Over a great
many years, the former owner of the property put forth a great many alternative
plans for the site, some of which would have supported Petaluma’s urbanist
future and some of which are better forgotten.
Eventually,
time and a weakening economy robbed the earlier efforts of their last shred of
momentum and the property moved into different hands, eventually ending up
owned by Pacifica Companies of San Diego.
Pacifica has
now brought forth their plan, a plan that looks much like the final iteration
under the previous owner, not surprising given that some team members remain
the same, but with a sense of commitment and a level of credibility that gives
hope that this time the project will finally move ahead.
Although
Pacifica hasn’t yet submitted land-use applications to the Planning Department,
they rolled out the preliminary plans for community review earlier this
week. There was much to like in the
plans. There was also room to chat about
possible tweaks.
(One thing
that Pacifica hasn’t brought forth is a new name for the project. They seem committed to moving on from the previous
Haystack Landing name, but are as yet undecided on a new name. After offering the obligatory jest about
PTBNL for project-to-be-named-later, a reference to a player-to-be-named-later
in a baseball trade, I’ll continue calling the project Haystack Landing for
now.)
To begin my
comments, please understand that I would be happy if the project as now
presented could go into construction tomorrow.
Indeed, happy would understate my emotions. If I could get my wife to agree, I’d probably
put our names on the reservation list for one of the units. I hope to one day live in an urban setting
near the heart of Petaluma, a hope that has twice been stalled when earlier
projects failed. Haystack Landing is now
my newest great urban hope.
But
construction isn’t going to start tomorrow.
So there’s a window to talk about the good, the possible areas of improvement,
and the impractical suggestions put forth by others.
The
Good: As a member of the citizens committee for the Station Area Master Plan, I may be overly
committed to the vision that resulted from that process, but I’m pleased that
the Haystack Landing conforms well to the master plan, with a new street
dividing the parcel, multiple four-story buildings mostly ringing the resulting
two blocks, and parking, at the minimum allowed under the SmartCode, in the center
of the blocks, largely removed from the view of pedestrians.
In a detail
that wasn’t foretold by the master plan, but is a welcome addition, much of the
parking is covered by a roof that will support social activities and areas of
greenery.
(The project
architect pointed out that the strictures in the master plan and the related
SmartCode gave relatively few options for the site plan, largely dictating the proposed
plan. Short of asking for a bundle of
variances, the site plan had to look much as it has been designed. One could argue from this that the master
plan and SmartCode, even if they’re stifling innovation, are still leading to
good results.)
Looking at
one small site plan detail, I’m thrilled by the solution along D Street. A long-ago realignment of D Street left an
awkward triangle of pavement, comfortable for neither pedestrians walking
between downtown and the future train station nor drivers unsure how to steer a
right turn onto Weller Street. The
triangle can’t contain buildings because of overhead power lines, but the site
plan converts that space into a landscape and sculpture garden, with outdoor
dining for a proposed cafĂ©. It’s a fine
solution to a vexing problem.
The
Room for Improvements: I’m not an architect, don’t have the eye of an
architect, and am impossibly far behind in my attempt at remedial architectural
training, but I find that the Haystack Landing architecture, while well
articulated and richly detailed, still screams early 21st century American
development style. I don’t intend at all
to suggest that the architecture looks like a Walmart. With its detailing and varied use of
materials, it’s far from that architectural nadir.
But, to my
untrained eye, it still looks too much like the same architectural solution
that would be proposed for infill sites in Seattle, Denver, or Charlotte. It’d be a good solution in any of those
places, but nothing in the design says unique, Petaluma, or even California.
For corroboration
of my impressions, I checked with an architect friend. He used different words, but largely agreed with
me.
I suspect that
various constraints, from the site to the Station Area Master Plan to the construction
economics in the second decade of the 21st century, restricted the architect such
that this may been his legitimately best solution, but I can still chafe at the
result.
In a
situation for which an easier fix would seem to be available, Transverse
Street, the interim and unpoetic name for the street that will subdivide the
Haystack Landing site, will be the preferred route for most pedestrians walking
from downtown to the coming SMART station.
But that route may not be obvious to first-time visitors. Indeed, the route may seem unintuitive from
downtown. So wayfinding guidance at the
Weller Street entrance into Transverse Street would be appropriate, perhaps a
sculpture or signage that sends the unmistakable message that this be the way to
the train.
Rounding out
my thoughts on the preliminary plans are responses to some of the issues raised
by the public for which there are no solutions and for which the developer should
be given absolution. But I’ve already
claimed enough of your time for today, so I’ll defer those to my next post.
As always,
your questions or comments will be appreciated.
Please comment below or email me.
And thanks for reading. - Dave Alden (davealden53@comcast.net)
I am so happy to read such a positive assessment. What I would like to know more about is the constraints on a larger proportion of low-income or "affordable" housing, perhaps made possible by 5 or 6 stories being permitted.
ReplyDeleteBarry, you ask a good question. I was going to answer a related question in my next post. I'll revise my response to incorporate your query. Spoiler alert: The answer probably won't make you happy.
ReplyDeleteNo worries, Dave. I had no hope that it would!
ReplyDelete:) Barry