Stefanos Polyzoides addressing community at 1st planning meeting. photo by Joe Moore
So did you attend? What were your thoughts and observations?
I also will have a synopsis for a community member on the community advisory committee. So stay tuned.
As a side note, I went to Moule & Polyzoides website just now and saw this new realease with a pretty cool transformation of a street-scape in Lancaster.
-
-
-
UPDATE 3/12/2010
We’ve compiled the slides below that Mr. Polyzoides presented at the meeting. Also you can download an mp3 of the audio here. A big thanks to KFSR for the audio and photo, to Socient for helping convert the slides.
-
- Stefanos Polyzoides addressing community at 1st meeting
Mr. Polyzoides presentation was rushed. Seems like they are aiming for a holistic approach, which is cool. Collaboration was stressed, apparently the “charrette” process will be key to that. First time I have heard that term… interesting you’re in training for that coincidentally. You’ll have to share your new knowledge over a beer sometime soon. With that in mind, I am not a big fan of rule by committee. However, a project like this with such diverse requirements, a collective solution certainly seems necessary.
“You can please all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot please all the people all the time.”
mS
I thought the meeting was very good and helpful, and I don’t live or work in the Fulton Corridor. The architects seem very knowledgeable and aware of what the city of Fresno really needs and has been lacking for the past 50 or 60 years–more unity in an urban environment, rather than the urban sprawl we’ve got now. The one thing I was very angry to hear was that there is an application out for the Fulton Mall to be on the National Register of Historic Places. I am an archaeologist and an historic preservationist and I feel integrity of a place is what should deem a property worthy of the Register, and I’m sorry but the Fulton Mall has no integrity whatsoever. I don’t mean to squander anyone’s good memories of the place, but I’ve been alive and living in Fresno since 1978 and I have always found it an eyesore. So I will be at the Historic Preservation meeting in April to vote down a historic property. Please join me so we can help the Fulton Corridor Specific Plan have a better chance to work. Thank you.
Julie, I’m curious to hear your comments about the mall’s integrity. Yes, integrity of a resource is an important factor. In the case of a historic building, if it’s been added on to, stucco wrapped, windows changed out, etc, the integrity of the property suffers, and may mean that it is not eligible for listing.
In the case of the Fulton Mall, the application cites the mall as having a high degree of integrity, in that it largely has not been altered or modified and its character defining features remain intact.
Also, FYI – the application for the mall does not include the buildings, just the pedestrian space itself.
Fresno is lucky that the Fulton mall has survived this long with out being altered. Julie i think your opinion is misguided and advise you to learn more about the mall and spend more time there, then I think you would recognize the “integrity” there.
I attended both meetings. It’s a good start. There is a feeling that some real change is in the wind as opposed to decades of just talking. My background is transportation not land use. It occurs to me that for every person connected with transportation matters there are 50 people connected with land use. I’m personally trying get more into the land use aspects. However, I’d recommend that those connected with land use issues pay more attention to the transportation element.
Someone mentioned it’s important have a sense of how DT Fresno evolved to it’s present state. Nothing looms larger than the advent of the auto and how the DT made its adjustments over the decades. Equally important is to be aware of the changes coming to transportation options in the future.
There has been a perpetual divide on how to deal with cars – those who want to make the DT more auto accommodating and those that want to emphasize walking. The issue of what to do with Fulton Street is a prime example.
When one considers that close to 50% of the DT land use is devoted to streets, parking, rail, warehouses, etc. it’s clear that transportation has to be a major consideration. My sense is that transportation although not neglected is not high enough on the agenda. I think this is illustrated by the relatively weak priority given to the likely impact on overall land use in the DT of the planned high speed train station.
I don’t think the they’re shortchanging transportation or HSR in the process, at least from what I’ve heard. But instead, I think the focus with this plan is that we can’t wait for HSR to be the next “silver bullet” to “save” downtown. There is a lot of work that needs to get done now. No one knows how long it will be before the HSR system is fully operational, and give that the state is on the brink of bankruptcy now, with no solution in sight, I don’t think putting all of our eggs in the HSR basket is the right move. That said, station planning and integrating it into the existing downtown infrastructure, and land use around the station is a very important part of this project, or at least it was at the RFQ stage last year.
Is there an easier way to view the slides, like a PDF download? The image format isnt working well for me at all
The unanimous vote against placing the Fulton mall on the historic register is very disappointing and gives me an ominous vibe about it’s future, can Joe Moore explain the reasoning behind his vote please.
Yes, I would be happy to explain my views. First, the Fresno HPC does not have the authority to list the mall on the National Register, only the State HRC and the keeper of the register have that authority. Second, we found the mall to meet the eligibility criteria for a historic resource on the National Register. I think that is the most important thing to come out of the meeting since that is actually the protocol spelled out in the 1966 Historic Preservation Act. That finding gets forwarded to the mayor, who will be the one to actually send a letter to the state HRC stating the city’s position.
Also, please know that the mall is already being afforded the same protection it would received if it were on the National Register under CEQA. The ongoing Fulton Corridor Specific Plan is treating the mall as a historic resource for the purposes of CEQA and will create an EIR that studies potential impacts to the historic resource, potential project alternatives and potential mitigation measures.
