've seen the way one-entrance/exit neighborhoods suck the life out of cities and that neighborhood, and i've seen the way neighborhoods with multiple entry/exit points keep a city moving instead of clogging the nearby roads with traffic.
I now live in Baton Rouge, in a one-way-in/one-way-out neighborhood, and it's completely insane to build neighborhoods this way. It does nothing but vent traffic onto the major throughways, not allowing any of that traffic to naturally migrate through neighborhoods on roads that are paid for by every citizen. why should my neighborhood's roads basically be used only by my neighbors? why shouldn't the rest of BR be allowed to cut through from Highland to Perkins and vice versa to shrink the god-awful traffic in this city?
Spinosa should give no ground on this. His plan is well thought-out--a benefit to a city today suffering the backlash of roadway plans designed by the blindly inept. Southdowns needs to simply suck it up and recognize that their property rights don't extend into the roadway. They must accept the fact that their roads are our roads and if I want to cut down Hyancith and slip through Rouzan to avoid poorly planned roadway gridlock at Perkins and Lee, well that's my taxpayer-given right to do so. And all the while I will be thanking Mr. Spinosa for giving me that option.
Posted by markmmg on November 26, 2007 at 2:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I wonder if any of the people who are against TNDs have ever been to one. I lived in Memphis for 8 years and there was a TND near downtown called Harbour Town. This was one of the most successful and popular developments in the entire city. A few years ago, when the lots for the last phase went on sale, people literally camped out at the office where lots were being sold. If a TND like this were to be built in my back yard, I would sell my house and buy one in the TND. Imagine getting home from a busy day and being able to walk to dinner or walk to rent a movie. Imagine being able to walk to a grocery store or being able to walk to a park. That's something that you can do in a traditional neighborhood development. If I try to walk to a grocery store in my standard Baton Rouge neighboorhood, I will have to walk 1 mile along a very busy road that doesn't have sidewalks. Other cities have been building TNDs for many years with tremendous sucess. Yet, developers in Baton Rouge keep building the plain undesireable neighborhoods. People live in them because they have no other option. We need TNDs in Baton Rouge.
Posted by sunshine on November 26, 2007 at 2:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I too have seen the TNDs in other places and they are great, not only that, the houses around them are incredibly popular places to live because of their proximity to the town centers. In Reston, Va., there is this great one that features an outdoor ice skating rink during the winter where folks can bring their kids and dogs and shop or drink coffee while socializing with their neighbors. Another popular development in Arlington, Va., Pentagon Rowe has the same sort of set up... where folks can let their kids play, walk their dogs, have a beer at the local pub and pick up some milk on their way back home to read the magazines they just picked up at the local news stand. These places epitomize vibrancy with fitness centers and healthy food stores and people being social.
Everything I've seen is very family oriented and about the closest thing to smut I've seen is a wild pair of red three-inch pumps in the window at DSW at the Pentagon Rowe shops in with some naked scones in the nearby window of Starbucks. I’m not sure how the BR ruling class goes straight from beer to smut, but most folks my age (thirtysomething) tend to just hang out with our beers and talk about world affairs or LSU football or more recently, the price of gas. I've never been to the Gold Club, but I've been to these TNDs in Virginia a number of times, to meet friends, to shop and even to ice skate (or ice fall as I do it).
The bottom line is these places are incredibly clean, beautifully designed places to shop, socialize and dine. The houses around them become great draws for young couples who are focused on reducing their carbon footprint while still having the places they like at their fingertips. And kids do ride their bikes to these, they park them at the beautiful little bike racks built for just that purpose. If we had a metro, there would be a metro stop so that people could come there without having to drive their cars.
It is the future, I have seen it, and it is really nice. I think the best approach for Baton Rouge may be in moving beyond what we are to what we could be with just a little bit of imagination. With some collaboration with the nearby neighbors and the developers, I think this development can be orchestrated with some great design and innovative vision. But, and here is the key, we have to quit running scared and seek some understanding of things beyond what we have done for generation after generation. Change is the number one way to fight extinction.
Posted by Andre on November 26, 2007 at 2:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Call me a FIMBY - Fine in my backyard. The Southdowns area has been my home for most of my life. As a youngster, I rode my bicycle on every street in Southdowns. My wife and I look forward to living in Rouzan and raising our two young children there. And as future Rouzan members of the Southside Civic Association, we look forward to being warmly received by the board, our neighbors and friends.
Posted by danholliday on November 26, 2007 at 2:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Bravo JR. I can't agree with your editorial more. I lived in Southdowns for almost ten years and then moved around the corner a couple of years ago. Rouzan is EXACTLY the kind of development we should be encouraging. Our city council should be knocking on doors trying to find developers who will take the risk to build this type of development. Remember the doom and gloom the Southdowns Civic Association and others in the area predicted when Wal Mart proposed to knock down the eyesore that Village Square had become? Unbelievable traffic, etc.? What happened? Wal Mart and the city leaders got together and improved the intersection of College and I-10 and the traffic on that stretch of College Drive has never been better. Also, to reiterate what JR said above, the old Wal Mart site on Perkins was purchased from the owner by Commercial Properties (the for-profit arm of the Baton Rouge Area Foundation) but is subject to a long-term lease that is about to expire. That is not Wal Mart's fault. Commercial Properties has plans to build a first-class, mixed use development that will be a great improvement to the area. It simply took someone with some vision and patience to make it happen. Will the Southdowns Civic Association fight that development?
In my opinion, it's time for the Southdowns Civic Association to engage in the process for the betterment of Baton Rouge and the Southdowns area rather than fight everything new. This is a development that will be great for the area and great for Baton Rouge.
Posted by satawa on November 26, 2007 at 2:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The fact is, money DOES talk and right now, there are many more people who are waving it at developers who create TND type projects....bottom line.
I live in Southdowns and welcome the project, as do many of my less vocal neighbors. However, with a young family and a full time job, I have neither the time nor inclanation to shout down my neighbors at a town hall style debate.
I think I can solve the problem though. If the "stop rouzan" folks would get behind this project, I think they will be pleased to find that our property values will spike as a result of the development. Then, they can sell their houses and take the extra money to move into one of the countless existing neighborhoods with dead end streets away from retail and high density. You will be replaced by people who are aching for the type of lifestyle that Rouzan promises to bring and they will pay . A win win.
