Posts Tagged 'Urban Design'

Out With the Ugly Infill

Published July 18, 2011 Urban Philadelphia 5 Comments
Tags: , ,

Snobbery isn’t a trait I find very attractive in many people, especially when it’s directed at superficial things like cars, house’s, school districts, and clothes.  And yet, I can’t help but take full ownership of my own snobbery regarding urban forms and how easy I believe it is to implement them properly.  It may be the snob in me, but I honestly believe developing and maintaining good urban forms is really a simple concept:

  • Step One – Open your eyes
  • Step Two – Take note of the streets, neighborhoods, and cities that attract investment, have strong sense of place characteristics, and are aesthetically pleasing
  • Step Three – Emulate them
  • Step Four – Done!

And yet, my recent move to the Northern Liberties neighborhood in Philadelphia has brought me back to reality and made me realize that maybe this isn’t such a simple concept and maybe my snobbery has clouded better judgment.  Essentially, my first impression is that the neighborhood has been inundated with urban infill that diminishes the great forms that already exist and therefore threaten the very reason the area has attracted so much investment to begin with.

To understand why this is happening in a place like Northern Liberties takes a bit of storytelling.  A long time ago, in the 1990’s, Philadelphia’s Center City started becoming extensively gentrified, modernized and no longer affordable to the masses.  As real estate prices increased, this effect began spilling out into surrounding neighborhoods, eventually landing in Northern Liberties just north of Old City.  Since the 1950’s, the neighborhood has seen its fair share of demolitions and neglect, leaving large swaths of land ripe for large-scale redevelopment.  This fact coupled with gentrification pressures moving into the neighborhood bore the fruit of large-scale urban infill development throughout Northern Liberties.

This is where the spotty infill comes into the story, a phenomenon that seemed to happen for three reasons:

  1. There wasn’t enough regulation or strong enough a Neighborhood Plan to enforce better infill standards from the onset
  2. The developer’s are likely not attuned to what types of forms make a great neighborhood
  3. The individual developer is more concerned with their bottom line than creating a cohesive neighborhood and thus uses ‘edgy’ materials and irregular building placements as a marketing tool to stand out in the crowd rather than fit in.

While I am sure individual developers have had immense profits from their developments throughout Northern Liberties, the collective neighborhood has been left with a number of issues, outlined in the series of images below:

Garage doors abound on ground floor residential streets, with no entrance articulation

Buildings are positioned at odd angles and do not provide cohesive urban building walls

Buildings ignore street corners

Cheap materials

Buildings don’t address public parks (this sits across the street from Northern Liberties premiere park)

Creates monotonous walls that don’t activate the ROW

Poor parking design

All of these examples, while individually annoying, collectively make for a bigger problem and create an urban realm that seems more like an odd patchwork collection of buildings than a unified district.  I am not calling for building or material monotony; I am simply stating the need for a more cohesive product that achieves a sustainable neighborhood worth caring about long-term.  My fear is that because a unified district is not being recreated in many Northern Liberties streets, overall sense of place will suffer and in 30 years the area will once again fall into neglect and disrepair.

All is not lost though as the neighborhood still has many opportunities to fill in the fabric gaps that still exist.  But post-recession, investment seems to be picking up steam again and new infill projects are constantly rising from the ground.  Therefore, the neighborhood needs to develop even better standards for urban infill projects; ones that compliment the very reason infill is happening to begin with: the existing historic fabric already in place.  My hope is that this can happen and Northern Liberties can maintain and build upon its current upswing for many years to come.

Goodbye Indianapolis – I’ll Miss You / Don’t Call Me, I’ll Call You

Published July 12, 2011 Urban Indianapolis , Urban Philadelphia 6 Comments
Tags: , ,

If you have ever read this blog and followed the ‘Walking the Walk’ series about being car-free in Indy, you know that my walking habits rarely veered away from a few key streets in Downtown.  For two years this was the life I lived, with no real desire to wander off course.  But since June of this year, all that changed when my life took a significant detour off my normal walking routes and landed me in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania where I now live.  Earlier this year, I pursued a career opportunity that I couldn’t pass up.  After a long interview process, a lot of waiting around, and traveling to and from Philadelphia I eventually landed the job I sought out.  I now work for a national planning and urban design firm in Center City, Philadelphia and am still trying to adjust to my new life and figure out the best walking routes to work (well…more like the best subway routes).  With this detour away from Indiana and the Midwest came the realization that I must say goodbye to what was my home for the past two years.  But as of now, I’m not sure how to say goodbye to Indianapolis.

I guess I have one of those ‘love-hate’ relationships with the City; so much so that I find myself torn between wanting to say “goodbye I will miss you – stay in touch” and “it’s not you, it’s me; don’t call me, I’ll call you.”  For me to sort through this ambivalence I think a thorough list of the pros and cons of Indianapolis is required.

First the pros.  I love Indianapolis because ultimately, the City will always be my city of firsts: my first big job out of school, my first apartment all to my self, my first car-free lifestyle experience, my first blog about urbanism, etc.  These coming-of-age ‘firsts’ allowed me to become a stronger individual and develop a truer personal identity.  So thank you Indianapolis for being the platform for these important ‘firsts’ in my young adult life, I truly appreciate it.

As these amorous feelings begin to make me feel all warm and fuzzy inside, I am quickly reminded of the dichotomous relationship I have with the Circle City and begin to think that maybe it’s a better idea to coldly text “goodbye” from my East Coast digs and never look back – simple and swift.

Now the cons.  As an urban planner and designer and a self-proclaimed progressive in the field, I found Indianapolis frustrating, sometimes excruciatingly so.  Among my like-minded peers, these sentiments are typical in mid-sized, newer Midwest cities like Columbus, Kansas City, and Des Moines where there is an urban legacy shortage on amenities such as a strong public transit system, high quality urban designs, and high residential densities.  Therefore, there seems to be little dialogue on improving such amenities because, without a point of past reference, things are all-too-often seen as ‘fine as is’.  And when there actually is a fair amount of dialogue, it is often met with strong resistance and bickering, eventually resulting in a product or improvement that is heavily watered down.  Yes, it is fair to say I am thus far enjoying living in Philadelphia where these amenities are the rule not the exception.

