|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
“A good decision is based on knowledge, and not on numbers.” — Plato
The city of Mountain View would do well to pause, reflect and take to heart that axiom when making decisions regarding planning and development.
The City Council makes such decisions seemingly at every one of its meetings — decisions often informed by competing interests, which pose regular challenges to the council. Notable among them is striking a balance between commercial interests and the characteristics that make Mountain View so special, not the least of them being its downtown.
Decades ago, Mountain View city planners implemented a vision for the downtown that’s since become known in planning circles as “smart growth,” which has helped turn our downtown into the appealing destination it is today. People now come from all over the Bay Area are drawn by its variety of restaurants, bars and shops; its walkability and proximity to multiple modes of public transit; and its unique character and historic treasures.
Inexplicably, though, that smart-growth vision became blurred and commercial interests quickly seized the opportunity to gain disproportionate — and disturbing — influence over the city’s development. Today’s Mountain View City Council, however, is in a position to put smart growth back on track.
At its Nov. 28 meeting, the council will hear arguments for and against an out-of-town developer’s proposal that flies in the face of smart growth and Mountain View’s rich history. That meeting will include a study session on the developer’s intention to remove two historic buildings downtown — the Weilheimer House (home to Chez TJ) and the Tied House building next to it — to erect an office building. You read that correctly: Another large office building, which would replace a 120-year-old Victorian house steeped in history and its slightly newer but still historic neighbor. A structure as unwelcome as an office building at that location would be disastrous both for keeping Mountain View’s heritage alive and for ensuring that downtown streets remain unique, appealing and walkable.
We’re not talking about empty, dilapidated rodent-magnets here; both of the existing buildings are structurally sound and serve as venues for two successful restaurants. They are also two of the oldest in Mountain View and have withstood the test of time, while helping create the downtown’s distinctive sense of place and character.
There are viable alternatives to the developer’s proposal, such as erecting the developer’s office building in a different location that doesn’t ruin the downtown’s unique character. Moreover, the Weilheimer House and Tied House buildings could, relatively easily, be repurposed for future commercial and/or nonprofit uses, once those restaurants eventually close.
Smart Growth America, a national coalition of advocacy organizations devoted to improving communities, lists Ten Tools for Smart Growth. Among them, two stand out as highly relevant to downtown Mountain View: “Take advantage of existing community assets,” and “Promote distinctive, attractive communities with a strong sense of place, including the rehabilitation and use of historic buildings.”
It’s decision time for the Mountain View City Council. That decision isn’t just on preserving community assets such as these historic buildings in question, or on creating a strong sense of place; it will also be on righting the ship that’s been listing dangerously toward unbridled, poorly planned development. Council members will need to make that crucial decision based on their knowledge of what sensible planning entails, rather than on any misleading numbers as to what development could yield.
Livable Mountain View, a volunteer group working to help guide the city’s growth, has collected more than 2,000 signatures in support of preserving the two buildings, in place. The group strongly encourages residents to write to the City Council, sign the petition (accessible via LMV’s website) and come to the council’s Nov. 28 meeting to let council members know the community favors the only sensible decision — to preserve our historical resources and restore smart growth to its rightful place in planning Mountain View’s future.
Jerry Steach and Jean McCloskey are members of Livable Mountain View (www.livablemountainview.com).
Jerry Steach and Jean McCloskey are members of Livable Mountain View (www.livablemountainview.com).
Jerry Steach and Jean McCloskey are members of Livable Mountain View (www.livablemountainview.com).
STANDING OVATION!
It is unclear if this is just yet another NO GROWTH reflexive effort. I think many of us here do not consider NO CHANGE to be the same as the “smart growth” urbanization philosophy that the two authors seemly hold in high esteem. In that case – many historically significant cities throughout the world would not have been able to hold on to some of their heritage and yet grow for the future.
Downtown planning also needs to consider, as they say in Europe, “urban densification”, “compact city” or “urban intensification” ideas. Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smart_growth
My studies of urban planning, and my world travels, have taught me that REUSE sometimes with major relocations or rebuilding/incorporation can also lead to keeping the historical character of an city, and yet not stifling the use of a city
for it’s current and future inhabitants. Cities are used and inhabited by people, not old buildings!
This piece is a thinly veiled attempt to stop progress, much like anything that uses “heritage” in nostalgic form. Maybe they can save all the brothels that Mountain View was known for as well. I am on the verge of starting a call to boycott all these advertisers that support this ridiculousness.
Why should the council act to stop two property owners who have run successful businesses in Mountain View for a very long time from redeveloping their own properties? There are two sides to each story, and those buildings are owned by two long time Mountain View business people.
I’d hate to see some kind of generic box built on top of those two buildings, so perhaps we should appeal to the property owners to build something “nice”, instead of having the strong arm of the law come in and sabotage their property rights.
The Tied House and Chez TJ buildings aren’t steeped in history. Can you name something historic other than their being old? One is a former laundry, the other is an old victorian which has been partially gutted to make a commercial kitchen. Their disappearance would certainly change Villa St, so let’s just be honest and say don’t want to see the street changed, instead of trying to find something historical about them. What if they were on the other side of Central? They’d probably be a lot less historic there.
Thanks, Jerry & Jean, for standing up for what makes our downtown special!
Smart growth to me means how much more traffic will it bring?
If the new building brings equal amount of traffic than ok.
But building a skyscraper that would create massive traffic jams, then no.
So if they can build in those perimeters then it’s all good.