We can't afford to trust Chris Patten

Previous projects expose weakness of review process

Please consider supporting The Front Page with a paid subscription: HERE

If you want to know why Chris Patten’s effort to put a large apartment complex in a prominent downtown location should be rejected, take a look at the site plan he submitted for his 2021 project — one 20-unit building located between Goodwin Avenue and Union Street.

Patten signed the site plan, affirming he had “accurately and completely addressed in written or printed form, within the contents of the application, all information required by the application.”

One of the drawings in his site plan shows that the site will have 23 shrubs and 26 trees around its parking lot. It shows 3-foot raised bed planters and “open areas for drainage” in between the trees and shrubs at the west side of the lot.

But the completed project has no shrubs and no trees. It has no raised bed planters and no open areas for drainage.

You can go there and see for yourself, whether you’re a citizen or a city official. It’s a short walk from City Hall.

Take your time and walk around the building. Admire the mat of artificial turf that has been placed at one end of the building for dogs to pee and poop on (there’s a helpful sign on the mat next to a little plastic hydrant). Notice the weeds growing up through the stones dumped where grass was supposed to go. Check out the low cement wall bisecting the lot in the place the site plan reserves for planters and drainage areas.

Then ask yourself whether Chris Patten’s drawings for his latest project — or anything he says about it — can be trusted. And ask yourself whether the city’s review process is working.

What were the consequences for Patten’s failure to live up to his promises on the Goodwin/Union project?

Why do we have a review process if we’re not going to hold developers to their word and impose consequences on one who breaks his?

This page from Chris Patten’s site plan for the 20-unit apartment complex between Goodwin Avenue and Union Street shows numerous shrubs and trees, planters and drainage areas that disappeared from the actual project.

This page from the site plan shows drawings of shrubs and trees as representative of what was supposed to be included in the project.

This is the certification page of the site plan, signed by Patten, attesting to the “accuracy and completeness” of the information in his application.

In case you can’t make it over to the Goodwin/Union site, here are a few photos of the building and parking lot as it is now:

This cement wall stands along the line where, in the site plan, raised bed planters were supposed to go, along with open areas for drainage.

This is the Union Street side of the lot, with stones where trees and grass were supposed to go, according to the site plan. Next to the building is the mat of artificial grass set aside for the use of dogs.

This is the front of the building, which, according to the site plan, was supposed to be lined with shrubs.

This is the Goodwin Avenue side of the lot. Trees and grass were supposed to be planted along the fence here, with stone and trees next to the building.

This is the back of the lot, behind the building. It looks similar to how it appears in the site plan.