Readers respond to the 'High side of Obsidian'

How practical is Obsidian?

Matt Walsh’s opinion piece about the proposed Obsidian development on Palm Avenue (“High side of the Obsidian,” June 15) fails to mention another stereotype in additIon to those cited (cranky NIMBY neighbors, greedy duplicitous developers, blathering lawyers, weak-spined politicians): the lazy, sarcastIc journalist who is bored with actually working. [Take a bow.] 

Tired of democracy, are you? Defining our local lives in an ordered process is what civilized society does. Rather than pontificate about yet another controversial development proposal, would it have hurt you to analyze this particular one on its own merits instead, to separate this one from the many larger issues raised? You were almost there but then what — tee time got in the way? 

Take a walk with me to the location and try to imagine the practicality of the proposal. First off, the lot itself is about 148 feet wide on the Palm Avenue side and 85 feet deep. That’s about half the size of a high school football field. Within that area, current law lays out setbacks and, unless undeveloped or made a park, the law requires commercial space at the street level (to keep the city vibrant) and attendant services like water/sewer and garbage removal (to be sanitary). Across Palm Avenue is a city-owned parking lot which is under-utilized during the day. 

The building on this lot is in physical disrepair and is economically outdated. I think most of its neighbors know that it needs to be replaced and would be happy with that change, especially if many of the trees around it could be saved. 

The Obsidian proposal suggests that the “highest and best use” of this postage-stamp-size lot in the middle of artsy historic downtown is 14 more residences. Really? That’s all? What else could be built here that is actually be'er? 

Let’s start at the bottom. Residences require on-site parking. Obsidian plans to have parking on four stories, including up/down traffic lanes. Alternately commercial or professional space could rely on the parking garage across the street. (Perhaps the developer should be talking to the city about a beautiful skyway instead …) 

Rather than cars, there are a multitude of uses those floors can house to the potential delight of all Sarasota residents and visitors, not just the 14 new owners who may only be in town sporadically throughout the year. Let’s start with some activities that Obsidian already envisions for those lucky few, according to Sarasota Magazine: a library, a wine cellar or wine room, dining space, bocce courts, outdoor bar, a club room, fitness room, a garden with water feature, a lounge with fire pit, a golf simulator. Pick a couple, one or two per floor? 

Don’t forget pickleball courts, too, about 3 courts per floor. Dance studios, yoga and pilates areas, a basketball court or two, maybe handball or racquetball courts as well. While most downtown condominiums have card rooms and fitness areas; they are small and underused. 

How about some medical offices? Why aren’t there any in the downtown core? In some parts of the country, shared offices that are rented by the hour are meeting the needs of small businesses. And who could forget storage companies? 

In all cases, the use of the lot would be developed and managed by private concerns and taxed appropriately at higher rates if commercial rather than residential uses are built on this lot. Efficiency is improved with public parking, and the space is employed vibrantly by people use, not statically with parked cars. 

In any event, property appraisers determine “highest and best use” using four tests: legal permissibility (meets zoning and other land use regulations); physical possibility; financial feasibility; and maximally productive. Debate over the Obsidian proposal questions the first two tests and finds the proposal coming up short. We are led to believe that the financial feasibility test only passes if residences can get views of the bay; those views are not necessary for commercial development. 

The rubber hits the road with the last test. Do 14 residences opitmize the potential of the land? Maybe for 14 owners it does, but not for the rest of us. That’s why we write letters and protest. To make sure we get included in the equation of maximum productivity. 

It is gratifying to hear that developer Matt Kihnke is a “highest and best use” guy. On this particular lot, his proposal fails the tests. Perhaps he should tilt at his windmills in other areas of town where he could pass all four of them. 

— Nina Kopach, Sarasota, Florida

A mockery of Sarasota's master plan

It is apparent that developer Matt Kihnke is confusing work he has done in Chicago and other Florida cities with Sarasota. Perhaps he is unaware of why Sarasota is so attractive to folks.

Not long ago the citizens of our city sought to create a “master plan” to define the city we wanted to live in versus the condo canyons of New York, Chicago and Miami.  They defined a place with neighborhoods, parks, art, entertainment, etc., all with a sense of scale.

So how does that relate to plans by a “highest and best use guy?” It appears to many as a mockery of our master plan and all the efforts by our leaders. Only the mind of such a developer could believe people are going to walk by there and go “Wow, that’s an amazing building.”

This writer is unclear on who or what is being defined as “few and savage” in your opinion piece. Sure, the form letter came from the residents of downtown … an educated and outspoken group of citizens seeking to preserve what the city’s plan coined “An urban village.” Collectively, the downtown community supports development that appreciates perspective versus the biggest, tallest, in-your-face approach. 

— Ed Loke, Sarasota