The Mayors’ Institute on City Design: Northeast Conference

The Mayors’ Institute on City Design Northeast Conference Summary Boston, Massachusetts October 7-9, 2009

The National Endowment for the Arts The United States Conference of Mayors The American Architectural Foundation Hosted by: School of Architecture Northeastern University

Participants Mayors The Honorable Kimberley Driscoll

The Honorable James E. Harrington

Salem, MA

Brockton, MA

The Honorable Allan W. Fung

The Honorable Christopher C. Louras

Cranston, RI

Rutland, VT

The Honorable Laurent F. Gilbert

The Honorable Richard A. Moccia

Lewiston, ME

Norwalk, CT

The Honorable Wayne J. Hall, Sr. Hempstead, NY

Resource Team Judith K. De Jong

Jason Schrieber, AICP, Principal

University of Illinois at Chicago

Nelson\Nygaard

James Arthur Jemison

Emily Talen, Ph.D., AICP

GLC Development Resources LLC

Tim Love AIA, LEED AP, Principal

School of Geographical Sciences and Urban School of Sustainability Planning Arizona State University

Northeastern University School of Architecture Utile, Inc.

Perry P. J. Yang, Ph.D.

Alan Plattus Yale School of Architecture

City and Regional Planning + Architecture Program, College of Architecture Georgia Institute of Technology

MICD Sponsors Ronald Bogle

Rocco Landesman

President & CEO American Architectural Foundation Washington, District of Columbia

Chairman National Endowment for the Arts Washington, District of Columbia

Tom Cochran

Tom McClimon

Executive Director & CEO United States Conference of Mayors Washington, District of Columbia

Managing Director United States Conference of Mayors Washington, District of Columbia

Maurice Cox Director of Design National Endowment for the Arts Washington, District of Columbia

MICD Staff Story K. Bellows

Nicholas Foster

Director Washington, District of Columbia

Program Manager Washington, District of Columbia

Northeastern University Team George Thrush, FAIA

Daniel Hewett

Professor & Director, School of Architecture

Visiting Assistant Professor, School of Architecture

Elizabeth Christoforetti

Danielle Walquist

Lecturer, School of Architecture

Office Manager, School of Architecture

Christina Crawford Lecturer, School of Architecture

Rutland



Norwalk

  Hempstead

   

Lewiston Salem Brockton Cranston

Contents MICD Northeast Conference Introduction

1

Brockton, Massachusetts

5

Cranston, Rhode Island

9

Hempstead, New York

13

Lewiston, Maine

17

Norwalk, Connecticut

21

Rutland, Vermont

25

Salem, Massachusetts

29

George Thrush, Professor and Director, School of Architecture The Honorable James E. Harrington The Honorable Allan W. Fung

The Honorable Wayne J. Hall, Sr.

The Honorable Laurent F. Gil bert

The Honorable Richard A. Moccia

The Honorable Christopher C. Louras The Honorable Kimberley Driscoll

MICD Northeast Conference Introduction Design not only beautifies our cities, but also coordinates, aggregates, and clarifies the individual acts of residents, investors, and public officials into a more coherent whole. It renders what we all do every day more meaningful and legible. Cities become known for the identities that designers have enhanced. Chicago has its lakefront, New York its skyline, and San Francisco its dramatically inclined streets and sidewalks. And some of the nation’s most beautiful cities owe a great deal to the strong hand of a single visionary designer. Pierre L’Enfant, William Penn, and Daniel Burnham each played an enormous role in the shaping of Washington, DC, Philadelphia, and Chicago.

But most cities emerged, not from a single imagination, but from a relentlessly changing mix of tastes, circumstances, and commercial activity to arrive at the form and character they take today. There were decisions about land use, street width and orientation, building heights, and public amenities that had to be made over many years. And people made them. Sometimes these choices were made with the help of professional designers, but often without them.

It is the recognition that design can help all cities, large and small, which animates the Mayors’ Institute on City Design. A collaboration between the national Endowment for the Arts, The American Architecture Foundation, and the United States Conference of Mayors, the Mayors’ Institute on City Design has worked with countless mayors from cities all over the United States in its twenty-five year history.

