By Roger Grunke, AIA, an architect who specializes in historic preservation and the design of new buildings in historic neighborhoods
The vote to deny recommendation, to City Council, for Wasserman Realty Capital?s proposed re-development of Hyde Park Village did not come as a surprise to anyone who sat through the four hour presentation, public comment and ultimate deliberation by the City of Tampa?s Architectural Review Commission. Anyone who had viewed the May 2006 ARC Public Hearing, when the first rendition of the Wasserman proposal was presented, couldn?t help but notice, twelve months later, that the presentation was nothing more than the same creature with different color lipstick. As stated by the majority of the twenty-seven residents who gave public testimony that evening, the density, mass and scale of the proposed project did not reflect the character of the historic neighborhood. Simply stated: too much density. This was the problem in 2006 and remains the problem today.
Commissioner Keith Roberts admonished the Applicant, before carefully forming a motion for the negative vote. He reminded the Applicant that they were pointedly advised, in May 2006, to reduce the density in order to enable mass and scale that would be compatible with the neighborhood. Mass and scale is a concept often vaguely understood. I have explained it as "an ostrich" and "a hippopotamus." Both are approximately the same height, but differ greatly in "bulk and length." Roberts invited the Applicant to revise the proposal, by reducing the density, and return in a month for another review. The Applicant flatly turned the offer down.
In private discussion with David Wasserman, he was adamant that he was entitled to every bit of density, and possibly more, that the Comprehensive Plan allowed and therefore, had no obligation to the Preservation Ordinance. In another aside, a senior planner from Wilson Miller, Wasserman?s lead consultant, also refuted that the Village was even part of the historic district and was therefore, under no obligation to comply with the mass and scale requirements. Some residents who spoke with Wasserman were shocked at what they described as pure arrogance. The importance of this is only that it shows, now that the veil has been lifted, who we are truly dealing with. The hours of Public-Input-Meetings attended by neighbors and Village tenants alike were a false façade. They were promotional meetings not "input" meetings. The many hours of professional guidance that the Commissioners of the ARC donated in assistance to the Wasserman group were for naught. Wasserman Realty Capital attended the reviews and Public Hearings with no intention to comply with the Hyde Park Guidelines. It was, on their part, a charade.
The most disturbing part of this is that it exemplifies the unhealthy relationship between developers, government, consultants, and tax dollars, regarding the building of American cities. The interaction has evolved, over time, into one where poor results seem inevitable. It is an intricate web and a very sticky one. The developer sees profit. The city?s administration sees beaucoup tax revenue. The politician sees big campaign contributions. The consultant sees lucrative contracts and the tax payers foot the bill. And that might be "alright," if the tangible results were an urban infrastructure which improved the quality of life for all?not just for those taking the profit. But time and time again, it is not. The general public has difficulty differentiating between the pretty eye-wash that the consultants whip-up and substantive design?and developers know this. Too often citizens are left with unlivable cities while the developer has since skipped town. "Well," some folks say, "this is a ?free? society?you can?t tell a developer how or what to build." But in some areas we do. In our "free" society, our government strictly regulates life-safety issues, like the number and locations of a building?s fire exits. At the same time, some would find it distasteful for the government to regulate quality of the built environment.
When you reflect upon it, regulating the quality of the built environment is exactly what the Architectural Review Commission and a historic district does. And this may be the root of the resentment towards both the ARC and preservation. Think about it?through both national and local consensus, the Hyde Park neighborhood has been recognized as having a collection of architecturally and historically important buildings. While they are historically important, they also inadvertently, reflect characteristics which also support an exceptionally high quality of life. Those qualities are linked to the physical form of Hyde Park as it existed at the beginning of the 20th century?its period of historic significance. These characteristics are not subjective. They have been quantified and published under the Hyde Park Guidelines. They include such items as setbacks from the street and from other buildings, size, mass and scale. Together with the Secretary of the Interior?s Standards, they are the mechanism to ensure the preservation of that which makes Hyde Park the enviable neighborhood which it is. So powerful are these quantifiable characteristics that both the Guidelines and the Standards were adopted by the City as law! The Architectural Review Commission is a volunteer, pro-bono, non political board vested with the responsibility of determining whether new construction complies with that law. To some developers, government officials and private citizens, it is seen as a cumbersome body complicating and obstructing "progress." There have been repeated attempts to dilute and abbreviate the powers of both the ARC and the Guidelines themselves. Thankfully, so far, they remain strong?they remain the law. It is this law which Wasserman Realty Capital has shown contempt for. Would we want to place life-safety issues at the discretion of developers? Fire stairs only increase the cost of a project! Why would you then place quality of life issues entirely in the hands of those to whom it is only an additional cost?
The link between "quality of life" and "historic preservation" makes many people queasy. As it becomes clearer and clearer that Hyde Park is a text-book model neighborhood, it becomes equally as clear that redevelopment along a different model may not be in our interests. The physical and economic desirability of historic Hyde Park makes people fundamentally question what developers everywhere are pumping out. And to the cozy relationship between business and government, this recognition is dangerous and leads to battles like the one we experienced last Wednesday. Fortunately, many of Hyde Park?s residents are professionals capable in the public arena, people who understand civic responsibility, are dedicated to upholding quality and have fought off many assaults on their community. It is a costly undertaking both in energy, emotions and time but we not only continue to do it, we are now reaching out to others in neighborhoods across Tampa, helping them see the value of their historic past and the quality of life embedded in it.
