City Council, why aren't you listening to your constituents?
We don't want this project.
M
Melanie Walz
9 years ago
As a UP resident I am firmly against a larger building in Snider Plaza which would increase traffic & decrease safety of our children before/after school.
J
Jennifer Tipton
9 years ago
We need to keep Snider Plaza safe for our residents. The proposed building is just too big for this area and will create traffic problems and safety issues. Please do not approve this building.
D
deborah masterson
9 years ago
Safety is paramount! Lengthening the trip to HPMS will hurt our children's attendance or sleep patterns. Underground parking is a must and not entering off Hillcrest.
A
Anonymous
9 years ago
7809 Hanover 75225
E
Edward Schuh
9 years ago
No ugly giant buildings in UP!!
H
Holly Soetenga
9 years ago
I am strongly opposed to the proposed development. As a resident (3125 Stanford), the height of this building is not in keeping with the neighborhood/community aesthetics. In addition, the mirrored glass will be a huge safety issue at a very busy intersection during morning and evening commute. This area is so congested already. I am in support of something being done with this property but not to the scope of this propsal. It will adversly alter our community and set a terrible precedent for future projects.
C
Carol Seay
9 years ago
We need to maintain the neighborhood feel.
C
Caroline Massad
9 years ago
We don't need more density in this area
A
Anonymous
9 years ago
The size of the building does not fit the area and the proposed mirrored facade would be an eyesore.
M
Melanie jordan
9 years ago
We live on rosedale and agree there needs to be something done to the chase building but not the size and the scope of the current proposal.
C
Catherine Sweet
9 years ago
3522 Caruth Blvd
A
Ann Zahar
9 years ago
The present plan does not fit with the neighborhood.
M
Mike boone
9 years ago
3516 University....object to current height, glass skin and above ground parking.......We do like Mr Strode and support his general plan to develop this property project
L
Linda Cooper
9 years ago
The people of New York and, to a certain degree, those of London regret the damage done to older neighbourhoods by allowing tall multi-storied buildings that were presented and built upon the idea as improvements to these neighborhoods. The folks on the Upper West Side of Manhattan finally gathered together in the 80's and 90's to put an end to tearing down older buildings to build high-rise apartments. In the same way, the people of Norton Folgate in Spitalfields London years ago placed their neighborhood into a historic trust; but today they are continuting in a battle with British Land and the City of London (earlier with Boris Johnson as mayor) to block new high rise developement that will forever change the nature and personality of Norton Folgate. I feel adding one high rise in our neighborhood will lead to setting a precedence as was done in both the UWS of Manhattan and in many neighborhods in London. For this reason I oppose this construction.
D
Douglas Cooper
9 years ago
3319 Milton
The planned height, the increased traffic to the area and the disregard for the surrounding architecture are just a few of the reasons why this is a horrible idea for this property. My family and I live in this area for the small town feel and the schools... not to live next door to a glass highrise.
J
Jackie Tharp
9 years ago
Since Snider Plaza affects ALL UP residents, ALL UP residents should have been notified. To just notify folks within a 200' radius is asinine. Neighbors in all directions will be affected up to the next major traffic artery.
The PD needs to stay under the existing height restriction. It would be VERY nice if Planning and Zoning would post on one of the websites ALL commercial developments which have received a COO (certificate of occupancy) January 2011 - December 2015. 4 year current window to see what has been set as CURRENT PRECEDENT.
Spreadsheet should include things like address, height of overall building, a major tenant, parking (above or below ground) to name just a few of the details we as UP citizens need to know.
G
Gary Ward
9 years ago
They just keep coming! There should be a permanent answer to this. Our city and its council spend a lot of money and time on this same zoning issue every time there is an ownership change for this property. The current size of the existing building was a contentious issue when built. Forethought predicted the precedent. Here we are. Forethought now is obvious, the beginning of another insidious Preston Center style High Rise expansion and major traffic increase.
University Park was never intended to be a commercial property. People move here for schools, community and small town in the middle of a big city lifestyle with minimal traffic and minimal commercial property looking down upon us. This proposal is only the first salvo intended to be negotiated down to a compromised size. Compromise is only the beginning of future projects and compromise exactly like Preston Center and others.
The answer from our city should be simple..... update and use the building as zoned.
