Revised village plans unveiled
Architects lower heights and density for new reviews.
By AMY SCHERZER Times Staff Writer
Published September 28, 2007

HYDE PARK
Developers presented modified plans last week for the critical project that promises to cost more than $100-million and revamp Hyde Park Village.

"We have decreased heights and reduced density," architect Stephanie Gaines of Curts, Gaines, Hall, Jones Architects told about 40 neighbors gathered for the update inside an empty Hyde Park storefront.

The changes came after the Architectural Review Commission criticized plans from developer Wasserman Real Estate Capital in May. ARC members said the project involved too much height and density.

After going before neighbors, this latest proposal was to be presented to the ARC this week without public discussion, followed by another presentation Wednesday with public input.

In December, the developer will petition the City Council to rezone the 10-acre complex to allow the increased residential and retail density.

Reaction to the revised renderings was mostly positive.

The architectural style of the development has not been decided.

"The Mediterranean style seen on the renderings is not representative, and is, in fact, unlikely," said Richard Seges, vice president of Wasserman Real Estate Capital. "The two buildings may look very different but will fit into the historic district."

Amy Scherzer can be reached at scherzer@sptimes.com or 813 226-3332.



If you go:

Fast facts
Details of retail, residence mix

- Redrawn plans propose 163 residences in two buildings, eliminating 63 one-bedroom units in previous plans.

- The northwest corner of Swann Avenue where Talbott's, the former Sunrise Cinema and the Wine Exchange now sit, will be demolished to build 85 residences over 46,501 square feet of shops. The nine-story tower will be 90 feet tall, about 12 feet less than previously announced.

- The south side of the block along Snow Avenue, between Rome and Dakota avenues, and the adjacent parking garage will be replaced by an eight-story building with 78 residences, including several two-story townhouses. The first floor will have 43,530 square feet of retail and restaurant space, topped by parking and a roof deck swimming pool.

- The number of parking spaces dropped to 1,318 - 65 fewer.

- The developer is requesting a change that would allow a 40,000-square-foot gourmet market fronting Swann. The city would currently allow 20,000 square feet.

- Abbott's Frozen Custard and a new location for the Wine Exchange are under construction on Snow Avenue.

- Further construction is anticipated from mid 2008 to mid 2010.

http://www.sptimes.com/2007/09/28/Citytimes/Revised_village_plans.shtml

Tower Proposal Heads To Council
By MICHAEL H. SAMUELS, The Tampa Tribune

Published: November 14, 2007

HYDE PARK - After striking out a third time before the city's Architectural Review Commission, the owners of Hyde Park Village will take their plans for two mixed-use towers to the city council.

"Obviously we're disappointed," Richard Seges, vice president of development for village owner Wasserman Realty Capital, said after the Nov. 7 commission hearing. "We're disappointed that they apparently liked the merits of some of the plans but not all of it."

Wasserman wants to replace the former Sunrise Cinemas building with a 90-foot tower, with 85 residences, 46,501 square feet of retail and office space, including a grocery store, and 348 parking spaces. It would sit next to the 87-foot Valencia condo tower.

The village's former Brooks Bros. building would become an 80-foot tower, with 78 residences, 43,530 square feet of retail and office space, and 263 parking spaces.

Seges said the plans would revitalize the more than 20-year-old outdoor mall and have changed significantly since they were first proposed in February 2006.

The council, which can accept or reject the commission's recommendation, will hear the proposal at 6 p.m. Dec. 13.

At last week's commission hearing, Hyde Park neighbors packed the city council chambers to protest the project.

Resident Jim Warner said the new plans may meet city code and historic district guidelines, but from a neighborhood standpoint, are still too big.

"Walking into the village from the neighborhood side, what will stick out is the sheer size of the development," he said. "This development is completely incompatible with the unique urban village character of Hyde Park."

Warner was among 34 residents who spoke during the 4½-hour hearing, all but seven of them in opposition.

Rick Drummond, co-owner of the village's Wine Exchange, said he doesn't have a position on the plans. But he said many business owners are growing tired of waiting.

"Something has to happen," he said. "Many people occupying spaces are not going to be there much longer if something is not done soon."

Wasserman's previous plans, also denied by the review commission, called for buildings of 102 feet and 89 feet, with a total of 226 residences.

Resident Steve Hudoba summed up many of his neighbors' comments.

"Many good changes have been made, a lot of good things have happened," he said. "Our concern continues to be about the mass of the project."

By a 5-2 vote, the commission denied recommending rezoning the properties, finding the project would be out of character with the neighborhood.

"We don't hate the project, that much is clear," Commissioner Keith Roberts said. "The majority of us just can't support it in its present form."

Reporter Michael H. Samuels can be reached at (813) 835-2109 or msamuels@tampa trib.com.

http://southtampa2.tbo.com/content/2007/nov/14/st-tower-proposal-heads-to-council/?news

Let me make sure I've got this straight. We're talking about the two parcels on either side of Swann, between Dakota and Rome. We are NOT talking about the parcel south of Swann between Dakota and Oregon. Is that right? We're talking about losing Timpano's and Restoration Hardware but not much else. As long as Lifestyles isn't closing I'm okay.
They need more residents in the immediate area to support the commercial infrastructure, so as long as the buildings' design is reasonably light and airy and not out of character the residents should probably take their lumps. The addition of a grocery is nice but Sweetbay is six blocks away so, unlike here in downtown, I don't think the grocery is a real dealmaker.
It will be interesting to see what the city says; I assume they'll deny it without much discussion.

I guess what the city wants is to have a few more 5-6 story buildings, instead of just two 8-9 story buildings in the most logical location? The only way I see to get the needed density to keep the development alive, but not go over like 60ft is to basically add floors on top of the whole development, not just the two parcels closest to existing tall buildings, elevated highways, noisy parking garages and traffic.

This is a good project, and it should be built. Stupid NIMBY's.

They would rather see the place go bankrupt and turn derelict, or go 'down market' I guess... That way, their property values can plummet, and they can pay a few dollars less a year in taxes.

Council To Discuss Hyde Park Plans

By MICHAEL H. SAMUELS, The Tampa Tribune

Published: December 13, 2007

TAMPA - Almost two years after their unveiling, redevelopment plans for Hyde Park Village finally head to the Tampa City Council tonight.

