Arcades - Forces for Good or Evil? - Obviously building arcades are architectural features, not forces for or against anything. But with the final batch of the initial text amendments to the new downtown development codes coming to the City Commission next Monday (January 23), the arcade issue has taken center stage, and a huge amount of emotional energy has been generated over whether or not they should be allowed.
For the record, I don't have a preference as to whether any particular building should or shouldn't have an arcade. Since I'm neither architect, planner, or urban designer that's probably for the best, as my role in this is purely professional and purely process-related, and not to advance my personal preference anyway. Toward that end, I would like to make a few points about this arcade discussion in advance of Monday's meeting, because I believe what is most important is that an objective discussion be held that deals with real issues, and I'm not sure to date that has been happening.
Much of the opposition I have heard to arcades, and a large number of petition signatures that have been generated, spring from a drawing that has been widely circulated by the Save Our Sarasota organization that purports to depict what downtown Sarasota might become should arcades not be stricken from the menu of architectural options in the downtown code. I know this because I have seen the petitions, and know that a large number of the correspondents on the issue have specifically referenced this picture. (Note: a representative of SOS has asked me to point out that the bulk of their signatures were collected before this particular rendering existed.)
In my opinion, this rendering is no more an accurate representation of any even remotely probable outcome for Sarasota, should arcades be adopted, than a picture of Times Square on New Years Eve would be. At the most simple level, I don't know of anywhere in Sarasota where rows of identical buildings exits, so I don't know why that would ever happen in the future. Of course there are more assumptions than that in the rendering process, but my point would be that to use that drawing as a platform from which to conduct the public policy discussion on arcades is just not intellectually honest, and that is fromwhere much of the opposition seems to be derived. I had this conversation with representatives of SOS, nice people all, but they seem to stand by their drawing. I certainly can't argue it's effectiveness in getting people stirred up!
There is also an assumption being made that the only way arcades could be allowed to encroach on the public right-of-way is for the resultant developable air space to be given away to the developer. The consequence of this assumption is that the only way to cure this is to prohibit the arcade in the first place. Of course there are other options; if such an arcade provided a good design solution for a particular project, the encroachment could be granted, and value back to the city could be required. That could be cash payment based on value, yet this option hasn't been a part of any discussion I have been aware of.
Finally, I'm told that some of the architectural community has weighed in that these features should be banned. What I don't understand is why the same group, or a subset of that group, that has argued so consistently that there should be no prescriptive inclusions or exclusions related to design or building form, would also argue that this particular option should be banned as opposed to not required, but allowed if and where it makes sense.
As I said before, I have no personal affinity for arcades. I do have an affinity for objective analysis, and decision making that considers all available options and solutions. It is in that spirit I offer these comments. Now I can only hope that all of that Anti-Arcade energy doesn't start chasing me around as well!
For the record, I don't have a preference as to whether any particular building should or shouldn't have an arcade. Since I'm neither architect, planner, or urban designer that's probably for the best, as my role in this is purely professional and purely process-related, and not to advance my personal preference anyway. Toward that end, I would like to make a few points about this arcade discussion in advance of Monday's meeting, because I believe what is most important is that an objective discussion be held that deals with real issues, and I'm not sure to date that has been happening.
Much of the opposition I have heard to arcades, and a large number of petition signatures that have been generated, spring from a drawing that has been widely circulated by the Save Our Sarasota organization that purports to depict what downtown Sarasota might become should arcades not be stricken from the menu of architectural options in the downtown code. I know this because I have seen the petitions, and know that a large number of the correspondents on the issue have specifically referenced this picture. (Note: a representative of SOS has asked me to point out that the bulk of their signatures were collected before this particular rendering existed.)
In my opinion, this rendering is no more an accurate representation of any even remotely probable outcome for Sarasota, should arcades be adopted, than a picture of Times Square on New Years Eve would be. At the most simple level, I don't know of anywhere in Sarasota where rows of identical buildings exits, so I don't know why that would ever happen in the future. Of course there are more assumptions than that in the rendering process, but my point would be that to use that drawing as a platform from which to conduct the public policy discussion on arcades is just not intellectually honest, and that is fromwhere much of the opposition seems to be derived. I had this conversation with representatives of SOS, nice people all, but they seem to stand by their drawing. I certainly can't argue it's effectiveness in getting people stirred up!
There is also an assumption being made that the only way arcades could be allowed to encroach on the public right-of-way is for the resultant developable air space to be given away to the developer. The consequence of this assumption is that the only way to cure this is to prohibit the arcade in the first place. Of course there are other options; if such an arcade provided a good design solution for a particular project, the encroachment could be granted, and value back to the city could be required. That could be cash payment based on value, yet this option hasn't been a part of any discussion I have been aware of.
Finally, I'm told that some of the architectural community has weighed in that these features should be banned. What I don't understand is why the same group, or a subset of that group, that has argued so consistently that there should be no prescriptive inclusions or exclusions related to design or building form, would also argue that this particular option should be banned as opposed to not required, but allowed if and where it makes sense.
As I said before, I have no personal affinity for arcades. I do have an affinity for objective analysis, and decision making that considers all available options and solutions. It is in that spirit I offer these comments. Now I can only hope that all of that Anti-Arcade energy doesn't start chasing me around as well!
posted by Michael McNees at 11:22 AM
42 comments