So ok, I know I just seriously ragged on Indianapolis for the better part of the last paragraph.  But upon further reflection regarding this issue of frustration and malaise with regard to urban planning progressivity in the City, I can’t help but also think that this downside, with all its implied shortcomings, is also what makes Indianapolis very intriguing.  Given the size of Indianapolis, what better place to stand up, actually be heard, and make a difference on progressive urban issues?  Whereas it seems rather easy to get lost in the shuffle in bigger cities like Philadelphia or New York, the progressive urbanist community in Indianapolis is smaller, providing an excellent arena to sharpen your point-of-view and make a difference on these issues moving forward.  On top of this, the City provides a relative ‘blank canvas’ to work with, allowing progress to happen more quickly as opposed to other cities like Cincinnati and Cleveland where legacy costs and larger bureaucracies are more of an issue.

Ok, reflection time is over, for now anyway.  In the end, I suppose the aforementioned cons of Indianapolis have, by the end of my reflection, turned into yet another pro for the City and why I see so much potential there.  So it looks like my relationship with Indy won’t end via any awkward texts; no short emails; no uncomfortable phone calls.  Instead, I’ll simply say “I’ll see you later.”  I hope the City feels the same.

Indy’s Monument Circle Going Car Free For 2012 Super Bowl

Published February 24, 2011 Urban Indianapolis 3 Comments
Tags: , , , ,

In a fitting turn of events, the decision to pedestrianize Monument Circle has come full circle with the announcement that Indianapolis’s premiere public space will be closed off to auto travel during the week-long run-up to the Super Bowl next February.  According to Super Bowl Host Committee CEO Allison Melangton, the Committee is trying to raise money for a major entertainment endeavor on Monument Circle prior to the Super Bowl that would close the space to vehicular traffic, turning the Circle into a pedestrian mall.  According to Melangton, the Circle would be used for music activities and other major venues that would be a part of overall Super Bowl festivities.

The idea of pedestrianizing Monument Circle first arose during the early summer of 2010 when the City floated the idea of closing the Circle to cars for the month of August to effectively ‘see what happens.’  Following this announcement, considerable controversy and uproar arose and in no time the City backed away from the idea, stating that other options would instead be looked at to improve and upgrade Monument Circle.  But seven months later and here we are again discussing the space’s pedestrianization, but this time, with a program of activities included to ensure the space is constantly activated.

From a city marketing perspective, a pedestrianized Monument Circle, the new and improved Georgia Street and the world-class Cultural Trail will provide Super Bowl attendees a compact, pedestrian oriented experience that will separate Indianapolis from other host cities like Dallas and Miami.  From an urban design standpoint, the Circle overhaul builds on the pedestrianization acceleration movement occurring in cities like San Francisco and their Pavement to Parks initiative and New York’s Times Square redesign.  With its fair share of place pedestrianization occurring, Indianapolis will soon have a strong case for having the Midwest’s best downtown public spaces.

It is encouraging that the idea to ban cars from the Circle, even if just for a week, has not been entirely shelved as it is a step in a positive direction for the City’s public realm.  Hopefully this announcement will refuel the interest behind pedestrianizing the Circle, forcing the City to get serious about making it permanent, something that could be a major boon for downtown Indianapolis’s future image.  And if done correctly, pedestrianizing Monument Circle on a full-term basis would perhaps be the most innovative idea ever implemented in Indianapolis.  Where else in the Midwest can you find a piazza-esque pedestrian only public plaza in the heart of downtown?  This would set the city apart from its counterparts and set the bar for quality public spaces in the Midwest.  But as it stands today, the Circle is not ready for such a drastic change.  The following points briefly outline improvements that must take place in order for a long-term pedestrianization of the Circle to be successful:

  • The city needs to work with building owners that directly front the circle and transform the ground level space into pedestrian retail that spills out onto the Circle;
  • The Circle needs more programmed activities and on a regular basis, not just for special events;
  • Monument Circle needs a management group that oversees events, programming, maintenance and security.  Essentially, they would be in charge of programming the space and raising money and finding sponsors to fund such events; and
  • Changes outlined in the first three bullet points need to be a part of an overall design overhaul of the Circle.  Change needs to take place all at once to create increased excitement and energy in the district.

The Super Bowl is a culmination of a long and extremely successful effort to define Indianapolis as a sports town.  But as the City grows beyond this identity and matures into a bigger and better version of its current self, more improvements need to be made to make the City more urban, more compact, more cosmopolitan, more mature.  Pedestrianizing Monument Circle, implementing a public space plan, and creating a legacy of premiere public spaces would go a long way towards helping Indianapolis achieve such goals.

“Sex and the City” Urbanism: Human Scale the Key to Sustainable Development

Published February 7, 2011 Urban Cincinnati , Urban Indianapolis , Urban New York 7 Comments
Tags: , , , ,

If you’ve ever watched Sex and the City, you can’t help but take note of the moments when Carrie is walking to and from her Upper East Side apartment.  If you’re like me you might think ‘now that is a neighborhood I would love to live in.’  The intimate narrow streets, beautiful human scaled buildings, and fully developed tree canopies scream ‘sense of place’ in ways that make you want to pack up your bags and move to New York yesterday.  Well the truth of the matter is Carrie’s neighborhood was actually shot on Perry Street in Greenwich Village, a neighborhood known the world over for its unique attractions, high densities and great streets.  Show producers knew selling the ‘city’ was just as important as selling Carrie, explaining the Upper East Side white lie and the choice of Greenwich Village to showcase the image they were selling.

So what makes Greenwich Village so great – why shoot a show about being single and fabulous in New York City in this neighborhood?  The answer is simple: the neighborhood is a vibrant urban neighborhood ideal for the human experience due to its built form, narrow streets, vertically oriented structures of varying ages, and pedestrian scaled commercial districts.  And while much of Greenwich Village was developed in the 19th Century, it is these urban forms that we ought to be looking at for inspiration and replicating in 21st Century urban infill projects.  To be fair, we have made great strides in building urban forms in our urban environments over the past 30 years, but judging by recent projects like The Banks in Cincinnati and North-of-South in Indianapolis, we aren’t quite Greenwich great.

Infill or new developments in today’s urban realm are achieving a lot of positive designs.  As showcased in North-of-South, seen in the first image below, and The Banks, seen in the second image below, there is an understanding that urban buildings should interact with the public realm and directly abut the sidewalk, feature ground level retail and other activation uses, and include office, residential, or other mixed uses above.  These are very important components to creating and maintaining an active, vibrant urban neighborhood as seen in Greenwich Village.  Unfortunately, another critical factor still seems missing from new developments, something that can ultimately make or break the long-term success of the buildings and their form.

