Please join me at the Livable Louisville Forum on Tuesday, March 30. Broken Sidewalk has teamed up with LEO Weekly to present this exciting discussion about Louisville’s greatest opportunities and challenges. A panel of experts in the fields of urban planning, architecture, development, transportation, and sustainability will share their insights on the interconnectedness of these issues.
The event runs from 6 until 7:30 p.m. at the Clifton Center at 2117 Payne Street on the corner of Clifton Avenue. A reception precedes the forum at 5:00 PM and is generously sponsored by Heine Brothers Coffee and the Bluegrass Brewing Company. There will also be a post-forum gathering at Clifton’s Pizza around the corner to dig deeper into these issues. (Don’t forget to ask for “L2” drink specials!)
The event is free and open to the public, but we’re asking you to RSVP at livablelouisville.org.
The Livable Louisville Forum will be moderated by LEO Weekly Editor Sarah Kelley and will include the following esteemed panelists:
- Gill Holland, Entrepreneur, Developer, and Film Producer
- David Morse, Transportation Advocate
- Steven Sizemore, Urban Planner
- Bill Weyland, Real Estate Developer
- Steve Wiser, AIA, Architect and Historian
This is a great time to come out and meet Broken Sidewalk readers and participate in a discussion on the future of Louisville. I hope to see you on March 30. Check out livablelouisville.org for more information.
I wish I could go to this! Might the discussion be filmed and posted for out of town readers to enjoy?
That’s the plan, Eric. We want this to reach as many people as possible.
I’ve been hoping Broken Sidewalk would go live and F2F for a long time. Superb news, great program. What’s the capacity?
I’m glad, too, Ken. A full house would look like around 480 people, so spread the word and lets fill the theater.
And the city has: Actors Theatre of Louisville, Kentucky Opera, Louisville Ballet, The Louisville Orchestra, Bunbury Theatre, Stage One, La Pentomane, various film groups, choral organization, Speed Art Museum, Swanson Gallery, Billy Hertz Gallery, I could go on. All these people and organizations are citizens of Louisville, pay taxes in Louisville and bring people to Louisville. Why is there no representation? And do go running to the Fund for the Arts, they don’t represent the arts and audieces in Louisville, they represent old money.
This sounds like an interesting event but what is the purpose? I can understand panel discussion but what will be the result, or the what is the intention. Is the intent to generate interest in these issues? Or is the intent somewhat political, given the mention of the forthcoming new mayorial administration? Or is it a form of networking for people attending this? I will say that I like that you are keeping this local, relying on local sponsors, presenters, and panelists. But just curious as to the motivation/inent, what the purpose and result will be?
Andy…. what are you talking about? This panel discussion will have nothing to do with Louisville’s art scene…
Andy, I feel the need to inform you that the Fund for the Arts doesn't necessarily "represent old money" the way you think. Are you aware that they have a particularly thriving workplace giving program that receives MANY gifts of small amounts from the average working citizen in the city? Full disclosure: I do not work for the Fund, but know several current and former employees quite well, including the Director of Workplace Giving.
Besides, as was mentioned above, this discussion isn't about the Arts in Louisville.
I, too, have represented the Fund for the Arts at my workplace but when Alan Cowen says that more people give to the arts thru the Fund than attend arts productions, you have to wonder where his energy is directed.
Now that the forum has come and gone, anyone have thoughts?
Mr. Weyland’s discussion of height restrictions was not something I fully understood. Having lived and visited other cities in which there are height restrictions it seems they are usually in place for a specific reason (e.g. in Portland, OR they are in place so people living on the W. side of the river can see Mt. Hood, in Charleston, SC nothing can be higher than the tallest church steeple). Anyone know why he felt they would be useful in Louisville?
Mr. Holland took a somewhat antagonistic approach when discussing green features of the parking garages/other structures being built by Mr. Weyland. That being said, I am curious if Mr. Weyland considered such features and what his final decision on them was.
Mr. Weyland mentioned a change in zoning that would restrict mixed use development, can anyone provide more information on this as it’s something I feel strongly about and would be more than happy to contact elected officials about.
I appreciated Mr. Holland mentioned a UGB, would very much like to see one, but get the impression that is nowhere on the radar in terms of becoming a reality.
Also, thought Mr. Weyland’s discussion of linking Old Louisville and downtown was great. Not that I don’t appreciate the development occurring along E. Market but at times I wonder why that isn’t happening in Old Louisville as the housing, commercial, and retail space is already there with multiple infill possibilities.
Sorry to neglect the other three speakers, they each had their good points but this is what is currently on my mind…
i, too, like the IDEA of an urban growth boundary but, given that our development is already moving into oldham, bullitt, spencer, and shelby counties and southern indiana – and they all *welcome* development – it might be a tough sell. i think we’re in a different situation geographically than portland OR.
if jefferson county’s periphery were to get some sort of growth-limiting demarcation, that could have some positive impact within our county line, but the development would just leap-frog into the adjacent counties. and the jefferson county owners would feel that we had basically condemned their ability to grow their real estate value, giving that opportunity to their neighbors on the other side of the line. and political will to make such a thing happen might be hard to muster, too, since property values translate into tax revenue.
I thought there was supposed to be video of this thing. If so, where is it? An urban growth boundary is pointless to talk about given our political situation (state boundary and collar counties that are obsessed with growth). Did anyone ask 8664/Riverfields supporter Gil Holland why he is supporting Greg “let’s build two new bridges†Fischer? Did he receive some kind of backroom assuarance that this impending disaster is going to run out of money after the east end bridge is built? That is about the only logical explanation to this conundrum. If Gil Holland thinks that enviromentally minded progressive people are going to want to live in this city post 23 lane wide spaghetti junction, I’ve got a bridge to sell him.
Yeah, as I said, a UGB is unlikely but I’m not sure that makes it pointless to offhandedly mention it as was the case or, even, to take a few minutes to discuss the possibilities.
Must know something indeed, Mr. Holland advocated 8664 in a new video shown at the forum…
I guess there is no harm in discussing a UGB as long it is understood that this is a looong term goal. It just seems too academic when we’re approaching the ORBproject financing meeting. some of the “slow moving highway disaster’s” highlights include a cost of 4.1+ billion, a 23 lane wide SJ, a quadruple stacked interchange where the kennedy/new d-town bridge feed I64/I65/I71, a 70 ft wider and 60-25 ft high sloping canopy over waterfront park, a tunnel in the east end bypass that does not accomadate hazardous cargo, and TOLLS, TOLLS, TOLLS that defeat the main purpose of the project; traffic flow.