Quote:
Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby
In the Katie Belle situation, I can't think of anything to object about, as long as it is done on a small scale with long-term exclusive tenants (no sub-letting), and that amenity fees get paid PER UNIT rather than PER BUILDING.
In the situation of Hacienda CC, my concern is traffic. It's just way too close to the Paige Place roundabout and the hospital. In the summer time it's not bad, manageable. In the winter, traffic exiting to 441/27 from the roundabout can get really bad, and there are often accidents coming in FROM 441/27 TO that roundabout. Add another 300 units worth of traffic all condensed around a single building (or couple of buildings) spanning no more than the size of a single New York City block, and you have a nightmare.
|
I agree with the above post but would add that a high density apartment complex will put additional strain on already very overcrowded amenities. The particular amenities I am concerned about are the executive golf courses and sports pools north of 466. Getting a lane to swim laps in or a t-time at an executive golf course are already very difficult during the busy season, or for that matter just about anytime of the year. These amenities were built a long time ago and were not designed to be shared with high density living units. Although it does not effect us personally, I feel very bad for the residents who live in very close proximity to the proposed high density apartment complex. I suspect many of those residents would not have bought homes in that area had they known what was going to be in their future.