North-of-South Development Indianapolis

The Banks Development in Cincinnati

When you watch Carrie gallivant around her New York neighborhood in Sex, you notice a variety in building shapes, sizes, and age.  Having a diverse building stock is important to maintaining vibrancy and diversity in a community over the long-term because it allows for diverse users, diverse price points on apartments and condos, and flexibility for diverse uses as consumer needs and demands change.  The Banks and North-of-South will not be able to achieve this level of diversity because the buildings have been developed as a superblock and are oriented horizontally instead of vertically.  This creates monotonous urban forms and diminishes use flexibility and thus diversity.  Over time, these developments will likely become as homogenous in use as they are in vertical form, killing diversity and vitality in its wake.  Simply put, these developments could prove unsustainable in the long-term.

To achieve long-term sustainable urban forms and neighborhoods, we ought to be developing infill and new urban projects parcel by parcel, plot by plot.  Too often, an ‘all-or-nothing’ approach is  taken with new projects and if the entire development cannot be financed and built at once then nothing happens at all.  This can result in large blocks of prime urban land sitting vacant for years on end (see Cincinnati’s riverfront from 2000-2009 or Indianapolis’s old Market Square Arena site at present.)

An alternative to this ‘all-or-nothing’ approach is to split developable land up into urban, human scaled plots and let the market dictate when and how they will be developed.  Some regulations and plans would have to be developed and enforced to ensure urban areas aren’t stuck with tacky architecture or varying setbacks but even these plans should be reviewed and changed every five years or so.  By doing this, cities can more easily achieve diversity in urban forms and uses that are human experience oriented and thus more sustainable for long-term neighborhood stability.  Only then will the 21st Century urban developments be able to achieve Greenwich greatness as shown on episode after episode of the great show Sex and the City.

Top Image Source

North-of-South Image Source

The Banks Image Source

Urban football stadiums in the US: The good

Published January 14, 2011 Urban Chicago , Urban Cincinnati , Urban Seattle 3 Comments
Tags: , , , ,

This article originally appeared on the fantastic website Greater Greater Washington as part of a debate over whether the Washington Redskins new football stadium belonged in the District itself.  The team over at Greater Greater Washington contacted urbanists across the country to weigh in on the issue and discuss how football stadiums have affected their respective cities’ urban environment.  I offered my two cents on Lucas Oil Stadium in Indianapolis, an example deemed ‘bad’ in the debate.  Below are three examples thought to be ‘good’ urban football urban designs in the United States. (Original Post here.)

Chicago
Aaron Renn is the Urbanophile, a nationally recognized expert on urban issues, who lives and works in Chicago.

Chicago’s Soldier Field is a bit unique among US football stadiums. It exists in the urban center, but not as part of the urban fabric. Rather, it is located in the lakefront park, just south of Roosevelt Road where the Grant Park restriction on buildings is lifted. Because of this restriction, the area actually has several buildings, including the so-called Museum Campus of the Field Museum, Shedd Aquarium, and Adler Planetarium.

Soldier Field has long been cut off from the city by Lake Shore Drive — in fact, the stadium at one point was in the median of the roadway, which split around it — and the Illinois Central Railroad. The railroad now provides transit access to the stadium via the Metra Electric line, as do multiple nearby CTA rail and bus lines.

Soldier Field was actually opened in 1924 and while it was used for football games, the Bears actually did not start playing there until 1971. Prior to that they played at Wrigley Field. So whatever the merits or lack thereof of the stadium’s location, it has little to do with pro football.

The stadium was extensively reconstructed to be a long term home for the Bears in 2003. As with most teams, they said they could not make enough money in the old stadium. After the typical local debate, it was decided to renovate Soldier Field. But perhaps the term obliterate is more appropriate. The new stadium retained the classical colonnades, but little else.

There is now a completely modern seating bowl that is quite nice. However, the exterior architecture is all modernist glass that presents a jarring contrast with the old stadium, leading some to brand it the “UFO that landed on Soldier Field.” This was decried by preservationists but to no avail. Ultimately, the US government stripped Soldier Field of its status as a National Historic Landmark — the highest designation of historic site given by the feds — as a result of this project.


Photo by joseph a on Flickr.

Some might say that a stadium is inappropriate on the lakefront. The classical elegance of the old stadium fit right in gracefully, however. The same cannot be said of the new. However, the lakefront has ample open space, and there’s no per se problem with using that land for a stadium. Also, the parking that normally blights stadiums in downtowns is limited to one parking garage used also by the museums, so doesn’t go to waste as in so many other cities. Some urbanists might decry it, saying hulking stadiums belong in the suburbs, but Soldier Field has been an integral part of Chicago’s lakefront for decades, and few would likely choose to remove it. The new modernist bowl will remain an architectural blight for years to come, however.

Cincinnati
Randy A. Simes earned a Bachelor of Urban Planning degree from the University of Cincinnati in 2009. He is a master planner at CH2M HILL and writes about urban public policy and planning issues for the Cincinnati Business Courier and UrbanCincy.

Through its history, Cincinnati has seen a typical evolution of urban sports venues for American cities. The intersection of Findlay and Western, in Cincinnati’s West End neighborhood housed the Cincinnati Reds from 1864 through 1970 in three iterations of ballparks — League Park, Palace of the Fans, and Crosley Field — until the team moved with the Cincinnati Bengals football team to Riverfront Stadium.

The Bengals also spent their first two years playing at Nippert Stadium on the University of Cincinnati’s campus uptown. But when the two teams moved to Riverfront Stadium, they followed a national trend of cookie cutter stadiums in urban environments meant to serve as economic development generators. The problem was that the promise never came to fruition in the cities that went after the golden egg.

Most of those same cities have rebuilt their professional sports venues, many in the urban core. But the question still remains whether the return on investment is worth the valuable land for these lightly-used behemoths.


Photo from JT K on Flickr.

In Cincinnati, the Reds host more than 81 games every year drawing tens of thousands of fans to each event. Additional events are held at the ballpark, and its related attractions, throughout the year that also create a draw. Four blocks away, Paul Brown Stadium, home of the Bengals, hosts 10 games each year in addition to the smattering of high school events and concerts held there annually.

The result is a larger football stadium with far fewer events and a ballpark with more events but smaller crowds. The winner in this case is the ballpark, and the new generation of urban ballparks appears to be as successful as the original wave of urban ballparks in the late 19th century.

The problem with urban football stadiums can be both a structural issue and a programmatic issue. In the case of Paul Brown Stadium it is more about the program. The large, tailgating-bound crowds demand available parking for their pre- and post-game festivities.

