Richardson taxpayers voted to approve issuing $46 million in bonds to partially pay for a new City Hall, the old one having suffered a disastrous fire. The City hired consultants to gather inputs from Richardson stakeholders. They interviewed Councilmembers already. If they had interviewed me, what I would have told them is below. The rest of the public can now weigh in, too.
- Q. What are your thoughts on the current City Hall and campus?
A. Its exterior is architecturally striking. It's a shame to lose that. Its most commonly used entrance is a side door. That layout never made sense. The green space along both sides of Arapaho Rd is a valued parklike setting. The view from Arapaho Rd will suffer unless the new building also has striking architecture from that side. - Q. Are there any elements that must be saved?
A. No, but make the new building as architecturally striking as the old. - Q. What are the top 3 things you want in a new City Hall?
A. An architecturally striking exterior. Harmony with the library building. A hidden parking garage to make room for other uses of this outstanding location. - Q. How would you balance security against a welcoming environment?
A. Compartmentalize the offices away from the public space. Design the council chamber so security can be adapted as future needs and capabilities change. - Q. Prioritize the following:
A. My priority order...
Diversity and inclusion. (Of course. Why is this even asked?)
Sustainability.
Flexibility for future.
Meeting space for public.
Technology.
Art. (Maybe a separate museum should be a future addition.)
History. (Maybe exhibits can go in that future museum.) - Q. Thoughts on exterior architectural character.
A. Exterior character is worth replacing with something equally striking, but not a copy. Exterior should complement library building. - Q. Thoughts on design of Council chamber.
A. Make it multi-functional, so it can be used for much more than just Council meetings. Perhaps use an open stage. - Q. Thoughts on interior spaces of new City Hall.
A. Public space should be beautiful and useful. Office space, on the other hand, should be useful and beautiful. - Q. Thoughts on site plan.
A. It's unacceptable. A standalone office building surrounded by a sea of surface parking is city planning from the old era of the existing building. It's far from the highest and best use of this valuable land today. - Q. Vision for municipal campus in the future.
A. Create a mixed-use design that will facilitate adding dining, entertainment, recreation, and maybe even living components in the future. Think about the bigger site. This property should integrate with a re-envisioned neighborhood all the way from the retail center to the west on the curve in Arapaho Rd to the future mixed-use development to the east at the Arapaho DART station. Don't "turn your back" on that neighborhood. That makes the new City Hall a gap in the walkability of that bigger neighborhood. Putting the "front door" in the "back" of that bigger site will look like a head-scratching mistake and a challenge to overcome as the rest of the neighborhood gets re-envisioned in the future. - Q. Anything else?
A. I made up question #11. It wasn't in the survey given to Councilmembers. But I'd like the City to answer some out-of-the-box questions of my own.
Q. What other sites did the City consider for a new City Hall and why was the existing site preferred over alternatives?
Q. What solutions were considered other than a standalone office building surrounded by a sea of surface parking and why was this conventional solution preferred over alternatives?
"Vibrant orange box,
City's heart beats within walls,
Bold hub of power."
— ChatGPT
4 comments:
"Town Square" is an excellent image. (Amir Omar suggests it on Facebook. I wish I had thought to use it.) I think the City thinks that green space around the fountain is a town square, but you can't have a real town square without the "town." And that site plan lacks a town. I would go tall with City Hall, minimizing the footprint of City Hall so that the rest of the space can be filled with "town". I would put all of the City offices in the higher floors, increasing security as a side benefit. I would put the public spaces on the ground floor with visual access to the town square.
I ranked sustainability high in #5, but if "net zero carbon" had been an option, I would have ranked that even higher.
I ranked "diversity and inclusion" high, thinking about inclusion of persons with physical disabilities. But it might also mean inclusion of styles of architecture from all over the world. My ranking should not be interpreted as me expressing a preference for some kind of mini-Epcot all in one building. Save that for Disney or the Las Vegas strip, please. The ambiguity in the question means it's a bad question.
A reader, thinking bigger than just the fire-damaged City Hall building itself, suggests a different answer to #3, what to save. That pecan tree on the campus is definitely worthy of saving. I expressed dismay that the tree was already gone from the earliest drawings of the rebuilt municipal campus. I dropped my public outcry when the City argued that the tree was already dying and needed to be removed. The reader argues that waiting for a natural death of a beloved tree has symbolic value. So I'm back fully onboard Team Pecan Tree. The City seemed to be unseemly hasty in deciding to remove it for safety reasons instead of, say, fencing it off and letting it die in peace. It's now too late, but it would have been symbolically fitting to put a piece of that tree in the time capsule created at the 150th anniversary celebration to let our descendents know what we considered important in 2023. If it turns out that we cut down that tree in 2023, before its natural death, that would subconsciously reveal what we do *not* think is important. Leave the Pecan Alone!
Post a Comment