The goal is to bring a multi-disciplinary team of design experts together with the mayors themselves, to focus on a specific urban challenge or opportunity. The process is very interactive with the mayors and the designers working together on each city over the course of two days. And the result is often a much clearer plan of action for each mayor to take back to his or her city, where they can begin the implementation process with greater confidence of both the short and long-term consequences of their plan.

The School of Architecture at Northeastern University is particularly well suited to host such a group. Our school is focused to an unusual degree on bringing to bear the critical thinking and innovation of the academy to the practical problems of the contemporary city.

1

MICD Northeast: October 7-9, 2009

In addition to welcoming the mayors of Cranston, RI, Norwalk, CT, Lewiston, ME, Rutland, VT, Hempstead, NY, Brockton, MA, and Salem, MA, the School of Architecture is hosting a major conference on Infrastructure and the Future, and another on a new way of looking at prefabricated housing, from a regional economic perspective. Our experience with the mayors will be very helpful to us, and we look forward to working with some of them again on projects and research that can benefit the entire region.

Our cities and metropolitan regions have never been in greater need of design. While the development of small towns and cities might once have occurred naturally in the Northeastern United States, evolving slowly along with incremental developments in new technology and transportation, it now happens at breakneck speed. And we are growing ever more aware of the consequences of unfettered and thoughtless growth. The Mayors’ Institute on City Design is a meaningful step toward more thoughtful and careful urban development. But it is only a first step. Here at Northeastern University, we will look forward to working with this organization and others to help ensure a more thoughtful, intelligent, and well designed future.

George Thrush, FAIA Professor and Director, School of Architecture

Conference Photos (from left): Panelist Alan Plattus, Panelists Emily Talen and James Arthur Jemison, Mayor Wayne J. Hall, Sr.

Boston, Massachusetts

2

Welcome Dinner, Brasserie Jo Restaurant

3

MICD Northeast: October 7-9, 2009

MICD Conference Photos

Boston, Massachusetts

4

Brockton, Massachusetts The Honorable James E. Harrington Retain and reinforce the Brockton city grid to enhance the City’s downtown urban continuity. Link the downtown core to pre-existing assets such as the Brockton train station to grow the community as an urbane commuter city.

In 2007, Brockton adopted smart growth zoning for five districts allowing for higher-density housing and mixed-used development as-of-right. Although Brockton has a commuter rail station adjacent to the downtown that brings commuters into the center of Boston within 20-30 minutes, the City has had difficulty drawing public sector development to the downtown.

In addition, there is a substantial amount of public land in the downtown, and a vast amount of surface parking. The City wishes to spur downtown development through its own planning initiative on two municipal sites. Mayor Harrington presented the panel with a concept plan that includes a four story residential or mixed-use building with structured parking. In the schemes the Mayor presented, Franklin Street would effectively become a dead-end midblock condition.

The panel had two immediate responses to the City’s plan. First, they strongly recommended retaining the existing City grid—not extinguishing Franklin Street—as the small block size and continuity of the system of streets is one of the downtown’s greatest assets. A development precedent in which small parcels are maintained will allow for developers of varying

1

5

MICD Northeast: October 7-9, 2009

2

3

sizes to buy and invest in the downtown; a mega-block approach, as is being proposed, will only serve to devastate the remaining fabric. Second, the panel was curious to know more about the connectivity of the train station to Main Street and the downtown core. When it was determined that no easy pedestrian connection was available (except over the vehicular drop off, under an overpass, and after barren one-block walk to Main Street), the group began to engage the larger issue of how to make Brockton a more attractive, convenient and urbane commuter City through the design of a modest, but more choreographed, entry to the City from the train.

The focus of the downtown revitalization should be the establishment of an immediate connection to the downtown fabric from the commuter rail. A modestly-sized building that holds nothing more than simple services (ticketing and waiting) could be placed on the end of the Petronelli Way axis to provide both commuters and visitors to the City a welcoming entry into the downtown. “Station Square�, an open space in front of this station, would effectively be the City’s welcome mat. Small support services (dry cleaner, coffee shop) should be encouraged in the small buildings that surround this square, establishing the streetscape corridor that would lead along Petronelli Way to Main Street. Specific form-based guidelines should be established to ensure that development along Petronelli Way is consistent with a pedestrian-friendly, dense streetscape that would form a primary artery into the downtown core (Main Street). A consistent streetscape design could be could be initiated here, and could spread to the additional surrounding streets as spurred by particular develop-

4

1. Parking lots like the one in this image currently compose much of the central site area.

2. Site photo from Franklin Street site edge looking west toward Main Street.

3. Site photo from Franklin Street looking east toward the Brockton transit station.

4. Aerial view of site looking north.

Boston, Massachusetts

6

1

7

MICD Northeast: October 7-9, 2009

ments. A mini-master plan for this area could help to establish overall goals and guidelines for moving forward.