In Cincinnati, developers are currently constructing The Banks, a mixed-use urban entertainment node wedged between Great American Ball Park and Paul Brown Stadium and will eventually house thousands of new residents. Before each phase of development begins, it must first have two-floors of underground parking built before it even begins to satisfy the parking demands for the new residents and workers to be housed above.


Photo by the.urbanophile on Flickr.

Once complete, The Banks may set the stage for a truly unique urban sports and entertainment area, one that would have no surface parking and force tens of thousands of sports fans, visiting the area, out onto the streets for live music, food, drink, and festivities. This may end up being Paul Brown Stadium’s saving grace.
The beautiful thing about professional sports venues is that they can turn what is otherwise worthless land into something economically productive and thus improve land values in nearby areas. But most often franchise owners often want their venues to be located in prime real estate so that they can maximize their visibility. In Cincinnati that meant handing over prime waterfront property to two large concrete masses that only stay active a fraction of the year.

When other cities examine plans for an urban sports venue of their own, they should keep more in mind than the wishes of the franchise ownership and the promise of skyline shots on national television once or twice a year. Less is more. You want the venue to blend in so that it does not detract from its surroundings when it is inevitably non-active. You want the venue to be versatile so that it can serve other functions beyond that of playing baseball or football. And most importantly, get rid of the parking so that venue’s support facilities do not kill what you want the venue to create — economic development.

Seatle
Martin H. Duke is the Editor-in-Chief of Seattle Transit Blog. An Electrical Engineer who grew up in the DC area, Martin has lived in Seattle since 1997.

Seattle, a city of 600,000, is somewhat unique in having not one but two big-time football stadiums within its city limits. One is seldom used, but not in an urban neighborhood; the other is on the edge of downtown but is combined into a bustling event district.

Husky Stadium, home of the University of Washington Huskies, is used for only seven major events a year. However, it is bordered by a lake, the University campus, medical center, and the rest of the athletic complex. Opening in 1920, nothing around it could be remotely described as an urban neighborhood.

However, Husky Stadium also sits on a transportation chokepoint. At one end of only two bridges that provide connectivity with the prosperous eastern suburbs, in the peak dozens of buses pass by each hour on their way to campus, and one of Seattle’s few light rail stations will open in its parking lot in 2016. There is a strong case that the land should be used more intensively and the Huskies should share a home with the Seahawks. Regardless, many people treasure an emotional and historical connection with Husky stadium, and the Athletic department has zero interest in such a move. They are privately raising $300 million to renovate the stadium after being rebuffed by a broke state legislature.


Photo by Erwyn van der Meer on Flickr.

Qwest Field was only opened in 2002, but lies on the site of the old Kingdome, built in 1977 upon Seattle’s entry into the NFL. The densest part of the downtown core is only blocks away; in between lies the historic Pioneer Square district, dense but low-rise. Beyond Qwest is the Mariners’ Safeco Field and industrial-zoned land. Qwest also lies amidst the greatest transportation hub in the Pacific Northwest: light rail, Amtrak, commuter rail, ferries, hundreds of local bus routes, and three freeways all converge there.

Because the Mariners also provide 81 home dates, and the MLS Sounders have had freakishly high attendance at Qwest (36,000 a game!), it’s difficult to separate the impact of the NFL from everything else going on. Pioneer Square is a particularly active nightlife district, which meshes pretty well with the sports bar scene. There is a pretty large chunk of social services there, which tends to attract transients and drive off the more squeamish among us.


Photo by camknows on Flickr.

One promising trend is the disappearance of surface parking. When one stadium turned into two, several surface lots were replaced with two stadium garages. The last remaining major surface lot is slated to become 950 condos and apartments, doubling the number of residents in Pioneer Square to join the jobs, shops, and recreational options already there. It would be difficult to say that Pioneer Square is thriving, but equally difficult to say that having adjacent regional attractions is hurting it. I think the key lesson is that taking away the moat of parking allows the stadium to be properly integrated into the neighborhood.

Urban Football Stadiums in the US: The Bad

Published January 12, 2011 Urban Indianapolis , Urban St. Louis 3 Comments
Tags: , , ,

This article originally appeared on the fantastic website Greater Greater Washington as part of a debate over whether the Washington Redskins new football stadium belonged in the District itself.  The team over at Greater Greater Washington contacted urbanists across the country to weigh in on the issue and discuss how football stadiums have affected their respective cities’ urban environment.  I offered my two cents on Lucas Oil Stadium in Indianapolis, an example deemed ‘bad’ in the debate over how to integrate stadiums into urban fabrics.  (Original Post here.)

Indianapolis

The Indianapolis Colts have played in an urban football stadium since the team’s founding in 1984 when the Hoosier Dome (later the RCA Dome) was built in the heart of downtown. The stadium sat next to the Indianapolis Convention Center, creating a superblock in downtown Indianapolis that encouraged monotonous urban forms and destroyed vitality in the surrounding area. Yet, the RCA Dome could be considered a decent urban football stadium because the structure was built to the street right-of-way, featured large entryways off the sidewalk, and was decently integrated into the urban fabric with no surrounding parking. In late 2008 the Dome, seen as a relic of a past era, was abandoned for the sparkling new Lucas Oil Stadium a few blocks south.

Photo by JFeister on Flickr.

Lucas Oil Stadium is a true mega-structure. The hulking arena is roughly the size of two large downtown blocks, with its surrounding landscaping, parking, and entryway features taking up an additional four to five blocks. Needless to say, Lucas Oil Stadium is now a prominent fixture in the Indianapolis skyline, often dwarfing the neighboring buildings and harkening back to the field house structures with which Indianapolis has long had a love affair. From this standpoint, Lucas Oil is a small success, providing the urban environment a beautiful building that represents the city’s sports venue value system.

In terms of accessibility, the stadium does well in some points and fails in others. From the south, the area’s walkability is poor, covered in a swath of parking, but is much better from other directions, with small to medium setbacks and large sidewalks for often heavy pedestrian traffic. Numerous IndyGo bus lines run along South Street and surrounding downtown streets, allowing for easy transit access.

By 2012, the Indianapolis Cultural Trail will link Lucas Oil Stadium directly to downtown’s main bike and pedestrian system, providing an important link to downtown’s vibrant entertainment districts. This improvement, along with the new Georgia Street reconfiguration that will provide a pedestrian-oriented, entertainment corridor, is proof positive that Indianapolis is attempting to incorporate Lucas Oil Stadium into downtown’s pedestrian experience and make the area more walkable.

