Thank you Alicia for sharing this and shedding light on this proposed project. Historic character is so incredibly important, especially in a city that has already lost so much of it's older neighborhoods to blight and large scale development.
I generally agree with your thoughtful input but I think it should be pointed out that these same developers helped curate the current riverfront environment we all enjoy today; the Hub development created a welcoming environment that has become an important part of Reno culture. As evidenced by their other projects in town, Reno Lion is always thoughtful and measured in their approach to sustaining and encouraging Reno culture. Though I’m sure it was unintentional, your omission that the developer created the Hub development in your piece conveys a lack of transparency
"Lack of transparency" is when an omission was deliberate or intentional. And whether or not the same developer "created the Hub development" is not relevant for evaluating a new, vastly different adjacent project. Does the Reno Master Plan matter or not?
Not a deliberate omission, John. I went back and added in a few words to indicate that they own the adjacent property, too, and did (and do) include several links to their website, where that is apparent. As another commenter says here, the proposed project would be problematic no matter what else the owner/developers have constructed.
Investing oneself emotionally to a parking lot and seldom used , redundant roadway as if their absence will create an irreplaceable void is confusing. Manufacturing a scenario whereby an atmosphere you enjoy will be forever tarnished if there is a 5 story building but somehow less affected by a 2 or 3 story building is an exercise of a pessimistic creativity but nothing more. The “tall building will blot out the sun” is a tired and trite argument that has been erroneously argued since Burnham and Root started developing the first “sky-scrapers” in Chicago over 120 years ago.
If the argument is that allowing such a development is about setting a dangerous precedent Ms. Barber and Ms. Brekhus have litigated against themselves; outlining in there respective posts that the code has since been altered to disallow any projects with similar ambitions; therefore this project is unique in that it’s size and scope is not reproducible secondary to new changes in the municipal and neighborhood code and guidelines.
The outrage to this project is NIMBY-ism at its core, which in itself is a reflection of a reluctance towards inclusion and an unfortunate pessimistic worldview towards change. From reading Ms. Barbers other posts I glean that this is not her world view which leaves me puzzled about her opposition. If the developer was tearing down historical buildings I’d understand, but let me reiterate; this is not the Mapes, this is a parking lot and unnecessary ~100ft roadway.
Finally, I’d like to state I am not a developer or in real estate and have no financial stake in the development.
Hi, John. I appreciate the conversation, but I'm afraid you may not have carefully read the piece. The point is not that the parking lot should be retained as open space or that this project would set a precedent. There are plenty of ways that the parcel could be developed in accordance with the revised Code and Master Plan, at a height of 2-1/2 stories, and perhaps utilizing Washington Street for private parking rather than extending a four-story building across it. It's unfortunate and inaccurate to cast opposition to this particular project as NIMBY-ism when the request is that it conform to established guidelines that were the result of years of inclusive public input and formally adopted by the City of Reno earlier this year. As I hope my pieces demonstrate, I have a great respect for public process, which was faithfully followed throughout the Master Plan and Code revision process. Those new guidelines were not established in order to prevent new development but to ensure that new construction is compatible with the district's existing scale, density, character, etc. Obviously some may object to the fact the Code was revised at all, but that's not at issue here; it was, and it makes the City's intent for this neighborhood very clear.
We cannot expect further investment in our city if we continue this schizophrenic approach to development; once a project is approved we cannot retroactively revoke the approval or demand acquiescence once the developer invests in brining it to fruition. Just because the public process was protracted in this case and had a convoluted path towards its conclusion doesn’t make its approval any less valid.
For those who want the council to intervene: Do we really want another Daybreak debacle?... are we as a city more committed towards providing services to our community or legal fees to our defense attorneys?
For those angry about the lack of a NABs input... Should we have canceled all development and deepened the economic toll of covid because the largely ineffectual NABs were unable to meet?
I think the adoption of the new city master plan and zoning changes thereafter are fantastic, but I also understand that projects already approved, will move forward unabated. Unless incompetent, which I doubt, I’d imagine that the crafters and adopters of the plan also knew this and took this into account.
If the process by which a project was approved is "protracted and convoluted" that is grounds enough to question whether it's valid. A good reason for public input is to avoid law suits from those living in the area. It's better to work with your neighbors and get buy-in vs. surprising them with street closures and cutting down trees.
Our region is getting plenty of investment... I have no fear in that. Look around there is development everywhere.
My partner and I were taking about some.if these points the other day. How can the public put their say in when there aren't even notices posted, let alone open meeting (including Zoom). A structure like this will ruin the atmosphere, the look, and overall environment of that area. Oddly enough, I like the parking lot. There isn't enough parking by the river, and the lot helps support the businesses around it.
