Joaquin Neighborhood: What do you think about this General Plan Map Amendment proposal to change 313 East 200 North from the Residential Conservation designation to the High-Density Residential designation, in order to then rezone and build an apartment building?

I echo Celeste that this does not fit the Juaquin Neighborhood plan. There’s room for high-density housing in the plan. Let’s stick to the plan.

200 N is somewhat of a dividing line where you can still see the old neighborhood before BYU decided to not house its blooming student population decades ago. Every house we tear down paves the way for more tear-downs in the historic neighborhood. Yes, let’s build more housing but can we not also preserve historic Provo in the process? I think we can.

The Residential Conservancy, or RC zone, that is used in the Joaquin neighborhood was probably the most democratic bit of legislation ever advanced and acccepted in Provo. Hundreds of citizens, landlords, and city officials spent countless hours, discussing, planning, negotiating, and finally voting on this particular zoning. It’s very specific goals were designed to preserve one of the last historic neighborhoods in Provo while allowing for higher density development just north of where this current project is proposed.

It’s unfortunate that this landlord has let their property deteriorate to the point where it needs to be rebuilt, at least, according to them. That seems to be a fairly common tactic in Provo. Use a rental property and fail to maintain it until it becomes a neighborhood eyesore and then claim it needs to be replaced with something new, which is a dog whistle for higher density and higher profitability. This particular property still looks fine, fits in the character of the neighborhood, and has a density that’s appropriate to the neighborhood. Thus the only real motivating factor in rezoning here is to put money in someone’s pocket.

Perhaps the current developers should consider moving into and rehabbing these properties and re-developing their current homes for higher density. I’m sure their neighbors won’t mind.

Having heard the second presentation of this project at Neighborhood District 5’s meeting on March 30, I have the following comments.

Two kinds of arguments have been made for this project. One kind is purely personal: profit (or “financial responsibility”) and sentiment (family legacy, etc.). These are fine as private motives, but I do not believe they have any relevance when requesting a very significant zoning variance. When asking the neighborhood to put aside the recently crafted, democratically informed neighborhood plan, one should rely exclusively on arguments about the benefit to the neighborhood.

Appropriately, the second kind of argument focuses on a community need, and is therefore more serious. The specific arguments within this class seem to be two.

The first community-oriented argument for the Denali project is that Provo needs more housing generally. This argument has undergone a development since the project was first presented. The first time, much was made of the need for more student apartments, but on March 30 the revised project targeted the “young profession” and “small family” demographics. This was a change in the right direction, because BYU students can now live anywhere, and Joaquin neighborhood certainly doesn’t need to take on any more of the student housing responsibility. It has suffered in obvious ways from shouldering the lion’s share of that numeric burden over the past 70 years or so. The luxury character of the Denali apartments also fits the non-student demographic better. There were a couple comments at the March 30 meeting that actually came from the non-student, young-professional demographic, pointing out that home ownership is (for now) just too expensive, so a larger selection of nice apartments in central Provo would be a welcome addition.

I don’t find this housing scarcity argument for the Denali project compelling. While it is obvious that the Wasatch Front is facing a housing shortage, the impact of the Denali on the housing stock in Provo would be too small to make a difference, especially when you consider the size and number of new apartment buildings that are already approved and in various stages of construction in Provo. The Denali project feels more like “getting in on the action” than solving a housing problem. It could only make a difference in the housing shortage if it started a domino effect, inspiring other developers to push for similar large variances within (South) Joaquin and its sister neighborhoods. But this would be to reject altogether the historical and residential conservation goals of these neighborhoods. This slippery slope argument is not paranoid ideation on my part. At both of the neighborhood meetings on the Denali project, other investment property owners were present to see how the wind was blowing.