Additional recommendations by the panel included the following: • First define and establish the “A” street (Petronelli Way); you own a number of adjacent properties and can drive the vision of this street, which will set the streetscape and development standards.

• Make the infrastructural improvements, and then go looking for a development partner.

• A downtown master plan should be developed to articulates spatial criteria for the type of place you envision. The first move is critical, and sets the standard for future developments; you need to have a vision that can be conveyed to a developer.

• Perhaps you could entice a mission driven developer, such as a Wynn, Trinity or Keen, to start the process.

• It could be marketed as a Station Landing (Medford), but 20% less expensive.

Fundamentally it’s a branding exercise. Start with a bite-sized number of units (75150) to get the ball rolling.

• Eliminate all parking requirements for the short term to entice developers to build downtown. This will save approximately $20,000 / unit.

• Maybe look into establishing a DIF or TIF to finance the public realm improvements?

• A study should be undertaken which establishes the overall absorption rate for housing.

2

1. Sketch of Brockton site recommendations produced during the MICD conference (Maurice Cox). Underlay: Bing Maps image.

2. Aerial view of the site showing its proximity to the Brockton rail station.

Boston, Massachusetts

8

Cranston, Rhode Island The Honorable Allan W. Fung Begin development considerations in the northern end of the site by Park Avenue, capitalizing on the preexisting cross-site link to locate the Northeast Rail Corridor station as a new urban center. A well designed rail station will be a catalyst for new growth and should be constructed before all other planning takes place.

Cranston is an immediate southern neighbor to Providence, RI, and is a sizable city, with a population of 83,000 residents.

The focus of the Mayor’s talk was on the Elmwood / Wellington Industrial Corridor, a two-block-wide strip of neighborhood that runs in the north-south direction; the western border is I-95, and the Northeast Rail Corridor runs almost directly through the center. This mixed-use neighborhood is quite isolated. In fact there is just one east-west cross street (Laurens Ave.) that connects over I-95 to the more residential fabric to the west. Amtrak owns the right-of-way for the rail bed, and there is hope that somewhere within this area a North East Corridor Rail stop—a key access point between Providence and TF Green Airport—will be located here. Although the make up of this neighborhood is very mixed, the current zoning is largely MZ, or heavy industrial. The City is interested in uncovering ways to re-think this neighborhood, given the possible rail stop, and to overcome the “hodgepodge” look and feel of the streets and buildings. A master plan to look at TOD potential of the site is the first item on the City’s agenda.

Mayor Fung at the MICD Conference.

9

MICD Northeast: October 7-9, 2009

The group felt that the scope area actually has an interesting mix of uses and seems to be surprisingly thriving despite its isolation. That said, “just because an area has a dotted line around it doesn’t mean it’s a site”. It is incredibly long, and would benefit, from a planning perspective, from being broken into two or three more modest chunks. The first impression was that the light industrial uses on these sites might continue to be important to the continued vibrancy of this area.

It would be a mistake to displace them wholly, as the City does need to have at least some area set aside for precisely these types of uses. The idea of starting with a master plan was supported by the group. Instead of starting at the middle of this area, however, it was suggested that the focus be placed first on the far northern end of the site—specifically on Park Avenue, the northernmost east-

west crossing and already a decently successful commercial corridor. To capitalize on this already-established corridor that bridges the tracks, perhaps the rail stop should be placed there.

The general consensus was that the City should be ahead of the curve in choosing a rail stop first, before a master plan is even undertaken. The Park Street / Northeast Rail Corridor intersection seems a perfect location for a stop, and a more “low-key” option that would not require additional new bridging of the tracks. In this scenario, the City might want to invest in widening the bridge, to allow for a one-building-thick retail-focused fabric to be built up on either side of Park Street (effectively air-rights development subsidized by the City).