Hi, Kelly, and thanks for the comment! I agree, the current parking lot definitely serves a purpose and retains a sense of open space. But I think we do have to consider that the parcel's owners did purchased the lot for what was likely a considerable sum with the intent of producing revenue. That said, there are certainly many ways for that parcel to be developed while still respecting the revised Master Plan and City Code. What's striking me most of all, the more I research this, is that the prior City Council approved the abandonment of Washington Street (and part of Lundsford Park) specifically in order to enable the creation of private parking spots there, NOT the construction of a building (f any size, much less four stories) all the way to the new property line. I added some new info and an image of the prior plan to the post to clarify that. So even if it would be legal for the developers to now build something completely different than was shown to the public and to City Council back then in order to get the street abandoned (I'm no attorney, so I can't say for sure), I do feel qualified to say that it certainly doesn't seem like the ethical thing to do.
We live across the street and were shocked to find out this project was even in the works. No, notice whatsoever. The parking here is bad enough on days when there are events. The businesses are very popular and for people who live here it can be problematic... but at least at night we can find parking. Now take away the parking lot and add 34 more living units??? Unless they have 3 floors dedicated to parking, I'm not sure how they can accommodate everyone. It definitely does not fit the character of this neighborhood... Right on the river? Take a walk along Riverside... it will definitely stick out.
We usually get at least postcard when there are changes like this happening in our neighborhood. For those advocating so strongly for it, how would you feel if they decided to build a 5 story complex across your home without any notice? The point is no one living here had any input whatsoever. I'm not sure how these people are getting away without any public input whatsoever. If no one files a lawsuit over this, we might.
You're very welcome. If you'd like me to put you in touch with some similarly concerned neighbors, please feel free to email me at thebarberbrief@gmail.com.
It looks like the development has already commenced. This will change this lovely little riverside neighborhood forever. With the acres of empty lots in Reno, they have to mangle this one. 😪😪😪
Thank you for your due diligence. This article answered all my questions and some. This monstrosity will not only change the face and access of River Side Drive, but most likely it will be unaffordable too! It saddens me every time I walk by, to see this happen to a beautiful area of downtown.
Thank you, Thomas--I completely agree. Please spread the word!
Fabulous write up, thank you so much for taking the time to do this. Passing it around far and wide.
Thank you so much, Beth. I really appreciate it!
Thanks for the information. It will be a sad day when we lose this space to further development in this park like area.
Thank you Alicia for sharing this and shedding light on this proposed project. Historic character is so incredibly important, especially in a city that has already lost so much of it's older neighborhoods to blight and large scale development.
Thanks for sharing this Alicia!
I generally agree with your thoughtful input but I think it should be pointed out that these same developers helped curate the current riverfront environment we all enjoy today; the Hub development created a welcoming environment that has become an important part of Reno culture. As evidenced by their other projects in town, Reno Lion is always thoughtful and measured in their approach to sustaining and encouraging Reno culture. Though I’m sure it was unintentional, your omission that the developer created the Hub development in your piece conveys a lack of transparency
"Lack of transparency" is when an omission was deliberate or intentional. And whether or not the same developer "created the Hub development" is not relevant for evaluating a new, vastly different adjacent project. Does the Reno Master Plan matter or not?
Not a deliberate omission, John. I went back and added in a few words to indicate that they own the adjacent property, too, and did (and do) include several links to their website, where that is apparent. As another commenter says here, the proposed project would be problematic no matter what else the owner/developers have constructed.
Investing oneself emotionally to a parking lot and seldom used , redundant roadway as if their absence will create an irreplaceable void is confusing. Manufacturing a scenario whereby an atmosphere you enjoy will be forever tarnished if there is a 5 story building but somehow less affected by a 2 or 3 story building is an exercise of a pessimistic creativity but nothing more. The “tall building will blot out the sun” is a tired and trite argument that has been erroneously argued since Burnham and Root started developing the first “sky-scrapers” in Chicago over 120 years ago.
If the argument is that allowing such a development is about setting a dangerous precedent Ms. Barber and Ms. Brekhus have litigated against themselves; outlining in there respective posts that the code has since been altered to disallow any projects with similar ambitions; therefore this project is unique in that it’s size and scope is not reproducible secondary to new changes in the municipal and neighborhood code and guidelines.
The outrage to this project is NIMBY-ism at its core, which in itself is a reflection of a reluctance towards inclusion and an unfortunate pessimistic worldview towards change. From reading Ms. Barbers other posts I glean that this is not her world view which leaves me puzzled about her opposition. If the developer was tearing down historical buildings I’d understand, but let me reiterate; this is not the Mapes, this is a parking lot and unnecessary ~100ft roadway.