The village's owner wants to add two condominium towers, offices and a gourmet grocery market to boost the fortunes of the 20-year-old shopping area, which has struggled in recent years.

Neighbors repeatedly have said the proposed buildings are too big and have too many residences.

Roger Grunke, president of the Historic Hyde Park Neighborhood Association, said many residents plan to attend the rezoning hearing at 6 p.m. at City Hall, 315 E. Kennedy Blvd.

"For the most part, we're not anti-redevelopment," Grunke said. "But we believe that any project, no matter who the developer is, that project needs to respect the city's comprehensive plan and the historic Hyde Park guidelines."

Wasserman Realty Capital's plans call for the former Sunrise Cinema building on Swann Avenue to be replaced with a 90-foot tower with 85 residences, 46,501 square feet of office and retail space, including a grocery store, and 348 parking spaces. It would sit next to the 87-foot Valencia condo tower, which is not owned by the village.

The former Brooks Bros. building would become an 80-foot tower with 78 residences, 43,530 square feet of retail and office space, and 263 parking spaces.

Wasserman scaled back previous proposals calling for buildings of 102 feet and 89 feet tall, with a total of 226 residences

But neighbors have opposed all versions of the project. Last month, they packed the council chambers as the city's Architectural Review Commission found the latest plans out of character with the neighborhood.

It was the third time the commission rejected Wasserman's plans. The city council can accept or reject the commission's recommendation.

In recent weeks, both sides have ramped up their efforts.

Wasserman sent letters to neighbors, and former U.S. Rep. Jim Davis and former Florida Gov. Bob Martinez, both now with the Holland & Knight law firm, were enlisted to garner support for the project.

"What was presented at the review commission is what we are presenting to the city council," said Richard Seges, Wasserman's vice president of development. "We have a project we are very proud of, and I am looking forward to bringing it before city council."

Reporter Michael H. Samuels can be reached at (813) 835-2109 or msamuels@tampatrib.com.

http://www2.tbo.com/content/2007/dec/13/me-council-to-discuss-hyde-park-plans/?news-breaking

Let me make sure I've got this straight. We're talking about the two parcels on either side of Swann, between Dakota and Rome. We are NOT talking about the parcel south of Swann between Dakota and Oregon. Is that right? We're talking about losing Timpano's and Restoration Hardware but not much else. As long as Lifestyles isn't closing I'm okay.
They need more residents in the immediate area to support the commercial infrastructure, so as long as the buildings' design is reasonably light and airy and not out of character the residents should probably take their lumps. The addition of a grocery is nice but Sweetbay is six blocks away so, unlike here in downtown, I don't think the grocery is a real dealmaker.
It will be interesting to see what the city says; I assume they'll deny it without much discussion.


I thought it was going to be replacing both buildings on the North side of Swann, the movie theater building and the office building, right? What grocery store is going to move in there? I think S. Tampa has a glut of groceries store currently, especially with Greenwise opening soon.

Council Hears Views On Towers
ADVERTISEMENT


By MICHAEL H. SAMUELS, The Tampa Tribune

Published: December 14, 2007

TAMPA After 6 1/2 hours of debate and a bout of flip-flopping, a split Tampa City Council still hasn't decided whether to approve a $100 million makeover of Hyde Park Village.

Council members Tom Scott, Joseph Caetano and Gwen Miller voted early today to approve rezoning the 10-acre outdoor shopping area to allow for 163 condominiums in two towers, but council members Linda Saul-Sena and Mary Mulhern opposed the changes. At least four council members must approve or deny the rezoning.

With Charlie Miranda absent and John Dingfelder abstaining, the council must vote again Dec. 20, this time with Miranda present but without public comment.

Dingfelder recused himself when the hearing began at 6:45 p.m. Thursday, saying his law offices were located in the village until Nov. 30 when they moved a few blocks away on Swann Avenue.

"I want to err on the side of caution," he said.

Saul-Sena made a motion to approve the project but recanted.

"I feel ill," she said at 1:10 a.m. after hearing almost four hours of public comment. "Not because I'm tired, but because I'm so conflicted.

"This is so hard," she said. "This is absolutely the hardest case."

David Wasserman, principal of village owner Wasserman Realty Capital, said he couldn't fathom why the council didn't approve the plans.

"It is amazing that a project like this would not be universally embraced," he said after the hearing. "It is interesting to me that something like this is so contentious."

He said he doesn't know what he will do if the village plans are rejected.

"I have lots of options," he said. "I could abandon it. I could sell it."

In addition to the two towers, Wasserman wants to build offices and a gourmet grocery. But many Hyde Park residents have opposed the project since its unveiling almost two years ago. The city's Architectural Review Commission has rejected the plans three times, most recently in November when it found the latest version of the project out of character with the historical neighborhood.

Neighbors packed city hall again Thursday night for the rezoning hearing, with supporters and opponents lining opposite walls of the council chambers as they awaited their turn at the microphone.

Mulhern grilled Wasserman on how the plan would revitalize the 20-year-old village.

"It's a viable, lively, sustainable place now," she said.

Wasserman said adding housing would allow his company to make more improvements.

"A fresh face is needed to bring revitalization; bring a sense of community," he said.

Caetano said he visited the village this week and was stunned by the number of empty storefronts.

"If we don't have this revitalization, the village will not be successful," he said. "Tampa will never be the next great city if we vote no to a project like yours."

The plans call for the former Sunrise Cinema building on Swann Avenue to be replaced with a 90-foot tower with 85 residences, 46,501 square feet of office and retail space, including a grocery, and 348 parking spaces.

The former Brooks Bros. building would become an 80-foot tower with 78 residences, 43,530 square feet of retail and office space, and 263 parking spaces.

Wasserman scaled back proposals calling for buildings of 102 feet and 89 feet tall, with a total of 226 residences.

But resident TerenceÖ Moore said he's still concerned about traffic and building heights.

"I hope Mr. Wasserman will do a project to renovate Hyde Park Village, just not this one," Moore said. "We do not need more residences."

Kit Stewart, who owns a clothing store in the village, said she and other business owners are concerned about the village's future if the project doesn't happen.

