UPDATE: 4:30 4/30/2010
Patrick Kolasinski has posted his review of the SHRC meeting.
The nomination is an interesting one, because (unlike most historic resources), the mall is a) less than 50 years old, b) subject to an unusual ownership situation, and c) incredibly controversial. The mall was built in 1964 as part of an attempt to revitalize Fresno’s then-declining downtown. It was apparently the first project of its kind in California, and served as a guide for later projects such as Santa Monica’s 3rd Street Promenade, Sacramento’s K Street, and Modesto’s 10th Street Place.
…
This is a good spot for a quick note here about the role of the SHRC in the nomination process. The SHRC does not actually list things on the National Register. That job falls to the Keeper of the National Register (usually called just “the Keeper”), who works for the National Parks Service. Instead, the SHRC reviews nominations to determine whether the nominated resources meet the criteria for listing on the National Register. If the SHRC determines that the resource does meet the criteria, it makes a finding of eligibility and passes the whole thing on to the Keeper. Usually, the SHRC also sends along a recommendation that the property be listed, but not always: the SHRC’s primary job in the process is to serve as a “gatekeeper” so that the Keeper isn’t flooded with tons of unworthy nominations.
…
The objections raised were clear, succinct, and almost entirely procedural.
…
Time for another side note: owner opposition is an important consideration because a property cannot be listed on the National Register over the opposition of a majority of the owners. If a property is found to be eligible but the majority of the owners object to the listing, the Keeper will state that the property has been “formally determined to be eligible,” but will not include the property on the National Register. The property will, however, be automatically included in the California Register, as any property “formally determined to be eligible” for the National Register gets automatically listed on the California Register, regardless of whether it is actually listed nationally. Listing on the California Register triggers nearly all of the same environmental protections under state law (the California Environmental Quality Act, or CEQA), but there are some differences.
…
Commissioner Rick Moss caught everyone’s attention with a single, clear observation. He noted that there had not been a single bit of opposition to the determination that [Fulton] Mall is actually eligible for listing on the National Register. Commissioner Moss noted the importance of procedure, but he focused the Commission on the fact that the SHRC’s core goal here was to determine whether or not the property was eligible, and that this was a separate determination from the procedural one that everyone was focusing on.
…
Commission Chair Polanco called for a motion, which was made by Commissioner Moss, seconded by Commissioner Bryan K. Brandes, and voted on unanimously by the whole commission. There were no dissenting votes and no abstentions, and the final decision was clear: the SHRC voted to find [Fulton] Mall eligible for listing on the National Register. Because the Commission could not determine that the Mall should in fact be listed (as there was no way to tell whether enough owners had object to block the listing), the Commission did not issue a recommendation on that front.The next step will be for the nomination to be forwarded to the Keeper, who will make a determination of eligibility. It appears most likely that the Keeper will formally determine that the Mall is eligible for the National Register, and so it will almost certainly be listed on at least the California Register (and possibly in both places).
And at 2pm the Fresno Bee posted their article on the subject. Their editorial board had already came out in opposition to historic listing on the Mall. This article is consistent with that opinion.
Breaking News: 11:40 pm 4/30/2010
From historic preservation attorney, Patrick Kolasinski, today we learned that the California State Historic Resources Commission voted unanimously to determine the Fulton Mall eligible for the National Register of Historic Places listing. The announcement of this news came via Patrick’s twitter feed: @patkickinlaw
See the updates below. Patrick will be blogging about it, so check back here for updates and more details. The Law Offices of Patrick Kolasinski provide focused and individual legal assistance in the areas of Business Formation and General Business Law, Historic Preservation, and Personal and Business Bankruptcy.
-
If you have been following the developments, you would know that the City of Fresno Historic Preservation voted 4 to 1 that the Fulton Mall was eligible for historic designation. However, it voted unanimously, not to recommend the Mall to the National Register. Also, the Mayor’s office and Fresno City Council opposed the historic designation. Here is a PDF ot the mayor Ashley Swearengin’s letter to SHPC.
I believe the next step will be a national level meeting, I’m sure the experts will elaborate below.
What are your thoughts?
Make sure you check out the Cinco de Mayo celebration on the Fulton Mall this weekend. It is going to tens of thousands of people, good food and good music. Here is more info.
How is it that others recognize that the Fulton Mall is a one of a kind place but, Fresno politicians don’t?
Thanks for doing a post on this. I second JP’s comment.
It sounds like eligibility will give the Mall some decent protections, but I am concerned that during the planning process the voices of politicians and city leaders who want to show progress will carry much more weight than the preservationists.
So, those of you who think the Mall is valuable, be ready to go to some Planning meetings.
Thanks for the digest from the SHRC meeting. And although this issue may be worthy of a Johnny Cash song the nominated resource is Fresno’s FULTON Mall, not the FOLSOM Mall! (Sorry, couldn’t resist…!) And yes, public involvement in the downtown planning process, no matter what your views on the Mall may be, is critical.
Yes that was mistake in the post by Patrick Kolasinski. I’ve corrected it above with [Fulton]
Sorry about the typo. I was flying along typing up the summary and got the two words swapped. I’ll update the page once I’m back in the office on Monday. No offense intended.
As an aside, the Fulton/Folsom mix-up came up a few times in the actual SHRC meeting, and in conversations with attendees after the meeting. Several people referred to the mall either as the Folsom mall or as being in Folsom rather than Fresno. No excuse for my mixup, of course, but worth noting nonetheless.
The Fulton Mall has always been considered as eligible in our Fulton Corridor Specific Plan process, so nothing really changes. We were already there.
