Friday, February 23, 2007

CityScape aftermath

The Parks Board voted 5-2 to adopt the conceptual master plan for CityScape. My initial reaction and observation following last night's meeting:


A lightweight board. "New York might have Central Park, but New York also has a lot of other things that I wouldn't want," said Parks Board member Laura Bell in casting her vote to turn over the park to RED. Huh?! Even CityScape supporters would have to admit the board's comments in electing to abdicate their roles as stewards of a park to the private sector were pretty much insipid. Jim Holway was the lone bright spot among that dismal crew.

Class warfare. The young professionals in the room, many of them residents of the Orpheum Lofts, generally supported CityScape (while in general the opposition was older and less well-to-do). I don't get it- haven't any of these young professionals lived in other cities? Don't they realize that trading away the public park for a PF Changs doesn't make our city better, it just makes it generic?

Nobody buys RED's "park." In its presentation on CityScape, RED Development tried to make the claim that the little grassy spot in the middle of the AJ's/B. Dalton's/PF Chang's complex was Patriot's Park. They even tried to say that 20,000 people could attend an event there (even though their diagrams showed half those people would be unable to see the "stage" because their view would be blocked by PF Chang's). But nobody who spoke on behalf of the project tried to defend RED's ploy. Aside from the developers, even the supporters of CityScape seem to concede that Patriot's Square is gone.


Streetside Retail? It's hard to say whether there will be streetside retail. Yes, one of the development team pledged in the meeting that all parts of the project will have street-fronting retail. But earlier in the presentation one of the RED guys mentioned only "retail along Washington and Jefferson." Holway brought up the fact that RED hadn't received any commitment from the proposed tenants to have street-facing retail. And RED's own plan points out "street side retail" only on the new east-west street, and nowhere else in the project (see below). Hopefully-- at least-- there will be street-fronting stores.

Summary. In all, this was no surprise. It's Phoenix! The developers generally rule the day. But they did have to make some concessions. And maybe the people in attendance-- who seemed so desperate for new development-- will get over their civic inferiority complex and not be so desperate the next time a developer proposes some crappy deal to the city.



2 comments:

walt said...

I wish the city was a little more interested in the urban form. Sometimes Phil Gordon seems to get it, but mostly it's a matter of accepting the developer's vision without complaint or suggestion. So we get a proposal that may as well be from Mars. Still, as much as I detest the quasi-suburban character of CityScape, I could probably live with it IF it delivered. But it can't because it's trying to solve a problem development like itself created.

We're a city of beggars because downtown has been systematically devalued over the past four decades of civic malpractice. We hold no high cards, just the empty lots where some super-duper project is supposed to redeem our city's chronic thoughtlessness. These projects don't work because they're scaled for a place no one cares about. A real city doesn't simply reinvent itself by fiat. Occasionally a visionary comes along but usually ends up doing more harm than good.
Even if Phoenix had a Robert Moses, chances are he'd look and talk like Paul Johnson.

I hope I'm wrong. Maybe a long-hoped-for synergy will finally materialize. Maybe CityScape will catalyze a vibrant downtown. Maybe PF Changs and AJ and several more Starbucks are what's needed. But if that's the case, our aspirations have only midwifed the appropriate mediocrity.

downtown_resident said...

Walt, your comment "our aspirations have only midwifed the appropriate mediocrity," is precisely the point. We get a mediocre product because we think we deserve it. The discussion this week and earlier was evidence of exactly that-- people here bristle when someone tries to bring up examples of quality urban design in other cities-- "we're NOT New York," is the constant refrain. Too bad; there's no reason this city has to settle for such mediocrity.