"There are no people walking around," Stewart said. "This project is so important to us. Without it, we won't be able to afford to make it."

Reporter Michael H. Samuels can be reached at (813) 835-2109 or msamuels@tampatrib.com.

http://www2.tbo.com/content/2007/dec/14/me-council-hears-views-on-towers/?news-breaking

This is exactly what happens when people who don't have a clue what they are doing are put in positions of leadership. How is this a 'hard decision' for City Council???? This is one of the easiest choices they had to make all year long... The choice is simple; approve the rezoning and revitalize one of Tampa's few urban retail districts before it dies... or let the city's original planning errors finish playing out until HPV goes belly up.

I'm completely sick of the NIMBYs and the respect they are given, where none should be.
[edited... I ranted enough]

The last thing Hyde Park needs is more density with the infrastructure that is currently in place.

^^ I would think the infrastructure in the Hyde Park is exactly what you would want to build more density. I hate to see the places that have no infrastructure (undeveloped land in southeast Hillsborough or in Pasco counties) get plowed down and contribute to sprawl.

The last thing Hyde Park needs is more density with the infrastructure that is currently in place.

Sorry to disagree. The fact is, Hyde Park is an urban neighborhood, whether some of the folks who live there (I'm one of them, by the way) want to face it or not. Urban neighborhoods = density.

This developer has been put through the wringer enough...City Council will hopefully approve this next week (Charlie Miranda, are you listening?) so this redevelopment can proceed.

The last thing Hyde Park needs is more density with the infrastructure that is currently in place.



Ummm.... what??? The Crosstown is right next to Hyde park village as well as Bayshore Blvd. Location is less than 5 miles from Downtown. I am so sick of hearing about these idiots in South Tampa who live a stones throw from Downtown and bitch about traffic and density.... WTF.

Hyde Park Village is set up for higher density, walkable store fronts, Shopping, resturants, etc....

Sad.....

It's perfect for higher density. Everything is close. This should definitely be approved.

The last thing Hyde Park needs is more density with the infrastructure that is currently in place.

Maybe if more residents living in one of Tampa's few urban neighborhoods were actually urban minded people who would GET OUT OF THEIR CARS and actually use alternative means of transit (like urban residents are supposed to) then traffic wouldn't be so bad?

Tampa's problem continues to be the same; we've got people living in and running the city who clearly hate cities. Folks, if you don't like the city, then please, don't live there and ruin it for the people that do.

I live in SOHO and don't see increased density as a problem at all.I see it as a necessity if the Village is to survive. the Village was the Only game in town for years, so people would drive to it and spend the day. Now we have Ybor, Channelside, international plaza and in St Pete, Baywalk. They are all bigger than the village, so if your getting in your car you are going to drive to one of the other venues. The only way for the village to survive is to increase the density within walking distance of the Village. Christ, the 33606 zip code has less than 5000 people per sq/mile. That's pretty freakin low in comparison to most cities

Sorry to disagree. The fact is, Hyde Park is an urban neighborhood, whether some of the folks who live there (I'm one of them, by the way) want to face it or not. Urban neighborhoods = density.
Then like me, you should realize that the existing road network is a nightmare.

In the last five to ten years, dozens of townhomes have sprouted up... and that's fine. But they never have any parking and as a result you have five, ten, twenty more cars sitting in the street - streets that cannot handle them. Try driving down Morrison or Watrous one day. You can't, because you have to constantly pull over to allow traffic from the other direction to get through. Mind you, these are streets that run under the Crosstown and are frequently used. It's a disaster.

I am not against development. I am against development in areas that are not designed (or updated) to support increased density. Hyde Park is one of those areas.

This is not about wanting to live in a village or being scared of development. It's about wanting to have a city that can operate effectively and efficiently. Throwing more and more density into an area that's foundation is not prepared for it is simply not a prudent thing to do.

Then like me, you should realize that the existing road network is a nightmare.

In the last five to ten years, dozens of townhomes have sprouted up... and that's fine. But they never have any parking and as a result you have five, ten, twenty more cars sitting in the street - streets that cannot handle them. Try driving down Morrison or Watrous one day. You can't, because you have to constantly pull over to allow traffic from the other direction to get through. Mind you, these are streets that run under the Crosstown and are frequently used. It's a disaster.

I am not against development. I am against development in areas that are not designed (or updated) to support increased density. Hyde Park is one of those areas.

This is not about wanting to live in a village or being scared of development. It's about wanting to have a city that can operate effectively and efficiently. Throwing more and more density into an area that's foundation is not prepared for it is simply not a prudent thing to do.

The conditions you describe sound like an URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD, which is what you live in. If that's not to your liking, then it seems that living in a suburb would suit you better.

The project already accounts for parking spaces if that's the infrastructure worry.

From above article:
"The plans call for the former Sunrise Cinema building on Swann Avenue to be replaced with a 90-foot tower with 85 residences, 46,501 square feet of office and retail space, including a grocery, and 348 parking spaces.

The former Brooks Bros. building would become an 80-foot tower with 78 residences, 43,530 square feet of retail and office space, and 263 parking spaces."

In the last five to ten years, dozens of townhomes have sprouted up... and that's fine. But they never have any parking and as a result you have five, ten, twenty more cars sitting in the street - streets that cannot handle them. Try driving down Morrison or Watrous one day. You can't, because you have to constantly pull over to allow traffic from the other direction to get through. Mind you, these are streets that run under the Crosstown and are frequently used. It's a disaster.

Actually, this project will significantly increase parking capacity in the surrounding blocks. It's actually one of the better reasons to support, not oppose the plan.

The Village always has ample free parking in the garages. Any new homes will have parking accounted for and increased traffic from filled storefronts have plenty of space in the garage.

I never said I was worried about parking in the Village? Although I will be bothered by it after any redevelopment as the plans call for adding spaces on Swann. Brilliant. :ohno:

Anyway, I'm concerned with the network leading to those parking spaces.

As I mentioned before, Watrous and Morrison are nightmares to drive along. Dakota and Oregon do not connect to Swann from the south. The convergence of Rome and Snow is moronic to say the least. And, of course, Swann itself is terribly inefficient - I'd love to see it converted to four lanes so that it operates in a manner similar to Macdill or Azeele.

