Landscape that Fugly Longs

[Bill Walter]

It is always interesting to see what perceptions are. Let me correct a couple of them as they concern Shipman. First, the amendments that recently went through as Bill 194 had nothing to do either directly or indirectly with architectural design. Second and much more importantly, Shipman has a very strong commitment to the design of buildings in Keaau. In the last three years we have spent well into six figures on architectural. Our design architect is Boone Morrison, one of the most highly regarded of plantation style design architects in the State. These are words, but I suggest you look at the works. We had Keaau Village Market designed and built to a plantation standard. We have renovated three houses along Keaau-Pahoa Road in recent years to maintain the plantation era look. The most recent of these is the green house just completed along the road between the village and Keaau Elementary School. We have just removed the last of the plantation houses that could not be rebuilt. We now have building permits and a contract to build two houses to take the place of the two we regrettably had to tear down. Both houses are pier and post and have a strong plantation look. (Building slab houses would have been quite a bit less expensive) We are in the midst of building a new restaurant next to McDonald's in the village. It again is designed to look like the old village. We neither sell nor lease any land in the village without putting architectural requirements in as a part of the package. In fact, we have turned down significant projects simply over design. Have some buildings gotten past us over the years - yes. Of particular note are the police and fire stations and Keaau Plaza. We cannot "fix" the first two but now that we own Keaau Plaza we will have it reconfigured in the next several years to conform to our design standards.

Again, do these designs add to the cost - generally yes. But we have put our money where we think it should be as we rebuild the village. The long term value of a village built to certain standards justifies the cost to us.

Bill Walter

[critterlover]

Aloha Bill,

I am so glad you posted this. It was what I recalled you said at an Action Committee presentation a few months back. I was unsure of the specifics but was fairly sure I had heard that Shipman opted to maintain a 'plantation' style in all future renovations/refurbishing/new structure.

Dispelling misconceptions is a must. I have learned in the past couple of years if one does not present the 'correct' or 'informed' viewpoint the one that is out there becomes the correct/informed via perception.

Toni, who is a 'critter lover'
www.write-matters.com

[Rob Tucker]

Aloha Bill,

It is always interesting to me that at the same moment we can be so close in our opinions and at the same time be so far apart.

I have discussed designing in a local style with you before and have seen success in your efforts. At the time of our face to face conversation however we were having coffee at MacDonald's in Keaau and as I listened to your devotion to local design I was looking at the red and yellow plastic of the MacDonald's. So there are exceptions to your rules. They may be exceptions that others might want to avoid.

Regarding Bill 194.... You are incorrect. There were substantial portions of the CDP removed which you had objections to and which I frankly also felt needed amendment. My approach, through FoPF, was to seek a simple process for improving the design and scope of village centers with more community input - something you objected to. "We don't need any more levels of community input" was your position. Your approach was to have those sections removed completely. And they were to Shipman's benefit and the district's detriment.

I refer to charts, developed by Plan Pacific, in which the size and scope of commercial buildings were detailed and which included call for "vernacular architecture". Those are now gone. Not modified in a sensible manner.... simply gone.

I understood Shipman's chafing at a proposed limit of 50,000 sf for any Keaau Village Center venture and agreed with your position. It could preclude a big box anchor for your future Gateway Shopping Center. But there are other village centers in Puna which just might have wanted to place some limits on the scale and scope of commercial operations and it was your focus on Shipman's wants that obliterated the opportunities for other areas to come to other conclusions. That is Plantation Politics.

So for the moment Shipman has had its way.

Regarding FoPF's proposed amendment for each village center to have it's own Steering Committee to improve on Plan Pacific's charts.....

It was and remains a simple and elegant way to meet Shipman's needs and the needs of various communities. It was a vehicle which could have served your needs. You clearly said so to the Planning Commission. But later you were opposed and managed to guide our Planning Director to take your position. This was disingenuous to say the least. The mission statement of the PCDP calls for ongoing and continuing participation in the process. Shipman has taken positions that make it clear that paternalism is alive and well in plantation thinking. What's good for Shipman must, of course, be good for everyone everywhere else. I do not agree with that. I am much more willing to support Shipman's intentions than Shipman is to support others.

So to me it still comes down to your statement to me in 2008.... "If I can't have the PCDP amended the way I want when I want then I want it to fail".

It is not over Bill. You can and should expect to see a number of issues revived in the upcoming council in 2011 and 2012. What has occurred with Bill 194 can be summed up by a statement from the Chairman of the Planning Commission: "Something stinks".

The Planning Commission did not give Bill 194 a favorable recommendation.

.

[peteadams]

Somewhat sorry to see the discussion focused so much on an individual, Bill Walter, but he has certainly, and probably necessarily from his family's estate's point of view, put himself into the public spotlight. This is a little bit of history from my brief involvement with him and some observations from my experience.

I worked with Bill on the Growth Management subcommittee of the PCDP. I found him to be a good listener with a welcome quality of reasonableness in his statements. From many discussions in the meetings, I believe that his values are largely rooted in his family's history in Puna as well as his mainland experiences. Several times he expressed frustration at the effects of the increasing complexity and regulation on business enterprises in Puna. Many times he expressed his desire to do the pono thing for Puna, commonly relating what Shipman has done in the past.

