I think your assessment is correct. The current rendition of the Chamber site plan falls short in a number of ways. I don’t feel that design guidelines should always be strictly applied, but the current site plan violates the spirit and intent of the code. Therefore I find myself squarely in the group making the first of your two assumptions.

These design guidelines were formulated to make downtown more urban. We have used a variety of phrases over the years to describe this urban quality and its components, like: “24/7 community”, “thriving”, “mixed-use”, “urban density”, “pedestrian-friendly”, etc, etc. Unfortunately the current site plan is clearly inspired by something other than this urbanity which we seek.

I share your concerns for the detrimental effect that this project might have on the future credibility of the downtown code. The code was installed after a legitimate public process that invited stakeholder input and valued transparency. Unfortunately the same cannot be said for the process by which the Chamber proposal was approved and it is sad to realize that a project that has so much potential to benefit downtown, may actually represent a significant step backwards.

All that said, I think it is important to remember that it is not too late to take another course. We still have time to offer up alternative ideas. If we can create an alternative proposal that meets the objectives of all parties involved, then there is no reason why it should not be considered.

1) If the assumption is that the Downtown Design Code is important and meant to be generally applied, then this conflict with the Chamber Plan is troublesome. Logically, we should examine the Design Code and the Chamber Plan, reaffirm which one is correct and then modify the other so that the conflict is resolved.

2) Alternatively, if the assumption is that the Downtown Design Code is of questionable importance or not meant to be generally applied, then the conflict is less troublesome and does not necessarily require resolution. From a practical standpoint, however, holding this opinion would seem to erode our ability (and maybe determination) to enforce the Downtown Design Code in the future.

That said, it’s the Chamber of Commerce, and one of the best in the nation- further development will be encouraged by people working inside the building no matter what it looks like on the outside.

Good question.

I would say all of the objectives are challenging depending on the degree to which you want to achieve them. For instance, providing a site for a 50,000 square foot building on a 3 acre piece of property is a piece of cake, but providing a site that maximizes the buildings prominence and iconic status introduces a range of options and challenges. Still, while the two you mention are certainly formidable, I would say that #4 – “serving as an impetus for further development” – is the greatest challenge because it deals with development off of the site that the Chamber has no direct control over. To be successful in achieving this the Chamber site will have to create benefits that overflow into adjacent areas – no small tasks.

So what is your overall opinion of the objectives? Do you think we are missing anything?