R
Rebecca Laharia
9 years ago
Just moved near Snider 2 years ago because I loved the feel of the community AS IS! I pictures my kids riding their bikes here to meet friends and ussocializing with neighbors. Tall urban buildings is not what we want!
A
Anonymous
9 years ago
This proposal is so wrong on so many levels - size, design, reflection of sun which blinds drivers in an area with many pedestrians including children, added traffic. Please say no
City Council, why aren't you listening to your constituents? We don't want this project.
As a UP resident I am firmly against a larger building in Snider Plaza which would increase traffic & decrease safety of our children before/after school.
We need to keep Snider Plaza safe for our residents. The proposed building is just too big for this area and will create traffic problems and safety issues. Please do not approve this building.
Safety is paramount! Lengthening the trip to HPMS will hurt our children's attendance or sleep patterns. Underground parking is a must and not entering off Hillcrest.
7809 Hanover 75225
No ugly giant buildings in UP!!
I am strongly opposed to the proposed development. As a resident (3125 Stanford), the height of this building is not in keeping with the neighborhood/community aesthetics. In addition, the mirrored glass will be a huge safety issue at a very busy intersection during morning and evening commute. This area is so congested already. I am in support of something being done with this property but not to the scope of this propsal. It will adversly alter our community and set a terrible precedent for future projects.
We need to maintain the neighborhood feel.
We don't need more density in this area
The size of the building does not fit the area and the proposed mirrored facade would be an eyesore.
We live on rosedale and agree there needs to be something done to the chase building but not the size and the scope of the current proposal.
3522 Caruth Blvd
The present plan does not fit with the neighborhood.
3516 University....object to current height, glass skin and above ground parking.......We do like Mr Strode and support his general plan to develop this property project
The people of New York and, to a certain degree, those of London regret the damage done to older neighbourhoods by allowing tall multi-storied buildings that were presented and built upon the idea as improvements to these neighborhoods. The folks on the Upper West Side of Manhattan finally gathered together in the 80's and 90's to put an end to tearing down older buildings to build high-rise apartments. In the same way, the people of Norton Folgate in Spitalfields London years ago placed their neighborhood into a historic trust; but today they are continuting in a battle with British Land and the City of London (earlier with Boris Johnson as mayor) to block new high rise developement that will forever change the nature and personality of Norton Folgate. I feel adding one high rise in our neighborhood will lead to setting a precedence as was done in both the UWS of Manhattan and in many neighborhods in London. For this reason I oppose this construction.
3319 Milton The planned height, the increased traffic to the area and the disregard for the surrounding architecture are just a few of the reasons why this is a horrible idea for this property. My family and I live in this area for the small town feel and the schools... not to live next door to a glass highrise.
Since Snider Plaza affects ALL UP residents, ALL UP residents should have been notified. To just notify folks within a 200' radius is asinine. Neighbors in all directions will be affected up to the next major traffic artery. The PD needs to stay under the existing height restriction. It would be VERY nice if Planning and Zoning would post on one of the websites ALL commercial developments which have received a COO (certificate of occupancy) January 2011 - December 2015. 4 year current window to see what has been set as CURRENT PRECEDENT. Spreadsheet should include things like address, height of overall building, a major tenant, parking (above or below ground) to name just a few of the details we as UP citizens need to know.
They just keep coming! There should be a permanent answer to this. Our city and its council spend a lot of money and time on this same zoning issue every time there is an ownership change for this property. The current size of the existing building was a contentious issue when built. Forethought predicted the precedent. Here we are. Forethought now is obvious, the beginning of another insidious Preston Center style High Rise expansion and major traffic increase. University Park was never intended to be a commercial property. People move here for schools, community and small town in the middle of a big city lifestyle with minimal traffic and minimal commercial property looking down upon us. This proposal is only the first salvo intended to be negotiated down to a compromised size. Compromise is only the beginning of future projects and compromise exactly like Preston Center and others. The answer from our city should be simple..... update and use the building as zoned.
Just moved near Snider 2 years ago because I loved the feel of the community AS IS! I pictures my kids riding their bikes here to meet friends and ussocializing with neighbors. Tall urban buildings is not what we want!
This proposal is so wrong on so many levels - size, design, reflection of sun which blinds drivers in an area with many pedestrians including children, added traffic. Please say no