Miguel wants to talk about the contents of the plan, well then I will give my thoughts.
East of Tucker:
While I still believe there is far too much green space in downtown as a whole and specifically concentrated in one area, the area east of Tucker is largely already built out, with much higher densities than the area west of Tucker. When combined the potential improvements of the Ballpark Village and other areas south of Market, the existing density, and the inherent proximity between the east of Tucker Mall and the Arch Grounds, the area east of Tucker is in a far better position to handle its amount of park space and handle a “mall” concept.
Generally, the plan for the area east of Tucker is OK. The plan for the long “hallway” of trees along both Chestnut and Market is a great idea. Refurbishing Kiener Plaza and improvements to the other empty blocks should help to add a few destinations and if combined with improvements to surrounding buildings, the sculpture park and garden could thrive.
Yet, for these positives, there are concerns with the specifics of the proposal.
1.Take this quote from page 23 of the Master Plan:
Activate Bordering Buildings: A strength and weakness of the Gateway is the presence and relationship of adjacent buildings. While City Hall, for example, generates considerable foot traffic, it – like so many other buildings on the Mall – is so far set back that an active frontage is difficult to create. Other buildings generate little foot traffic or offer blank and uninteresting facades to the Gateway. Land uses fronting the space, especially at street level, should be very active and the principal building entrances should face the Mall, particularly in the case of the City and other groups seeking to revitalize the Municipal Courts and the Kiel Opera House. In the meantime, selected blank building faces should be illuminated through a variety of lighting strategies to provide enhanced identities.
The planner’s clearly heard the feedback that many on this forum have stated: the Mall is largely dead because there are so many blank facades facing the Mall. Yet, the solution proposed is a combination of ensuring main entrances face the Mall and fancy lighting. While the re-orientation of some entrances to face onto the Mall, like City Hall, will add some foot traffic along Market and Chestnut, one must questions how successful such a solution can really be when many of the buildings along the Mall are directly connected to existing parking garages or lots that make such street level entrances less important for most workers and visitors. While I am all for improved lighting along the Mall as it will both increase perceived safety and highlight the beauty of downtown, lighting does not address the lack of foot traffic along the Mall. The “solution” above does not mention the importance of adding street level retail or restaurants to buildings currently facing onto the Mall, a major flaw in the proposal to improve the east of Tucker area. Additionally, nothing is mentioned about making better use of key parcels along the Mall, such as the Kiener Garages. If the goal is to make the edges stronger, the plan needs to specifically spell out the deficiencies and propose clear solutions.
2.Kiener Plaza: From page 16 of the Master Plan:
Kiener Plaza Needs Improvements
Kiener Plaza is one of the Mall’s better used spaces. It functions as a gathering spot for many festivals and rallies. The sunken design of the May Amphitheater, however, disconnects it from its surroundings. Because it is difficult to see into the Plaza, it is difficult to observe and police. Kiener Plaza can be the catalyst for the entire Mall, also drawing Arch visitors into the downtown area. An exciting, high energy design is needed to reform the space and this should be an implementation priority.
The complaint about Kiener Plaza is a common one. The sunken design makes it difficult to see into the plaza (though one must wonder if this is simply a complaint from the drivers whizzing past on Market and 7th, not from pedestrians who walk next to the plaza). Yet, the plans for the new Kiener Plaza include a new two story performance pavilion that includes stage space, a café, bike rentals, and a visitor’s center. While I like the idea of the café, visitor’s center, and bike rental areas, the proposal brings up a question in light of the criticisms of the current Kiener Plaza.
If the current May Amphitheater is disconnected from its surroundings, how does locating the proposed pavilion at the western edge of Kiener Plaza, along 7th Street address this problem? By locating the stage area between 7th Street and the open plaza to the east (where people can come, sit and enjoy the Plaza), the open area to the east would not seem to be visible at all from 7th Street, hardly an improvement over the current lack of visibility.
3.Gateway One: Given the Mayor’s admittance that the Master Plan is a long range document, it is disheartening that more was not made of removing Gateway One. If the goal of the plan is to truly create a strong east-west connection along the Mall, there would be no better choice than the removal of Gateway One, creating a bookend space with the Civil Courts at the western end and the Arch at the eastern end.
4.Serra Sculpture: While I am not 100% in agreement with the proposal to keep the sculpture in its current location, given the proposal to add more modern sculpture to the east, the idea of keeping it makes some sense, provided the proposed landscaping is continued as shown. The fact that the City’s deal with the Botanical Gardens and the Gateway Foundation does not include extending the improvements to the Serra Sculpture block is a major mistake and makes me wonder whether the landscaping to the east will ever be continued to Serra block.
5.Market Street: While I agree with the decision to add bulb outs, bike lanes, and the double row of trees along Market, I am disappointed to see little has been done to further narrow the roadway, be it through a landscaped median or a widening of sidewalks along the southern side of Market to accommodate a double row of trees as proposed along the northern side. Market is an unfriendly street to cross and I wonder whether the proposed improvements will truly make it friendlier. If the proposed improvements fail to make Market less of a barrier between north-south pedestrian traffic in downtown, then the Mall will fail to connect with and draw from the additional density on the southern half of downtown.
6.Tattoo Park: Most on this forum have wondered at some time why downtown has such a bland and lifeless park on the block due east of the Eagleton Courthouse. Yet, rather than use the Gateway Mall Master Plan as an opportunity to connect this underutilized green space into the larger improvements of the Gateway Mall, the Master Plan does not address such a cross connection. In fact, the Plan proposes no improvements to the southern side of Market Street that would connect the Mall and the park. If the City isn’t going to plan for such connections, one must wonder why the land should be a park at all.
West of Tucker
I have nothing positive to say about this portion of the plan because I think it represents a fundamental misunderstanding of downtown’s need for park land, the development pattern west of Tucker, and the connection between areas east and west of Tucker. The continuation of the Mall concept west of Tucker is a mistake.
The plan fails to understand that a viewing mound is not the defined anchor and draw needed to move people east to west along the Mall.
The permanent closure of Chestnut and removal of parking near the “Civic Room” will reduce what few people currently pass through the space.
While the “Civic Room” clearly tries to provide more festival space by unifying the parks through the closure of Chestnut, unless the City is going to be having near constant festivals, a space built around the occasional (i.e. festivals) rather than the common (i.e. people working and living downtown) is a sure fire way to create underused parkland.
