Jenny Brailey sent along this update on the contention CVS construction project in development in the old Tully’s / Moon Temple building:
NEXT PUBLIC MEETING IS NOV. 4
The Design Review Board will meet Monday, November 4 to review CVS’s new project plans. The meeting is open to the public and will start at 6:30 pm at the University Heights Community Center, Room 209 (same place as last time). CVS’s developer is expected to present three design options that focus on restoring the existing building, after which the public can offer comments.
You can view CVS’s new proposals online:
PRELIMINARY COMMUNITY INPUT
Earlier this month, Velmeir and its architects met with representatives of the Wallingford Community Council to get some preliminary input on what the neighborhood wants in the new design. WCC’s comments fell along two lines:(a) providing specific ideas about the building design, signage, sidewalks, parking, traffic, walkability, transit access, etc. and
(b) adding housing at the site by building apartments or condos above the parking lot (behind the existing building). WCC offered some specific ideas and examples of how this could work.
The request to add housing was in keeping Wallingford’s neighborhood plan and with the findings of the Design Review Board in August, that: “the site…located at the heart of the Wallingford residential urban village, both anticipated and deserved more density…”
CVS RESPONSE: RESTORATION BUT NO HOUSING
The developer Velmeir flatly rejected the housing idea. It submitted a letter from the property broker noting the property owners (Pohl family) had received “significant development interest and propositions from a wide range of possible developers” but they were going to “keep the current building footprint consistent with the surrounding business district.” The owners chose to lease to CVS because of the “stability and value this business will bring to the community,” according to the letter.Adding housing/density at the site will be a dead issue unless the DRB insists on it at this meeting, so if that’s your passion then now is the time to speak up. If you just want to see and comment on the restoration options, this meeting is for you, too!
Why does Wallingford need another pharmacy? There are 3 now within a short walk of each other.
Well, the main issue is that we already have 4 pharmacies/drug stores on 45th. We do NOT need another and it is NOT about putting housing atop. its about NOT WANTING IT THERE> Write and call Pohl and get CVS out of the mix.
haha, hey guess what it’s still a CVS
I hope they DO NOT preserve that terrible mural
What’s up with people being against another pharmacy? This is the lamest argument related to this development. It’s not like CVS will be threatening a “Mom and Pop” type store. Don’t go there if you prefer one of the other chains. If you think some other cool business should open up, there’s plenty of commercial real estate in the area for lease. Go for it! The focus needs to be on the design of this building because pharmacies may come and go, but the building will be part of this community for a long, long time.
Curious what the “value this business will bring to the community” is? Or maybe a better question is “what community is the value being brought?”.
Pretty sure they are not referring to Wallingford.
True that the pharmacy will be a non-starter in terms of design review board issues. I doubt CVS will make it long term. Or maybe that’s just wishful thinking. I certainly will never go there. When imagining this site way down the road (like past my time) I certainly hope it won’t be a bland retail space with parking. Housing – people that is – keeps our independently run restaurants and retail shops going. Not sure that’s a DRB issue either though. 🙁
Judging from the comments so far, the residents of Wallingford again fail to understand this process.
The design review process is about the design of the building, not whether or not we need another pharmacy (clearly we do not).
Firstly, the city has no legal way to prevent CVS from locating here.
Secondly, the city has no legal way to force the developer to build housing on top. Council member Conlin is working on that but as he has said it cannot legally be retroactive so will not affect this site.
Feel free to go down those two rat holes if you enjoy that sort of thing though.
Letting CVS know we intend to boycott them as many of us have done might be productive, but unfortunately it does not appear to be working so far.
Let’s face it, the building will be there decades after CVS vacates it. That is what we should focus on.
Personally, the new design addresses all my concerns with the original design and so I am happy with it. I’m also glad a mural space is being kept. The mural can be changed and probably should be periodically.
Remember the old Rite Aid? The building didnt last that long and now its a big condo.
It would be excellent if the design review could explicitly assume that CVS won’t last long there, and the space needs to be versatile enough to accommodate a more suitable tenant.
Boycott if you choose, but the strength of that location is convenience. It’ll be the easternmost pharmacy of the batch on 45th, meaning that everyone in the area west of I-5 will see CVS first making it the shortest walk/drive option, especially if they have parking. It’s probably why they chose that building.
Evon–there are three designs. If you like the one shown here that keeps the mural (and I think it’s the best of the three), you need to let the Design Review Board know your preference.
Anyone interested in addressing the issue at hand–what the reworked building should look like–should follow the link, look at all three drawings and go the the meeting and/or write to the Design Review Board.
Agree that keeping the mural space might be nice. However, under the “pro” column for this design (Scheme C), it states that the “The mural will allow for enhanced store operations.”
Enhanced store operations? Can anyone explain what this means? The only thing I can think of is that CVS has the option to plaster up gigantic ads in the location of the mural, which is an unpleasant image to me.
P.S. I also agree that we need to keep in mind that CVS didn’t choose this location because they think that our neighborhood NEEDS or WANTS another pharmacy. As others have pointed out, they are banking on the proximity to I5 and planning to draw their customers from a wide geographic area, unfortunately. The proximity of Bartell’s, etc, is of little significance to them. I won’t shop at CVS, but plenty of others from outside Wallingford will be driving in to take my place in the aisles.
@13: ‘Enhanced store operations’ – they have more wall space inside for shelving and whatnot.
Ah, got it. My mind was limited to a one-sided perspective on the problem. 🙂
The recommendation of the WCC group regarding the mural is that the mural be replaced as follows: The canopy will extend the length of the building along Meridian in order to provide shelter for folks waiting for the bus. The bus shelter will be removed. (The area behind it was omitted from the mural, leaving a big hole.) The area above the canopy would be restored along with the rest of the building. A competition will be held to create a mural below the canopy in the bus stop area.
I’m all for another pharmacy! More choice for us! I’d love mom and pop stores to move in…but they didn’t. Anything > abandoned building.
Multiple businesses put in bids for that location INCLUDING Starbucks and Bartells. (Two locally based companies that already have roots in Wallingford.) The reason CVS got it is because they offered significantly more than market value. That is what CVS does. They will also set prices cheaper than what they paid for them all as a ploy to drive out competition. They can afford to do that because they have plenty of other stores throughout the country. Once the other 3 pharmacies are gone they will jack up their prices, screwing us all. This is what they did in The Midwest. How the owners can consider this business model to bring “stability and value” to the neighborhood is beyond me. They must value the “screw they neighbor” business model.
Murals need lots of ongoing maintenance. is this something we want to trust CVS to do faithfully? More likely, I’d expect mural wall to be painted solid green or beige within a year or so, the better to manage graffiti with minimal expense to CVS. Another option seems like a much better choice.