Ultimately, the highest value project the City could undertake would be to design and construct a good rail station to draw people; if that’s done, the development will come.

Additional recommendations by the panel included the following: • The real meaning of this project lies in the creation of a new center where none exists currently.

• Get rid of the yellow outline on the area—the site should be thought of as nodes instead of a discrete project site.

• Commission a conceptual design for

Aerial view of the key transit corridors composing the Cranston site.

Boston, Massachusetts

10

Sketch of Cranston site recommendations produced during the MICD conference (Tim Love). Underlay: Google Earth image.

11

MICD Northeast: October 7-9, 2009

the rail station first, and then do a master plan. • Up-zone the key intersection of Park and Elmwood. • Business owners should be engaged at the start of the project. • Consider how the station and Park Street can be utilized to connect Cranston to Roger Williams Park to the east. Reinforce the idea that it is just 2 blocks to the park on the train from Providence.

3

1

2

1. Site diagram of panel recommendation strategy (Alan Plattus).

2. I-95 bounds the Cranston site along its western edge.

3. Site outline and regional transportation map (provided by the city of Cranston).

Boston, Massachusetts

12

Hempstead, New York The Honorable Wayne J. Hall, Sr. A new RFP and subsequent masterplan need to grow directly from the interests of the administration and population. With a clear urban strategy in place, phased transit-oriented development along Main Street will follow.

The Village of Hempstead presented the panel with a set of issues surrounding the deteriorating state of the downtown area. With excellent public transportation accommodations already in place, including a regional commuter rail terminus and large regional bus station, the village is struggling to leverage these transit amenities to attract a vibrant mixed-income residential Main Street. The Mayor has recently received approval from his Board of Aldermen for his plan to focus redevelopment energy on a key area of Main Street. This effort is currently complicated by the fact that a general vision for downtown development has been proposed by a developer in the form of a birds-eye view of a single, consolidated high-rise development - an image that does not suit the incremental lower-rise plans that the Mayor is seeking.

The panel agreed that the expression of Hempstead’s future development may in fact be quite different from what has been presented by developers and planners in the proposed birds-eye view (the current vision image should not be associated with the future Hempstead master plan). Instead, a new image needs to be created for public circulation that has a direct correlation with the desires of the administration and population.

A new RFP should emerge directly from the interests of the citizens. In this way, an active rather than reactive position will be established for the Mayors office surrounding development proposals and issues associated with a future master plan. With a clear urban strategy and business plan in place, developers and businesses will be more likely to show interest in the future downtown of Hempstead.

13

MICD Northeast: October 7-9, 2009

Mayor Hall at the MICD Conference.

Breaking development into smaller, digestible pieces will be essential for a phased strategy for village growth, as will focused attention on transit-oriented development around the train and bus stations. Given the commercial nature of Main Street, a simple building block type that supports retail and low rise density would be ideal in that it will allow for better management of parking and can be perceived as dense and vibrant. Four to five story buildings are both less expensive and more effective for creating a compact downtown with a feeling of critical mass. Incremental development of 70-100 unit parcels was suggested as ideal for the market and desirable for potential developers.

Sketch of future development along Main Street (Tim Love).

Additional recommendations by the panel included the following: • Establish a public realm plan with clear priorities and 2-3 great residential developments that will spur growth. • The area surrounding the transit hub should look and feel busy and should encourage pedestrian traffic. A dynamic pedestrian link must be made between the train station and Main Street. • The first phase of the master plan may be to encourage development around a new parking area for the station, encouraging commuters to walk through a thoughtfully developed retail zone for at least a block.. The next phase - a more permanent move - may be to relocate

Boston, Massachusetts

14

t e e r t S N MAI in Ma T

EE STR

1

15

MICD Northeast: October 7-9, 2009

parking across Main Street. This relocated parking could serve retail development, housing and commuter parking.

• A transit-oriented development by the train should capitalize on the non-profit institutions already located in the area.

An economy could grow around an extension of local universities or other organizations into the fabric of the downtown.