Still, if the City ever wants to be truly integrate the stadium into the urban environment, they need to do more. The stadium site sits on a mega block, offering poor street and pedestrian connectivity to the surrounding street grid and neighborhood. Plus, the stadium is placed at an angle to the street grid, creating odd open spaces around the stadium.

 

Photo by JFeister on Flickr.

The building’s sheer size and failure to incorporate any ground floor retail or other use hampers active street life, especially unfortunate given the few times the stadium is actually used throughout the year. The result is a relative dead zone in an area of Indy that is in desperate need of good urban form to reactivate the area and connect it with the vibrant Meridian Street and Illinois Street to the north.

Looking towards the future, integrating a large, out-of-context, football stadium like Lucas Oil into an urban environment like downtown Indianapolis’s southern edge will prove to be difficult. Still though, improvements can be made that can create a more vibrant, sustainable district and interesting street life. Connecting the Cultural Trail to the stadium is an important first step. From there, the street grid needs to be reinforced to the stadium’s south end and transportation circulation needs to be improved, urban forms need to be constructed to the north and east edge, and urban infill needs to occur to the west.

If plans such as these are put forward and actually implemented, Lucas Oil Stadium could quickly become a poster child for successful urban football stadiums in the United States. But the stadium is still in its infancy and full plans for the area have yet to be developed, so only time will tell if such ambitions will be achieved.

St. Louis
Alex Ihnen writes about urban issues in the St. Louis area at Urban STL.

Each of the three St. Louis National Football League stadiums has been located in an urban setting. Sportsman’s Park was truly a neighborhood stadium, sharing an incredible likeness to Chicago’s Wrigley Field. However, like Wrigley, it wasn’t made for football, and quickly fell out of favor in the 1960s.

A football field was shoe horned into Sportsman’s for six years. When Busch Stadium I opened in 1966 it was one of a wave of dual use stadiums of similar design, started by DC’s own RFK stadium and followed by Philadelphia, Cincinnati, Pittsburgh and San Francisco. The stadium was home to Major League Baseball’s Cardinals and the Cardinals NFL team. Built during a period unprecedented faith in urban renewal in St. Louis, the stadium was one component of a larger effort that included the final clearing of a dozen city blocks for the Gateway Mall, the building of the Gateway Arch and construction of urban Interstates through the city.

Downtown St. Louis. Image from Google Maps.

The NFL team left St. Louis in 1987 and local civic leaders went to work immediately to lure a team back to the city. Central to their strategy was the building of a domed stadium.

Completed in 1995, the Trans World Dome, now Edward Jones Dome, was built as a multi-purpose facility, following the then trend of combing convention centers with domed stadiums. It was one of the very last traditional dome stadiums built. The Dome’s utility as an expanded convention center has lived up to initial promises for revenue generated and events held. but offers no view of the Mississippi River, or the internationally known iconic Arch.

While an urban football stadium on the right site may add to and take advantage of a dramatic skyline, the stadium and convention center combination in St. Louis fails to do this. Even worse, the stadium has arguably been an impediment to development. The 12 city block superblock is a defining barrier separating the near north side and the central business district to the south and last remnants of historic riverfront with the rest of the city.

The nearest commercial corner at 7th and Washington is the site of a long vacant building encompassing an entire block and failed indoor urban mall. Both structures are currently undergoing development, two of the last to do so along the historic Washington Avenue corridor, and 15 years after the completion of the Dome. However with the surface parking lots, vacant land, and empty historic buildings surrounding the site, it’s a tough argument to say that things could have been worse.

At the time it was designed, the Dome was criticized by Eugene Mackey, a former president of the St. Louis Chapter of the American Institute of Architects, . St. Louis Post-Dispatch architecture critic E.F. Porter stated that such a structure at the edge of a struggling CBD would have a “pervasive and irreversible impact on the complexion of the city.” He described the project as a “great protective battlement…sealing off the CBD from the neighborhoods to the north.” Mackey summed it up: ‘It makes north St. Louis the loading dock for downtown.”

Photo by Kevin.Ward on Flickr.

Development north of the Dome has been non-existent during the past 15 years. Plans have come and gone, gleaming renderings of Daniel Libeskind towers displayed. Development prospects haven’t been helped by the broken street grid I-70 has wreaked on the north side. Porter even predicted trouble when a new Mississippi River Bridge would eventually route I-70 over the river from Illinois and land north of the Dome at Cass Avenue. The bridge is under construction now and will land at Cass Avenue, but the ramps carry traffic west of the superblock.

The negative impact is more than a few vacant lots and blocks of housing, the Convention Center and Dome present a life-subduing façade, especially to the west and north. Would the Dome have been better situated on the east (or even west) riverbank with an open roof view of the St. Louis skyline? Perhaps a suburban stadium, nearer the region’s population center, approximately 12 miles west of downtown.

Although served by the light rail MetroLink line and Metro bus, such service can only accommodate a fraction of 66,965 fans who can fill the stadium. Transit works better for baseball, basketball and hockey crowds of 12-40,000.

Ultimately, urban stadiums can work and we’re left to wonder if the Convention Center and Dome have inflicted and maintained blight in the St. Louis CBD or whether it’s successfully served as a bulwark against decay in a city where these problems are clearly bigger than a football stadium.

Midwest Urban Forms Present Varying Opportunities, Challenges

Published August 10, 2010 Urban Chicago , Urban Cincinnati , Urban Columbus , Urban Indianapolis , Urban Pittsburgh 3 Comments
Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

This past weekend, I traveled to Chicago, Illinois for a weekend trip, something that only takes 2.5 hours from my home in Indianapolis.  As always, I was blown away by the city’s urban forms, street life vitality, and sheer scale, both vertically and horizontally.  Chicago is a world-class city to a degree not matched by any other Midwest City.  In the mid-to-late 1800’s, a number of circumstances, decisions, and situations ultimately elevated the Windy City past Cincinnati and St. Louis to become the regions node of activity, culture, and industry.   Because the city was able to develop pre-car, its urban forms developed around modes of mass transit and pedestrian activity, a fact reflected in the city’s present density, linear neighborhood-oriented commercial streets, and a strong, healthy Central Business District (CBD). 