Posted by backyardhell on November 26, 2007 at 3:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)
TNDs. Some people want them. Some don't. That's obvious by the number of people who continue to move to rural areas in Ascension and LIvingston parish to get away from the high-density living and the problems that go with it. Pollution, crime, noise, bad schools, traffic.
The problem comes when you try to plop them down right in the middle of existing developments. Yes, I've been into TNDs. I've visited them in other cities. I like them as developments go, but with a major caveat. In Houston, they built them near existing commercial developments as extensions and not plunked down right next to REAL residential neighborhoods of homes with yards and sidewalks. They work great because somebody actually thought about the impact on the residents who already lived there and not just about the potential for dollars bringing new people into the area.
When asked in 2003 while showing off the "concept" for Perkins Rowe if he'd ever built one adjacent to a residential development, Mr. Spinosa replied no, and immediately shut down any further questioning about that.
Why? Was he afraid of the follow up questions? What would it do to the existing neighborhoods? What about flooding? Noise, debris, traffic. What about the problems during the construction. The workers walking into homeowners' backyards. The garbage from their meals? What about the beer bottles and soft drink cups? The food. Yes, it's all happened HERE in Baton Rouge. We also asked him about businesses that would be moving in to Perkins Rowe. At that time, we were told there were none. Not a single one had signed a contract to move into Perkins Rowe, so he could not actually give us any names.
Yet six months later, McDonalds was not only built, it was open for business. Has anybody ever heard of a company the size of McDonalds, which arguably has the best location scouting and marketing departments in the US, choosing a site, designing the store, building and opening in six months? Hmm. Nothing fishy there.
I hope people start to see a pattern of what's going on here in this city. The Metro Council and Zoning Commisioners have been sold a bill of goods.
As for "prosperity", my house may actually go up in value in four to six years. Right now, I couldn't sell it if I tried without a major hit on the value of the home on a 1/3 of an acre property.
(to be continued due to space constrictions)
Posted by backyardhell on November 26, 2007 at 3:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)
If you actually live NEXT to the development, you're doomed. That's the reality. We already had a traffic nightmare with Perkins Road. Now, add 5,000 more cars a day at the Perkins and Bluebonnet intersection. Whose bright idea was it to add a 16 screen movie theatre to a neighborhood development when there is Tinseltown on Siegen Lane and a new RAVE Motion Pictures at the Mall of Louisiana less than 1/4th of a mile across Dawson Creek.
This is the type of "planning" that's going on. Don't go blindly into the development until you start asking some really serious questions. Is this the right development for our city? Does the developer's track record warrant blind faith that it will be done right?
People keep talking about the residents "getting behind and collaborating" on the developments. We tried. Our association asked repeatedly for information and how we could have input as to the progression of the development. We were shut down.
How about the developers being held to the local laws and standards, being forced to actually act in good faith? How about making your workers and subcontractors respect the residents who live along the areas of your project? How about our elected officials NOT falling asleep when people are presenting their concerns to the various board and councils? After all, we pay our taxes too. And we vote. We just don't seem to count for squat in their minds.
Posted by blue_ink_pin on November 26, 2007 at 3:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)
To note, Tinselton is owned by the same company building the movie theatre in Perkins Rowe. Tinseltown will be closed for the new theatre, which I'm personally happy about. I'm excited about the thought of going to get dinner, walking to a movie, and following up that movie with a walking trip to drink some wine or shop. We've never been afforded that right before and it's nice to see that change. It's a city within a city that you don't have to drive to get around.
Posted by blue_ink_pin on November 26, 2007 at 3:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)
To note, Tinselton is owned by the same company building the movie theatre in Perkins Rowe. Tinseltown will be closed for the new theatre, which I'm personally happy about. I'm excited about the thought of going to get dinner, walking to a movie, and following up that movie with a walking trip to drink some wine or shop. We've never been afforded that right before and it's nice to see that change. It's a city within a city that you don't have to drive to get around.
Posted by BRProgress on November 26, 2007 at 4:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Great job JR. Keep up the good work and please do not let the naysayers such as backyardhell discourage the progress in Baton Rouge.
One example of progress is the corner of Perkins and Acadian, which will hopefully soon be in the mist of construction and causing temporary hell for someone - which includes my family. The very someone that will benefit from the development. Backyardhell's reasoning would prevent the improvement of any infrastructure or vacant property due to construction noise, trash, etc. The construction of new ideas, new structures, and new roads is often painful. It is similar to remodeling a house and living in it at the same time - one suffers dust, grime, workers at all hours - but does so for the outcome.
Example - Southdowns has forever prevented the widening of Lee Drive. This needs to be done in a very aesthetic manner that will benefit the community and allow progress in the area. This would benefit the Southdowns neighborhood by allowing better flow of traffic on Lee rather than having traffic forced off Lee and through the smaller neighborhood streets. The houses on one side need to be taken, the houses need to be adequately valued and the homeowners paid. No one in their right mind would purchase a house on Lee, so therefore the houses stay stagnate and become rental units once homeowners decide to move. This would be progress for the whole, painful for a few, disheartening for many, but is just one example of ideas that need to be developed if Baton Rouge desires to continue to grow. (continued due to size)
Posted by BRProgress on November 26, 2007 at 4:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Under backyardhell's version of Baton Rouge, Siegan Lane would still be a two-laned roadway with country homes lining each side, instead of the many businesses that I'm sure backyardhell frequents.
Section 13.3 of the BR Unified Development Code reveals that adjoining of new streets with old streets and one-way entrance neighborhoods have always been discouraged. IN other words, a grid pattern should always be developed so that there are no headaches such as Perkins and College. The reason that Perkins and College is so bad is not the number of people in the neighborhood, it is that no one can head north from Perkins between Essen and College. (or south except for Kenilworth). How did this happen - appears to me that several large landowners owned the property on both sides of I-10 and said "not in my neighborhood". They prevented streets and overpasses being built that has curtailed development for many years. Therefore we have a logjam at this location - and this is only one of the examples! There are far too many funnels of traffic in this City caused by landowners saying "not in my neighborhood". The City needs to step up and fix these tough issues.
Backyardhell's question really should be the opposite - why has the City for so long looked the other way when development has occurred and not followed their own rules? Baton Rouge now has a good set of leaders that will do the right thing when it comes to development. Let's not let this opportunity go!