Then like me, you should realize that the existing road network is a nightmare.

In the last five to ten years, dozens of townhomes have sprouted up... and that's fine. But they never have any parking and as a result you have five, ten, twenty more cars sitting in the street - streets that cannot handle them. Try driving down Morrison or Watrous one day. You can't, because you have to constantly pull over to allow traffic from the other direction to get through. Mind you, these are streets that run under the Crosstown and are frequently used. It's a disaster.

I am not against development. I am against development in areas that are not designed (or updated) to support increased density. Hyde Park is one of those areas.

This is not about wanting to live in a village or being scared of development. It's about wanting to have a city that can operate effectively and efficiently. Throwing more and more density into an area that's foundation is not prepared for it is simply not a prudent thing to do.


HAHAHAHAHHAHA............ What you are describing is traffic that is associated to living in a city.... I live in South Tampa and it is NOTHING compared to other cities.

Do you think people in Brooklyn complain about density when they live on two lane roads with cars parked on both sides. Go to NYC or Chicago and tell me Hyde Park has a traffic problem. I would recommend going to Sunset Park, Brooklyn where they have to literally hit each other to park a car..... That is a Traffic Problem.

I think most of the opposition is missing the point with what the developer has to do to revitalize.

I don't believe the developer would say this outright, but no one in their right mind would be so ill-advised to think that the condos proposed will generate the customers needed to save Old Hyde Park Village.

My take on this (from a developers perspective) is that the developer needs to generate cash/financing to pay for the improvements being planned (hence the proposed condos). Without that cash, they either don't have or are not willing to risk additional funds on the project.

Unless someone can come up with a better way to generate quick cash (not long term leases through better tenant mix, but QUICK cash), the village will continue to decline.

My prediction of continued decline would mean we will likely see Dollar Stores, Big Lots, Bargain (low rent) stores open up, which is what exactly what happened shortly before the shops at Harbour Island Knights Point demise. Let me remind everyone the demise of Harbour Island's retail took over 5 years.... (I admit some of the fundamental reasons for both failures are different, but the results/side-effects will be similar)

After the Old Hyde Park retail component finally collapses, I predict the same thing that occured at Knights Point will occur and the village would be turned into office space use. (Sound familiar to what's being talked about behind doors with Centro Ybor?)

I'm sure the NIMBYs would cry then about having office people flood their roads between 6-9am & 4-6pm and have a shut-down village on weekends (similar to what everyone complains about in downtown).

Unfortunately, the condos are one of the quickest and most feasible options right now (given the architectural restrictions the district has). While I'm sure the developer would rather not go through this type of hassle and expense to generate capital, it is a necessary evil the residents must accept....

My parents have a house right off howard and driving down howard can be a challenge, but I rather have it more dense and walk to it which is whatever I do when I am in Tampa. Hyde Park definately needs more density especially since hydepark is dying and more people is better than no people. If people don't like density then they should live in the suburbs.

My two cents on the whole thing is support the darn thing..here we have a highly respected development company pouring over $100 million into the Village(not JUST condos, but retail/restaurant space, etc.) to improve the aesthitics and perception and make the Village a destination again. 136 condos ro about 200 more people are NOT going to equal success of the retail(there are roughly 50,000 people in the area already to do that)..but it needs the revitalization, and it just so happens that the condos are ONE part of the whole concept..and they have been to the drawing board three times. People speak of traffic, but what WAS the traffic count in the late 80's early 90's when the place was bustling, movie theater was packed, I remember not getting to even park in the garages cause it was so busy at times....it is in the CENTER of the village, not smack dab next to a house..will you see the 9 story and 5 story building, sure you will, but that is the CENTER of the village.

If this doesnt get done..IM leaving..(not really...)....

Well, all I have to say is that if they already demolition of the site, why stop it now? If you want to block this from happening, than don't complain about the land when it looks like crap.

My two cents on the whole thing is support the darn thing..here we have a highly respected development company pouring over $100 million into the Village(not JUST condos, but retail/restaurant space, etc.) to improve the aesthitics and perception and make the Village a destination again. 136 condos ro about 200 more people are NOT going to equal success of the retail(there are roughly 50,000 people in the area already to do that)..but it needs the revitalization, and it just so happens that the condos are ONE part of the whole concept..and they have been to the drawing board three times. People speak of traffic, but what WAS the traffic count in the late 80's early 90's when the place was bustling, movie theater was packed, I remember not getting to even park in the garages cause it was so busy at times....it is in the CENTER of the village, not smack dab next to a house..will you see the 9 story and 5 story building, sure you will, but that is the CENTER of the village.

If this doesnt get done..IM leaving..(not really...)....

Well put, TampaIAm. :) I couldn't agree with you more.

It appears to me that these guys have more than bent over backwards to try and satisfy all parties' involved. Truth is, they seem to be the only ones who have offered concession after concession in order to get this project approved.

Think about it... what have the city council, more importantly, the local residents had to offer besides hurdles and objections? Maybe I'm just painfully uninformed, but I'm certainly not aware of anything substantial. :dunno:

I kind of think that a $100 million dollar investment in our community is certainly worthy of serious consideration. Compromise and eventual approval should be the rule, not the exception. As I see it, our local officials/representatives should make every effort to insure this project's success. That's not asking too much, is it? Isn't that why we pay them? ;)

Represent! :cheers:

Okay, the some city council members are officially idiots. (We all knew that, but I'll state the obvious again.) This project should have been approved. South Tampa doesn't have a huge traffic problem. I am in South Tampa all the time, and really, the traffic isn't all that bad. The NIMBY's need to realize they live in a city an act accordingly. If you can't find a parking spot, maybe you should start walking a little, or maybe even take a bus or god forbid a taxi somewhere. Until we get more density in our core and urban areas surrounding downtown, we have ZERO chance of getting light rail transit. Tampa needs density. If this doesn't get approved, then I hope a Big Lots moves in! It would just be way too funny. Seriously, the majority of people in Hyde Park think way too highly of themselves.

Saul-Sena made a motion to approve the project but recanted.

"I feel ill," she said at 1:10 a.m. after hearing almost four hours of public comment. "Not because I'm tired, but because I'm so conflicted.