Pre-Car Urban Forms

Chicago shares these urban form patterns with other pre-car cities in the region such as Cincinnati and Pittsburgh (although to a lesser degree in scale and vitality to Chicago of course), each enjoying numerous unique, neighborhood commercial centers, and dense, walkable CBD’s.  In these two examples though, urban vitality seems more neighborhood-centric, as each region’s local commercial strips and districts (think Squirrel Hill and Shadyside in Pittsburgh and Clifton and Hyde Park in Cincinnati) thrive while their regional urban centers (downtown) fall short of expectations.  The difference between these three cities CBD’s has a lot to do with Chicago’s world-class status, mass transportation system, sheer size, and tourism opportunities that ultimately allow Chicago to enjoy both successful neighborhood centers as well as a regional and international center. 

Post-Car Urban Forms

Meanwhile, newer, post-car cities like Indianapolis and Columbus take on still yet another urban form.  These cities are not located in geographically advantageous locations along rivers, lakes, or oceans, and thus began growing only after a mode of transportation (the car) allowed them to do so.  As a result, these places enjoy fewer neighborhoods with pedestrian-oriented commercial centers than their older counterparts.  What Indianapolis and Columbus do enjoy, however, are strong regional centers that are vibrant, full of life, and have the ability to draw people from far distances.  This ‘regional centric urban form’ is likely because these cities regional centers haven’t dealt with neighborhood-level competition and thus have been able to maintain a level of vibrancy not matched in Cincinnati or Pittsburgh. 

In Indianapolis, two such urban regional centers exist – Broad Ripple and downtown.  In Columbus, High Street from German Village through Clintonville acts as a regional center, attracting people and activity from around the area.  These regional centers have maintained a pedestrian orientation despite being plagued with parking woes, as they are located in each cities traditional urban core.  But once again, these two cities fall short of enjoying the gamut of urban forms as they are not of the world-class status, did not develop in dense enough ways, and most importantly, do not have notable public transit systems like that of their big neighbor Chicago. 

Each Offers Opportunities, Challenges

When I talk to Cincinnatians, they tend to be very proud and boastful of the neighborhood they live in, often bragging about what makes their neighborhood unique and what restaurant, bar, coffee shop, or clothing store is located there.  I’ve talked to people who have relocated to Cincinnati and time and time again, the city’s neighborhood-centric built form is always brought up as one of the qualities most enjoyed.  On the other hand, Cincinnati seems to have an uneven reputation with out-of-towners and visitors who have never spent much time in the city.  Likely, these people have only experienced downtown and perhaps a few surrounding areas, places that don’t quite live up to other regional centers across the Midwest, leaving people with a negative perception of the city as a whole.  On the contrary, people who visit Indianapolis tend to rave about the city and its vibrant downtown while residents seem more concerned about the lack of services within walking distance of their home and the lack of overall neighborhood identity.  This proves that, based on my personal experiences, encounters, and conversations, the two cities opposite urban forms result in opposite experiences for out-of-towners and residents alike.      

For those cities like Cincinnati and Indianapolis that only have a neighborhood-centric form or only a regional-centric form…what do you do?  Do you build on your existing assets or do you attempt to develop the form you currently lack?  Well, it’s always my opinion that a city or a region ought to build off their existing assets and make great what they have good.  And it seems Indianapolis and Cincinnati has both been doing this for decades, as Cincinnati has great neighborhoods and Indianapolis has a great downtown. 

So what to do now, should each city focus on developing the urban form and experience they lack since it seems their respective forms have reached a critical mass?  In Cincinnati’s case, the city seems to be doing just that.  With the streetcar, the Banks, the Fountain Square makeover, the Gateway Quarter, the Washington Park renovation, and the rejuvenation of Main Street, it definitely seems Cincinnati is starting to take the focus off its neighborhoods and reenergize its regional center.  Can Cincinnati have strong neighborhood centers and a strong regional center?  This remains to be seen, but hopefully the impending streetcar and its phased connections can create an environment where the neighborhood and regional centers complement one another instead of competing and create a city that features both.  After all, with a strong mass transit system, it seems you don’t have to be a Chicago to have both.

As for Indianapolis, I think there is a definite potential to create neighborhood-oriented commercial strips and districts throughout the city.  Irvington, College Avenue, and Fountain Square are all areas that have what it takes to become neighborhood centers for Indianapolis.  What is needed are urban transit options such as streetcars and light rail that places urban development as a priority and commuting patterns as tertiary.  Time will tell on the fate of Cincinnati’s and Indianapolis’s urban form models, and really, I’m not sure if one is preferable over the other or if one city is likely to create an environment where both neighborhood and regional centers can co-exist.  But based on my experiences in Chicago and other world-class cities, having both healthy neighborhood and regional centers is ideal and the best way to go about achieving this is through urban-oriented mass transit.    

Image Source

Comprehensive Public Space Plan Needed for Downtown Indianapolis

Published August 3, 2010 Urban Indianapolis , Urban Policy 2 Comments
Tags: , , , ,

News broke this past weekend that Indianapolis officials are looking at ways to inject new life into some of downtown’s premiere public spaces.  Ever since Indianapolis officials nixed the idea to close Monument Circle to traffic back in June, interest has increased in using the space for events and activities.  Everything from arts organizations, cultural boosters, and advertising companies has recently expressed interest in using the Circle for special events.  City officials hope to take this renewed interest and energy and put together a plan for organized activities on the Circle on a regular basis, all in time for Summer 2011.  According to Jen Pittman, the city’s director of marketing, new event possibilities will include concerts, art exhibits, picnics, and community fairs.  And while traffic changes could be part of the plan, banning cars from the Circle won’t initially be included in the mix. 

The city also hopes to use the renewed interest in the Circle as a way to showcase downtown’s less-utilized public spaces, namely the War Memorial spaces between Meridian and Pennsylvania streets.  According to Brian Mader, president of the local chapter of the American Institute of Architects, the city hasn’t officially decided the role of each of these spaces, but believes there is a lot of opportunity to go around. 

I find this announcement a positive turn of events in the ongoing debate over the future of Monument Circle.  As urbanOut readers know, I have been asking for the Circle to be programmed with regularly scheduled events similar to that of Fountain Square in Cincinnati.  Check out those postings here, here, and here.  Equally promising is the announcement that city officials are looking to implement programmed activities in the War Memorial open spaces, spanning from University Park on the south to the American Legion Mall on the north.  Once again, I am excited about the prospects of truly utilizing these spaces in better ways, as I recently wrote about this very topic and noted the need for more events and activities for these spaces as well.  Check out that posting here. 

Monument Circle and the War Memorial spaces are all located north of Washington Street, the dividing line of north and south in downtown and throughout Indianapolis really.  While these public spaces deserve the attention they are about to get, a plan for public spaces on downtown’s south side is needed as well.  As it stands today, there is a serious lack of high quality public spaces south of Washington Street, something that is unfortunate given the amount of activity Circle Center Mall, the convention center, the South Meridian Street bar scene, and Conseco Fieldhouse brings to the area. 