• As the market comes back, you want to have a plan and example of the future in place – such a precedent will be essential for continued growth. Start with principles guiding the growth of an animated ground floor and residential space above.

• Clearly spell out key codes for future development. For instance: Retail must be at ground level, parking must be hidden, quality materials must be used, etc.

2

3

4

1. Hempstead site recommendations produced during the MICD conference (Tim Love and Maurice Cox). Underlay: Bing Maps image.

2. The Hempstead bus station, located one block to the east of Main Street.

3. Surface parking fills much of the development corridor.

4. A languishing lot along Main Street.

Boston, Massachusetts

16

Lewiston, Maine The Honorable Laurent F. Gilbert A broader vision and legacy plan for downtown Lewiston should extend beyond the boundaries of the current site to engage public infrastructure and support future development. Attention must be paid to excellent landscape planning and the creation of public recreational resources.

Located along the Androscoggin River, the city of Lewiston grew to accommodate a thriving 19th and early 20th century textile and shoe manufacturing center. The industry evaporated toward the end of the 20th century, leaving Lewiston to grapple with the re-use and reinvigoration of the remnants of its past including empty industrial building stock, balloon framed tenement housing that has fallen into disrepair, and an underutilized canal system and urban waterfront. The city would like to nurture its evolving post-industrial cultural economy, attracting young people through riverfront activity and development, and capitalizing on its downtown waterfront as a recreational asset and cultural amenity. The city perceives the area of Riverfront Island as some of the city’s most valuable real estate and a catalyst for future growth with the greatest potential for immediate development. As such, Mayor Gilbert posed a series of questions to the panel regarding the activation of this area given the challenges of largely blighted urban border conditions and surrounding neighborhoods that host the two poorest census tracts in Maine.

Instead of focusing exclusively on the development of Riverfront Island area, the panel recommended that the city think seriously about a coherent, visual plan for the city that incorporates a broader vision for the future planning of the downtown area. Such a strategic development plan should set up public infrastructure to support future private development and could incorporate a street grid, parking plan, and a scheme for connecting key urban elements on both sides of the canal through the grid. This vision could be an excellent deliverable for the mayor, a legacy plan from his tenure in office.

The canal development and the connection between the downtown area and the river were sited by the panel as key to establishing an excellent framework for future growth and urban health. In order to extend the urban grid across the canal, it would be advantageous to develop a public walkway and retail space on the north border of the canal; ideally, the canal could be thought of as a civic promenade of sorts. To support this vision, an armature of development could grow around the refurbishment of pre-existing amenities and the Main Street corridor, connecting to the canal. In order to attract new

17

MICD Northeast: October 7-9, 2009

resources, a set of canal crossings should also be planned to link the new grid south of the canal with the grid of the current downtown area.

After a discussion on short term development strategies and landscape considerations for the riverfront island, the panel agreed that every land parcel that cannot be immediately filled could become green parcels or meadows. A good water management plan should be established with a healthy awareness of the ecology of the river as compared to that of the

2

1

1. Aerial view of the Lewiston site, including the Bates Mill.

2. Surrounding Lewiston site context.

Boston, Massachusetts

18

1

2

canal system. The recreational system needs to be thought of as more than a string of open spaces, and the landscape strategy deserves close attention to make sure that the park system is clearly understood and planned. It was suggested that state or federal money may in fact be available for green development by leveraging the ecology of the area. Finally, the panel definitively agreed that the city should not move forward to develop the River Island area with either a conference center or casino. On the current sites projected for hotel development, a plan should be made for public rather than private development. This key area of the city should be given to the public for recreational or cultural use.

19

MICD Northeast: October 7-9, 2009

3

1. Sketch of Lewiston site recommendations produced during the MICD conference. Underlay: Site plan provided by the city of Lewiston.

2. Mayor Gilbert at the MICD conference.

3. Image of the Bates Mill as it currently sits on the site.

Additional recommendations included the following: • Look to the institutions that already exist in the city for future partnership and development and utilize available funding sources to bring revenue onto the island.

• Sell the image of the canal and housing + the character of the old mill town as marketing for a young residential lifestyle.

• Pay attention to workforce housing in little Canada area, ensuring that this residential fabric is retained.