"This is so hard," she said. "This is absolutely the hardest case."
__________________________________________________________________________
Is she for real? In a progressive growing city, what are people like Saul Sena doing on a Council making these types of decisions("I'm so conflicted").

Yea it's not hard at all. There is a developer who wants to spend $100m to revitalize a dying pedestrian friendly urban neighborhood. Let him. These objections should have been raised when Hyde Park Village was first put on the planning books. It's already here and needs help, we shouldn't be arguing about it.

I had lunch at Wine Exchange today and it would be a fantastic place with the changes. All it needs is more businesses/people.

Saul-Sena made a motion to approve the project but recanted.

"I feel ill," she said at 1:10 a.m. after hearing almost four hours of public comment. "Not because I'm tired, but because I'm so conflicted.

"This is so hard," she said. "This is absolutely the hardest case."
__________________________________________________________________________
Is she for real? In a progressive growing city, what are people like Saul Sena doing on a Council making these types of decisions("I'm so conflicted").
If you can't handle this, than GTFO! Seriously, how hard of a decision is this? You know what they want to do, you know what they plan on doing, what the heck makes you ill about this? Just say APPROVED! :bash:

This will really get you going... You guys realize she has a background in planning, right?


I rather admire her as a person (she's very likable and makes for pleasant company in my limited experience), although her taste in urban density is way too 'Mediterranean village' for me. I think that she would make a great mayor of a place like Dunedin. I really wish she would hold the same vision, but just realize it's a necessity to scale-up the vision for Tampa. You can't plan based on what the city used to be, you have to plan based on what it's going to be, otherwise you're not a leader, you're an art history professor.



check it for a little background on her. Into urban planning, an environmentalist, loves art... Lucky for her husband, she's 20 years out of my range. lol;)
http://www.sptimes.com/2007/01/28/Hillsborough/Her_city__her_safe_se.shtml

http://blogs.tampabay.com/breakingnews/2007/12/city-council-ap.html

City Council approves Hyde Park rezoning

TAMPA -- Tampa City Council approved a controversial condo project for Hyde Park Village today.

The 4-2 vote paves the way for a $100-million project that includes 90,000 square feet of retail space and 8- and 9-story condominium towers.

The issue must now be revisited in a second City Council reading, which will take place Jan. 10.

City Council member Charlie Miranda cast the deciding vote after missing last week's meeting, which resulted in a 3-2 vote. Council members Linda Saul-Sena and Mary Mulhern voted against the project.

"There are things that have to change to make things work and operational," Miranda said of the struggling outdoor shopping complex. "This will give the city the opportunity to have a lot more (people) walking, a lot more activity and a lot more communication."

-- Emily Nipps, Times staff writer

That's great news. Hopefully this thing can start rolling.....

Thank goodness this got approved. It's a step in the right direction, and hopefully we'll see more developments like it in the area.

^Indeed... I still feel strongly that some office space should have been built atop the southern garage in HPV, or these towers should have been larger. The condos and new retail configuration will help immensely with making HPV viable again, but the city still did a pretty good job of kowtowing to NIMBYs and fouling the redevelopment plan up.

I am amazed that Charley Miranda voted for it - pleased, but amazed . . .

Hyde Park Plan Clears Hurdle


http://media.tbo.com/photos/trib/2007/dec/1220village.jpg
Artist's rendering courtesy of Wasserman Realty Capital
This drawing shows part of the proposed redevelopment of Hyde Park Village.
ADVERTISEMENT

By MICHAEL H. SAMUELS, The Tampa Tribune

Published: December 21, 2007

TAMPA - Change is coming to Hyde Park Village.

The Tampa City Council voted 4-2 on Thursday to rezone the 20-year-old outdoor shopping complex for a $100 million makeover that includes condominium towers and stores.

"This is the only true urban village in the city," said Councilman Charlie Miranda, who also voted to approve the original village plans in the 1970s. "It will give the city the opportunity for a lot more walkers, a lot more activity and a lot more communication with people."

Miranda said the project is another indication of a changing city.

"It's becoming more and more likely that Hyde Park, if you take out Bayshore, is the centerpiece of this wonderful city," he said.

Tom Scott, Gwen Miller and Joseph Caetano also voted in favor; Linda Saul-Sena and Mary Mulhern voted no.

Councilman John Dingfelder abstained because his law offices were housed in the village until recently and remain nearby.

The council's final vote on the rezoning is set for 9:30 a.m. Jan. 10.

The village has struggled in recent years. Wasserman Realty Capital, which bought the complex in 2005, wants to replace the former Sunrise Cinema building on Swann Avenue with a 90-foot tower with 85 residences, 46,501 square feet of office and retail space, including a grocery, and 348 parking spaces.

The former Brooks Bros. building would become an 80-foot tower with 78 residences, 43,530 square feet of retail and office space, and 263 parking spaces.

Many Hyde Park residents have opposed the project since its unveiling almost two years ago. The city's Architectural Review Commission rejected the plans three times, most recently in November when it found the latest version of the project out of character with the historical neighborhood.

Last week, after a more than six-hour hearing that drew about 200 people to city hall, the council voted 3-2 to approve the project. But with Miranda absent and Dingfelder abstaining, the approval fell short of the required four votes.

D. Jay Feldman, president of the informal neighborhood group Concerned Citizens for the Preservation of Hyde Park, was disappointed with the council's decision.

He said he doesn't oppose village redevelopment, only the scale and height of the proposed buildings.

"We wanted a measurable balanced change," Feldman said. "I think it will just change the entire feel of the whole place. It will change the whole area into a normal Costco shopping area you can find anywhere."

Company principal David Wasserman said he looks forward to putting together the project details.

"Now the architects get to take out their pencils," he said.

Wasserman also needs a certificate of appropriateness from the review commission relating to the aesthetics of the planned buildings.

Richard Seges, the company's vice president of development, said the project is expected to take two years.

"Now we can talk to other shops and tell them about the mixed-use complex we have here," Wasserman said. "Now we can convince them to come here."

Reporter Michael H. Samuels can be reached at msamuels

@tampatrib.com or (813) 835-2109 .

http://www2.tbo.com/content/2007/dec/21/na-hyde-park-plan-clears-hurdle/

That rendering, though it doesn't show much, looks nice. The building might be a little bland but that could be because the rendering is so zoomed out.