An unfortunate aspect of the housing stock argument is the implied accusation of nimbyism. I definitely sensed this accusation in some comments at the March 30 meeting. Nimbyism is of course problematic, but I find it a little outrageous to propose that Joaquin residents are particularly guilty of it. First of all, the neighborhood plan gives the green light for new higher-density development in the northern half of the neighborhood. That’s hardly nimby. Also, the southern half is already filled with medium- and high-density buildings that significantly detract from the historical and residential character of the neighborhood. The veiled insinuations of nimbyism are kind of like kicking someone when they are down, or adding insult to injury. I also don’t think the discussion so far has appreciated just how important owner-occupants and long-term residents are in a rental-heavy neighborhood like ours. They are the skeleton crew of civic action, they are the ones who report violations, they are the protectors of property value, they are the lobbyists for public amenities (Joaquin Park, anyone?), they organize tree plantings, they attend city meetings, and they carry on the institutional memory of the neighborhood. One should be extremely careful about disparaging the interests of this vital, endangered species.

The second community-oriented argument for the Denali project is that the dwellings currently occupying 313 E 200 N and 234 N 300 E (the two properties where the project would be built) will not attract long-term residents, even if they are fixed up, since the Apollo apartments stare down on it from two sides. I find this to be the only argument with real traction, because it speaks directly (or at least could be framed to speak directly) to the experience of current Joaquin residents living in a zoning hodgepodge. If I were arguing for the Denali project, I would put the matter like this: Given the disastrous zoning free-for-all in historic Provo’s past, isn’t it possible that carefully crafted micro-zones within the neighborhood, putting like next to like, would actually improve the “logic” of the neighborhood? If we have a sad little house that no one wants to buy (think of Pixar’s “Up”) in the middle of some three-story bedboxes, wouldn’t it be better to create a high density micro-zone there, and replace the house with a modestly sized and attractive apartment building? The argument here is that zoning should be consolidated where consolidation is the only aesthetically and environmentally coherent option.

But even if the development advocates pitched the matter in this non-profit-oriented, neighbor-centric way, there would still be problems with the argument. One of them has been pointed out time and time again: parking. The more people you put in the area, the more cars will be crammed onto the street. It doesn’t actually matter if you have off-street parking or not, because people will choose the street first. This is one of the great truisms of Joaquin neighborhood. Everyone who has lived here knows this. There is something very convenient about parking on the curb, and many renters will not even check if there’s off-street parking available. The only way around this is to charge for overnight street parking, i.e., to have a city parking program, which is currently political dynamite. And telling residents that the owner will only provide two (or however many) parking stickers per apartment will do absolutely nothing to prevent tenants from bringing additional cars and parking them on the street. There is no scenario, I think, in which the Denali as currently (re)designed does not exacerbate the already horrendous parking situation in the Joaquin Used Car Lot…er, I mean the Joaquin neighborhood. True, 200 N is just far south enough in the neighborhood to avoid the full brunt of the parking malaise, but the Denali project would probably change that.

One person suggested in the March 30 meeting that the parking strips around the proposed new complex could be removed and replaced with angled parking, like a sudden widening of the street. But I like to think that no city employee would ever, not even for a second, toy with such an idea. The tree-filled parking strips of our historic neighborhoods are absolutely essential to their aesthetic character, and are often, sadly, the only gratifying feature of a given property. Replacing them with more asphalt would be the worst possible outcome of this proposal, in my opinion. I would rather have 50 units on that property than give up the parking strips.

Also, I am not convinced that home-sized dwellings at the properties in question would not appeal to people, assuming they were fixed up nice. The two “towering” apartment buildings adjacent to these properties are not, in fact, right next to each other. It’s not really a situation like in Pixar’s “Up.” And the developer could—and this is crucial—go quite a bit smaller and still double or triple the number of renters on the properties and make, I assume, a profit of some kind. That would leave room for green space, which is almost entirely missing in the current plan (except for the parking strips). Most importantly, a smaller building could make room for trees between these properties and the Apollo, which would provide much-need aesthetic relief. (Currently there is a line of trees on the property that partially block the unsavory site of the Apollo, which is a great thing.) The current proposal is, in my opinion, still just too big, and would leave no room for trees between the Denali and Apollo.