Finally, I’d like to state I am not a developer or in real estate and have no financial stake in the development.
Hi, John. I appreciate the conversation, but I'm afraid you may not have carefully read the piece. The point is not that the parking lot should be retained as open space or that this project would set a precedent. There are plenty of ways that the parcel could be developed in accordance with the revised Code and Master Plan, at a height of 2-1/2 stories, and perhaps utilizing Washington Street for private parking rather than extending a four-story building across it. It's unfortunate and inaccurate to cast opposition to this particular project as NIMBY-ism when the request is that it conform to established guidelines that were the result of years of inclusive public input and formally adopted by the City of Reno earlier this year. As I hope my pieces demonstrate, I have a great respect for public process, which was faithfully followed throughout the Master Plan and Code revision process. Those new guidelines were not established in order to prevent new development but to ensure that new construction is compatible with the district's existing scale, density, character, etc. Obviously some may object to the fact the Code was revised at all, but that's not at issue here; it was, and it makes the City's intent for this neighborhood very clear.
We cannot expect further investment in our city if we continue this schizophrenic approach to development; once a project is approved we cannot retroactively revoke the approval or demand acquiescence once the developer invests in brining it to fruition. Just because the public process was protracted in this case and had a convoluted path towards its conclusion doesn’t make its approval any less valid.
For those who want the council to intervene: Do we really want another Daybreak debacle?... are we as a city more committed towards providing services to our community or legal fees to our defense attorneys?
For those angry about the lack of a NABs input... Should we have canceled all development and deepened the economic toll of covid because the largely ineffectual NABs were unable to meet?
I think the adoption of the new city master plan and zoning changes thereafter are fantastic, but I also understand that projects already approved, will move forward unabated. Unless incompetent, which I doubt, I’d imagine that the crafters and adopters of the plan also knew this and took this into account.
If the process by which a project was approved is "protracted and convoluted" that is grounds enough to question whether it's valid. A good reason for public input is to avoid law suits from those living in the area. It's better to work with your neighbors and get buy-in vs. surprising them with street closures and cutting down trees.
Our region is getting plenty of investment... I have no fear in that. Look around there is development everywhere.
My partner and I were taking about some.if these points the other day. How can the public put their say in when there aren't even notices posted, let alone open meeting (including Zoom). A structure like this will ruin the atmosphere, the look, and overall environment of that area. Oddly enough, I like the parking lot. There isn't enough parking by the river, and the lot helps support the businesses around it.
Hi, Kelly, and thanks for the comment! I agree, the current parking lot definitely serves a purpose and retains a sense of open space. But I think we do have to consider that the parcel's owners did purchased the lot for what was likely a considerable sum with the intent of producing revenue. That said, there are certainly many ways for that parcel to be developed while still respecting the revised Master Plan and City Code. What's striking me most of all, the more I research this, is that the prior City Council approved the abandonment of Washington Street (and part of Lundsford Park) specifically in order to enable the creation of private parking spots there, NOT the construction of a building (f any size, much less four stories) all the way to the new property line. I added some new info and an image of the prior plan to the post to clarify that. So even if it would be legal for the developers to now build something completely different than was shown to the public and to City Council back then in order to get the street abandoned (I'm no attorney, so I can't say for sure), I do feel qualified to say that it certainly doesn't seem like the ethical thing to do.
We live across the street and were shocked to find out this project was even in the works. No, notice whatsoever. The parking here is bad enough on days when there are events. The businesses are very popular and for people who live here it can be problematic... but at least at night we can find parking. Now take away the parking lot and add 34 more living units??? Unless they have 3 floors dedicated to parking, I'm not sure how they can accommodate everyone. It definitely does not fit the character of this neighborhood... Right on the river? Take a walk along Riverside... it will definitely stick out.
We usually get at least postcard when there are changes like this happening in our neighborhood. For those advocating so strongly for it, how would you feel if they decided to build a 5 story complex across your home without any notice? The point is no one living here had any input whatsoever. I'm not sure how these people are getting away without any public input whatsoever. If no one files a lawsuit over this, we might.
Thank you for investigating this... the process by which it was approved seems oddly missing any engagement with the community it resides in.
You're very welcome. If you'd like me to put you in touch with some similarly concerned neighbors, please feel free to email me at thebarberbrief@gmail.com.
It looks like the development has already commenced. This will change this lovely little riverside neighborhood forever. With the acres of empty lots in Reno, they have to mangle this one. 😪😪😪
Thank you for your due diligence. This article answered all my questions and some. This monstrosity will not only change the face and access of River Side Drive, but most likely it will be unaffordable too! It saddens me every time I walk by, to see this happen to a beautiful area of downtown.