Posted by backyardhell on November 26, 2007 at 6:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)
BRP,
You miss my point completely. I'm NOT against development or progress. Quite the opposite. I'm against STUPID development. If you plan growth properly, which admittedly Baton Rouge hasn't done well, then such new growth (where did they come up with the term "traditional" since traditional in Baton Rouge means neighborhoods, NOT MUDs?) then everyone benefits. In our current scenario, neighborhoods that have existed for decades and the residents who live in them are being sacrificed. How would you like it if you had bull dozers at 3 a.m. 150 feet from your bedroom windows? I doubt you would. Yet, it has been CONSTANT for 3+ years now. First, there was the takedown of the wetlands and woods that constituted the Swaggart property followed by leveling and liming of the property, then finally, 2 years later, the construction began. Then it stopped. Then it began again as JTS sporadically getting needed financing. Ultimately, they sold off most of their interests in CitiPlace (built in the middle of undeveloped property mind you) just to have construction capital to begin Perkins Rowe. (more to follow)
Posted by backyardhell on November 26, 2007 at 6:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Then, as it turned out, investors from the medical community who had bought in to the residential portion of Perkins Rowe were refunded their deposits because the properties weren't selling. Construction was delayed again. (if you want to know how I know all this, I'm about 300 yards from the property management trailor!)
Yeah, it would have been smart to "purchase" some of our properties that are adjacent to the development, but that wasn't ever offered. In fact, the ONLY communication I have had in 4 years from JTS as a property owner was a form letter threatening all residents that live along the southeastern edge of Perkins Rowe that if we have any items or structure on their property, we had x number of days to remove it or they would have it hauled away. Contrast that to the Willow Grove developer who worked with our neighborhood residents to ease our concerns, replace our road signs and spruce up our lights. Mr. Carmouche is a class act.
And to allay your fears that I am against any land development, I bought my property KNOWING that the land on the corner of Perkins and Bluebonnet was set to be developed. In fact, it was going to be dense high rise dormitories for the Bible College. However, our neighborhood also had an agreement with Mr. Swaggart that he would protect our privacy and quality of life by not encroaching too close AND leaving a natural buffer of trees. JTS would not agree to that, in fact, quite the opposite. The buildings are now less than 150 feet from our homes AND they propose putting a 4 lane throughfare from Perkins Road through the development, across Dawson Creek, and attaching it to the Picardy Extension through the Mall, linking it to the Interstate. No, I don't want an interstate extension running alongside my backyard, neither does my neighbor with her two small kids. Neither would you. It's DUMB development like this that gets my ire up, and those who DON'T have the facts before spouting off about it. Come take a ride through Wimbledon and talk to the neighbors. All is not well and you'll understand why I can support the Southdowns effort to curtail Rouzan before it turns into another Perkins Rowe.
Posted by Jon_Deaux on November 26, 2007 at 7:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)
MK, you are the voice of reason among these comments. The question isn’t if Baton Rougeon’s are for or against TND’s: the question is what particular TND and for what particular area. Rather than create a “straw man” of your neighbors, address their legitimate concerns for a development with this population density in an area already congested. I am also very much in favor of development and compromise but as with MK's comments we should not turn away from the areas that truly need revitalization. For a true visionary there is incredible potential in areas north of Government Street for both residential and commercial development.
Posted by blue_ink_pin on November 26, 2007 at 7:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)
backyard, it was my impression that the financing wasn't miraculous; rather, he sold such real estate as The Gates and Citiplace in order to help fund the additional financing necessary for the increase in construction costs following Katrina.
Posted by blue_ink_pin on November 26, 2007 at 8:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Also backyard, using the good deeds by the Swaggart Ministry isn't exactly a selling point considering the past problems with the man, the ministry, and the abandoned dormitory that will hopefully be a hotel in the coming years.
Posted by BRProgress on November 26, 2007 at 9:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)
BYH, it seems the largest complaint you have is that the development is too close to you. Any development of that property would be close, even views of high rise dorms. You say it is a dumb development yet state no facts to support that opinion. All you state are problems with construction issues - similar to what would occur if anything was built on the property. The lucky residents that will live there will be some of the most fortunate citizens in the parish. Don't you want your child to be able to walk to the bookstore, the movies, the grocery store, the many restaurants and shops? If it is tied into your subdivision then your child will be able to do so. That is what is meant by traditional. Traditional as in Spanish Town, Beauregard Town, Perkins Overpass, etc. As in the ability to walk to things. I would love to have a restaurant on the corner of Acadian and Claycut, a short walk from my home.
If I lived on Don Budge or Rod Laver Ave I would be madder than hell at the buffer zone of trees being taken down and would have worked like hell with the developer to keep a bufferzone. Oh, and the development at Willow Grove will have a tie into Picardy if the plan gets pushed through. Seems that your only valid concern is your property being so close to the development and potential road extension. I admit that I do not know where that would be located. Overall it is a unbelievable development and thanks for pointing out the hardships that the developer had to go through to push this plan to completion.
Seems to me it is just another issue with not in my neighborhood. But once again, I'm not looking out my window at the development. I understand your issues but Perkins Rowe has nothing to do with Rouzan. Rouzan, I'm sure will have an impact on several homes just like yours, but overall they are both great developments, and vast improvements for Baton Rouge.
Posted by backyardhell on November 26, 2007 at 11:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Perkins Rowe has everything to do with Rouzan. Same developer. Same issues. Let the buyers beware so to speak. My whole point is to WARN the city that just because something looks good, doesn't mean it doesn't come without serious consequences.
As for "walking to Perkins Rowe", well, we're just about the ONLY neighborhood that can, which means everybody else is driving to it. So, that point is moot. We didn't want it in the first place, so chalk up another one for not so smart development.
You bring up the "buffer zone." We did work like hell and were basically told we were SOL on that issue by JTS. They actually TOOK down too many trees, leaving my house exposed in fact. Now they plan to take the few trees remaining down behind the homes and put the road there...take a look at the PerkinsRowe.com map. You can see the "proposed" road. It runs right up the back of O'Neil's Music building, along our fences. So much for a buffer. We asked for a fence or a wall, we couldn't even get that and the zoning commission refused to require one.
So, to reiterate my point, if ANYBODY had bothered to investigate what has gone on with Perkins Rowe before jumping on the Rouzan bandwagon, we could have provided ample anecdotal evidence...nearly four years worth...of what it is like to try and negotiate with JTS, exist NEXT to one of their projects, and ultimately suffer at the hands of them. They just had it WAY too easy in getting things approved without any real plans to back them up. I wonder why....
