The topic for today is the Fresno Metropolitan Museum of Art and Science.

The City of Fresno is in escrow for the block containing the Fresno Metropolitan Museum of Art and Science and a parcel across the street containing a parking lot. By everyone’s account, the city did not want to own this property. You may remember that the city cosigned a $15 million construction loan so that the Met could finish the renovation of the Old Fresno Bee building at Van Ness and Calaveras. $1.2 million of Mechanic’s liens still exist on the title of the property from various contractors that works on the project that are yet to be paid.
-
Photo above and others can be found in Brad Polzin flickr photo stream
-
Yesterday Councilmember Westerlund reintroduced a directive addressing the Met property in a joint session of City Council and the Redevelopment Agency (download PDF). A version of directive was originally introduced by Councilmember Perea in April. At the time Westerlund opposed due to a timing of a deal not yet being struck with the Met. The directive is for city and RDA staff to draft a joint Request For Proposals soliciting developers. The conclusion that Westerlund drew is that “Soliciting development concepts for the Met Museum block and the northern parcel through this RFP process is the most cost effective means of obtaining a market driven revitalization of a significant piece of the Cultural Arts District.”
-
There are three significant issues we should discuss. The first is the role of the architect. The second is fiscal concerns. And the third is community vision.
-
role of the architect
As you may or may not know, archop is a project of the American Institute of Architects San Joaquin Chapter. One of the guiding principles of the archop project is to educate the public about the role, responsibilities, potential, and importance of architects. I often look at news media and public policy through that lens. So a red flag went up for me when I read the City Council directive and listened the Westerlund’s explanation in the council meeting.
-
As the directive is written, it will solicit proposals from developers. Present in the brief and context of the project there are significant challenges of programing a 24 hour mixed use project, historic resources, spatial issues such as parking and open space to name a few. I am of the opinion that the team It should be required of the Developer RFP team to include an experience architect to address these issues.

The Met is the anchor of the Cultural Arts District and a prominent historic building. This is a very important building and will require architectural sensibility.

Council Member Westerlund’s report calls for a “lively mixed use project…complementing the Old Fresno Bee Building.” “…consistent with the principles of smart growth, sustainable development and consistent with the development principals anticipated with the new downtown specific plan.”

These are complex issues that require insight in those concepts as well as programing, massing, green space, streetscape and other design issues. The education and training of architects make them best suited to address these issues. In an email to the City Council Members I asked them to consider making an architect a required member of the teams submitting for the RFP.

I’m not yet sure how well received the email was, but nothing about architects was mentioned in the meeting. However Westlund said that the Craig Scharton’s team at the DCR Department would take the design lead and be responsible for the form, function and aesthetic. Those items are traditionally the realm of architects. While I’m confident in the abilities of the DCR Department and they have a very talented planner, Wilma Quan, on their team, they do not have anyone with architectural training or experience.

Chief of Staff to Adreas Borgeas, Steven Sotomayor, raised the point that “[Westerlund] does not want them to design, he wants a concept–RFP would call for conceptual designs.” and “…perhaps the words used were not intended in the way that you may understand them vs. a non design person would.” Either way I think it a valid question to raise is: what is the architect’s role in designing a revitalized downtown?

fiscal concerns
The City Council and City Manager conceded the the proposal will likely not recoop any of the $15 million debt the city now has to pay on the property. In fact it was mentioned that the land would like have to be given to the prevailing master developer selected in the RFP process. On top of that it was mentioned that the city may have to offset infrastructure costs waive or reduce developer fees, invest RDA funds and may even incur legal fees or be on the hook for the $1.2 million of Mechanic’s Liens on the title.

So what we have is a highly subsidized master developer project. Can the city in it’s current financial state afford that? And should this be a funding priority over the cities many obligations and public need?

These concerns where raised in the meeting by council member Brand and Borgeas. However, that did not effect a unanimous 7-0 vote to precede.

Would this be the wisest use of our taxpayer money? Remember back to the mayoral election when Ashley Swearingen’s policy on downtown was “back to basics” and that she “[doesn't] believe in ’silver bullet’ fixes for the area.” And In many ways her policy shied away from the master develope,r subsidy heavy projects. At the time the Forrest City South of Stadium project was the hot topic.

Maybe this is all the action of the City Council. However, the City Manager and Downtown and Community Revitalization Department seem attracted to what this project could be. But it seems with the focusing of Department resources in the Fulton and Lowell neighborhoods as well as the active process of the Downtown Specific Plan it may have too many balls in the air to successfully and completely accomplish them all. And this is not to mention a downtown wayfinding project and facade improvement program once touted as essential for business success and vitality downtown have been seemingly sidelined.

community vision
With all that said, I’m curious what you feel the community vision should be for the Met and the surrounding land. After all it is owned by the City of Fresno therefore we as taxpaying citizens have a stake in it.

The Met is the anchor of the Cultual Arts District. A dream of the Met now seemingly unattainable was a Michael Maltzan designed museum that covered the entire block. The massive model was on display the the Unbuilt archop in January of 2008. The design was controvertial, thought provoking and even award winning. I’ve heard for one source that Maltzen did not want to do the renovation portion of the project. They don’t have much experience with existing buildings. That may have been the cause of the construction cost overruns. But that’s all in the past now.

There is an interesting building on the block commonly referred to as Theatre 3. Its on the Local Register of Historic Resources and was built in 1926 as San Joaquin Power & Light Company’s headquarters using Spanish Revival facade.

View Larger Map

I’ve also found this building to be inspiring even in its state of decay.

View Larger Map

So what are you’re thoughts on any of the ideas above?