Last week I wrote a post criticizing ASU’s and the City of Phoenix’s decision to replace the landmark Sahara Motor Inn (aka Ramada Inn) with a parking lot. In addition to the other blog posts that I previous mentioned (and a subsequent new post), this short-sighted decision was the topic of discussion at last Saturday’s Downtown Voices Coalition meeting. This discussion led to a letter from Steve Weiss to the Mayor, City Council, ASU, City Staff, ASU Staff and the citizens of Phoenix. Additionally the AZ Republic has caught wind of the opposition.
After having some time to think about it, I cam to the conclusion that the best defense of the building is a good offense. Instead of simply objecting to the proposed demolition, I have come up with a proposed alternative that speaks to the state mission of goals of both ASU and the City of Phoenix.
Rather than thinking of the Sahara/Ramada as a dilapidated hotel, why not think in more dynamic terms? With a little bit of patience and creative thinking, the hotel could be a space that fosters the ideas of tomorrow as an incubator for social innovators and local enterprises. This would be a concrete manifestation of ASU’s commitment to social embeddedness and the City of Phoenix’s commitment to a livelier, more integrated and sustainable downtown.
Such a social incubator could include the following uses:
Work.
The various hotel rooms could easily be transformed into work spaces for social entrepreneurs to develop new companies and community organizations. They could be offered on various lease terms, including yearly, monthly weekly or even hourly, depending on the needs of the entrepreneurs.
The spaces could target ASU students, alumni and downtown community members, whether they be freelancers, visitors, part-time activists or full-time innovators. These space would be rented at low rates; just enough to cover the cost of utilities and other basic operating costs, such as wifi, security, cleaning and shared office equipment. They could also be sponsored by local foundations and through donations from business and corporate entities.
Meet.
The larger spaces in the hotel could transformed into a variety of meeting and event spaces for the social entrepreneurs mentioned above, as well as ASU and the downtown community. These spaces would allow these social creatives to learn, connect and create in a dynamic shared environment.
They could host events ranging from non-profit board meetings to alumni book launches as well as a variety of networking and media events. Again, these spaces could be rented to covered basic operating costs or supported through sponsorship opportunities.
Connect.
Perhaps most importantly, the biggest spaces such as the old restaurant could be used as a ‘creative community center.’ It could offer a range of planned activities from open dialogue debates and capacity-building workshops. The space would allow creative people to ‘plug-in to the larger community and connect, converse, learn and create.
One model for this connecting space is PieLab, an innovative community space in Greensboro, Alabama that provides pie and coffee, as well as retail and hospitality job training for local youth. Thus as well as being a coffee shop, it operates ‘as a community design center’ focusing on community development projects and small business incubation.
Recreate.
The pool area could be used as a space for tenants and community members to unwind and socialize. It could also be rented to community groups for events or even used as an outdoor all ages nightclub for ASU students and local youth, generating money for maintenance and operations. a cafe or restraint could be attached to it, perhaps connected to a ‘PieLab’ type kitchen facility.
This is not simply a ‘pie’ in the sky idea. It is based on a very real and successful enterprise in another city. For more information on a similar model of community innovation, check out the Center for Social Innovation in Toronto, Canada.
This is a single concept that I have come up with on my own and with minimal research. Surely with a bit of effort, the combined minds of ASU, city staff and the community, we can come up with something even more creative and fitting for downtown Phoenix.
At the very least, we can come up with something more worthy than a parking lots and a vague promise of a ASU building in the not so foreseeable future.
Related articles by Zemanta
- Dumb and Dumber: The City of Phoenix and ASU (yuriartibise.com)
- CityScape: Suburbanizing Downtown Phoenix (yuriartibise.com)
Yuri, I love it!
I want to clarify that I am not responding on the university's behalf. As always, I'm not a representative of the university, I am just an employee. ASU did not tell me what to say. I am responding as a designer and a downtown Phoenix resident.
I think what you propose here is a great solution, and I would totally participate in it. But what I also think is this is a great solution that hasn't taken into account the entire design problem. As a designer, identifying the design problem is the first and most important task in my process. Creative thinking applied to the a different set of problems does not solve the problem at hand.