Copied directly from their site:
Bobby Simpson is the Chief Operations Officer for JTS. A licensed real estate agent, Mr. Simpson manages the overall company operations for JTS and serves as governmental liaison in the development process. Prior to joining JTS, Mr. Simpson served as Mayor-President of Baton Rouge, Parish of East Baton Rouge, and mayor of Baker, Louisiana. He served as chairman of the Region Planning Commission, president of the Louisiana Municipal Association, and chairman of the Louisiana Community Development Authority. An inactive CPA, he holds a bachelor of science and masters in administration from LSU.
Posted by Fred on November 27, 2007 at 6:10 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Perkins Rowe is not like Rouzan. This would be like comparing CitiPlace to Rouzan, since the developer built both. Now comparing Perkins Rowe to CitiPlace makes some sense.
Funny you should mention Bobby Simpson, since he was the one that gave into the Southside Civic Association and stopped the widening of I-10 from Acadian to downtown when he was Mayor-President.
Posted by BRProgress on November 27, 2007 at 10:04 a.m. (Suggest removal)
1. Developments will impact some greater than others.
2. That land was going to be commercially developed at some point being that it is one of the busiest corners in the city.
3. It is very a well conceived plan that has been implemented, rather than a Wal-Mart and/or strip mall, or even worse, high rise dorms.
4. Your road issue is similar to the impact that road development throughtout the City has on certain homes.
5. I had not noticed the buffer of trees so did a drive over there and the current buffer of trees seems very adequate, now if the road is squeezed in there then that seems tight given the structure (parking garage it appears). I could not find a map of the project so do not know the road idea.
Posted by BRProgress on November 27, 2007 at 10:33 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Found the plans for the Perkins connector to Picardy. See http://greenlight.csrsonline.com/vdocs/1...
Seems Rod Laver will turn into a Cul de Sac. This seems similar to the widening of Old Hammond Highway which placed many homes close to the wider road.
Seems that this will greatly ease the traffic at the corner of Perkins and Bluebonnet, as well as eliminate an entrance to Wimbeldon, and greatly reduce the traffic on Rod Laver. Seems as the logical and only place to put the road - any closer to the Perkins/Bluebonnet intersection and you lose the benefit of easing traffic from Bluebonnet. Sounds like a great benefit to that area of town, yet greatly impacts your home.
Seems you need to deal with the City as to barriers between the roadway and your homes.
Posted by pod on November 27, 2007 at 12:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)
JR I know you, like you, but this article seems uneven and heavy handed. I live in the area and for the most part people here or more concerned with the density of Rouzan and the strain on the infrastructure than the concept. As with many divisive issues, the voices of moderation are muted by the ranting of the extremes and unfortunately for some reason you have chosen a side. I am hopeful that Mayor Kip will do his job and cooler heads will prevail. Some developers in this town have expressed to me the negative impact this project as it is presented would have on the surrounding area. JTS to its own responsibility has not instilled confidence in its trustworthiness. The planning commission, our, would be gate keepers, have not such a sterling record to cause us to "Rest Easy" with their decisions. Smart Growth is the "Cart" before the Smart Infrastructure "Horse". Until that changes, it may be prudent to limit density. What is the sense of having forward thinking projects without the ability to navigate them. Perkins Rowe is a perfect example, nice but around it is a mess. What about the Mall of Louisiana? How many years did we have to struggle with traffic before the city had us gift them infrastructure. How many years will we have to wait for Lee Dr. to be improved or connecting Starring Ln. to Burbank and Nicholson Dr. Through your article I feel like I have been heaped into to the pot of idiotic discourse. That also is not the way to get things done. It may feel good to express your frustration based on past experience, but constructive it is not.
Posted by backyardhell on November 27, 2007 at 12:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I love Pod's comment. Idiotic discourse. It has become that because people seem to be ignoring facts, history, and local politics.
My whole point of posting was to provide perspective for those who want to know what it's like to deal with this specific developer who's about to embark on yet another multi-year project that will directly and negatively impact the quality of life for the residents unlucky enough to be in proximity to the project. It's not that the development won't be nice, but is the property and the area appropriate for such a high-impact development? What happens to the neighbors and the neighborhood?
There is one HUGE difference between Southdown/Rouzan and Wimbledon and Perkins Rowe is at least the project will have "walking" residents. Southdowns is huge. Lots of people. Lots of prospects. Perkins Rowe is bordered by ONE neighborhood of approximately 400 houses and that's it. We were VERY up front with the city and the developer stating our opposition to the project as inappropriate for the area. To the West is Bluebonnet Village Shopping Center. To the north is the Bible College and the Mall of Louisiana, and to the South are all the businesses that line Perkins Rowe and the Post Office.
That leaves one neighborhood. ONE. Who did they build this for then? Everybody else has to drive. Bang. We're back to the traffic issue yet again. You can only stuff so many fish into a barrel so to speak.
Posted by chiandme on November 27, 2007 at 1:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The area of Southdowns will change as Baton Rouge continues it's growth! That is a given. No one, nor any group, will prevent growth in this location forever. I cannot imagine anyone fighting to keep Baton Rouge ordinary in it's sameness. People and places that do not grow always become stagnant. Forward looking folks will be happy to accept the design, & sense of community that living in Rouzan will bring. With LSU so near and job growth occurring, there will be a constant flow of new people coming into Baton Rouge. Will they move into Southdown's? Will they then be welcomed into your back yard?
I am appalled by how personal some of the slings and arrows about Rouzan' s builders seem. What does all this bickering say of Southdowns' residents? These are the residents of Baton Rouge who hold it's history and I would hope its graciousness. Is this another 'shoot the messenger" saga? Baton Rouge is not and never will be a city closed to newcomers, nor a city closed to it's own residents looking for a different way of living. As needs change and growth occurs some things are lost, but the gains are far more plentiful. Roads must widened, not just for Rouzan but for the over-grown city BR has become.. These changes must, and will be, made to accommodate the the needs of Baton Rouge with or without Rouzan. I applaud the designers and builders of Rouzan for giving us and our town a welcoming place of community and instant acceptance. A place of safety. A place of true neighborly neighborhoods located in a perfect spot.
This morning I've read many emotional out-pourings over city streets, sewage, and trees. What I have not heard is the value Rouzan will bring to it's inhabitants. The elderly people who might be able to watch a young mothers child for an hour or two because they've come to know each other, giving each needed fulfillment. A place where meeting your neighbor is encouraged by design and not a happenstance. When a community is designed to give unity the inhabitants will bring it's own values. I would hope to see something positive written here about the ease of living Rouzan will provide for those who will live there, and not just words about the problematic layout of the land.