• The entire dynamic of the Lewiston downtown area must be understood and carefully planned before the Bates Mill #5 development begins.

• The Buenos Aires park development in Puerto Madero may be a useful precedent for the River Island development.

• The panel agreed unanimously on the problematic nature of Maine Rail extension that is projected to run directly through the river island site, suggesting that the city should work hard to stop such a plan.

• An infrastructure plan needs to be overlaid atop the island to include both a grid/infrastructural scheme and a parcel plan.

Determining the right sized parcel for appropriate types of development will be essential.

Boston, Massachusetts

20

Norwalk, Connecticut The Honorable Richard A. Moccia The aquarium must be engaged in a complementary relationship with the city; it must be re-envisioned as a porous connector between downtown and Norwalk’s under utilized waterfront amenity.

Norwalk is a city that has a host of benefits, including its proximity to Manhattan (via I-95 and Metro North), great turnof-the-century buildings in the SoNo (South Norwalk) area of downtown, and a celebrated aquarium. The aquarium itself is the third largest tourist draw in the state of Connecticut, with an annual 500,000 visitors. The Maritime Aquarium is both a great asset to, and challenge for, the City. While remarkable numbers of visitors are brought to the City because of it, the complex itself is planned such that it turns its back on the downtown, and as yet in no way contributes to a more urbane, connected condition. There appears to be a general ambivalence on the part of the Aquarium to its built context and even to the water: the entrance is at the very back of the site (away from the downtown) and the well-used and nicely reconstructed downtown Riverwalk is conspicuously discontinued in front of the Aquarium. The primary question the Mayor posed to the panel was: how to do we draw these aquarium visitors to SoNo, to shop and eat in the downtown, and how do we encourage the Aquarium to participate in a broader vision? Is the answer to improve the streetscape under the North Water Street railroad trestle and to make a better pedestrian experience and connection to SoNo? The panel immediately suggested that the answer was not in streetscape improvement, but rather in aggressive engagement with the Aquarium to make them aware that a complementary relationship to the context is crucial to everyone’s success. First, the Aquarium needs to become a more porous complex, allowing at the very least for an entrance along North Water Street, and ideally a public pass-through to the river. Perhaps the entire problem could be re-conceived as a project to reconnect the downtown and aquarium to the waterfront through a series of important destinations along the river. In order to achieve this, the important northern corners of Washington and North Water Street have to be carefully designed as gateways to this new string of events. The municipal lot on the northeast corner and the empty northwestern corner both provide opportunities to reconfigure this key intersection.

The City should undertake a simple master planning exercise for this immediate area, to tease out the key opportunities and issues in play. The final deliverable would be a clear graphic that shows the ground floor plans of all of the buildings and

21

MICD Northeast: October 7-9, 2009

the primary public spaces, focusing on connectivity across parcels toward the river. The river should literally take up half the drawing, to change the overall focus of downtown perception toward the waterside amenity. Many recommendations should emerge from this plan to suggest better physical and cultural engagement on the part of the Aquarium. Primary among the physical recommendations will be to re-locate the entrance of the complex to the end of Marshall Street (on North Water Street), and even suggest a public short cut through the building past the gift shop and out to the re-located restaurant (now publicly accessible) and the river. In moving the entrance, the Aquarium could perhaps take some of its

Notated plan sketch of site recommendations (Alan Plattus)

Boston, Massachusetts

22

2

3

1

23

MICD Northeast: October 7-9, 2009

1. Sketch of Norwalk site recommendations produced during the MICD conference (Alan Plattus). Underlay: Site plan provided by the city of Norwalk.

2. Mayor Moccia at the MICD conference.

3. Norwalk site photo from State Route 136.

2 1

1. Notated sectional site suggestions (Tim Love).

2. Site photo of the North Water Street rail bridge and underpass.

“back-of-house” program that currently fronts the river, and move it to the north of the building, freeing up the riverfront to connect to the Riverwalk system. Then, there would be three primary access points to the river and the Riverwalk: from the end of Washington Street (the current island shuttle launch), at the end of Marshall Street (through the Aquarium), and at the end of Ann Street (at the new residential).

Additional recommendations by the panel included the following: • The Board of the Aquarium should be immediately engaged at the start of the master plan process.