The university comprehensive development plan has been in the works since 2003. You can tell, because that website hasn't been redesigned since then. Moving professional studies to the locations where they have access to opportunities in a professional world is one of the main design principles of this plan. The recent successes of Public Programs and Journalism are good examples of how programs have grown and flourished because of that access to professional opportunity. Law happens in downtown Phoenix. Lawyers work in downtown Phoenix. The plan to move the Law School to downtown Phoenix is part of a long term strategy put forth by the university in 2004. The city of Phoenix saw an opportunity to meet that design problem with this space, at the least cost possible.
Do I wish it was a different space personally? Yes. Do I wish someone had taken the opportunity to invest in this space when it was available to do exactly what you are suggesting? Yes. Do I wish Bob Hope was still hanging out at the Ramada? Yes. I would like to say hello. But the city and the university are meeting a need for students and the professional community by bringing the law school to the place where law happens. Hearing this called a short sited decision with the information I know is available to anyone online is very frustrating.
The design problem I identify is this: figure out a sustainable reuse for that building and bring the law school to downtown Phoenix. The budget is nil. It would need to create a guaranteed revenue stream for the city or whomever is investing in it, and the law school would still need to be moved downtown somewhere in the near future.
Creativity, thinking, flexibility, innovative ideas, etc., unfortunately, do not appear to be a basic part of the city's and ASU's vocabulary. Money & parking lots are easy words/concepts for these two public bodies. It would seem to me that both entities need to go back to “school” before they make any more foolish (in my opinion) errors. As for moving the law school to downtown. Gosh, how has it survived all these years where it currently is? And why are so many people involved in the school opposed? Is ASU trying to force a round peg into a square hole again? And if I remember correctly, the original plan was to sprinkle lots of ASU throughout downtown, not all in one tight cluster. We certainly have a lot of commercial space (VACANT no less) that could serve the purpose probably at a far cheaper rate than building new and not that far (exercise is important and should be a required aspect of any degree program…walking is “cheap”) from the center of the core buildings.
Yuri, I love it!
Once again you open our eyes to possiblities verses business as usual. The City cites asbestos as an issue. Does anyone know the extent of the asbetos use in the construction as that can be a valid factor, especially in our litigious society.
I want to clarify that I am not responding on the university’s behalf. As always, I’m not a representative of the university, I am just an employee. ASU did not tell me what to say. I am responding as a designer and a downtown Phoenix resident.
I think what you propose here is a great solution, and I would totally participate in it. But what I also think is this is a great solution that hasn’t taken into account the entire design problem. As a designer, identifying the design problem is the first and most important task in my process. Creative thinking applied to the a different set of problems does not solve the problem at hand.
The university comprehensive development plan has been in the works since 2003. You can tell, because that website hasn’t been redesigned since then. Moving professional studies to the locations where they have access to opportunities in a professional world is one of the main design principles of this plan. The recent successes of Public Programs and Journalism are good examples of how programs have grown and flourished because of that access to professional opportunity. Law happens in downtown Phoenix. Lawyers work in downtown Phoenix. The plan to move the Law School to downtown Phoenix is part of a long term strategy put forth by the university in 2004. The city of Phoenix saw an opportunity to meet that design problem with this space, at the least cost possible.
Do I wish it was a different space personally? Yes. Do I wish someone had taken the opportunity to invest in this space when it was available to do exactly what you are suggesting? Yes. Do I wish Bob Hope was still hanging out at the Ramada? Yes. I would like to say hello. But the city and the university are meeting a need for students and the professional community by bringing the law school to the place where law happens. Hearing this called a short sited decision with the information I know is available to anyone online is very frustrating.
The design problem I identify is this: figure out a sustainable reuse for that building and bring the law school to downtown Phoenix. The budget is nil. It would need to create a guaranteed revenue stream for the city or whomever is investing in it, and the law school would still need to be moved downtown somewhere in the near future.
Fair comment, but there are literally thousand of other acres of avaiable property downtown for the law building to be built on, several much closer to the buildings where law actually happens (many of which were already owned by the city, unlike the Ramada property.)
For a university that is supposed be concerned about community embeddedness and sustainability (let alone teach critical thought), tearing down a building simply because it is the most convenient and cheapest option is inexcusable. For the sake of a few dollars and a lack of imagination and flexibility, the City and ASU are wiping out yet another piece of Phoenix’s history.