Posted by BRProgress on November 27, 2007 at 2:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I applaud Chiandme for a great commentary. The values Rouzan will bring to the community far outweigh any issues with traffic - which are being resolved all over town. The individuals who will live in Rouzan, Willow Grove, and Perkins Rowe will be able to get back to the traditional manner of living pre-automobile. Imagine, an elderly woman, still vibrant and active, but not comfortable traveling in a vehicle. She can live at Rouzan and be part of a community that becomes her home. If I were Southdowns I would be encouraging the development, asking for sidewalks and street lights in the old Southdowns area, and enveloping the idea that the neighborhood needs to get back to walking - on a sidewalk rather than in the street as Southdowns residents are forced to do due to ill planned subdivisions of the past.
At Perkins Rowe, imagine that some elderly lady, vibrant and active, yet unable to drive due to vision issues. She can live at Perkins Rowe, walk to the grocery store, browse at the bookstore, meet a neighbor at the movie and a lunch. She would never have to leave the neighborhood for her daily needs. Or imagine a child who lives in Perkins Rowe meeting friends at the bookstore to study and being watched over because the store personnel know the child and his friends because he is from the "neighborhood". What a wonderful idea!
Let's move together to resolve the issues and stop fighting about inevitable population growth. JTS needs to be applauded for taking the risk to provide Baton Rouge a much needed development. Southdowns and JTS can work together to solve the issues. Stop the attacks and work together to better Rouzan and more importantly Southdowns!! Southdowns - you have a good neighborhood, but you could have a neighborhood that all of Baton Rouge desires --- if you just work together.
Hmm....imagine people in Rouzan walking to the grocery store? Now, tonight on the drive home to Southdowns, look around to see how many people are outside enjoying Southdowns. Other than a jogger, I bet few are walking in the street. It is dark and dangerous to walk in the street with few lights. You can not walk on Lee Drive much less cross it. Let's improve that!! Work with the City to improve these things. Now, imagine Rouzan with dense population, street lights, walking paths and sidewalks. It is a guarantee that Rouzan is where I would want to live. Sounds terrific. Now work together with the City and JTS to improve Southdowns, rather than to prevent Rouzan.
Kindness, and cooperation always work better than anger. I'm sure JTS can give some if the suggestions make sense.
Posted by anonymous on November 27, 2007 at 3:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)
NEWS ITEM Advocate April 4, 2007:
Picture of Don Weinell, a scientist with the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality, taking a water sample Tuesday from Dawson Creek near Kenilworth Parkway. The sample will be used to find out why fish died in the creek. Dead shad floating Tuesday in Dawson Creek, where the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality is testing the water to determine the cause of the fish kill.
Nine times out of 10, the DEQ's [Don Weinell] said, the cause of a fish kill is environmental factors such as high temperatures or stagnant water. But, he added, organic material such as grass clippings or SEWAGE, which decay and rob oxygen from the water, may have washed into the creek in the weekend rains.
Weinell said Dawson Creek, partly fed by Bayou Duplanier west of Kenilworth Parkway, receives a lot of drainage along its path.
I LIVE IN POLLARD, AND I SMELLED THE SEWAGE JUST BEFORE THE FISH KILL. DEAD FISH AND SEWAGE WATER - CALL ME NIMBY. THE AREA DOES NOT HAVE THE INFRASTRUCTURE FOR HIGH DENSITY DEVELOPEMENT. DON'T TRUST SPINOZA. HE WILL TAKE HIS MONEY AND LEAVE THE PROBLEMS FOR SOMEONE ELSE.
Posted by anonymous on November 27, 2007 at 3:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)
FACTS: TND zoning allows bars and liquor stores, and this TND will be in the middle of existing family neighborhoods.
Posted by blue_ink_pin on November 27, 2007 at 4:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)
FACTS: Since when is a TND synonomous with liquor stores and bars? I live close to Ivars and ZZ's. Is that tearing away at the social structure of my home and the Southdown's lifestyle? What kind of correlation are you trying to make Mr. Anonymity? That prostitution will run rampant with the advent of a bar near a home? That drinking and drugs will take to the streets of the proposed neighborhood due to a wine bar or a possible liquor store being included in a traditional neighborhood development? That the social structure of everyone's home in Southdowns will be forever tainted with the bar that might be in a retail section of a development?
If you are trying to make any of those connections, I will continue to laugh at you.
Posted by BRProgress on November 27, 2007 at 5:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I thought we were going to start working together?? Do you think the engineering, design, and construction firms are in this to get sued for poor sewage/drainage plan? Do you think JTS wants this project to fail?
Sewage/drainage is real and serious issue. I acknowledge that. Work together to assure yourselves of a solution. Look at this development as a positive. If there is already an issue then use this as a chance to get the prior problem fixed.
Posted by anonymous on November 27, 2007 at 5:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Ask the criminologists. Bars and liquor stores attract or possibly cause crime! I understand those are the only things criminologist can find that correlate to higher crime rates.
Your insults and opinions do not add to the discussion, blue_ink_pin. Address the facts.
We do not want those types of businesses where our children are suppose to be able to ride their bikes. What Spinoza says sounds good, but he is selling a false dream. Don't buy it. It is easy to make is sound good. The reality is different. Look at Citiplace. It is nothing like he said it would be.
Posted by anonymous on November 27, 2007 at 6:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Rouzan's sewer water will run down into the other neighborhoods. What does Spinoza care? Make him pay to fix it first. He can't and he won't. The development will put a strain on the existing system, and he will leave the city with the bill.
This developement will have apartment buildings. There will be absentee owners and eventually they are much more likely to become run down and detract from the neighborhood. Just what LSU needs, more run-down, over-crowded, seedy neighborhoods around it to attract good professors with bad living accommodations nearby. No thank you.
Laugh at that, blue_ink_pen.
Posted by anonymous on November 27, 2007 at 6:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Spinoza could place a restrictiion against bars and liquor stores on the propety tommorrow. If he did, he would give up nothing since they would not be allowed now as the property is currently zoned. But he hasn't, because he would rent to a bar if its money is green. Also he doesn't want to prevent a future owner from using it for that. TND zoning will allow him to put a bar in there or sell the property to another for that purpose. TND zoning includes CAB1 and CAB2. That allows for alcohol sales within the TND!