• The master plan should be marketed as a common document, shared by the City and the Aquarium.

• What if the City offered to buy the right-of-way through the Aquarium? Would that change the conversation?

• Downplay the streets and focus the plan on the waterfront itself, allowing the street to become the service-oriented “back.”

• Perhaps the Aquarium should put its restaurant on the water.

• The northeast corner of Washington / North Water Street could still hold some municipal parking, but there should be something there to reinforce the corner and act as gateway.

• The northwest corner of Washington / N. Water Street should turn the corner to connect Water Street to SoNo proper, effectively extending the energy and fabric of SoNo toward the Aquarium.

• Perhaps make North Water Street one-way under the railway trestle to allow for wider sidewalks.

• Could the wastewater treatment plant be leveraged as an educational program that ties in aquarium education and the environment? Could you work this angle for funding?

Boston, Massachusetts

24

Rutland, Vermont The Honorable Christopher C. Louras Rutland development plans need to be redirected from a focus on the mid-block alley condition toward the planning of a downtown civic anchor zone along an extension of Center Street. The Rutland train station should be the new terminus for Center Street as it extends across Merchants Row to incorporate a year-round public farmers market.

Mayor Louras addressed the panel on a very specific set of issues surrounding the development and activation of an underutilized alley space in the center of a downtown block in Rutland. Built as an event space in the 1970s, the alley is languishing due to poor construction, winter weather and lack of use. The city undertook an RFP process to choose a conceptual design team. Five proposals were submitted and a scheme has been chosen to transform the alley into a function event space. However, despite the new plan to develop the alley, the city remains unsure about potential merits of the transformation.

After a brief period of questions and discussion on the re-engagement of the alley as a plaza, the panel came to the conclusion that such a mid-block condition will be unlikely to succeed given its location. Similar plans that have worked in the past rely on the need for overflow space for a crowded urban area or the creation of a clear and convenient shortcut between two key and well-trafficked points of interest.

While the Rutland downtown is a thriving urban space, it can rely upon neither of the above conditions to enliven the interior alley condition. In fact, the activation of the alley space may in fact detract from rather than enhance the downtown.

The panel thus suggested the transformation of the hardscape alley into a soft, green space and a redirected focus for the development of Rutland’s downtown.

Current image of Rutland’s alley condition.

25

MICD Northeast: October 7-9, 2009

Agenda items for improving the downtown should move out of the alley and into the downtown, instead concentrating upon Center Street as the driver of downtown growth and connection. Center Street could leverage the train station as

Sketch of the extension of Center Street as lined with a year round market and terminating at the train station (Tim Love).

a terminus for Center Street as it extends across Merchants Row. A two sided liner building could cap the extension of Center Street to the north of the Walmart and along Merchants Row. This new civic anchor area could take the form of a year-round farmers market, building upon the already existing farmers market, handling entrances from multiple directions and becoming an amenity the citizens of Rutland and a boon for the business interests of Walmart.

Boston, Massachusetts

26

Sketch of Rutland site recommendations produced during the MICD conference (Maurice Cox).

Underlay: Downtown site plan context provided by the city of Rutland.

27

MICD Northeast: October 7-9, 2009

Additional recommendations by the panel included the following: • “Depot Park” needs to become linear, connecting Center Street to the station.

• Development must appeal directly to Walmart – sell them on their garden center as an integral part of an ecological development leading to Center Street.

• The completion of the downtown city blocks will be key to the creation of an excellent civic space.

• The liner block directly to the north of Walmart needs to be very transparent, almost like a glazed winter garden.

• The alley area could become an ecological demonstration area akin to Chicago’s green alleys or a garden space that is open to the building owners with minimal public access. The latter could become a visual amenity privately managed by the store owners.

2

1

3

4

1. Photo of the current center-block alley condition.

2. A sketch for the new and softer landscapaed mid-block alley condition (Tim Love).

3. - 4. A pair of urban strategy sketches for future Center Street development zone (Maurice Cox).

Boston, Massachusetts

28

Salem, Massachusetts The Honorable Kimberley Driscoll Integrate the Essex Street pedestrian mall into the community through increased visibility and public access, linking the mall to the already walkable downtown Salem street network. A larger vision for cultural connectivity should dovetail with a new transit strategy to develop Essex Street into a woonerf-like condition.

