Stick to the Stories

the potential height of future buildings on Water Street stirs debate

Trevor Kupfer, photos by Andrea Paulseth |

A recent request to change the zoning on Water Street to allow buildings taller than three stories quickly became a divisive issue. Proposals like this have come up before (and may again in the future), but in this instance the Plan Commission unanimously approved the change and the City Council disagreed with the recommendation with a 10-1 vote, effectively defeating the proposal and keeping the existing height restrictions.

We contacted people that voiced their opinions to the city (a few of which chose not to participate here), but before we get into the arguments for and against buildings more than three stories on Water Street, there are a few things worth mentioning. While some people argue purley on historic preservation or urban density issues, there is also an undercurrent of business interest throughout the debate. On one side some people may be fighting to protect their student rental properties – a shiny new housing structure could hurt them. On the other side some people may hope to build a large structure and capitalize on the proximity of students. And it’s extremely important to note that this isn’t about tearing down all the existing buildings. It’s just deciding for or against taller buildings so there can be a plan for future growth. Just some aspects to keep in mind as you read the comments here.

---

“NO” to 3-Story Buildings

    The Steering Committee of the Historic Randall Park Neighborhood Association unanimously opposes the proposal to permit four-story buildings on Water Street. One criterion the city must consider in approving is “impact on the neighborhood.” There are no buildings higher than three stories in the neighborhood or Water Street. Consequently, it is difficult to see how “the height, massing, and volume of the building is compatible with existing scale of building within the district” can be met by buildings that exceed three stories without having an impact on the neighborhood. We assume buildings with four stories will be primarily residential, which means more people will live on Water Street. We believe this is undesirable. Over the years students and other renters were less and less likely to want to share rooms and density in the neighborhood decreased considerably. We see no evidence that increasing the density is desirable. Nor have we seen evidence that more residential units are needed. Increased density will likewise increase traffic. At a time when we are encouraged to use transportation other than cars, streets should be made safer for pedestrians and bicyclists, not more dangerous. With more traffic and more residents and businesses, parking will become even more of a problem, and will likely spill into residential areas of Randall Park and Third Ward. Water Street is already of concern regarding policing, and increased density will likely only increase safety concerns. We also believe the banks of the river should be protected with greenways. Taller buildings between Water Street and the Chippewa will lessen the opportunity for residents to enjoy the views of the river, decrease the enjoyment of the users of the bike trail, and decrease the appearance of the neighborhood.

– Sharyn Moss, President of
 Historic Randall Park Neighborhood Association

    
Speaking as someone who has lived in a dense urban environment surrounded by condos and crap like that, I say NO WAY! It’s not why I moved to Eau Claire. It’s not why students come to Eau Claire. Finally, the students want cheap rent. A new apartment building overlooking the river - that’s going to be cheap? Doubt it. It would end up as abandoned as Waterford. Tell the students they can go rent an apartment there. Maybe the city should try and fill that “awesome” property first before even considering something like this. Ugly crap like that will be Water St.’s future. Eau Claire will lose it something special and unique if they do this. It will be replaced by dime a dozen “urban developments.” In the process Eau Claire will lose one of the few things it has going for it – character. Next thing you know Eau Claire is Woodbury. No, thanks!

– Josephcast comment on VolumeOne.org


“YES” to 3-Story Buildings

A community must place value on both its history and the unique characteristics of its neighborhoods. However, we cannot be so focused on looking to the past that we fail to look to the future. An ordinance that restricts the height of buildings on Water Street locks us into a backwards focus and takes away our ability to be responsive to specific building projects, lifestyle changes, or the city’s future needs. The number of stories is only one aspect of a building, yet we are allowing that one factor to trump the quality, creativity, and necessity of ANY future project. Student housing is only one potential use for a new structure. I believe as we move forward there could be many others. I question our long-term vision if we are willing to close the door on ALL of the higher density potential projects now and into the distant future.

– Scott Rasmussen, Director of Business Management for Durand Builders and long-time Eau Claire resident

    The City of Madison Plan Commission recently approved an eight-story, 27-unit apartment building near the university, without a single auto parking space. Instead, the building will house indoor secure bicycle parking. Madison and La Crosse realize that their downtowns require people living in them to support a strong business and cultural center, and a strong city overall. The more Eau Claire sprawls the more it rots from the core, especially when it is content allowing its urban centers to become historical remnants or holdover districts from the USSR (thank you 1960s “renewal”). Obviously, Eau Claire is not Madison, but four-story buildings on Water Street are something Eau Claire would do well to consider if the right project came forward for thorough scrutiny by our plan commission. Quality buildings of brick and stone, with sidewalk-level businesses and no more than 10 apartment units, are a sustainable way to re-grow any city.

– Aaron Brewster, UWEC student and Water Street Plan Update Committee member & Jeremy Gragert, UWEC grad and former Downtown Eau Claire, Inc. board member

    There are countless examples of great urban design where a taller structure was built in an area that historically was low-rise. If done right (not like the boring, parking lot facing Water St., and without character new development with Burrachos), it would add to the neighborhood and increase density, which is what people have wanted to improve the vibrancy of downtown and Water Street. I think five stories would be too high, but personally I would be disappointed if any new construction was two-stories or shorter.

– E2mc comment at VolumeOne.org

   Many times it seems like hindering downtown development in the name of “historic preservation” is just another way of saying, “we want to keep the status quo.”

The last time I checked, there were plenty of buildings over three stories high that were built before whatever arbitrary time period they’re referring to as “historic.” If done correctly, mixing buildings of varying heights and styles makes an area more aesthetically pleasing.

 Frankly, this sort of reactionary B.S. sets my teeth on edge. Don’t even get me started on Menomonie. A building has been for sale for years. When a group of investors from Eau Claire wanted to drop millions into it, making a new nightclub/bar, city council denied their request for a liquor license because, like Eau Claire, there are “too many bars” downtown. Never mind that this place would have provided income in the form of TAX REVENUE for the city. Meanwhile, it still sits vacant, like most of our downtown.



– Pookums comment on VolumeOne.org