The group discussed and have thumbs up to these aspects of the four proposals:
A completion date in 2021 for the full-service supermarket portion of development to ensure continuous access to healthy food in South Madison.
Mid-density development of ideally no more than four stories with two-stories only fronting Park Street in keeping with the character of the surrounding residential community.
Maximum size supermarket and enhanced retail with commercial parking to meet unmet community need.
Community-enhancing amenities, such as meeting space open to the community, health-related classes with SSM, shuttle service throughout South Madison to the supermarket, and outdoor green space/patios.
The group appreciated the efforts of all four developers to respond to community needs, many of which were expressed at the July 23, 2019 meeting arranged by the City. However, it expressed disappointment that the plans overall do not integrate the Wingra Triangle into the existing neighborhood and fail to contribute to the “enhanced streetscape beautification of Park Street to enhance the corridor’s roles as a pedestrian and bike-friendly neighborhood commercial street.” (This is called for by both the South Madison Neighborhood Plan and Wingra BUILD Plan.)
The group gave thumbs down to the following elements of all four plans:
Not addressing how to keep the supermarket sustainable or affordable (or lacking a committed grocer)
Density of the proposed housing. (The Wingra BUILD Plan calls for a maximum of 30-50 dwellings per acre);
Overdependence on market-rate housing (as opposed to affordable), which will contribute to the ongoing gentrification of South Madison.
Not integrating the Wingra Triangle into the existing neighborhood to fit its quaint, older character.
Not improving the Park Street corridor's streetscape or its role as a pedestrian and bike-friendly "neighborhood" street
Complicating the intersection at Cedar Street (taking it from a 3-way to a four-way intersection and making residential Cedar into a thru street)
Prolonging the timeline to completion by depending too heavily on public or grant funding
South Madison Unite! will attempt to meet with all four developers and with Alders Carter and Evers and City Planning staff prior to the neighborhood meeting scheduled for September 26, 2019 at 6 PM at the Labor Temple, 1602 S. Park Street, to review the input from this meeting.
OVERALL LIKES •Early completion date •Keeping to mid-density and fewer stories with limited stories along Park Street •Attention to interface with community oFewer rather than more stories, especially along Park Street •Attention to community needs oHealthy food programs oShuttle service oCommunity space
LIKES BY PLAN (Some items listed apply to more than one plan)
Responsiveness to community’s voiced needs ...
Focus on hiring store employees from the community
Focus on affordable Section 42 housing
Setback of housing; keeping to 2 stories at Park Street
Asking the city to pay for the through street
Alternate street location
Interaction of the development with space along Park Street/Interaction of the two sites (Truman Olson and Pick ‘N Save)
Alternate placement of Park Street access/the street extension
Attention to amenities (fitness center, patio)
Funding model’s independence of applied-for funds
Emphasis on access (mobility/public transit)
Partnership with SSM on programs for the community
Larger size of store
Purchasable town homes
Sufficient setback from the Park Street
Design of the trough street as a neighborhood street
Number of parking spaces allows for a possible park-n-ride to downtown
Amenities to community such as a shuttle service to the grocery, community space
City to pay for the street
OVERALL DISLIKES Neighbors mentioned the following “dislikes” about the city’s focus with respect to developing Truman Olson (these to not point to any one plan)
The plans do not integrate the Wingra Triangle into the existing character of the surrounding neighborhood/community.
Buildings are too dense and too tall.
The plans do not contribute to taming Park Street or integrating it into the community.
“Park Street should be reconstructed with enhanced streetscape beautification and pedestrian-friendly fixtures. Park Street will need to serve dual-roles as a major high volume arterial and neighborhood commercial street.”)
The look of the buildings is not in keeping with the existing neighborhood.
They appear to be modeled after the development along East Washington.
They should look instead to other community streets, such as Atwood, University close to downtown, or Williamson Street.
The plans contribute to the gentrification of the Triangle and the surrounding community with an overemphasis on market rate housing.
The plans complicate the intersection at Cedar Street, taking it from a 3-way to a four-way intersection.
The plans don’t address how to keep the grocery store sustainable.
The plans don’t address keeping the neighborhood sustainable.
Three of the four plans lack a committed grocer.
The size of the store appears to be too small to serve the diverse needs of the community or to ensure sustainability.
The plans do not spell out clearly enough the needed partnership with SSM or with other public health providers.
There is an overemphasis on housing to the detriment of the supermarket.
The plans depend too heavily on TIF, WHEDA, and other funding that prolongs their timeline to completion.