Anyway, good to see that this will include a grocery store and things that people can use more on an everyday basis. HPV isn't as an exciting area as Channelside, Centro Ybor, or the Westshore Malls so of ocurse it will lose to those areas when it comes to entertainment to the younger crowd. That doesn't mean it can't have some entertainment but it also needs to be functional for the area's residents. :)

D. Jay Feldman, president of the informal neighborhood group Concerned Citizens for the Preservation of Hyde Park, was disappointed with the council's decision.

He said he doesn't oppose village redevelopment, only the scale and height of the proposed buildings.

"We wanted a measurable balanced change," Feldman said. "I think it will just change the entire feel of the whole place. It will change the whole area into a normal Costco shopping area you can find anywhere."
lol... Yeah, after this project, HPV will look and feel just like the kind of place a Costco is located.

I'm sorry, but I can't help but feel that these people don't even understand what is proposed. Otherwise, how could this group possibly assert that with a straight face? This leads to the obvious question, how can this group's opinion on the matter bear and weight?

More renderings from: http://www.hydeparkvillage.net/Development/default.aspx

http://www.hydeparkvillage.net/_ClientData/OHPV/images/blockE.jpg

http://www.hydeparkvillage.net/_ClientData/OHPV/images/Block-E-Site-Plan.jpg

These are in PDF because I couldn't figure out how to export these without them going almost completely black on me.

North Elevation:
http://www.hydeparkvillage.net/_ClientData/OHPV/documents/North%20Elevation.pdf

S. Dakota Avenue - East Elevation:
http://www.hydeparkvillage.net/_ClientData/OHPV/documents/S.%20Dakota%20Avenue%20-%20East%20Elevation.pdf

Rome Avenue - West Elevation:
http://www.hydeparkvillage.net/_ClientData/OHPV/documents/Rome%20Avenue%20-%20West%20Elevation.pdf

Swann Avenue - South Elevation:
http://www.hydeparkvillage.net/_ClientData/OHPV/documents/Swann%20Avenue%20-%20South%20Elevation.pdf

South Elevation:
http://www.hydeparkvillage.net/_ClientData/OHPV/documents/South%20Elevation.pdf

S. Dakota Avenue - East Elevation:
http://www.hydeparkvillage.net/_ClientData/OHPV/documents/S.%20Dakota%20Avenue%20-%20East%20Elevation.pdf

Snow Avenue - Northwest Elevation:
http://www.hydeparkvillage.net/_ClientData/OHPV/documents/Snow%20Avenue%20-%20Northwest%20Elevation.pdf

Some people are crazy. "Concerned Citizens for the Preservation of Hyde Park" should be happy this got approved...it may just help preserve Hyde Park! Growth isn't a bad thing.

I don't really like the renders up 2 posts up, look tacky and uncharacteristic. The towers I like though, I don't know if it is just me, but they seem to have a Spanish theme to them.

I like the towers too...not sure what those other things are...

The renderings above are of the new building that took the place of the old Catcus Club/Blackhawk coffee building. It's already finished. The Wine Cellar will be moving in after the first of the year. I believe they had to agree to keep the original facade fronting Snow Steet before the architectual review would give the okay to demolish the old structure (which was falling apart anyway).

Thanks for the update, Sideshow. :)

b.t.w. welcome aboard... and happy holidays!

:cheers:

Here are the PDF's converted into web friendly jpeg's. If anyone wants the high res jpegs let me know and I'll email them to you.

http://img512.imageshack.us/img512/1883/combinedpage1hf0.th.jpg (http://img512.imageshack.us/my.php?image=combinedpage1hf0.jpg)
http://img248.imageshack.us/img248/7835/combinedpage2sn2.th.jpg (http://img248.imageshack.us/my.php?image=combinedpage2sn2.jpg)
http://img248.imageshack.us/img248/6082/combinedpage3sm7.th.jpg (http://img248.imageshack.us/my.php?image=combinedpage3sm7.jpg)
http://img248.imageshack.us/img248/4591/combinedpage4aw0.th.jpg (http://img248.imageshack.us/my.php?image=combinedpage4aw0.jpg)
http://img297.imageshack.us/img297/1316/combinedpage5hs7.th.jpg (http://img297.imageshack.us/my.php?image=combinedpage5hs7.jpg)
http://img297.imageshack.us/img297/1226/combinedpage6dz2.th.jpg (http://img297.imageshack.us/my.php?image=combinedpage6dz2.jpg)

I wouldn't be emailing those anywhere bro. Developers are quite guarded about such things, which is why it was embedded in a .pdf in the first place. We've never had a problem here in the Tampa forum, but elsewhere on SSC and over at SSP, us Admins have had to take stuff down, which is a major pita and rather embarrassing for us.

I don't really like the renders up 2 posts up, look tacky and uncharacteristic. The towers I like though, I don't know if it is just me, but they seem to have a Spanish theme to them.No man, it's not just you.


However, the final buildings won't be Med Rev...

"The Mediterranean style seen on the renderings is not representative, and is, in fact, unlikely."

"The two buildings may look very different but will fit into the historic district."http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showpost.php?p=15624978&postcount=1

Whatever the style, the massing and scale of those buildings clearly fit in the area. It is absurd that there was ever a controversy

I think that it is about time that they actually got some density coming into HPV. I think that it was a little bit small-townish, if that is the right word. I think that the whole area should be brought up a few stories to give it some interest. I know when I first moved here and heard about HPV I was like cool... there will be cool shoppes and restaurants and I saw the area and I was like this is it... I was disappointed.

^That applies to just about every 'urban' area in Tampa... "this is it?"

I think that by increasing the density they will hopefully be smart and attract more restaurants and more quality stores that people will actually shop at.

It's definitely good, though it would have been better if the proposal had been left in its original form. Better yet, as I said before, I would have went further and sought to add office space atop other parts of HPV... About 40-50k sqft worth.

I wouldn't be emailing those anywhere bro. Developers are quite guarded about such things, which is why it was embedded in a .pdf in the first place. We've never had a problem here in the Tampa forum, but elsewhere on SSC and over at SSP, us Admins have had to take stuff down, which is a major pita and rather embarrassing for us.