As for the comprehensive plan, when was the public last invited to comment on it’s evolution? A lot has happened since it was first written in 2003 and a handful of public meetings held before the downtown campus even officially opened are simply not enough to guide developments 10-15 years in the future. Besides, some of what was proposed in the original plan has never taken shape, while several deviations have occurred. (and I can’t find mention of a downtown law school in any of the publicly available documents). Given the numerous changes that have already occurred, moving the law school a few block away to one of the numerous other vacant lots nearby wouldn’t be a major deviation from this plan in any case.
As for the design challenge, I know you aren’t in a position to do this personally, but why doesn’t ASU open up a community dialogue with the city and interested community organizations to help answer the challenge you put forth? If by the end of a robust and open public process, no better option can be found, then they can revert back to the original plans, but at least give people the option of proposing alternative solutions. After all, the law school is still many years in the future, so postponing the demolition of a historically significant hotel for a few months to allow true community engagement to occur shouldn’t be too big of a deal.
Fair comment, but there are literally thousand of other acres of avaiable property downtown for the law building to be built on, several much closer to the buildings where law actually happens (many of which were already owned by the city, unlike the Ramada property.)
For a university that is supposed be concerned about community embeddedness and sustainability (let alone teach critical thought), tearing down a building simply because it is the most convenient and cheapest option is inexcusable. For the sake of a few dollars and a lack of imagination and flexibility, the City and ASU are wiping out yet another piece of Phoenix's history.
As for the comprehensive plan, when was the public last invited to comment on it's evolution? A lot has happened since it was first written in 2003 and a handful of public meetings held before the downtown campus even officially opened are simply not enough to guide developments 10-15 years in the future. Besides, some of what was proposed in the original plan has never taken shape, while several deviations have occurred. (and I can't find mention of a downtown law school in any of the publicly available documents). Given the numerous changes that have already occurred, moving the law school a few block away to one of the numerous other vacant lots nearby wouldn't be a major deviation from this plan in any case.
As for the design challenge, I know you aren't in a position to do this personally, but why doesn't ASU open up a community dialogue with the city and interested community organizations to help answer the challenge you put forth? If by the end of a robust and open public process, no better option can be found, then they can revert back to the original plans, but at least give people the option of proposing alternative solutions. After all, the law school is still many years in the future, so postponing the demolition of a historically significant hotel for a few months to allow true community engagement to occur shouldn't be too big of a deal.
Creativity, thinking, flexibility, innovative ideas, etc., unfortunately, do not appear to be a basic part of the city’s and ASU’s vocabulary. Money & parking lots are easy words/concepts for these two public bodies. It would seem to me that both entities need to go back to “school” before they make any more foolish (in my opinion) errors. As for moving the law school to downtown. Gosh, how has it survived all these years where it currently is? And why are so many people involved in the school opposed? Is ASU trying to force a round peg into a square hole again? And if I remember correctly, the original plan was to sprinkle lots of ASU throughout downtown, not all in one tight cluster. We certainly have a lot of commercial space (VACANT no less) that could serve the purpose probably at a far cheaper rate than building new and not that far (exercise is important and should be a required aspect of any degree program…walking is “cheap”) from the center of the core buildings.
Once again you open our eyes to possiblities verses business as usual. The City cites asbestos as an issue. Does anyone know the extent of the asbetos use in the construction as that can be a valid factor, especially in our litigious society.
Gene, the didn’t seem to have any major problem with the asbestos when they used the room as a dorm for students (although they did spend $200K for remediation) it is only after they decided that it is in their way that it has become an issue (or more likely an excuse).
As i understand that there is some asbestos in the popcorn sprayed on some of the ceilings in the rooms and hallways. However it has been pained over numerous time so it is not airborne. it is the same situation as in the Mondrain and Valley Ho where guest spend hundreds of dollars a night to stay. Besides they will STILL have to deal with it if they demo the building as disturb the now dormant popcorn.
