When I posted a piece about the proposed Woodside Village development last month, I had no idea it would get such a response. In addition to the comments, I got e-mails and phone calls from a number of Westwood residents. I also heard from the developer himself, who I met with last week to discuss the project. After those conversations and learning more about the proposal, I’d like to go ahead and post this follow-up.
Given all the interest, there’s surprising lack of discussion online about this proposal. The feedback I got and the high number of views suggests there are a lot of people trying to find out more about Woodside Village and how it would impact the community. That was confirmed when I showed up at that planning commission last Monday and saw that City Hall was standing-room only. Looking around the room at the faces of the people gathered that night, I couldn’t wait to hear what people had to say.
Unfortunately, I never found out. Mr. Tanner, his architect, an analyst and two other members of his team took about twenty minutes each introducing the project using slides, maps, plans and statistics and marketing materials set up by the doors. Two hours into the meeting, when the floor was open to speakers other than the development team, only a small percentage of the original crowd and signed up speakers were left. For a group that kept citing such positive feedback from the community, the presenters — and the planning commission itself — seemed reluctant to give anyone else a chance to speak.
For someone who really wanted to hear what people in the community thought, this was incredibly frustrating. As the detailed presentation dragged on, there was the surreal sense among those of us in the back of the room that we weren’t even there.
Unfortunately it’s not the first time I’ve heard of city officials putting the concerns of their citizens second to the guys with the money. Months ago, when my dad suggested to Westwood Mayor Steve Stubbers that the council put the development to a referendum, the Mayor deferred, saying he did not think that would be a good idea. The only response to that I can imagine a concerned citizen asking is, “Why not?”
A few other questions citizens have brought up to me:
Why is the developer allowed to display promotional materials in city hall and links to their website on the city’s homepage when the pro forma and other related documents are nowhere to be found?
Who is really funding the consulting firm and the analysts whose numbers the developers are citing?
Why do those studies call attention to high-occupancy buildings near the Plaza while ignoring the low-occupancy apartments and condos within a half mile of the proposed building site?
I’m sure city council members want to do the right thing, but right now there seems to be an alarming lack of transparency. I’m hoping that future city and planning commission meetings are more balanced than the last one (the next one takes place Thursday, August 11 at 7 p.m.)
As for the proposal itself, I’m not surprised that the city council (and without a doubt, some residents) are impressed. Although dismissed by some as looking sterile, I think the drawings look pretty nice. An organic foods market, pizza joint and yogurt shop would certainly be frequented by my family. And unlike several people I’ve heard from who seem alarmed at the prospect of rentals in an otherwise single-family home area, I don’t think think a rental population equals a bunch of “transient” lowlifes, especially not at the luxury price point (starting at $1300 a month) offered here.
Having sat down for an hour with Blair Tanner, it’s clear he’s not just some coastal developer looking to make an easy buck. While he was born and still spends most of his time in L.A., Mr. Tanner grew up spending summers at Woodside, which his father built in the seventies. He has an emotional attachment to the place and has spent at least five years coming up with these plans. So when he says that he has the best intentions with this project, I have no doubt he’s telling the truth.
Other things I’m not so sure about. He says he couldn’t be more confident in the demand for these kinds of apartments, but also admits that the number of apartments was increased to 330 because that’s the only way they can pay off the cost of the development. He told me there is no financial risk to the city, but obviously there’s a risk that a project of this size would get stalled and leave an ugly, undeveloped space similar to those seen in Mission, Merriam, Overland Park and other parts of the city.
Blair also scolded me for linking to Craig Glazer’s post on KcConfidential.com and told me that’s not the vision he has for Woodside Village. But it’s not as if the environment at Woodside health club created itself. In recent years I’ve seen the upstairs pool at Woodside closed off to kids and swim lessons, and the popular snack bar above the bathhouse has been closed up and turned into storage while the health club installed a fancy “earth bar.” I’m not sure the young professionals and empty nesters Tanner is aiming for as tenants would be that drastically different than what you see at the upstairs pools on a weekend afternoon.
In fairness, Mr. Tanner has made it clear that he welcomes suggestions and ideas, and I respect his openness to getting feedback from the community about the shape of the project, if not the scope.
But even after a pleasant, informative chat with Mr. Tanner, I can’t imagine this being successful. I just think it’s far, far too many upscale units at a time when jobs are rapidly disappearing from the area. I understand the need to create new tax revenue in the city, which a successful Woodside Village certainly would be (at least after the requested 20-year tax abatement period), and it’s not as if Westwood routinely gets development proposals of this scale. But I can’t in clear conscience get behind a project that I don’t think would succeed and that I don’t get the sense a majority of the residents are behind.
Ultimately it comes down to a question of what vision you have for the community. Do you think 330 luxury apartments and a 35,000 square foot retail development are going to be a “slam dunk” for the city, as some are calling it? Or do does it sound more like a “pipe dream,” as blogger TKC referred to it the other day.
I think we need to set our emotional responses aside and start asking ourselves — and each other — if we really believe in the Woodside Village project. We need to take a look at the facts, hear each others’ arguments, and make a decision that reflects what most of Westwood’s residents want to see happen in their community.
In a project of this scale, we simply can’t afford not to.