Admittedly, TND does allow for other things. Does it have to be synonomous for it to happen? Does it have to be synonomous before we believe it will or might happen? If is not synonomous, I guess we can just trust Spinoza like we did on Citiplace. For that matter, I guess we can trust all future owners to not use it for that purpose too.
Posted by allabout on November 27, 2007 at 6:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Regardless if one is for or against Rouzan, lives here or in Timbuktu,I find Mr. Ball's article extremely unprofessional in its'one-sided, biased, and condescending tone. Mr. Ball's style is accusatory, inflammatory, disrespectful, and sarcastic in his use of words and phrases such as "jihad mode," "zealots," "shock-and-awe assault," " 'blessed' Southdowns," 'sacred' turf of Southdowns," as he refers to the "opposition". I am disappointed that this piece of writing would even be allowed in print; it is an embarrassment to a "progressive" city.
Posted by Jon_Deaux on November 27, 2007 at 7:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Ah, as I sit in my chair and ponder…what will bring peace and harmony to my city? Then it came to me…a community with a bunch of yuppies living up their neighbor’s butts….yes, yes, I am truly the enlighten one.
Chiandme, “neighborly neighborhoods “, what planet are you from? The only thing more pitiful than that commentary was BRProgress’s applause. BRProgress, do you honestly think that a minimum wage bookstore clerk has the time or interest in babysitting your kid and it is rude of you to expect them to. Is this a community or a cult?
These are not socially/economically diverse communities and by and large they will be filled with affluent, white people. I think what irritates me most is the utter hypocrisy of it all. Developers are well aware that these communities don’t adhere the very principles of New Urbanisms from which the TND concept was supposable derived. The reality is that they are economically viable because there is a market for them. Statistically speaking there are lower instances of crime in areas of affluent, white people. To suggest that the proximity of your neighbor or sidewalks somehow cast a magic nice spell is utterly ludicrous. It’s a bunch of white people being white together…brilliant new concept!! But I must admit I’m very glad we are getting back to the basic connectivity, sidewalk designs.
BRProgress, you asked for a suggestion that makes sense. Well, this proposed development has a population density of 4X’s the population density of the surrounding areas. Compromise on population density is very much warranted. Regardless as to how “neighborly” these people are they will be hauling to and from work just like everyone else.
Posted by blue_ink_pin on November 27, 2007 at 8:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)
What facts anonymous? Seriously what facts? You're labeling a new development with the POSSIBILITY of a bar a crime magnet. No socio-economic numbers that might back up your claim. You don't even go as far as noting what liquor store or bar will be in the development. As it stands, what retail/restaurants will be in the development? I presume you know considering you are anonymously against such a despicable development that would allow grown-ups the right to make choices concerning their own body. Just admit that progressive society scares you and you will stop at nothing to disuade the possible good things associated with such a development.
The issue at hand has nothing to do with a bar. It has nothing to do with a liquor store. You, sir, are in the minority if that is your reasoning for taking a stance against this development. I can understand, but not necessarily agree, with those that talk about the impending traffic problems. But I don't understand the notion that a bar in a residential complex featuring the top 5% of the community is going to spring a crime issue. But hey, believe what you will. You obviously already do.
Posted by BRProgress on November 27, 2007 at 9:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Jon Deaux, you apparently took a quantum leap with my allowing my child of a proper age to walk to a bookstore to enjoy him/herself with friends. You bypassed logic and leaped to the idea that I would allow a child who would need babysitting to attend a bookstore by herself. Man, didn't know I had to be so clear and direct for you to grab the concept of a clerk/manager knowing my child - I did say watch (I will be more clear with my words). A clerk merely saying hello or interacting with them is a good thing. I'll try my best to spell things out for you in the future. Oh, and let's steer away from issues on wages - thought a starting job used to be looked upon as a good thing.
I'm sorry you also lept into racial commentary. That is astounding, but the typical tactic taken. If you don't want to live there then don't, but let's not hold back Baton Rouge since you don't like a certain concept. You are free to live where you desire. I would hope any TND would be filled by anyone of any race, creed, or color. Your point of view is narrow minded and limited. We moved a year ago (back to the middle of town) from an area that had new homes valued above 300k. We had a diverse section of society living in that neighborhood, of all races, ethnic background, and religion. For you to say that any development is built for affluent people of one race is disheartening. I believe you said, "a bunch of white people being white together". Hmmm....a library in that area could be well used by all races, and would be a great asset for neighborhoods less affluent on the other side of Perkins. What a great comment.
Can you please forward my instruction manual since I may be doing something that my race is not allowed to do in your mind, and I don't want to disappoint you.
Can we get back on topic please and discuss the one issue that you raised - density. So in your mind is any density, greater than Southdowns, okay?
Posted by Jon_Deaux on November 27, 2007 at 10:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Not a quantum leap at all. Your very words suggested that somehow the fact that the bookstore was located in a TND your child would be provided supervision. Your words, I was simply pointing out the unrealistic idealism:
“Or imagine a child who lives in Perkins Rowe meeting friends at the bookstore to study and being watched over because the store personnel know the child and his friends because he is from the "neighborhood".”
Although my comments addressed race they were made in relation the ascribed intent of these developments (New Urbanism) to provide affordable housing and the stark contrast of what they actually become. And as I stated, it is ludicrous to suggest that the design of these developments will intrinsically create harmony among neighbors. The downtown of many major cities will prove that dense populations and walkable distances to stores do not insure a harmonious environment.
But in regards to density, obviously our city is growing and naturally the residence of the area should be willing to compromise. Hopefully all sides can come together and find a workable solution for their area.
Posted by BRProgress on November 27, 2007 at 11:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)
As I pointed out, I recognize that "watched over" could be interpreted as you did, but not what I meant by any means.
"New Urbanism" is not about affordable housing, that is however close to one principle, of having diverse use of the development. The Congress of the New Urbanism stated:
"We advocate the restructuring of public policy and development practices to support the following principles: neighborhoods should be diverse in use and population; communities should be designed for the pedestrian and transit as well as the car; cities and towns should be shaped by physically defined and universally accessible public spaces and community institutions; urban places should be framed by architecture and landscape design that celebrate local history, climate, ecology, and building practice."
So, if anything hit on JTS to include some smaller units that can be afforded by people of lesser means that desire a quality development. Actually do not know the cost range involved with Rouzan, but imagine it will be comparable to the area surrounding it - Southdowns, Pollard Estates, etc.
