HomeMy WebLinkAbout9/5/2017 Item 8, Schwartz
Subject:FW: Mission Plaza Hearing
From: Kenneth Schwartz \[ ]
Sent: Sunday, September 3, 2017 5:02 PM
To: Heidi Harmon < ; Rivoire, Dan <DRivoire@slocity.org>; Christianson, Carlyn
<cchristianson@slocity.org>; Gomez, Aaron <agomez@slocity.org>; Pease, Andy <apease@slocity.org>
Subject: Mission Plaza Hearing
To: San Luis Obispo Mayor Harmon and Councilmembers, Rivoire, Christianson, Gomez and Pease
From: Ken Schwartz
Subject: RRM proposal for Mission Plaza revision
Dear Mayor and Council members,
As you might suspect, Mission Plaza is rather close to my heart. Mission Plaza did not have an easy birth, but I
am pleased that over time it has become an important part of San Luis Obispo life, providing breathing room for
our Mission and congregation space in our central business district. It has been well used.
Renovations are certainly in order and modifications to the Plaza's physical conditions to bring it into
conformity with the Federal Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) are warranted. However, the specification
established by the previous City Council in seeking professorial design assistance to remedy the Plaza's current
short-comings as well as to provide a vision for the future were very, very disappointing, to say the least.
Daniel Burnham, a late nineteenth century American architect-planner once advised that we should, "Make no
little plans, for they fail to stir the magic in men's blood."
The RRM plan currently before your Council is, unfortunately, a "little plan" in too many aspects.
Sadly, I must urge you to reject this plan save for the circular plaza revision directly in front of the Mission
itself. I urge the Council to reject all of the elements proposed west of the Warden Bridge, including revisions
of the restroom area and the landscape and pavement treatment of Broad Street, between Palm Street and
Monterey Street. The footbridge proposed behind Luna Red should not be a part of this plan. If needed in the
future, it should be constructed by the businesses it would serve, and not by public funds.
Why reject?? In my opinion, the RRM proposal fails to asses (1) what needs to be done to keep downtown SLO
both economically and socially vibrant for at least the next 25 years, and (2) what role the Mission Plaza (and
its extensions) could play in that future. Also, this plan fails to generate any excitement, nor addresses any
potential economic problems that might loom in the future.
Was RRM too timid and didn't want to "rock the boat?"
I, too, am a design professional (retired), and in my experienced opinion, it is the duty of design professionals to
"rock the boat." The next few years are destined to be critical for our downtown and for retail businesses. SLO
needs a plan that will excite its citizens and visitors, as well as contribute to the economic and social well being
of SLO in the years ahead.
1
The seeds that will produce that vision of the future role of Mission Plaza, extended, and embellished have
already been planted. They are already in their infancy and soon will be flourishing. They are: The Art
Museum, The Children's Museum, The History Museum, The Little Theater, and The Old Mission's Museum
with the Mission itself. Together they constitute a new "Cultural Center" tied together with a well-considered
Mission Plaza-like landscaped circulation system.
This is the vision I ask you to consider. Without question, any future design work approvals must consider
"Mission Plaza," extended to Nipomo Street.
I do ask and urge you to carefully consider the design ideas for this area that have been developed
independently by former Councilman T. Keith Gurnee, who is himself a professional urban planner. Keith's
designs offer much to be considered, for he stepped outside of the design constraints imposed by the previous
City Council and has "rocked the boat."
I bear no ill will for RRM. They are a capable design firm. They have done better on other projects, and might
have done better with this commission had the City's solicitation for professional design services been more
expansive and futuristic in it's scope.
I urge you as City Council members to salvage and use that of RRM's proposed design that will "work" for our
future, and disregard all other aspects of the RRM proposal.
2