Also remember in some cases, the issue of eligibility is more important that actual designation, at least in California with the way CEQA works. This may be one of those.
As far as not listing the mall at this time, several arguments were presented. There were the property owners on the mall, who thus far are largely opposed to the NRHP listing. Another concern was that now was not the time to do this, as the entire area is in the midst of the Specific Planning process, which includes a historic resource survey. This is a community led process and some were concerned that listing the mall now would be in effect speaking out of turn. I was not totally convinced that would be the case however.
My biggest issue was the one of context. You can’t adequately address a linear resource like the Fulton Mall in isolation, which is what this particular application does. You need to also look at the larger historic context of the place and specifically the historic buildings that the mall was built to serve. The Fulton Mall is 3 dimensional, not 2 dimensional. Listing the mall, but not the buildings would be like listing Kearney Park, but not Kearney Mansion, or the ground floor of a building, but not the upper floors. The buildings on Fulton Mall are an integral part of the place. I believe that a future National Register DISTRICT exists on the mall and hope that the historic resource survey does the work necessary to bring that forward. Such a district would include the mall.
This is strange to me. If you believe that the mall should ultimately be on the historic register, why wait for some kind of district? What’s the difference? This just leaves the door open to it getting ripped out, either totally or partially(which would be just as bad).
I think eligibility means the CEQA process will be long and drawn out, and probably trigger public hearings to decide the issue- which unfortunately in Fresno’s case is a bad thing because the general public don’t know anything about the Fulton Mall and won’t come to defend it.
The Kearney Mansion analogy is not accurate here.(neither is the ground floor-upper floor) The mall was built at a different time and is aesthetically distinct from the surrounding buildings. Also, an error in your district idea is that some buildings on the mall may not be significant historic resources.
I can see how some felt it was speaking out of turn, this is a valid feeling, but I think the stakes here were worth speaking out of turn.
The real context you should have been considering:
Fresno has a history for not valuing it’s resources, I don’t think I need to provide you with any examples here, you probably know well enough. Most of our civic leaders are business people who will side with other business people, in this case the property owners, even if their reasoning on issues is illogical.(People seem to think that the mall failed because it is closed to traffic, when there is no evidence of this whatsoever – and there exists astoundingly more convincing other explanations) I don’t need to go into the design merits of the mall, but I will say that it does EVERYTHING good design is suppose to and there are no other historic structures that are as authentically “Fresno.” In your newspaper quote you said the mall has value – deciding what has value to the community and protecting it is your job on that committee. By protecting valuable assets communities express their values and it is leaders who decide to do the protecting and ultimately shape a community.
Ultimately this is a value issue and hopefully Fresno has some leaders around to make a difference on this one.
My goal here was to convince you that you and the other commissioners made a mistake and I hope that I was successful. If I was a little harsh I apologize, I very much appreciate your response. If I were you I would publicly rescind my vote, even if it’s too late to officially make a difference, a symbolic gesture can be powerful.
Your comments are welcome, though I stand by my vote. You’re dealing with multiple layers of historicity with the mall and the buildings surrounding the mall, some of which are already designated historic resources, others of which are eligible, but are not yet listed. This application pretends they don’t exist, but they are as much a part of the space as Eckbo’s work. I think it all needs to be looked at in context. I think we have something of value in the mall, but also have something of value with other historic resources which are just as “authentically Fresno” just inches away. There is a tension between these two issues that needs to be addressed, even if it cannot be fully resolved. I appreciate Eckbo’s design, and putting the mall on the register before even conducting a historic survey of the area puts the cart before the horse.
I think the mall also needs to be listed as a district due to the fee simple ownership issue. I don’t understand how a single resource can be listed with 43 different APN numbers, but the state is going to have to resolve that mess. Linear resources made up of multiple properties with multiple owners, such as canals, are traditionally treated as districts. I am satisfied for now that the finding of criteria eligibility and the treatment of the mall as a historic resource for CEQA will be sufficient, until Historic Resources Group finished their survey, and the entire document comes before the HPC for approval.
Ultimately the State HRC will make its decision. Also, I am told that even if the State HRC rejects the application due to owner opposition, it may still forward the application to the Keeper of the Register in Washington DC and could still deem it eligible. In some ways eligibility is more important than listing.
The only tension that I see that exists is this: The property owners of the mall want it gone because they think it’s hurting business. What other reason is there for such opposition? These aren’t mutually exclusive alternatives here, listing the mall doesn’t hurt other historic buildings unless you want those buildings to be on a street with car traffic.
Also – I don’t think any building on the mall is as authentic to place as the mall itself. In terms of design. Though the other historic buildings are beautiful, you can find similar ones in other cities across the state.
The other APN issue seems like a relatively minor technicality compared to the prospect of the malls destruction.
Though you may think eligibility is sufficient now, I have a hunch you’ll see why it wasn’t enough in the future. Did you read the editorial the Fresno Bee ran about the Mall? The framing of the arguments was so manipulative that I consider it bias, either consciously or unconsciously. The Mall’s chances are not too good here.
Danny, I would encourage you to express your feelings on this issue to the State Historic Resources Commission in the form of a letter, in advance of their April 30th meeting.
http://www.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=21372
Danny, Joe,
These comments are off topic. Can I create another prompt for this topic?
of course