by Roger L. Schluntz, FAIA
Observations
The concept of a spacious and open mall
linking the state capitol building with downtown Phoenix is an image that
has endured, for better or worse, for nearly forty years. It is now time,
we believe, to assess this concept realistically and understand how it has
been seriously eroded as a result of a number of incremental decisions and
actions.
The governmental mall concept is firmly embedded in our awareness of our nation's capital, with its magnificent space, monumental structures, and historic national museums. In 1960, the power of this image was forcefully adopted for Brasilia, the new capital of Brazil, in a modern idiom - further inspiring a generation of planning and design thought.
It is important to note that at the time of the original plan in the 1960s, design theory held that the "new" was progressive and good; those structures that were old were necessarily the opposite. More than one plan for the governmental district indicated that a new capitol building should eliminate the existing structure. Times have changed, and modernism is no longer the defining movement in urban planning and design, much to the benefit of historic districts and surviving neighborhoods.
Regrettably, much of the area west of downtown did not survive the modernist era with anything approaching a viable community left intact.
The harsh reality that we are forced to accept today is that the original concept for the capitol mall was fundamentally flawed. Both the city of Phoenix and the federal government (probably for good reason) have chosen not to locate new buildings along the "mall." New museums have sprung up throughout the city in almost every location but the mall. These actions leave the state as the only stakeholder in the image of a mile-long park lined with important public structures. It should be noted that the state itself has violated a critical aspect of the planned mall; i.e., that the area between Washington and Jefferson streets was, necessarily, to be free of office buildings.
Nor is it clear how the envisioned mall was to
be used or populated. The need for additional open space for either the
public or the office worker was not discussed, much less demonstrated, in
these earlier studies. In fact, the ad hoc policy that is now operative
for the district eliminates this fundamental premise altogether! What we
have left is the vague suggestion that Washington Street will be maintained
as the visually prominent "spine" for the area, visually linking
downtown with the historic capitol building. The vision has thus far produced
neither a distinctive mall, a functional and inter-related complex of state
agencies, nor a viable community. We have, quite simply, made a hash of
it.
Rather than an image of a mall, the disparate collection of existing and proposed public structures resembles more closely, in fact, that of an industrial park for state office buildings; hardly the compelling vision so long ago promised. The impoverished reality is evidence enough that serious debate and consideration of alternative visions are now justified and desperately needed if we are to realize a viable and distinctive district that will engender the pride of workers, residents, and the people of Arizona.
Principles and Recommendations
Arizona Capitol and State Office District
- Historic Capitol - Reinforce the primacy of the historic capitol
building as the central visual focus of the district and as the termination
of the Washington view corridor. The emphasis should not shift to Washington
Street itself.
- Concentricity - Add new state office buildings in a concentric pattern around the capitol building, in a manner that adds dignity and majesty to the existing state government and judiciary buildings.
- Parking - Presume below-grade parking for each new structure to minimize surface parking lots. Above-grade parking structures should attempt to incorporate occupied uses for all or part of the first level.
- Infill - Encourage commercial activity and infill, as appropriate, to add a sense of vibrancy and community to the district area, particularly to the north of the capitol building.
- Prototype - Consider the courtyard aspects, building height, and adjacent streetscape development of the most recent DES Building (19th Avenue and Washington Street) as a prototype that can inform the programming and design of future state facilities in the capitol precinct.
- Climate Mitigation - Consider carefully the summer climate and its implications in developing a pedestrian-friendly environment linking existing and proposed buildings in the district.
Streets
- Scale - Avoid the discontinuity and sense of isolation resulting
from the formation of super-blocks.
- Street Width - Recognize that wide streets do not encourage pedestrian use.
- Traffic Pattern - Limit, and where possible eliminate, one-way streets.
- 11th Avenue - Develop the three blocks of 11th Avenue as a pedestrian-oriented linkage visually connecting University Park with the Carnegie Library historic park. Specifically, narrow the paving to two lanes and flank the adjacent sidewalks with a double row of trees.
- Alleys - Alleys can provide another layer of pedestrian and vehicular circulation, onethat need not be without design interest.
- Washington Street - Develop Washington Street as two-way, making possible the use of DASH to link the capitol district with the downtown.