Tower District resident and business owners have begun gathering this week to discuss a new streetscape plan for the beloved Fresno neighborhood. The first meeting was held on Saturday and is critiqued nicely at ArcHop. A second meeting was……

Regarding the overall process, though, I disagree with your assumption that the outcomes would have been better or even different if there were more emphasis on the participants as designers as opposed to allowing the experts to frame and guide the process. After all, they are the experts. At my table, there were 3 older folks and 3 (much) younger ones. While we were all enthusiastically involved in the process, it was clear from the outset that none of us had the expertise to have applied enough intense, critical pre-study of the existing target area to have been able to effectively “re-design” the streetscape. In fact, even with guidance, some of us had trouble with the parameters of the task. The tight structure, however, helped us to navigate through the process.

With regard to the consultants coming to the table with their own ideas. Why not? They are familiar with the Tower, and I assume (in accordance with their duties as consultants) that they have studied it with some intensity. It would be difficult, I think, to filter out their experiences, training and expertise in design when actually leading a design task.

So, while I agree with much of your criticism, I don’t believe that the tight structure or the level of community participation was a hindrance to the overall process. And, while I think the consultants may very well come tonight with plans that incorporate some pre-determined ideas, I don’t necessarily view that in a negative way as long as everyone agrees that the ideas work well and represent what we want.

Michael

Thanks for all the work you do keeping our community focused on design. I see your name everywhere and know you are putting in a lot of unpaid hours for the common good.

I am one of the “usual suspects” you mentioned. I have been to countless hours of similar meetings over the past 20 years. I’m not complaining per se- I love the neighborhood like a family member, and it’s great to see people engage and get excited. Occasionally, something even gets done.

I attended the charrette on Saturday and share your concerns regarding community input- particularly that the time between meetings seems to indicate the designs were done before the charrette. I will make a cynical prediction that when the options are presented, there will be one overwhelming winner and two that are weak. We vote and bingo, instant community agreement. I still think it’s great if it’s a step that leads to real improvement of the neighborhood. Also, the Steele group seems to be a pretty experienced design team. Chances are the design will be cool anyway.

How much are they being paid?

In any case, I think the number of people who showed up, and the countless others who post and follow on sites like this one, give us all something to be proud of and optimistic about.

The main core of Tower will go on esisting as is. But by extending that vibrancy, more businesses will locate in Tower, existing businesses will improve. Tower then could have a stronger connection/entry from major corridors like Palm and Blackstone.

Belmont is in need of major attention. Maybe archop park and the City’s new focus on the Lowell neighborhood can meet that need.