|
SOUTHIBEND REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
<br />SPECIAL MEETING: July 10, 1975
<br />Paae 15.
<br />to the people, and if you put offices there that close at night,
<br />you're not; but if you can have something else along with it,
<br />then it's a good land use, and I still think it makes sense to
<br />change the plan and have an open-ended land use on it and throw
<br />out the things you don't want and include the things you do."
<br />Mr. Allen Schrager said, "The only thing I'would like to say is
<br />that Lloyd Taylor and his group should be congratulated for sub-
<br />mitting a bid. It is easy to sit back and take pot shots and
<br />say, well we should do this and well we should do that, but over
<br />the last couple of years, no one has come forth with a bid, except
<br />a lot of promises that never materialized. Now, granted, this
<br />may not be the ideal plan, but an old cliche, 'a bird in the
<br />hand is worth two in the bush!' Now, the only thing that bothers
<br />me, Lloyd, is this. I think one of the main problems downtown
<br />in office space is the parking, because people don't like to pay
<br />$20 a crack, or $15, or $10, or what have you, when you can go
<br />out to surrounding office buildings. I know you people just lost
<br />Xerox to Industrial Park, where they want 20 to 30 parking spaces.
<br />Unfortunately, in your plan, you are going to have these one and
<br />two story office buildings with parking included, and this is
<br />going to make it more difficult to develop new office buildings
<br />downtown, because if people have a choice of getting their own
<br />buildings with free parking or, coming downtown in a high -rise
<br />and having to pay for their parking, they will take the free
<br />parking, but as I said, you can't have your cake and eat it too,
<br />so half a loaf is better than none."
<br />Mr. Taylor said he thought the obvious thing here is, "Allen, you
<br />are right in what you say, except you know and I know that we have
<br />been losing a lot of offices to the downtown area because of that,
<br />as you well know. It's not a question of a choice between forcing
<br />them to go into a high -rise office building because they don't
<br />have any other choice; the other choice is to go out to Industrial
<br />Park or to Colfax Avenue, so what we are doing is trying to retain
<br />some of these major complexes here in the downtown area. Also, I
<br />think you lose sight of the fact that the only - -I would say- -the
<br />only difference between the proposal of International Constructors
<br />and our proposal is in the hotel, that's all - -or, they call it
<br />the motor lodge. That is the only difference! We propose a luxury
<br />restaurant with all of the facilities that they proposed. It's
<br />possible, if Hoffman is interested without the motel, it could be
<br />a Hoffman, I don't know. There area lot of nice restaurants in
<br />the country. I think that's really the only 'basic difference. You
<br />have the hotels in the downtown area that are not doing too well in
<br />their occupancy. Now, regardless of what the name is on that hotel- -
<br />whether it is Royal Inns, Pick, or Sheraton, or what - -I don't know
<br />one of them - -even out on North Michigan the motels are not doing
<br />well in occupancy. Plow, whether or not a market study- -which would be
<br />an absolute requirement in land'use change to permit a hotel- -would
<br />be a market study which would say whether one is feasible- -not one
<br />which would be feasible five years from now; but one that is feasible
<br />today."
<br />
|