Salem is currently struggling with the problem of a largely inactive pedestrian mall along Essex Street. Mayor Driscoll thus presented the panel with the challenge of enlivening the downtown thoroughfare and posed the question of whether to open the mall to vehicular traffic. The center of downtown activity has gradually dispersed from Essex Street to the surrounding Washington, Derby, and New Derby Streets since the 1970s, when the Essex Street Pedestrian Mall served as a one of Salem’s main commercial and vehicular streets. Adding to the complexity of the issue, the Halloween season in Salem sees a vibrant Essex Street pedestrian culture through Halloween related shops and seasonal events, but the pedestrian way and its retail tenants see little regular activity for the remaining months of the year.

The general recommendations of the panel focused upon the need for increased visibility, public access and integration into the rest of the community. Coupled with the need for better maintenance and a cosmetic renovation, these issues were sited as the key challenges to the reinvigoration of Essex Street. As the vision process moves forward, it was suggested that

1

29

MICD Northeast: October 7-9, 2009

2

3

the context for planning should extend well beyond the 4-block area of the pedestrian mall to take advantage of corollary opportunities in the surrounding community. There should be a broader and more comprehensive plan of action for the downtown rather than a narrow and specific project-by-project outlook for future development.

The panel suggested that an urban walking route through the surrounding 8-block area could be planned to incorporate Essex Street and re-imagine the programming of a specific and continuous path through the downtown, closely examining adjacencies and the cultural functions of nearby spaces. Such a plan would take advantage of the walkable street network that already exists in Salem and could begin to define the identities of the surrounding streets in different ways. Essex Street could become a seed for the proliferation of a new and dynamic total urban network scheme extending through Salem.

A transit oriented discussion dovetailed into the above suggestions, concluding that a reorganization and clear management of the transit moving through the area will be essential to the success of a future downtown surrounding Essex Street. A two-tiered strategy involving the development of a woonerf along Essex Street, in tandem with a larger vision for cultural connections and street identities, will create a solid base for this reorganization. In fact, a woonerf-like condition already exists along Essex Street with the coexistence of vehicles, pedestrians and landscape. This character could be enhanced and manipulated to create a street that wouldn’t overtake the atmosphere of the sidewalk retail and restaurant space but could

4

5

1. - 3. Contemporary images of a closed, pedestrian Essex Street.

4. - 5. Early 20th century images of Essex Street open to vehicular transit.

Boston, Massachusetts

30

add to its vibrancy though the availability of well-planned consumer street parking. The management of pedestrian and car traffic should be dealt with in smaller sections, making it less comfortable for cars, yet allowing for access. The city should take advantage of the fact that the street varies in width for traffic control and the management of transit and pedestrian flows. Very slow traffic could be allowed and the pedestrian mall feel could still be retained. During festivals or other events, it will be easy enough to temporarily close the street off to car traffic.

Additional recommendations included the following: • Regularizing streets will serve to minimize problems of night time vacancy.

• It may be useful to look at successful streets such as State Street in Santa Barbara as precedents.

• Salem State could be solicited to occupy the area to grown and inject instant activity through new program.

Sketch of Salem site recommendations produced during the MICD conference (Maurice Cox). Underlay: Site plan of Essex Street context provided by the city of Salem.

31

MICD Northeast: October 7-9, 2009

• Allow for a series of attractions along the pedestrian mall – cultural and otherwise. Right now, the Peabody Essex Museum is the only major year-round, day-to-day attraction. Others are event-based.

• The parking lot and mall are key to the quality of Essex Street – they make up 25% of the surface area on the north side.

Could a major retrofit of this area increase the value of this asset?

• The current location of the garage might be pushed back to the surface parking lot to the north and the current garage may be re-used as a valuable investment site.

• An interim strategy is needed for the parking lot and Peabody Essex Museum area because the level of economic input for more retail does not currently exist in the community.

• A performing arts center may be a good option for future program at the mall end of Essex Street if it could be tucked under the parking garage at the ground level.

Sketch of the Peabody Essex Museum sphere of influence in the Salem pedestrian mall (Tim Love).

Boston, Massachusetts

32