Tower to the skies

Certain development proposals in New Orleans generate an absurd amount of passionate opposition. This week's example was this apartment building at 1031 Canal Street (the site of the old Woolworth's) which the City Council eventually approved after some typically theatrical discussion. The objection from preservationists, as I understand it.. although I'm not sure I do, appears to center around the proposed height of the building.

As proposed, most of the building would be 193 feet high, with a penthouse reaching to 205 feet, or three times the 70-foot limit allowed by the site's current zoning. The ordinance approved by the council will limit the building's tallest portion to 190 feet.

Because, for some reason, 120 feet beyond the so-called limit is better than 135 feet? I'm not sure I understand what is being gained there. Later in the story it gets even more confusing.

Although the site's current zoning sets a 70-foot height limit, a draft of the city's proposed new comprehensive zoning ordinance would raise that to 120 feet. The planning staff recommended approving a 120-foot building, but the commission voted 5-3 last month to approve the 190-foot height Kailas sought.

Even the preservationist and French Quarter leaders said they would accept a 120-foot building, but Kailas said that limit would make the project "100 percent non-financeable." He said he has financing in place for the 205-foot building, though he would accept limiting it to 190 feet.

Preservationists had been arguing that the building's height would contrast with its surroundings despite the obvious presence of taller structures on Canal Street within only a few blocks of the site. To this they added an equally silly appeal to the supposedly good government principle of adhering to the limits of the master plan.

(French Quarter Citizens President Brian) Furness and leaders of the Vieux Carre Property Owners, Residents and Associates organizations said the proposal also would violate the city's master plan, which calls for buildings of low to medium density in the neighborhood, but Kailas noted that the City Planning Commission staff urged approval of a 190-foot building at the site.

At Thursday's meeting there was more complaining about the violated sanctity of the master plan although it wasn't clear that the plan actually prohibits this sort of development or even imposes a height limit. The city zoning ordinance calls for a height limit of 70 feet but nobody was arguing that be strictly observed.

At one point, Jackie Clarkson even claimed to have written the Master Plan herself although this probably is not true. We're pretty sure she would have been too busy flying helicopters and firing canons at runaway barges to take that on. Unless she had one of her father's black friends draft one back during the 1950s, there's just no way she would have had the time. Anyway I'm told Jackie eventually voted for the proposal because it "pushes the envelope" which we'll just assume is something that needs doing.

The whole argument is yet another example of preservationist incoherence. Nine times out of ten these arguments are really about different groups of well to do property owners arguing over who gets what set of rights and privileges with the appeal to "preservation" being merely a tool of convenience for whichever side isn't proposing the specific development in question. Rarely, though, is any of this ever about mere aesthetics.

Sometimes it's not even that. In some cases, preservationists have little more on the agenda beyond just calling attention to themselves. Take the demolition of this blighted building just a few blocks up Canal from the proposed apartment complex for example.

At 18 stories, the Grand Palace hotel is the largest building in the fooprint. Its demolition will cost nearly $2.5 million.

"I think it's time to knock down that building and some of the other stuff on Canal," said Patrick White, general manager of nearby Handsome Willy's. "I think it's time that Canal Street make a return to what Canal Street was back when our parents were growing up."

White believes demolishing the blighted hotel will help improve the neighborhood.

"Currently we have a bunch of issues with a lot of the homeless and the vagrants that come around and they break into our stuff," said White. "I know a lot of them like to use the abandoned buildings as temporary housing."

Others would rather see the long-abandoned structure brought back to life.

"I find it interesting that people think an empty space is better than having buildings around," said Sandra Stokes, board member of the Foundation for Historical Louisiana.

Preservationists argue that because developers don't plan to replace the hotel with another structure, tearing it down is premature..

"There's parking, a garage attached to this building, give us a litle while, let's study it, see if it can structurally support a parking garage," said Stokes.

Yes, isn't it interesting that people would prefer vacant lot to this festering empty tower. If this thing is such a nice building, why not just move it down to 1031 Canal? Soves everyone's problem, right?

Also, since our local news media are operating now in the post-Garlandgate era, we should point out it's been noted elsewhere that WIST's Eric Asher has spent an inordinate amount of time agitating for Kailas' apartment project on his radio show over the past month or so. Just yesterday afternoon, that same station's Joe Cardosi interjected a brief but glowing editorial of sorts during the Sports Hangover show praising the City Council for approving "progress". Is it too much to ask whether Kailas has been paying WIST to push his project?