Link

IMG_1231

Now that some additional information has been made public, I have compiled a short post on code changes and RFP components that I would like to see as part of this project. Due to the potential street changes involved with this development, some modifications and additions to the Downtown Form Code will be necessary in order to guide future developments. There are also many key items that I feel should to be included as RFP requirements. Below is a breakdown of some things to consider in both regards.

-Polk and Taylor Streets:

While it looks un-likely that a Paseo or street will cut over from 6th to 7th avenue, I am pleased that all scenarios for the Pappas site re-development include a Paseo and road combination. However, I still feel both Polk and Taylor alignments should be a part of the project, and that they should be positioned in line with their west 7th avenue counterparts. The Polk alignment is critical because future developments to the South may not be controlled by the City. Therefore, as stated in my first post, this project at a minimum must break up the block at the mid point between Fillmore and Van Buren (Polk).

Any newly created street would not have guidelines under the current form code, but because one of them would be created as part of the Taylor Paseo some basic rules can be established. The South side of the street should be maintained as a pedestrian corridor with enough room for temporary off-street table venders during events, and a solid tree wall to protect pedestrians from cars. Two way traffic would be expected with curb cuts on each northern block at the natural alley points. Curb cuts on the southern parcels should be minimized due to the Pedestrian Paseo. All of the adjacent blocks require 50% lot coverage and either (Stoop Door, Door Yard, Storefront, or Gallery arcade) frontages; new streets should be no different. One of the new 5th Avenue intersections should follow the guidelines for an ‘Enhanced Corner’ under the code as this will help define the urban sense of place. 1207. M.

M. Enhanced Corner Guidelines. The uses that generate the highest pedestrian traffic should be located on enhanced corners and provide the following: +2

  1. A primary entrance that faces both streets and serves the greatest number of occupants.
  2. Additional building articulation that emphasizes the corner and promotes activity.
  3. Active uses identified on the Land Use Matrix (Section 1204.D) should occupy the ground floor level. +2

-Fillmore:

Fillmore is already established in the Downtown code but all proposals should be encouraged to develop restaurant/retail along this frontage. This also serves as an opportunity for the city to create a separate bike lane on Fillmore, preferably protected. Fillmore is also one of the natural connectors between the Downtown Neighborhoods and a traffic light is desperately needed at the 7th Avenue intersection!  On this item the Streets Department needs to take action, because this development will increase the need for a better pedestrian connection to Grand.

-4th, 5th, & 6th Avenues:

These streets should have on-street parking incorporated into the development frontages as appropriate, with minimal to no curb cuts. 5th Avenue should be the focus of commercial activity for any development on these parcels. It is highly desirable that the alley between 6th and 5th be kept in place throughout the parcels, in order to create a more pedestrian friendly development pattern.

-School/Park:

The  possibility of an urban elementary school being built as part of this project was announced during the public meetings. I fully embrace this possibility, and encourage a small shared park space be incorporated as well, preferably adjacent to the Paseo.

-Low Income Housing:

There are two low income housing developments just south of this site. The city is contemplating using this opportunity to redevelop these properties. At one time in life I wrote a small dissertation on finding ways to mitigate the livelihood impacts of In-situ (in place) re-development projects, and therefore I will be personally watching this closely. However, let me clearly state that there will be impacts to the individuals involved, and the City has an obligation to minimize those impacts. While in-situ re-development is the best option, issues like moving expenses, days off work, utility cost variations, breaking up of social cohesion, and loss of place-making are all potential concerns. Therefore, a third party Livelihoods impact study and mitigation plan must be required as part of any low income housing redevelopment.

-Some RFP Points:

Many individuals, including myself are already concerned about issuing a single RFP for this size of development. Good Urbanism rarely happens when a single developer or architect has control over such a large swath of land. Many of the things that I have suggested in the above text are deliberately pointed to make a large repetitive development difficult. Previous Downtown projects should also serve as a lesson to ambition; many promises and half built projects still linger from former attempts at ‘savior developments’. Therefore, parcels not developed within a time-frame should be turned back over to the city, and any major modification to the project needs to have public scrutiny, with an opt-out option. Here are my thoughts on some basic RFP stipulations that may put community members at ease.

-Basic RFP Stipulations:

  1. Split Rights With A Phasing Time Table: While it is ok to disperse the economics of underground parking across multiple blocks, anything a developer proposes above ground on each parcel should be financially viable without the rest of the development. This means that each block is self supporting, so that while the developer can keep ‘Subterranean’ rights if they build underground parking across blocks, the City can re-claim Ground and Air rights over any block the developer can’t make work within an acceptable time frame.
  2. No two blocks shall look similar, and preferably a different architectural firm will be hired for each block.
  3. A significant change of use or density on a particular parcel after the RFP is awarded to a developer should require citizen review and the ability for an opt-out by the City.
  4. A Polk Street alignment shall be part of any development, creating equal block division between Fillmore and Van Buren
  5. Any In-Situ relocation of affordable housing must first require a livelihoods impact study and mitigation plan.

-Final Thoughts:

My main intent here is to provide some ideas and basic thoughts about this project. Ultimately, the community and all of the downtown organizations will need to be heavily involved in this process. My concerns are with creating the 50 year infrastructure and less on the actual uses proposed. Given the current market conditions, I would rather see the City just create good urban blocks, follow a more stringent Form Code, and with the exception of the low income housing and the school, just let multiple developers build what the market can provide. Cities and neighborhoods work best as an eclectic mix of financial, social, and creative interests. One development team having such a large financial stake in a single neighborhood still creates an imbalance, despite how well we construct the RFP. With that said, many of my major concerns have seemingly been addressed within the pre-planing stage. Hopefully we see good proposals from developers who actually understand quality urban neighborhoods.

Jeffery is a native Phoenix area resident and lives in the Downtown Evans Churchill neighborhood. He has a Masters in Globalization and Development from The University of Sussex – Institute of Development Studies and a Political Science B.A. From A.S.U. He currently works as a Project Manager for a Phoenix based small business. All opinions are strictly his own. All rights on written and creative ideas are reserved

Advertisements

One thought on “South Fillmore and The Pappas development RFP-Part 2: Code and RFP components

  1. James

    Can you provide more specifics about what was discussed at the meeting? Were actual proposals shown? You seem to allude to that when you mentioned “all proposals show a paseo and E-W road.”

    I completely agree that these mega-projects never seem to produce the same kind of urban environment that organic developments create. Hopefully, because of the mix of densities that will be needed throughout the project area, it will force the developer into creating something that isn’t uniform and is more flexible in its form. For example, denser uses toward Fillmore make sense, while 4th Ave is probably better-suited to live/work townhomes.

    I’d love to see an education component; I think the best coup would be to land the Maricopa County Corporate College that is currently looking for a site. It would be great for the E-W road to contain a linear park, with a larger park at the center of the project as a gathering space.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s