Jean-Paul Villere
As I wrestled over what I might pen this week I read over the transcript from yesterday’s CPC meeting regarding the rezoning request of 4877 Laurel so that it might become realized as a coffeehouse. And when I read the ridiculous decision crafted by the commission, my inner green apron got ruffled. That the CPC voted against a rezoning by 6 to 1 and with very little if any support from attendees on the matter, frankly baffles me. But then we are talking about a government entity in the City of New Orleans; maybe I shouldn’t be surprised? Le sigh.
Criminy crabcakes, people! We’re talking about a distinctive, most recently (and notably) city-owned blight of a non-residence seeking to produce tax revenue and jobs all in the very familiar setting of a café. Not as a strip club. Nor as a massage parlor. Or even any other unsavory scene. But a business. That serves coffee. The world’s most popular beverage, I think.
While I understand an approval would formally require a change of zoning from the present and rather sterile RM-2 to the swagger of the sultry B-1A, and most in the know are staunchly against spot zoning, the facts in this specific case fall plainly and clearly that an exception should be made. And that really if the CPC votes against such a change, thereby deferring it to the higher power of the City Council, what use are they? This matter clearly held the majority of the neighborhood in favor beyond the matter that this building was never once a residence anyhow. Doesn’t the City Council have bigger issues to contend with than to right the errs of the CPC? Is there really a valid reason not to change the zoning apart from “The Master plan says so”? Ever stop to think the Master Plan isn’t always right? Or as a title attorney I heard speak recently recount an exchange with a judge wherein the judge cited knowing a law was being broken but that the law in question law simply was not fair. So, apart from the law, is it fair that the CPC voted down the rezoning? You tell me. But before you do, know this:
Coffeehouses – a part from serving variations of that wonderful caffeinated elixir – absolutely define the sober foundation of sharing in a public forum civilized thought, spanning generations over centuries and across continents even. But hey, let’s vote against one, shall we? I’m inclined to wonder:
(a) If a single member of the CPC has ever worked for minimum wage in a neighborhood setting? And
(b) If they have, pray tell was it in a café?
I’m going to go with hearty “never” and therefore followed up with a stern “not even close.” If they had they would know this about a coffeehouse: in three words, it breeds community. And no, that’s not a reference to the revered regional brand.
When I did wear a green apron all those years ago, among the other catchphrases and lingo that by way of osmosis invade the cerebellum and spew forth from the ol’ pie hole I give you: the third place. Starbucks’ firm resolve remains that the café setting provides a place different from home (first place) and different from work (second place) and therefore that missing go-to spot (third place). And they’re not wrong. Only, all cafés do this; Starbucks just put it into words, then make its dutiful baristas codify it in mantra. Can I get a “One of us”? Before I wore a green apron I wore a maroon one (at the now long gone CC’s on S Carrollton next to Camellia Grill), but more importantly before that I didn’t wear an apron at all. For almost four years at uniform-less PJ’s I floated between Maple St and Tulane, and for those years and all the others, the café spaces were always spaces reflective of their neighborhood environs, the positives they bring being unquestionable. Again, cafés breed community. In if New Orleans is about nothing else, it is easily this.
So wake up, City Planning Commission! You dropped the ball, and this was an easy catch. Glass half-full here is knowing the next level goes before City Council and this being LaToya Cantrell’s district, the fight for this little firehouse ain’t over. I say reach out to Mrs. Cantrell and encourage her support on the matter. It clearly needs it, and the neighborhood clearly wants it.
Jean-Paul Villere is the owner of Villere Realty and Du Mois Gallery on Freret Street and a married father of four girls. In addition to his Wednesday column at UptownMessenger.com, he also shares his family’s adventures sometimes via pedicab or bicycle on Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube.
I can tell you from personal experience that the revered “city plan” is as much based on the subjective wishes of a few well placed politico/neighborhood types as it is based on “good urban planning”
principles. Anybody who constantly defers to it as the ultimate holy grail is just plain ball-less, or stupid.
Regardless of whose wishes were honored when the master plan was adopted, it was adopted. I think it should be followed by the appointed commissions absent compelling reasons to vary.
I like Morris’s account better. I don’t think appointed commissions should lightly vary from the master plan. Adding a business use, plus three apartments, to a previously vacant building is not an open and shut case for a zoning change. I note in the original story printed here at the time of the auction purchase that the new owner said he was going residential. It seems a little unsettling that the city would sell property at auction on the basis that it would be for residential use, and then grant a request for a zoning change to allow a business use.
I am totally in favor of a coffeehouse at that location. But, say the coffeehouse business fails, what other type of businesses could occupy that space in that location? In other words, what’s the “worst” that could happen in that space with B1-A zoning?
You are quite right. It’s pathetic that this unique spot of architecture does not merit a spot zone. If ever there were a poster child for such a spot zone this is old firehouse is one. I have faith that the City Council will follow the voters opinions on this and right this wrong, but it’s sad that the CPC can not follow their common sense.
