Yeah, not enough of these mid-rise buildings are being put up.
Where's the streetscape? Another free loading developer? Or maybe the developers pockets aren't deep enough to have included any. This is the type of developer that upsets people in the neighborhood. Take a look at that picture and consider what that street and neighborhood would look like if everybody did the same as that developer.
Can you cool it just a little bit? Ever since you started posting here, the tone of the forums has taken a much more aggressive tone. I've yet to mute anyone over the years but I'm getting there.
Allegedly there were supposed to be trees planted out front, but due to u/g utilities routed underneath it wasn't feasible.
It's really unfortunate that a utility service corridor had to be run around what looks like around the entire building. Wonder if the developer could plant some trees in the boulevard across the street as a compromise? Also wonder if the development in the block to the east will rip out the trees and not replant any.
Sorry but I thought that taxpayers were allowed to voice an opinion even when they may not be popular with everybody. Your post suggests that you have a dog in the fight because I don't recall you calling anybody out for complaining about any of Regency's vacant properties.
I'm completely open to planting trees in both outside lanes of that massive roadway. Is that what you'd actually like though, or are you concern trolling?