However, if this is really a valid concern, then I guess we’ll also see demolition permits for not only the Valley Ho and Mondrian, but also the Executive Towers, The Embassy, The Landmark, Regency House, Phoenix Towers, The Cascades, and the other Motor Inns that are still standing, not to mention hundreds of thousands of homes in the city built between 1920 and 1990.
Gene, the didn't seem to have any major problem with the asbestos when they used the room as a dorm for students (although they did spend $200K for remediation) it is only after they decided that it is in their way that it has become an issue (or more likely an excuse).
As i understand that there is some asbestos in the popcorn sprayed on some of the ceilings in the rooms and hallways. However it has been pained over numerous time so it is not airborne. it is the same situation as in the Mondrain and Valley Ho where guest spend hundreds of dollars a night to stay. Besides they will STILL have to deal with it if they demo the building as disturb the now dormant popcorn.
However, if this is really a valid concern, then I guess we'll also see demolition permits for not only the Valley Ho and Mondrian, but also the Executive Towers, The Embassy, The Landmark, Regency House, Phoenix Towers, The Cascades, and the other Motor Inns that are still standing, not to mention hundreds of thousands of homes in the city built between 1920 and 1990.
Yuri:
First and foremost I LOVE your idea. It is exactly my senior mini-thesis project back in 04, but on a much grander scale. Our main concern is that no one at the college sees enough value in that property, cares to deviate from their original plan, and/or would be interested in donating the time and money to make it happen. The building does need another few million in renovation just to be used. We could make the West (retail) building profitable. I have no doubt about it. But the South Building that contains the majority of the guest rooms posts the biggest challenge. Unfortunately, its not like anyone is begging for office space these days. We'd just be adding another 61,000+ s.f. of vacant space into the mix. The hotel needed a 50% occupancy to be profitable @ $100-120/night ($1500/month.) But they also had a $5mill loan to pay on. COP/ASU own it outright. So what would these spaces need to rent for, I wonder? And since they sold out – errr I mean teamed up with the Sheraton, now they are stuck with a need to provide them parking, but perhaps they could just share another one of their lots with them IF they really wanted too. IF only.
Nina:
I'm all for the School of Law being downtown and I whole heartedly appreciate the historic renovation and thoughtful design of ASU's new buildings. With that said, I completely disagree with your statement of “The city of Phoenix saw an opportunity to meet that design problem with this space, at the least cost possible.” The problem is that they picked that particular space. Sure the location is perfect, but it is on the wrong site to say “at the least cost possible.” It costs more money to destroy and remove debris than not to. And adhering to a plan created in 2004 has nothing to do with our city's downtown issues today. At that time the plan actually called Phoenix “one of the most rapidly urbanizing metropolitan areas in the nation.” Today it would call us the “sunken ship.” We all had plans back in 2004 and have had to either give them up or adjust them completely. The City and ASU should be the ones who are leading the way in actually helping to solve our biggest issues – a catastrophic commercial real estate bust. And why not help to solve our city's more immediate problems and put the School of Law in an under occupied existing building that might actually have real lawyers in it? $5million in bond funds could have tenant improved us a fairly sizable Law School by this upcoming fall semester and created a few white and blue collar jobs in the meantime. Or is that too much “community engagement” for the self proclaimed innovators at ASU?
It was assumed by the public that ASU wanted that site for student housing. When they decided to build their own dorms it was assumed they gave up on that site. Was it ever made public until now that they wanted to raze it? The mere fact is that we are still at least a couple thousand hotel rooms short for the Convention Center’s capacity. Someone with a vision would have eventually bought the hotel site from the bank and given us back our Sahara. Coupling that with the fact that it’s been vacant for long time, I don’t consider this site to have been putting a strain on our community (besides eyesore) or to have been in need of emergency relief like our commercial office buildings do. Who and what are ASU’s priorities?
Gene:
Popcorn ceilings and possibly acoustical ceiling tiles in the West building. Those would be removed and replaced in any standard gut renovation – as they are old, damaged and dated looking. Not a big deal. If it were – then ASU should probably also be tearing down half of their Education buildings on the Tempe campus as well.