Unique architecture has nothing to with spot zoning. It is the use that zoning addresses. Old fire houses make great residences.
Yes, they do make for some wonderful sprawling and inefficient homes, but they are far better suited for a use like the one proposed. The interior architecture does differentiate it from all the other similarly zoned homes nearby. And also, coffee shops do make for some great neighbors. I’m dumbfounded that a few neighbors complain about this positive use of the space. The added daytime foot traffic will help to deter the junkies nodding off on the park benches.
Deux,
That’s silly. It’s a much more difficult proposition to adapt a firehouse to a residence than it is to adapt it to a business use (and even this proposal would include upstairs apartments). More importantly, though, is the fact that we have a blighted property and an investor who wants to return it to commerce, with a use that would have virtually no negative externalities, and the CPC kicked them in the teeth. It’s beyond stupid.
Well, I’m glad you don’t dispute the proposition that zoning is about use and not architecture. As I’ve said in response to your other contributions to this column, the exaggeration and overwrought outrage are silly.
B1-A offers a swath of business choices, and to that end and to your query should the space become something other than intended – like say, coffeehouse to bar – there are regulations in place that formally restrict a graduation of use therein. Between licensing and preferred good neighbor agreements as I understand it, it is conceivable that the space could be further transformed but not willy nilly and not without the proper channels. I shudder to think what’s the worst that can happen because people with means and money do not inherently have good taste or make the best choices. Ultimately I think this – like everything else zoned B1-A in the city – would be a cross that bridge when and if you come to it scenario.
Anything that is permitted in a B1-A could be put in place there without any resort to further application. The whole purpose of zoning is to have an affirmative statement of what is permitted.
It could become a Romney Pilates. Ugh.
Yet re-zoning happens all the time. And the neighborhood largely supported the proposal. So IMO the CPC failed.
Well, you’re certainly entitled to your humble opinion. If you were on the commission, you’d be entitled to a vote. As your colleague’s piece suggests, it was a difficult question. I’m not sure how I would have voted. I really only object to your excited tone. It is hard to say what ” the neighborhood” thought when only seven people appeared and the feelings were split 5-2. As a general rule, I believe the commission should adhere to the letter of the law absent overwhelming reasons to do otherwise. The property owner is not without a remedy.
I don’t want all those coffee addicts getting in the way of my F&M and Grits parking! I’m also not happy with the way they have the park all locked up all the time. Geez things were a lot more free and happy before Katrina!
Deux,
It is open and shut. Unthinking obedience to the master plan is nothing short of fanaticism. The master plan is not an end unto itself, like some kind of holy writ. We’re talking about a damned coffee shop, and the uses allowed under B1-A are very unobtrusive and work perfectly well with nearby residences. As for the owner intending to go residential, all I say is that it’s his property and he didn’t promise anything. The city didn’t place any conditions on the sale, and people can change their minds. The idea that once a person announces intentions they must stick with them, irrespectively of whether it’s anybody else’s business, is ridiculous.
It was not unthinking and hardly fanaticism. Why do you resort to hyperbole? The other article explains the thought process. It is other’s business, if it weren’t, he would not need to change the law. This process is not even complete and the expressed outrage borders on the silly.
Attitudes like this are killing this city and keeping us poor. We can’t afford to pave the streets, but we should be all up the keister of a person who wants to convert a firehouse into a profitable business that won’t cause her neighbors one lick of harm — oh, and the neighbors actually support her. This city leaves you alone if you let a house rot, if you don’t make anything of your life, but it starts putting up roadblocks the moment you try and make something.
The neighbors were 5 to 2. No one put up a roadblock. The zoning the guy doesn’t like was in place when he bought the property. I think you reflect the attitude that hurts the city: rules are meant to be bent and nothing should be enforced until all of the city’s problems are fixed.
Remember that PJ’s on Magazine anchored the redevelopment of what is now the most mostest strip in Uptown. You wouldn’t want businesses PROLIFERATING on Laurel st now, would you?
Oh, and I believe it’s actually tea.
I think the likelihood of a one off business in a res area is not a good comparison to a sleepy comm corridor. And really once the bus barn morphed into Whole Foods THAT is what made Mag what it has become.
And I think you’re right on the tea.
Even a bar? They wouldn’t have to apply for a liquor license?
Not to the CPC, and the application for a liquor license would undoubtedly be easier if there were no zoning issues. At least that’s how I think it works.
There has to be an artful way to override the MasterPlan. It behooves the Beaumonts, the owner of the firehouse, to truly build OVERWHELMING support in the immediate community (say a circumference of 1000 feet). Yes, it is hard to have citizens in the middle of a working day show up at the City Council proceedings. Petitions, videotaping of neighbors, call-ins to the City Council, etc. help. The question is – WILL IT MAKE A DIFFERENCE?
LOL, yeah the Romney is so much uglier than the strip mall next door.