I would actually say idealistic, rather than ludicrous, that density would make any area more harmonic or neighborly. Density does little in and of itself - highrise innercity developments of the 1960 Chicago can attest to that. A denser, more walkable area, containing amenities such as shops, stores, theaters, libraries, etc would hopefully make for a more harmonious lifestyle.
Compromise is the key - address the issues that concern everyone and work on solutions for the common good.
Now, back to density. Is any development okay?
Posted by Jon_Deaux on November 28, 2007 at 6:23 a.m. (Suggest removal)
As I said:
"But in regards to density, obviously our city is growing and naturally the residence of the area should be willing to compromise. Hopefully all sides can come together and find a workable solution for their area."
What that solution is in regards to degree of density should be hammered out through compromise.
Posted by Fred on November 28, 2007 at 9:21 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Density is the key to a successful TND, too much or too little and the TND suffers. As stated in this article, the developer has hired some of the most experienced planners, designers, and architects on TNDs to do the conceptual design. It is paramount that they are involved with any compromise to ensure that too much negative impact does not occur from the wishes of well meaning but inexperienced existing residents.
Posted by backyardhell on November 28, 2007 at 5:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)
FYI, original housing costs for Perkins Rowe residential units began at about $220,000. So much for the "elderly lady who will watch your kids."
There are no sidewalks for "kids to ride bikes". The green space is a square with some trees and probably a fountain. There are parking garages for people to drive to this massive development. Does anybody actually do any RESEARCH any more? This is an urban development that should be in an urban setting...like downtown Baton Rouge. Rouzan, aka "What's Next" in Spinosa speak, is so way off base.
As for letting Wimbledon and Southdowns getting back to their original roots, that's such a joke. Wimbledon was developed in the early 80s. It was Kleinpeter dairy land (as was the new Willow Grove until recently). Way to call that one. This thread will die as of Friday, but this issue will live on in infamy until the sucker is built. I have no doubt it will be. $$ talks in this town. Residents are little more than characters in a Sims game.
Posted by BRProgress on November 28, 2007 at 8:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)
BYH, I understand your frustration and economic suffering (hopefully short term).
If you do your research (notice no caps) you would understand that neither Perkins Rowe or any other JTS project or even Willow Grove is actually a TND. So, the sidewalks and green space in Perkins Rowe is a much appreciated surplus. Go read the TND code that was just recently passed - that is called research.
You just happened to live within spitting distance of the busiest area of town where a commercial development was going to occur.
Glad to here that prices are starting reasonable at 220k. I say reasonable since houses in your area, even the older neighborhoods across from you (Iberville Terrace) have houses listed up to 325,000. Grandma could simplify her life and put money in her pocket. Didn't know that grandmothers are prohibited from living in homes above 220,000. I really need to find that social structure instruction manual!!!
Perkins Rowe does not equal Rouzan. Rouzan IS (caps are catching) a TND - highly, highly regulated and happens to be designed by top design experts. Oh by the way, fortunately the new Picardy extension will connect with Wimbeldon so access to Perkins Rowe will be convenient for you guys.
Developers willing to take a risk do talk and should talk in every town. If not, those towns would stagnate. Likewise, those developers ought to be held to every regulation and ordinance governing there project.
And yes, there is a parking garage (in your language, PERKINS ROWE IS NOT A TND). Better be a parking garage since I will be headed out there to take in a movie, do some shopping, and have a nice relaxing dinner (and say hello to any Grandmas that I see).
I had not been out there in a few months and when I visited yesterday, it looked great. Can't wait until it is completed.
Glad that some quailty developers are around to take a chance on Baton Rouge.
Posted by backyardhell on November 29, 2007 at 4:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)
We will have to agree to disagree because we obviously live in two completely different places. I'll resist my urge to use caps too.
You say you understand my suffering? Not even close. Four years and counting. Four years of problems, noise, disruption, sirens, floodlights. There's not enough time or space to list it all. Four years of surviving the headaches. That's not quality of life, that's just getting by. That's not what I signed on for. Why should we have to pay the price, any price for this mess? You say it's nice. I say it's a nightmare. If I could afford it, I'd be putting up a 15 foot wall from Perkins Road to Dawson Creek protecting our neighborhood and no, they'd never get to connect the roads. I completely understand gated communities. I just couldn't afford to move into one, not that Baton Rouge has that many. We did look into purchasing the road rights a few years ago and gating off Wimbledon, but the cost was prohibitive for a lower to middle income neighborhood like Wimbledon. So, we are a 2 entrance subdivision and very protective of it. We chose to live in a geographically enclosed neighborhood that we felt was safe, secure, and protected from the encroachment of the outside world. Instead, we're being forced to adapt to everybody elses wishes and told to sit down and shut up and act like it's all good. Well, it's not.
I could respond back and forth for days on this. But to tell you the truth, I'm too tired. You see, it's still too hard to sleep at night with heavy equipment running. You try sleeping with reverse sirens on dump trucks and backhoes running, beeping in your brain and claw machines dumping cement into dumpsters outside your bedroom. See how much sleep you get, or your kids. Thank the Lord I don't have kids. If my wife and I ever do, it won't be here in Baton Rouge. They deserve much better.
Posted by BRProgress on November 30, 2007 at 8:16 a.m. (Suggest removal)
BYH, I believe we actually agree on more things than you think.
Construction at all hours is unaccepatable, period. Never been faced with that other than hammering on nearby house construction. Law enforcement needs to protect your rights. Be interested to hear what steps you took on this. What do the City/Parish ordinances say on construction noise? I would be right there standing next to you fighting on this issue.
I sincerely hope and do believe that once the construction is completed that you will grow to enjoy what Perkins Rowe brings to your area. Go to the Project Greenlight site. The extension to Picardy is still, according to the website, in the design stage. Work with the City now, as well as other resources such as Baton Rouge Green, and of course JTS, to see what can be done to soften the impact of the new roadway. I do wish you luck.
Posted by fourx5 on November 30, 2007 at 3:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"Spinoza could place a restrictiion against bars and liquor stores on the propety tommorrow. "
I'd rather people walk down to the corner pub to have a drink than be drunk on the roads.
It works in England. It used to work in New Orleans, before the diaspora. We have laws already that are designed to keep underage and abusive people out of bars. Enforce those - don't keep pulling straw men out of your considerably-sized hat to oppose Rouzan.
