By Jennifer Saines
The enthusiasm for “change” that permeated the airwaves of our country for the past year has not, unfortunately, been incorporated into politics at the town level. At Wednesday night’s P&Z meeting, the commissioners (save one), the Walgreen’s developer, and the members of the Shiloh Christian Church clung to the worn-out mentality of convenience at any cost and the sanctity of asphalt. Pedestrian and cyclist safety and amenities and long term health issues seem trivial obstacles to a streamlined automobile-dependent universe. Never mind that an iconic 140 year-old church at a prominent Middletown gateway will be demolished to make way for the architectural under-achievement that is a Walgreens, surrounded by 65 parking spaces.
The soon-to-be demol-ished church
I hope that the number “65” has raised at least a few eyebrows. Even a generous allowance of fifteen spaces for employees leaves a whopping 50 spaces for customers. When was the last time you encountered 49 other people in a pharmacy? Ironically, this is a drive-thru pharmacy, which should theoretically decrease the need for fixed parking spaces. Commissioner Phipps is to be commended for questioning the need for so many parking spaces and so much asphalt. The developer’s response that the number was simply required by Walgreens was unconvincing, since the company had already reduced that “requirement” to approach the city’s recommendation of 50. The developer then quickly volunteered to construct ten of the spaces of pervious material if that would please the commission, although because it would be expensive he could not do more than that. (Has anyone has ever seen the parking lot of the Walgreens on 66 even near capacity? I have since been informed that Walgreens and other big-box type chains want to create a public perception of ample parking.)
The fact that the Walgreens was applying for a “special exception” for a drive-thru seemed secondary to the proceedings. The plans were presented, incorporating the design of the drive-thru, as if the special exception had already been approved. I found this confusing, and wondered why so much work had been done by the developer in advance of P&Z approval. When this question was raised, the developer quickly and definitively stated that drug stores without a drive-thru are simply not built in Connecticut any more, and the developer would withdraw the application if the special exception were denied.
One commissioner seemed especially delighted that a drive-thru in a nearby bank was saving him so much time, and a member of the church assumed that everyone uses the drive-thru at McDonalds, so why not a drive-thru pharmacy? Despite my opposition to a drive-thru, Commissioner Borrelli’s argument that the satellite bank saved him a trip into town certainly did seem to make sense. We are a big city, area wise, and could use small neighborhood centers for basic necessities such as banking and wine, groceries, drugs, and a movie. This is consistent with Commissioner Johnson’s comments before the final vote (which were nearly stifled by a fellow commissioner) that Middletown develop small neighborhood centers to serve small communities within the city.
This area has the potential to be a community center with a distinct identity and a variety of shopping destinations. Unfortunately, the development thus far has been wanting. The existing stores are fronted by a sea of parking and separated from the proposed Walgreens by an ocean of asphalt sometimes five lanes wide. Commercial buildings should abut the sidewalk, face the street, and connect to others by sidewalks. This very traditional yet proven configuration welcomes the shopper, encourages movement, and puts life on the street. The re-siting of the Walgreens in such a way would be a first step in linking the various establishments of that center.
Five lanes for your auto-motive pleasure
As a community we should urge the Planning and Zoning commission to put a cap on parking lot size. We should also push for a reform of street design. The long-standing practice of widening streets and building additional lanes for the sake of “traffic flow” has compromised the general health of the community, discriminated against the pedestrian and the cyclist, and diminished the environmental, cultural and aesthetic appeal of our city. If it is too late to save the church, the achievement of these goals would at least help to offset this loss.