Well, by higher resolution I mean native to the screen cap size. No one would be able to reproduce them professionally, even the provided PDF was downsized from what the original artwork was. One would think if they would be that guarded they would have at least been PDFX1a compliant. Oh well, I nuked them anyways.

Hyde Park rezoning gets final approval

TAMPA -- Despite last-minute protests from some Hyde Park residents, the Tampa City Council once again approved a $10-million redevelopment of Hyde Park Village at Thursday morning's second and final reading.

The 4-2 vote -- with city council members Linda Saul-Sena and Mary Mulhern opposing and John Dingfelder abstaining -- will allow Rhode Island-based developer David Wasserman to move forward with plans to build 90,000 square feet of retail space and two condo towers up to nine stories high.

The controversial plans have been the topic of debate for more than a year, and were debated for nearly six hours at a Dec. 13 public hearing, during which almost 100 residents, attorneys and architects argued both sides. Those who support the 10-acre redevelopment believe the struggling outdoor shopping center needs the facelift and residential boost. Those who oppose the project, including the city's Architectural Review Committee, argue that the 163 new housing units and midrise towers are too large and dense for a historic district.

Hyde Park homeowner D. Jay Feldman entered a letter into Thursday's minutes, arguing that the City Council did not have enough information to make a fair decision, and that council members Joe Caetano and Gwen Miller should have recused themselves from the vote because he felt they reached their decisions before the hearing.

In the end, however, the motion to approve the rezoning was approved a second time. "When you see an area that is struggling," Caetano said, "that area is in need of revitalization."

The project is expected to be completed in about two years.

- Emily Nipps, Times staff writer

January 10, 2008 | Permalink

http://blogs.tampabay.com/breakingnews/2008/01/hyde-park-rezon.html

"once again approved a $10-million redevelopment of Hyde Park Village."

Is that a typo? Has a zero been dropped? I was under the impression the project was closer to $100 million.

^Yea it's a type-o. Past articles in this thread say $100 million.
$10 mil. wouldn't get you much of anything.

New Hyde Park plan: No condos; more restaurants, a theater
By Emily Nipps, Times Staff Writer
In print: Saturday, October 4, 2008

TAMPA — Managers for Hyde Park Village touted a drastically different development plan this week than the outdoor shopping center anticipated for years.

Under the new plan, gone are the condo towers that some residents argued were out of synch with the area's architecture.

Instead, a 10,000-square-foot Canadian furniture store would open on the southeast end of the village by next June.

And a family-run, six-screen intimate dinner theater will open on Swann Avenue, in the same location as the old Sunrise Cinemas.

These were among details revealed Thursday to about 30 managers for the businesses in the village, according to several who attended.

Jeff Manzutto, owner of A Source for the Home, said everyone in the room was ecstatic to hear the new plans. They also were told that three to four new restaurants are coming, including one with rooftop dining, he said.

"I think the community is going to love this," Manzutto said. "No condos, more restaurants, a theater. … What more could you ask for?"

Village general manager Susan Martin would not confirm details, nor did Hyde Park Village developer David Wasserman when reached by phone Friday. Wasserman, however, did say he hoped to make an announcement soon.

"They're all just theoretical ideas at this point," he said. "We're going to make a final decision very soon. I wish I could tell you tomorrow, but these things move slowly. We just wanted to keep the tenants informed."

Business owners took the news as a sign of life at the struggling complex.

"We're all really excited," said Steven Ashworth, owner of City Street Sweets. "In these tough economic times, it's good to hear something positive like this happening here."

Debbie Graham, assistant manager of Abbott's Frozen Custard, wasn't at the meeting, but said her store manager went and came back with the buzz. "What I know is that there are not going to be condos now," she said. "We also heard that the median strip (on Snow Avenue) is coming out and we're going to have 30-minute parking on the street.

The plans are a stark contrast from those that Hyde Park homeowners have fought for years. Many spoke out against the $100-million redevelopment, which included condo towers up to nine stories high.

The city approved the project in December, but there were no signs it was progressing until last month when some businesses, including the popular Georgette's boutique and an art gallery, received eviction notices.

Some will move to other locations in the village. Others are searching for homes elsewhere.

The businesses will be replaced by an unnamed Canadian furniture store, Manzutto said attendees at the meeting were told.

"They said this should all be in place by next summer," he said. "They even gave us little maps showing us where everything would be. It'll be great. The people of South Tampa should be ecstatic."

Emily Nipps can be reached at nipps@sptimes.com or (813) 226-3431.

[Last modified: Oct 03, 2008 10:07 PM]

http://www.tampabay.com/news/business/retail/article838153.ece

After all that....they put a movie theater back in.. What a joke.

You know what, until today, I didn't have a slightest clue where this was located. :D

Looking at the area and looking at what was proposed, I don't see why the area needed the redevelopment that was planned. Let me put it in better terms, the area isn't "condo friendly". Nothing against the neighborhood, but like I stated before in a thread about redevelopment in Clearwater, the buyers look at more besides the inside of the condo. If they had the oppurtunity to buy a unit in Channelside or a unit in this area, they'll take the Channelside unit. It's just how people think. And sometimes you can agree with their decision and sometimes you shake your head in disbelief why they decided to.

But back on the project, overall, it sounds like a great project for the area.

Movie theaters continue to struggle lol that seems kinda dumb to place one there, considering Hyde Park Village has struggled for how long now?

In regards to the theater, it all depends on how much you want to make? There were plenty of nights when Sunrise or whatever their name was did a decent business. The Beach theater (SPB) does a decent amount of business in what is really a very large great room. My wife and I went to the HP theater for most non-effects heavy movies, simply because the crowd was better behaved (older). There is a market for condos in HP, its just a smaller market being filled by the midrise behind the theater and the bread factory lofts.

Sunrise did well there.. so that was not the issue.. they were forced out by the developer.

Exactly, the developer wanted to make a killing, 100%+ profit on the venture. What the village needed was a reconstruction, but nothing so over the top as what was planned. Basically what is needed is two stories of residential (nice flat units 3bed+/- with midrange features granite, SS appliances, etc.) over a retail/dining/professional office mix. The complex really needed a better flow, more covered areas, and a cooler design mix to compare with International Plaza.