Conventional planning tells us to create spaces where people congregate, where people are, and where they want to be and in downtown Indianapolis, this tends to be south of Washington Street.  So while the city is busy programming the north downtown public spaces, south downtown needs a public space plan as well.  In my opinion, such a plan would showcase spaces and places that can hold small programmed activities that aren’t quite right for the Circle while still catering to the everyday activities of traditional users.  If such spaces are maintained and fostered, the current pedestrian realm will be significantly enhanced and a more dynamic urban environment will be created.    

Outlined below are 4 current spaces that, given a redesign and/or refocus, can become small urban spaces for the lively south downtown scene. 

Parking lot at Meridian and Jackson Place

This space sits at one of the busiest pedestrian intersections in downtown.  Plus, the lot is already used for various purposes during downtown events and festivals.  This lot should be turned into a full-time public plaza and given a fresh design including new hardscapes, landscapes, public art, and outdoor seating to allow people to enjoy the space year round.  People are already congregating at the intersection, so why not enhance that activity and create a pedestrian plaza that functions as a true public space? 

Pan Am Plaza

While the current space layout is less than ideal, the new Georgia Street redesign provides a great opportunity to also incorporate a redesigned Pan Am plaza that interacts with the public realm and enhances pedestrian activity along Georgia Street.  Such a redesign would include the destruction of the existing structures currently blocking the plaza from Georgia Street, lowering the space to street level, and repairing or removing the existing fountain (among numerous other changes).  As a result, the space would be perfect for winter outdoor ice skating and could be used for conventions that may need such space for events.  Its visual and physical proximity to the parking lot on Meridian that I discussed above could also create a space by space connection in which each plaza’s activity enhanced the others and causes spillover effects. 

Convention Center Plaza

This space currently acts as the ‘green getaway’ in southern downtown Indianapolis, with numerous plantings, trellises, and a fountain to boot.   But in order for people to actually use it, a redesign is needed that opens the space up, increases visual connectivity with the street, and destroys the feeling of insularity and the unwelcomed look the space currently gives off.   

Scotty’s Plaza

This space has perhaps the best opportunity to truly become a dynamic urban space on the south side of downtown.  While not technically a public space (at least not to my knowledge) the plaza just outside of Scotty’s Brewhouse is a perfect place for an urban plaza.  Uses currently spill out onto the space, a pedestrian realm exists on all sides, and pedestrian traffic here is high.  What is needed is a redesign that removes the spaces ambiguity (is it a public space, or is it private?), opens the space up, removes the excessive planters that currently block the space from the street on the north side, and allows for more seating and possibly small outdoor music events. 

This plan for Indianapolis’s southern downtown public spaces does three things: works with existing open space, takes advantage of existing pedestrian traffic patterns, and attempts to create less monumental, more intimate urban spaces that are flexible and functional.  If ideas like these are implemented and a plan for the south side of downtown is implemented, than the existing urban realm will be enhanced and a truly vibrant urban atmosphere will be created.  While Monument Circle and the War Memorial open spaces will attract the regional population and tourists for showcase events, these small urban spaces can be more versatile, as they can be used for smaller programmed and convention related events while enhancing everyday activity of those who live, work, and play downtown.  Ultimately, this should be the goal of an overall plan/events plan (something that is needed) for all of downtown Indianapolis’s public spaces.

Beautiful Open Space: Downtown Indianapolis’s Best & Most Underutilized Asset

Published July 19, 2010 Urban Indianapolis 9 Comments
Tags: , , , , , , ,

A co-worker of mine recently returned from a long weekend trip to Pittsburgh for a family wedding.  Before she went, I was raving about my love for that city and telling her where to go and what to see.  She didn’t really seem too interested in what I was saying and was almost annoyed she had to go to Pittsburgh to begin with.  But when she came back to work and I asked her about the trip, she carried a different tune, as her first response was “forget this cow town [Indianapolis], I’m packing my bags and moving to Pittsburgh.”  She went on to sing the city’s praises and couldn’t believe how well off the urban core seemed.  One feature about Pittsburgh she particularly enjoyed was the numerous public spaces in and around downtown.  As she explained, “you can really get a sense of civic pride in Pittsburgh, represented in their amazing public spaces and civic institutions in their urban core.”

When she said this to me, I began to think about Indianapolis’s public spaces around downtown and what they say about the city.  Upon this reflection, I realized the current message is a mixed one of positive and negative: Indianapolis has beautiful spaces but they are not utilized to their highest possibility.  Fortunately, the Circle City has so much potential to not only make the kind of impact on out-of-towners that Pittsburgh made on my co-worker, but also create amazing urban open spaces that are unparalleled in mid-size Midwest cities.  This potential lies in Monument Circle and the vast open space just north of downtown, stretching from University Park north to the American Legion Mall, and everything in between. 

I have discussed what I think about Monument Circle on end, so this post is dedicated to the open spaces north of the Circle.  Designated a National Historic Landmark District, the Indiana World War Memorial Plaza covers five city blocks, spanning from New York Street on the south to St. Clair Street on the north between Meridian and Pennsylvania Streets.  Essentially, the system is made up of 4 distinct spaces: University Park, the Indiana War Memorial, Obelisk Square, and the American Legion Mall.  Each individual space has a different set of attributes and character, yet all feel tied together through a linear system that is beautifully grand, monumental, and European in scale.  For a quick rundown, here is a summary of each space:

  1. American Legion Mall – features a large lawn that is used for varying activities including pick-up flag football and numerous events.  
  2. Obelisk Square – a picturesque square with a large obelisk and accompanying fountain centering the space.
  3. Indiana War Memorial -   A beautiful Neoclassical building inspired by the Mausoleum of Halicarnassus, one of the seven wonders of the world. Within is a military museum, the Shrine Room, and an auditorium. 
  4. University Park – A beautiful intimate park filled with numerous statues and a centerpiece fountain – the Depew Memorial Fountain. 