Finally, the biggest problem with greenlighting the Denali project is that it would almost certainly have a domino effect. Instead of just the Apollo “looming” over people’s houses, there would now be the Apollo and the Denali “looming” together–and the Fleur-de-Lis and all the other big buildings that the developer has pointed to as a justification for rezoning her own property. Instead of fixing the neighborhood’s “looming” problem, the Denali would add to it. I am not making an a priori argument here; I have looked carefully at this property and its surroundings several times in the last month, and I really believe that putting in another high-residential building in this particular area is simply going to drive the rezoning process further. The argument for “no” will get weaker each time.

In closing let me say what I would personally like to see happen here. Regardless of whether some degree of redevelopment occurs, there should be some cooperation with the Apollo to beautify the latter’s property. The Apollo is a classic case of an edge-to-edge sea of asphalt engulfing a couple uninspired bedboxes. There should be some loveliness on that property (the Apollo) no matter which standpoint you view it from. Landscaping is the key here. Maybe there could be cooperation between the two properties to alleviate the eyesore. I would also prefer that the dilapidated units on the corner be renovated, and if that can’t happen, then I think there should be some closely situated new homes there, kind of like around the old Maeser school. I don’t believe that putting 23 units–or even half that many—is the answer.

This development does not fit the Joaquin Neighborhood Plan. The Neighborhood plan is well thought out, and it zones a large portion of the total area of the neighborhood for increased density, urban renewal, and adding mixed commercial use. This will allow for more housing and it helps focus renewal activities that will spur redevelopment. There is no need to build a large apartment building in an area meant to sustain the current density in the southern portion of the neighborhood. There are several apartment buildings that could use redevelopment. In the past the development happened randomly poaching the single home sights with the largest yards because that was the cheapest land. It was the biggest bang for the buck to investors from out of the area that do not have to deal with the parking issues it creates. This resulted in many historic homes being demolished. The worst part was there were places much closer to campus that were in greater need of up upgrade, but few wanted to pay the increased land rates compared to the single home land expense. Our plan incentivizes redevelopment north of 500 N.

One of the values of the Joaquin neighborhood is the presence of many grand homes from all the decades starting in about the 1900's. This is a quality of life issue for many neighborhood residents and as we saw with the out pouring of letters to the editor and to BYU concerning the Amanda Knight Building there are many people across the county, state and country that also value some historic preservation in this iconic area of Provo. Plus fruits of the rivalry between the Taylor family and the Jessy Knight Family in the first half of the 1900's are treasured by many that take a stroll down Center Street during a work break or they visit some of the other. About a third of the homes on the historic home tour of Provo Guide are in the Joaquin Neighborhood. One of the ways we are protecting a few of these gems is by reducing the area of the neighborhood where there is pressure to replace a single home with a large apartment building. We understand that some homes are past repair. The neighborhood plan also allows for redevelopment for single family homes if the density remains substantially the same.
Plus our area has been open to ADU's for decades. Joaquin is a mixed use mixed density example. Accusing this area of not offering enough housing is frankly laughable.
The development on 313 E 200 N is not in the zone for increased density that lies north of 500 N. And it also does not meet the other reason neighbors and the city might benefit from increased density development consideration. We have UVX public transportation that runs through and around the neighborhood. This house does not sit immediately adjacent to those areas either.

The Joaquin is a great place to live because it mixes the old and the new. Home ownership stabilized in the last 1-2 decades and this helps the school district with planning, it increases the willingness of citizens to serve on city boards, keep an eye on crime and develop the thriving arts center in this downtown area. Plus all the downtown area residents that have a bit more of a long-term tenure have really started to work together on revitalization efforts and in generally making the place a great place to live.

This development will not be an asset to the area and it does not fit in any part of the well thought out Joaquin Neighborhood plan. We can do better.

I ask the city council to continue their support of this well thought out Joaquin Neighborhood Plan.