Posted by cmac on November 30, 2007 at 7:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Markmmg, unfortunately not all TNDs are created equal and from what I’ve heard Mr. Spinosa has no plans to build a grocery store or restaurant within the confines of Rouzan. I’m not really sure what his plans are. Are you?
I grew up in a traditional neighborhood in the Midwest. There was a family owned little grocery store around the corner (the owners lived above the store) and a supermarket within six blocks. All easily accessed via sidewalks. We did that on a regular basis. We even walked eight blocks to school ... even in the snow, lol.
I’ve been saying for years that Baton Rouge needs to think outside the box and true TNDs are definitely the wave of the future. BUT, building one without adequate consideration of traffic and drainage issues is a nightmare waiting to happen.
Danholliday, I was happy to see the ghetto Wal-Mart go and can’t wait for that nasty building to finally be torn down and Commercial Properties to start building a mixed use development. (Would be a perfect location for Trader Joe’s!!!) I was so pleased to see Wal-Mart create green spaces in their new location on College Drive, although I would rather that have been a Target. Notice how it’s already getting a little trashy? What is it with that company?
As for your observation that traffic on that stretch of College Drive “has never been better,” I have to disagree. Nothing has changed. And nothing was apparently done to the sewer infrastructure, because it’s constantly ‘bubbling’ up at the intersection of Balis and Rabey (directly behind the store) and just yesterday I noticed the street is collapsing there. So much for improvements and (empty) promises.
BRProgress, I’d love to believe the picture you paint of residents in Rouzan “living a pre-automobile” lifestyle, but don’t see it happening. A walk to the coffee shop or library (still not sure about that dangling carrot) is not going to alleviate the need for residents to leave Rouzan on a daily basis to DRIVE to Wal-Mart, Albertsons, Walgreens, pick up their children at school, or shop at any of the businesses that are clustered in the Perkins Road/College Drive area and beyond.
While it’s true that Southdowns does not have sidewalks, we DO have street lights and if you spent any time here it would be very obvious that residents walk, run, and ride bikes on a daily basis. We consider our neighborhood a community and look out for each other.
Jon Deaux, you said it in a nutshell! “Compromise on population density is very much warranted.” Spinosa is proposing 4 times the density of surrounding neighborhoods. That should send up a red flag to anyone with common sense.
The basic concept of a TND is a good one. It’s the greed that begins to create problems that can easily mushroom into a nightmare for all of us.
Posted by Tara on November 30, 2007 at 9:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Mr. JR Ball,
You are my hero for writing this article! It is time for Baton Rouge to move into the future. I am from Baton Rouge, but I have lived in other metropolitan areas in my adult life.
Developers like Tommy Spinosa and Mike Wampold are praised and treated like a winning LSU coach in more educated and progressive areas. These developers should be embraced for their vision and faith in the Baton Rouge economy. These men are gambling their money, credit, reputations and futures that their projects will be successful. The NIMBYS are looking a "gift horse" in the mouth again by not supporting the Rouzan project. We Southdowns homeowners will be the recipients of increased real estate values and quality of life, and it won't even cost us anything!
Thank you Mr. Spinosa! Don't back down. Don't compromise your positon. You have more support than you know. The southside civic association does not speak for everone in Southdowns as they would have people believe.
We're looking forward to an even better Southdowns with Rouzan!
T. Todtenbier
Sweetbriar St.
Southdowns Homeowner
Posted by Dot on December 1, 2007 at 9:37 a.m. (Suggest removal)
All density, drainage and traffic issues aside ... I'd personally LOVE to see a TRUE Traditional Neighborhood Development with stong support for ALL LOCAL businesses (which is what those darling pre-war neighborhoods were DEFINED BY.) Businesses like Perkins Road Hardware, Bolton's Pharmacy, Capital Grocery, a local farmer's/arts market, Cottonwood Books, a family-owned bakery & resturant, etc. That would be lovely. Instead, a third of the 118-acre tract of land will (more than likely) be filled with "brand-name" chain stores or mass merchant sellers. Past experiences indicate that Mr. Spinosa does not intend to make local mom & pop establishments the cornerstone of his development. In my opinion, there is nothing "smart" OR "traditional" about that kind of growth. We'll just have more retail stores to buy stuff that nobody really needs -- and we'll be exporting our local revenue to companies (al la Urban Outfitters, J.Crew, etc.) that thrive on the underpaid labor of second world multi-national corporations. What about the big picture? Is this "smart"? Smart for whom?
Posted by Dot on December 1, 2007 at 9:50 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Oh, and J.R. -- if Mr. Spinosa is indeed "here to build the best community ever built in Baton Rouge" -- I fully expect Mr. Spinosa's family to be the FIRST residents of Rouzan ... and for J.R. Ball to be the second. ;-) Put you home where your mouth is. I'll be convinced it's "the best" when Tommy Spinosa resides there.
Posted by fourx5 on December 2, 2007 at 11:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Dot:
If Baton Rouge had had a TND like Rouzan when my wife and I lived there, we'd have lived in it. While we still may have found that our skills were not needed in Baton Rouge, life may have been more pleasant while we were there.
Our experience, in a poorly-built early 80s condo butted between Bluebonnet, professional offices, and a nouveaux-riche single outlet subdivision was, to put it mildly, sub-optimal. Even a trip to the grocery at Perkins and Bluebonnet took about 45 minutes, round trip. It was .08 miles away.
Posted by jrball (JR Ball) on December 3, 2007 at 2:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Dot,
For the record, I will consider purchasing a residence in Rouzan, but I am currently looking at Willow Grove, another TND already under construction. It may not have TND zoning, but Willow Grove is a TND. Might also move downtown if The Brownstones goes condo. I hope that answers your question, as it relates to my plans.
Posted by Dot on December 3, 2007 at 4:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Technically, JR, I didn't ask a question. I do, however appreciate your attention and reply. Once Rouzan's a done deal(yes, we do know it IS going to happen) and you move in, I'm sure all of us hillbilly jihadists in Southdown's will welcome you with hugs, coffee cake and a fine bottle of Chianti (I promise, no fava beans). But we'll have to (at least ride our bikes) to Tommy's house on the lake if we want to visit with him.
Posted by Tara on December 13, 2007 at 10:38 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Wow, 30 more days of interest payments on $15 Million for Tommy Spinosa to pay when he's already met all of the requirements of the government and the planning commission to develop his property.
I think he should sue. Seriously, I hope he looks into it.
Post a comment
(Requires free registration.)