With this grand, vast open space comes the general disappointment that it is not being fully utilized of or living up to its potential.  Similar to Monument Circle, the spaces are beautiful urban designs but mediocre public spaces.  I walk through this area on a daily basis on my way to and from work and rarely do I see people using the plazas or patrons enjoying the vast green space.  Occasionally I will see an aerobics class exercising, a group of twenty something guys playing football in the Legion Mall, or a weekend festival going on, but other than this spotty activity, the spaces go largely unused and have a vacant feel to them on a day-to-day basis.  The reason for this may go well beyond the scope of this post and perhaps gets to a bigger issue of Indianapolis’s laissez faire attitude towards civic life in general, but I do see three planning/design related problems that could be mediated to create a better, more inviting public space.  The three current problems are as follows:  the uses and built environment around the parks aren’t complimentary to an active public space, Pennsylvania and Meridian Streets are too wide and auto-oriented, and the parks don’t have programmed events on a regular basis. 

The uses surrounding the open spaces are a smattering of institutions, surface parking lots, and small bits of residential that do little to activate the parks.  Even if there were great uses that were complimentary, Meridian and Pennsylvania are too auto-oriented to allow a significant connection and spill-over effect of activity.  A new plan needs to be put in place that places pedestrian activity on the forefront and allows for the narrowing of Pennsylvania and Meridian as well as the gradual transformation of the surrounding blocks into cafes, galleries, hotels, high density residential units, and other uses that will help activate the public spaces.  In addition to these physical improvements, a regular schedule of activities and events needs to be implemented to create a regional draw and bring people together from across the city.

 I can’t emphasize this point enough: for a place like downtown Indianapolis, having regularly scheduled events and activities ( for reference, Fountain Square in Cincinnati has events 300+ days a year) with an accessible website and a strong marketing campaign will bring even more people downtown and will help create a better civic life for the city.  What better place to hold such events than Monument Circle and the beautiful linear parks just north of the Circle?  Indianapolis needs more places where people go to just go, go to socialize, go to be outside, go to see other people, go to events and festivals, go just because.  These open spaces, along with Monument Circle, could be those places but a lot needs to change – change in building form and use, physical infrastructure, and an increase in event programming – for this to happen. 

I am glad to see the Cultural Trail will cross through the Legion Mall, hopefully bringing some life and activity to the spaces.  This is a step in the right direction and hopefully signifies a renewed interest in taking full advantage of the great and beautiful public spaces downtown Indianapolis has to offer.  If a great plan is put together for the area and those ideas are implemented, I think the spaces can not only be beautiful, but also active, vital, and full of life.  From this, a great urban public space can be created and people like my co-worker will see in her city what she saw in Pittsburgh: civic pride.

Check out the images below for a better understanding of just how beautiful these open spaces are.  And yet, on a day-to-day basis, they go largely unused. 

Cincinnati’s Moerlein Lager House Urban Design Crit.

Published July 15, 2010 Urban Cincinnati 7 Comments
Tags: , , , ,

Side note: I know I have been writing about Cincinnati a lot in recent posts, so after this I will try to branch out to other cities again.  But for now, bare with me through yet another Cincinnati-related post.  I just can’t help it though, that city has so much going on right now (and I haven’t even written about the Streetcar’s recent $25 million urban circulator grant win.)

Early yesterday morning, the City of Cincinnati, Twitter, Facebook, and the general Cincinnati blogosphere was all a Google buzz regarding details that emerged about the Moerlein Lager House, a large and local restaurant and microbrewery that will be built in Cincinnati’s beautiful Riverfront Park next to Great American Ballpark.   For those unfamiliar with the project, the Lager House will begin construction in Fall 2010 with an anticipated completion date of August 2011.  The structure will be built in conjunction with phase 1 of the new $120 million Cincinnati Central Riverfront Park as well as phase 1 of the Banks development, a separate project immediately north of the site.  Certainly, the Lager House brings with it an excitement to the City as it celebrates the proud brewing tradition of Cincinnati, is the first retail tenant announced for the riverfront, and will bring 200 jobs.  So woohoo all around, right?  Well, in true urbanOut style, I must insert my opinion on the building’s general design, its relationship to its surrounding built environment, and point out the good and bad of its urban design.    

Let’s start out with the structure’s siting, seen in the image below.  From an urban design standpoint, I like the way the Lager House is situated, as it directly abuts both Mehring Way’s and Main Street’s sidewalks in an urban fashion.  Another great feature is the significant amount of outdoor seating facing the park on the west and along Main Street to the north.  These outdoor spaces provide different experiences, one facing a serene and green riverfront park and the other facing and seemingly interacting with the energy around the ballpark on Main Street.  My one complaint is that the structure does not seem to properly articulate itself at the intersection of Mehring Way and Main Street.  Here, a significant architectural element should be integrated into the building’s design to highlight the road intersection as well as further distinguish the structure from its surrounding environment. 

Ok, moving on to the elevations.  First, the park side elevations, seen in the 2 images below, showcase outdoor spaces surrounding the Lager House that will directly and positively interact with the park space.  This will create a great ambiance and feel to both the urban park as well as the restaurant/microbrewery, all the while providing an experience unique to the region.  I also like the materials used for the structure, as they appear earthy and appropriate for a park setting while still fitting in contextually with the ballpark and the Banks nearby.  Plus, the excessive use of glass seems fitting, allowing for visual and literal connections to the surrounding park space. 

Finally, I want to comment on the Main Street side elevations, seen in the 2 images below.  While I am a fan of the large outdoor space that sits north of the structure and abuts Main Street, I have problems with a few things here.  First, the outdoor space is physically separated from the street by a descending street wall.  While I am aware the street slopes down towards the river and such a wall might be unavoidable, I think the outdoor seating could have been designed in such a way to maximize interaction with the street itself.  Second, the actual structure turns its back to Main Street, and offers little to no interaction with its surroundings on this side of the building.  Also, it appears this side of the building is where lager House loading/unloading activities will take place; something that is unfortunate given that the Main Street section of the Banks development will feature retail, outdoor dining options, and other entertainment features.  The Lager House could contribute to that atmosphere in an absolute and articulated way, but judging by these renderings, it will not.          

In the end, I am very excited about the Moerlein Lager House as I think it offers a new and unique entertainment and dining option for Cincinnati’s riverfront that compliments the ballpark as well as the Banks development.  Plus,as I mentioned above, the structure interacts beautifully with the Riverfront Park, the materials and use of glass seems appropriate, and the amount of outdoor seating is significant and exciting.  While the urban design along Main Street is a letdown, I still think the building has an overall successful design.  With proper implementation, the building will act as a southern end anchor to the Banks development and ensure the success of Cincinnati’s ongoing dramatic riverfront transformation.

Next Page »

Follow me on Twitter (@GMeckstroth)

Blog Categories

The Archives

streetsblog.net
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.