Medford’s Plaza Is A Possible Model for a Yakima Plaza — Dave’s Diary

I just got back from a tour of Bend, Medford and Portland, Oregon in search of downtown revitalization ideas, plaza possibilities and more.  It was a great trip; we shot a lot of video, collected a number of interviews and the city hopes to make it all available to you in the very near future.  I think you’ll be impressed.Seeing in person what has and can be done makes all the difference in the world.  I am even more convinced now than before that our town would greatly benefit from a well designed plaza space.

The conversation on all of this lead to a couple of great phone calls to the Morning News --one in particular sticks out.  After hearing my enthusiasm and descriptions of the plazas we saw, a gentleman called to say that he felt all the negativism and “naysayers” we’ve experienced so far have actually helped the process!  He thought the complaints about parking and walking and fear of crime, etc. combined to slow the process down and made us rethink certain aspects of creating a pedestrian friendly downtown.

My reaction is that I totally disagree.  If we seem to be moving too fast for some folks we need to reset expectations and make clear what the timetable is.  We also need to clarify that the ideas, maps and drawings in the Crandall Arambula draft plan were offered as possible opportunities...it is a DRAFT plan.

In my opinion the negativism hasn’t really changed anything other than to create confusion and generate a major obstacle to overcome in the future.  Now there will be much misinformation to correct during the “educating the public” period when a final plan is produced --and that won’t be until the end of the year.

To review: we don’t have a plaza design to consider yet. We have had meetings and gathered public input and we hope to have four plaza plans for your consideration and modification in late July or early August but there is no plaza plan at this time.  Still, the caller’s take on the negativism topic did point me to something I have overlooked.  Part of the confusion is our own fault.

The original consultants -Crandall Arambula- gave us a philosophy of downtown revitalization and then gave us a “draft plan” which included examples of what others have done and what we could do to implement their philosophy.  That document is posted on the city’s website.  It is clearly labeled as a “Draft Plan” but apparently a lot of people have overlooked the "draft" status and come to the conclusion that the possible examples listed in the draft are in fact the actual final plan.  NOT TRUE.

The core idea is to save the core, to preserve the heart of the downtown and the way to do that is to create an environment and experience that will bring people downtown.  When the crowds come the business will follow and they will invest to engage the people.  The same kinds of activities and environment that brings our locals will also attract tourists.

There are many ways and many degrees of activity to accomplish that.  The specifics listed in the Crandall Arambula draft plan are some interesting ideas but they are not the plan itself. Everyone who has reacted or overreacted to the ideas in the draft plan in the Yakima newspaper is getting worked up for nothing at this point.

Despite what our caller suggested, the negativism hasn’t changed the pace or trajectory of the project, but it has created a huge obstacle to presenting the process to the public.    In hindsight we probably shouldn’t have posted the entire draft plan.  We did pull out and separately post some of the elements we are considering (like the plaza idea) but people are still confused and still negative as a result and for that I’m sorry.  I have asked the city to take down the draft plan or label it more clearly as the starting point for community discussion and not the ending.  We’ll see if that helps.

I was also kind of scolded for calling people negative who didn’t agree with me and I can see how that nice gentleman may have felt that way.  But in my defense I will say this--the idea is to save downtown through economic development triggered by creating a new experience for shoppers and visitors. Anything that doesn’t fit that framework doesn’t have a place in the conversation.

SO--a conversation about moving the plaza out of downtown doesn't fit.  For example- putting a plaza in Miller Park won’t trigger downtown development so there is no use in that conversation.  Talking about alternate downtown locations such as the county’s Performance Park area or other areas that don’t allow for new economic development is also outside the parameters of intent.   Arguing or complaining about the loss parking without having an actual parking plan and plaza footprint to consider is a waste of energy.  Those plans are coming, let’s argue about them if they fail to deliver on our needs.

In conclusion - A reasonable and positive conversation CAN occur -- when you understand the philosophy--the reason for doing any of this in the first place.  All other disagreement is just...well, negative!  Whew!