You guys are missing the boat.

HPV is no longer a regional (or even intra-city) destination, and hasn't been for years. It's a neighborhood gathering point at best. The complex has zero visibility, poor transportation access and little in the way of complimentary uses... The developer's plans will fail, probably before they ever break ground.

The best thing that could have been done to make the commercial space more desirable was to add as many residential units to the complex as they can fit, more office space, and perhaps even a boutique hotel. (I would have redeveloped the project so that there was the 2 condo 8-10 floor towers at the north end, and 2-3 floors of office space over the theater garage, and a 4-5 story hotel over the southern garage)... Put a few hundred more people in the streets every day, and suddenly businesses can actually thrive.

Alas, the city would never approve such a plan, because they would rather let NIMBYs lead them, than actually do the job they were elected to do and lead the city forward as it inevitably must densify in the coming yearrs. Instead, our city languishes because we have cowards instead of leaders.

You are right in that is a neighborhood gathering point and would be able to sustain sensible retail/dining/entertainment, if only the owner of said property would charge sensible leases. This is one of the problems with this concept there. If it were a series of owners with their own individual shops, not Banana Republic renting from fill in the blank mall owner, then you would probably continue to see it thriving. That neighborhood has more than enough disposable income and time to support a good mix of boutiques, cafes, etc., at that location. When we lived on Albany, we truly lived the urban lifestyle. The cars were parked on Friday and weren't started again until Monday morning. We walked everywhere.

Price is always inflated when market demand is falsely impinged by politics..

People want to know why these urban enclaves flounder? Because our "leaders" keep kowtowing to special interests, and won't allow an urban environment to develop here in Tampa that the market has already proven is both wanted and needed by many more taxpayers than any NIMBY ever dares admit. The only thing we're missing is a city leadership willing to stand up to a handful of NIMBYs and say once and for all, 'No, we will not allow entire swaths of Tampa's urban fabric to languish, because a tiny minority abhors change'.

But in the Hyde Park Village case it wasn't a small group of NIMBYs, it was like 600+ people showing up at the hearings. Residents of the historic park of Hyde Park are very vocal and very involved. It also showed with the proposed tower on Bayshore (sorry forgot intersection). You saw huge numbers of people at the hearings. All they want is a harmonious neighborhood, that respects existing scale. We would pitch a fit if someone tried to subdivide a property in Channelside to build a small SFR cluster because it would be out of character. Hyde Park is one of the most difficult neighborhoods to build in and property values hold up because of the tight restrictions. Try replacing wood windows with aluminum clad windows there. The original proposal for the three towers was an overreach for that neighborhood.

A thriving fully developed city should have little clusters like this all over the place. I'm sorry the new owner may have overpaid for the property, but tough luck, life sucks, and stop trying to make 50% percent on every job. The last company I worked for would have rather had 50% of nothing versus 25% of something and they went out of business. Maybe the new owners should take what they can get and be happy.

CineBistro comes to Hyde Park
By Emily Nipps, Times Staff Writer

Published Wednesday, December 3, 2008 3:02 PM


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

HYDE PARK — The rumors were true: Hyde Park Village will once again have a movie theater.

The village's developer and Cobb Theatres announced this week that they will open a CineBistro in the Swann Avenue spot where the old Sunrise Cinemas used to operate.

CineBistro, which also recently opened at the new Grove shopping center in Wesley Chapel, will combine an upscale restaurant and bar with six theaters offering reserved dining table seating. The concept is a new venture by Cobb Theatres, with only a few locations nationwide (and a handful more expected to open in the next two years).

"This has dining, movies, the whole experience," Hyde Park Village developer David Wasserman told City Times this week. "And it works in a neighborhood like this because it's so unique."

The news may come as a surprise to the South Tampa residents who mourned their loss when Sunrise Cinemas closed two years ago. The theater, which was known for its indie and art films, was to be replaced by condos, part of a controversial $100-million overhaul of the struggling shopping hub.

Then two months ago, Hyde Park Village's property and leasing managers met with shop owners to tell them condos weren't coming after all. Hints of a major furniture store, rooftop dining, and the return of a movie theater circulated through the village, though Wasserman and general manager Susan Martin would not confirm the details at the time.

Wasserman said this is the first of many additions — including parking garage upgrades, storefront facelifts and outdoor artwork —that will be unveiled in upcoming months. He also felt confident that this type of theater, which will be for patrons 21 and older, will be more successful than the last.

"The old cinema was undercapitalized and undermanaged," Wasserman said. "This is part of a much stronger chain, and I think it'll be a great fit."

Emily Nipps can be reached at nipps@sptimes.com or (813) 226-3431.

http://www.tampabay.com/news/business/retail/article925113.ece

Sounds good. Don't know about the 21+ idea though as there have generally been a pretty well behaved group of proto-yuppie teens there. The Brooks Brothers Jr. crowd wasn't exactly too raucous. Plus there are lots of teens in that neighborhood. I'll bet they drop that policy after about 4 months.

^ They make their money on booz and food, 21+ is smart.

Yeah but how many Pinot Grigios are Martha and the menopausals going to have versus $4.50 Cokes (at a cost of about $35 per cup) that could have been sold? I just think that there are markets that should encourage this format (Ybar) and those that could get by without it.

Well I dig on the 21+ options at the Centro Ybor theater and that has been around for a while so I must not be the only one. Everything else in that area is skewed towards adults anyway, I don't see a lot of teens hanging out at BTs or Wine Exchange.

The setup at the Groves Cinebistro is pretty nice, and the food is priced well; however, coupled with a ticket price of $14.50 on a weekend and it gets expensive real quick.

For those that have not seen it the seating for the "cinebistro" at the Groves is in the same theater as the regular seats, just above them kind of on a balcony. The regular seats cannot see the cinebistro seats/tables because there is a small wall (and they are lower). Meaning that most noise would still be heard from the regular theater. There may be other cinebistro seats that are not in this kind of theater setup, but I have not been there but once.

Of course, if this whole theater is 21+ it could be totally different...but they did not say explicitly that the whole theater is 21+ or just the cinebistro part.

Steve