But beyond my perceptions of his values (and I am not a mind reader), I also observed his approach to problems and the concepts he expressed to deal with them. I have also kept track of Shipman's actions subsequent to the PCDP being turned over to the Action Committee. From all this my conclusion is that Mr. Walter's public actions are guided primarily, if not exclusively, by the needs of high-end capital management. Basically he is a developer, the developer of his family's estate.

Having worked in professional and management positions in several high tech companies, including a couple of venture capital-funded organizations, the language and positions are very familiar. Believe me, the average small businessperson or worker does not converse in the terms or concepts that Bill Walter does. But people who manage large sums of money for profit do. For instance, the Shipman Estates investment into "maintaining the plantation era look" can be interpreted in venture capital terms as a good investment in the future of a development. For the marginal value achieved, product polish can be an important increment to the bottom line and can often be one of the signature symbols of the corporation.

Possibly Bill and Shipman Estates will all do the right things in concert with the PCDP principles that we all signed off on. However, Shipman Estates intervention in the Bill 194 process and the particular alterations and deletions requested, beyond the typos and small ambiguities, indicate to me that is possibly not the case.

In the context of Puna's changes going into the future, Bill Walter and Shipman Estates should be viewed, in my opinion, as simply developers, no different than other developers, whatever their values as individuals. They are subject to the same financial imperatives, including performance, that other developers are subject to. Perhaps Shipman is closer to the 'aina than most mainland developers, but I think we must regard their actions and directions as being in the service of capital accumulation, like any developer. Many honorable principles die at the foot of the alter of capital accumulation.

[DaVinci]

Precisely. I have never met Bill Walter, but I feel my previous post may have prompted him to respond. The plantation style architecture of Keaau, while laudable, and admittedly more costly than "haole hotbox" slab construction, is not really the issue being bandied about here. The fact that J Yoshimoto denuded sections of the PDCP in accordance with the wishes of the Shipman Estate, and in opposition to the best interests of the people of Puna, that is what is being discussed in this thread. Why is Shipman opposed to giving the community a voice in the process of deciding what should be the design of future development in Puna, in Keaau, in Pahoa? Why is "plantation style" the de facto "design" that proves their good intentions? It seems to me that the regulations that Bill Walter is so frustratingly opposed to are precisely the vehicle that can give voice to the citizens of Puna who are not wealthy enough to twist the arm of J Yoshimoto. In fact, such potential for regulation seems to me the only vehicle available to the citizens of Puna who are not affiliated with a powerful name. If only they (we) would take up that challenge, and organize, and perhaps revive some parts of the PCDP that were gutted by Bill 194. If only....

[Rob Tucker]

DaVinci,

That is one of the things that Friends of Puna's Future (www.fopf.org) has on it's to do list for 2011.

[critterlover]

Actually, my understanding was the topic is 'design'. I was unaware this was a discussion about the PCDP and what was or was not done to/with it. This thread started out with individual characterization of the Woodland Center edifice [primarily the Longs building] and the stimulated discussion of how to improve the aesthetics which led Rob to contribute that while with the Main Street group it was his thinking it would be great to look into some 'stylized' design for Pahoa. <--Paraphrased by me.

I don't know if McDonalds was part of Shipman's current 'design concepts' or if it was put in prior to the company's commitment to the plantation look for future development. I do know, a few months back Bill made a presentation to the Action Committee -- I thought was really great, most impressive and very visionary -- and it included their design element for the future. As to his being a developer; the point is? We have the potential for this place to explode population wise if the economy ever rebounds. With that 'visionary' planned communities, even if they are commercial, would be preferable to the meandering mish-mash or hodge-podge we are beginning to see pop up along the highway in Pahoa. None of the buildings have the 'rustic' and 'quaint' feel or look of Pahoa. I don't know who is picking their color palettes.

I am really curious to see the restaurant that is being constructed by McD's in Keaau. I don't know the cuisine, don't know if I will frequent it, but am curious how they will tie in the restaurant to rest of the community. And how come we got BK and KFC instead of Taco Bell and McD's! Jez kidding...but not.

Toni, who is a 'critter lover'
www.write-matters.com

[Bob Orts]

At this point is doesn’t matter what type of design requirements would be most appropriate. The fact that you have NO design requirement at all is the real and only issue before you. Design standards can change to meet new design, construction or community visions. But if you have no design requirements at all, what does it matter if its plantation, colonial, or egyptian?

Until you have a design standard, don't expect any thing but what you've been getting because nobody has to do anything you want. They only have to develop in the most cost efficient manner. Plantation or Junk Yard Retro; that’s the developer’s choice, not yours.

[critterlover]

Mr. Orts writes: Until you have a design standard, don't expect any thing but what you've been getting because nobody has to do anything you want. They only have to develop in the most cost efficient manner. Plantation or Junk Yard Retro; that’s the developer’s choice, not yours.

ME: Absolutely agreed! That is why I stated it would be nice to see legislation proposed, perhaps through the newly elected district rep, or, via the Planning Director, to that end.

Toni, who is a 'critter lover'
www.write-matters.com

[Bob Orts]

There exist laws to establish design districts and similar controls, but the question is; do you want government control or community control? Nothing is stopping the formation of a design district anywhere under community, business, HOA's, resident or some other control. If you want it to be an official government regulation, are you prepared for government involvement and the issues that comes along with government’s hands in the process?