What we don’t want, is a group of people in isolation to make a nomination. Decisions this important need to build consensus, or as in this case, they become divisive (29 property owners against, 2 for; no recommendation for listing from either the local or state hisotirc preservation commissions, unanimous opposition from city council and the mayor’s administration).
The work of building constituencies and consensus is hard work. Meetings, debates, facilitated discussions, consideration of a variety of perspectives and information…this has not been done. Plus the faulty application, lack of clear understanding of who the owners are and how many there are for proper noticing of determining a majority of support or opposition show a weakness in this effort.
Contrast that with the current planning process. Many meetings and discussions, looking at all options, public discourse, tens of thousands of notifications, public hearings, professional planners, hisotirc preservation consultants, CEQA attorneys. The work that we are doing now is to bring the best possible information, with the best possible public input, to a conclusion that will come from our larger community.
This application’s lack of consideration for the historic buildings that line the mall should be enough to prove its inadequacy.
Craig
Points taken, yet, the only reason to not want the Mall listed is so that it could be opened to traffic. This is the core issue and the applicants realized that the planning process in a town like Fresno, with a Mayor and media who openly condemn the Mall and an undereducated populous, would probably be inadequate to protect the Mall. So, my hope would be is that instead of taking the “running up the score” approach, that the local city leaders realize the Mall’s value and seek a compromise solution, even though they posses the political power and support to destroy it.
An example of a good compromise solution would be taking out the Northern 1/3 of the mall, or some of the parts run east-west.
Keeping the Fulton Mall would be a bolder move then destroying it – considering pedestrian malls are being torn out in other cities.
Well, having the mall listed on the California Register changes its status from a discretionary resource under CEQA to a mandatory resource, so that is important, even though an EIR would have been done for the FCSP either way. I asked the same question “what changes with a NR designation” at the HPC meeting and John Dugan said that a formal designation would make the process of changes potentially more cumbersome down the road (my words, not his exact direct quote – but that was basically his point as I recall it). It all is more than a little confusing.
As I said at the HPC meeting I think even those people who dislike the mall need to come to the realization that it is something of historic and artistic value, and then come up with some creative adaptive reuse solution. We need not “like” every historic resource, and likewise shouldn’t pretend that the ones that are disliked for some reason don’t exist or have value.
Certainly the mall has its flaws, and presents obstacles to economic revitalization – it’s not perfect, but nothing is. But instead of making the mall the villain in this murder mystery, the cause of all of our downtown woes, we need to look at the real causes of the mess that we’ve made for ourselves. Fresno has made so many horrible mistakes in community planning and economic development it is both a comedy and a tragedy. To blame the mall as the main culprit in these problems should be highly suspect to anyone with any knowledge of Fresno history. Yeah, if Fresno had done everything else right, and things still wound up bad, go ahead, and lay the blame on the mall. But we didn’t. We did almost EVERYTHING else wrong. And now we’re supposed to buy the argument that ripping out the mall will fix everything? The mall is but a “micro” problem compared to the “marco” planning problems that our civic leaders made for us over the past 5 decades.
Let’s just come up with a creative solution, embrace the unique asset that we have, and enhance it through creative reuse for future generations.
Well said.
I would only qualify creative “reuse.” The mall is actually used now much how it was envisioned, but only by a segment of Fresno’s population that speaks spanish. So, I would say creative improvements of functionality, enhancement of existing strengths(more flowers,decorative plants), and better maintenance would probably aide in it being used more broadly.
Also, I’d say signage and way-finding are important pieces as well.
I meant reuse in the way it’s used in the preservation community, in the context of “adaptive reuse.”
I agree with the point Danny is making and I wonder why more energy and resources have not been put towards supporting and encouraging the businesses that already exist on the mall. The buying power of the Spanish-speaking community is a HUGE untapped resoure and as the segment of that population that currently uses the mall is immigrant/first generation, we’re talking about a culture that is geared towards a marketplace/marketsquare setting.
And with Fresno County at what, 50-51% Latino (someone correct me, I’m not sure about that),why not turn the mall into a huge (clean, well-kept) mercado?
Were it done correctly and with sensitivity, perhaps it would create an authentic “neighborhood,” much like Chinatown in San Francisco. These authentic ethnic shopping areas tend to be draws, not drawbacks, in other urban areas. White business owners with progressive businesses seem willing to locate near these neighborhoods.
The limited population of hipsters in Fresno that the gentrified version of the mall is intended to attract will not be enough to sustain that vision, in my belief, even with traffic. For instance, the Tower District is a similar environment to what the mall would be like with traffic and it has struggled for decades to maintain itself economically. Why not build on something that already exists, rather than reinvent the wheel?
I’m assuming there are reasons that I’m not seeing as to why this hasn’t been tried, so fill me in.
I’d love to know other folks’ thought on this.
I think the main reason why more things haven’t been tried on the mall is that the City doesn’t think of it as an asset because private developers haven’t done anything successful on it.
The mercado idea is fine if it stems from private businesses, but if the city tries to jump start a mercado, it would be contrived and thus not attract the broader population.
Good point with the hipsters, redevelopment projects generally shoot for gentrification, but the demographics for that in Fresno aren’t really there like they are in other urban areas. The Mall has a lot potential to be a diverse place, so redevelopment need not lead to inauthenticity if things go well in the planning process. I can easily imagine the spanish retailers remaining on the mall, but there being an upscale restaurant/bar or two in the old buildings and some more private businesses or organizations locating there.
Hopefully it works out well, but I can’t say I am hopeful, the City will have to show it’s values have changed and some private developers with good ideas will have to materialize.