In response to Russ' comment under "The Lucerne..."

I tried to respond there, but my response turned out to be too long as a comment.  It deserves a more prominent place anyway, so here it is.  Here is a link to the original post.

Russ - You raise a lot of interesting points and I'll try to take them in order.  In my assessment of the Lucerne, I observed that the process was flawed and that was a supreme understatement.  The project was driven by the need to make it palatable for the developer - one could argue that was too primary a goal throughout the process - and was designed, in almost every way, before an architect or anyone with design sense looked at what the deal told the design to be.  The number of units, parking spaces, amount of retail and ultimate CRA subsidy spawned the design.  Hence, we have a building that is not about the context of the downtown environment, but reflective of the way the deal was constructed.  By the time it reached the Planning and Zoning Board, the "deal" had been struck so any variation in the design would have "killed the deal" as it might have affected the number of units, stories, parking spaces and retail space.  So the "deal" was the tail wagging the "dog" which turned out to be the building we have to live with for 50 or more years.  Even so, it has had some positive impact on the downtown and we will never know the road not taken.

One thing that could have helped us along another road would be a full time, fully and appropriately staffed Planning Department.  For the size of our city, that should be four professionally degreed planners and at least one of those should have a degree in urban design or architecture.  From time to time, we would have people on the Planning and Zoning Board that were architects, or had some sort of architectural scholastic background and their input was invaluable.  In the ebb and flow of things, they would eventually get off the board and we would be looking for someone with that skill and experience  - which was surprisingly difficult to find.  In fact, while I was on the board, we had a hard time finding a diversity of people (especially as it relates to geographic location in the city) to sit on the board, let alone recruit for architectural expertise.  We did have an abundance of good landscape architects on the board - which can be an architect's best friend to cover up bad architecture.  Another board (like an architectural review board) would have the same if not more problem in recruiting people with the correct combinations of experience - rather than end up with a bunch of political, litmus-tested appointments as we do now with the split of the Planning and Zoning and Historic Resource Preservation Boards.  At some point too, you have to put yourself in the shoes of a person or project that is trying to make it through multiple boards multiple times - it can be a frustrating and iterative effort - and a deterrent to quality redevelopment.  Like it or not, we are competing with the processes in other municipalities.

One of the weaknesses of zoning approvals is that it is difficult to regulate based upon market factors.  You can ask for market studies, but most are worth the paper they are printed on and are results-oriented to justify approving the project.  During the boom and bust cycles of the South Florida economy, everyone is looking at the same market data and dealing with the same lending environment.  Do not be mistaken:  the most recent boom and bust was brought on by the easy availability of credit for these sorts of projects so that, as George W. put it, we can all be part of the "society of ownership."  Well now we are the society of foreclosure.  You can regulate appearance, mass, height, number of units or square footage, but market timing is not well regulated through zoning.  I don't know of a process that could work uniformly and not discriminate between projects - unless it is waiting for road capacity improvements or other infrastructure projects.

So, that being said, I do not know what the current vacancy statistics are for the Lucerne (perhaps one of the readers knows?) or for the other projects that were approved during the boom period.  The one that hurts the most is the office/retail building at 2nd and Federal - that should be better utilized, but I think other Lake Worth factors - read "utility costs and reliability"  are hurting the lease up of that building.

I too agree that the "Old Bridge Park" - i.e. parking lot - was one that we should have gone forward with - it's timing was off and the Mayor then overplayed his hand.  The fallout from the failure of that is still seen and experienced through the vacant lot north of the Post Office, another park(s) in the western part of town, etc.

Yes, we had the DPZ plan in the early 90s and then we spent over $1 million on a Master Plan in the 2000s the results of which were come to be during one City Commission meeting - a total waste of money.  How many planning staff do we have now - none?  Lake Worth has never realized the benefits of planning, but for its original layout - its bones are saving us from total ruin.

Thus, we will continue to see new buildings such as Publix - only if the private sector thinks its worth the risk of trying anything in Lake Worth.  These buildings will be reviewed by political hacks and all will praise the beauty of the emperor's and empress' new clothes - until the electorate is awakened by that still, small voice of reason.

Nuff said for now.