Since its too late and the Sahara site has already been purchased, I would love to prove all those city and college folk wrong and round up all my unemployed Architect, Engineer and Designer friends to design them an amazing and much more economical School of Law ($8-12million), Boutique Hotel ($7-9million), or Social / Entrepreneurial Incubator space ($5.5million since the tenant spaces have no furniture) in those existing buildings if only they would let me. Compare that to a $35million + tear down/asphalt/tear down asphalt/new build School of Law. In fact – I dare them to let us do it. Because I’m sure they would thank us later as they finally see its history revealed and get to spend the extra $25million left over on building another brand new pretty LEED Certified building on another of their asphalt lots. It’s a two-for-one special.
Yuri:
First and foremost I LOVE your idea. It is exactly my senior mini-thesis project back in 04, but on a much grander scale. Our main concern is that no one at the college sees enough value in that property, cares to deviate from their original plan, and/or would be interested in donating the time and money to make it happen. The building does need another few million in renovation just to be used. We could make the West (retail) building profitable. I have no doubt about it. But the South Building that contains the majority of the guest rooms posts the biggest challenge. Unfortunately, its not like anyone is begging for office space these days. We’d just be adding another 61,000+ s.f. of vacant space into the mix. The hotel needed a 50% occupancy to be profitable @ $100-120/night ($1500/month.) But they also had a $5mill loan to pay on. COP/ASU own it outright. So what would these spaces need to rent for, I wonder? And since they sold out – errr I mean teamed up with the Sheraton, now they are stuck with a need to provide them parking, but perhaps they could just share another one of their lots with them IF they really wanted too. IF only.
Nina:
I’m all for the School of Law being downtown and I whole heartedly appreciate the historic renovation and thoughtful design of ASU’s new buildings. With that said, I completely disagree with your statement of “The city of Phoenix saw an opportunity to meet that design problem with this space, at the least cost possible.” The problem is that they picked that particular space. Sure the location is perfect, but it is on the wrong site to say “at the least cost possible.” It costs more money to destroy and remove debris than not to. And adhering to a plan created in 2004 has nothing to do with our city’s downtown issues today. At that time the plan actually called Phoenix “one of the most rapidly urbanizing metropolitan areas in the nation.” Today it would call us the “sunken ship.” We all had plans back in 2004 and have had to either give them up or adjust them completely. The City and ASU should be the ones who are leading the way in actually helping to solve our biggest issues – a catastrophic commercial real estate bust. And why not help to solve our city’s more immediate problems and put the School of Law in an under occupied existing building that might actually have real lawyers in it? $5million in bond funds could have tenant improved us a fairly sizable Law School by this upcoming fall semester and created a few white and blue collar jobs in the meantime. Or is that too much “community engagement” for the self proclaimed innovators at ASU?
It was assumed by the public that ASU wanted that site for student housing. When they decided to build their own dorms it was assumed they gave up on that site. Was it ever made public until now that they wanted to raze it? The mere fact is that we are still at least a couple thousand hotel rooms short for the Convention Center’s capacity. Someone with a vision would have eventually bought the hotel site from the bank and given us back our Sahara. Coupling that with the fact that it’s been vacant for long time, I don’t consider this site to have been putting a strain on our community (besides eyesore) or to have been in need of emergency relief like our commercial office buildings do. Who and what are ASU’s priorities?
Gene:
Popcorn ceilings and possibly acoustical ceiling tiles in the West building. Those would be removed and replaced in any standard gut renovation – as they are old, damaged and dated looking. Not a big deal. If it were – then ASU should probably also be tearing down half of their Education buildings on the Tempe campus as well.
Since its too late and the Sahara site has already been purchased, I would love to prove all those city and college folk wrong and round up all my unemployed Architect, Engineer and Designer friends to design them an amazing and much more economical School of Law ($8-12million), Boutique Hotel ($7-9million), or Social / Entrepreneurial Incubator space ($5.5million since the tenant spaces have no furniture) in those existing buildings if only they would let me. Compare that to a $35million + tear down/asphalt/tear down asphalt/new build School of Law. In fact – I dare them to let us do it. Because I’m sure they would thank us later as they finally see its history revealed and get to spend the extra $25million left over on building another brand new pretty LEED Certified building on another of their asphalt lots. It’s a two-for-one special.
Yuri:
First and foremost I LOVE your idea. It is exactly my senior mini-thesis project back in 04, but on a much grander scale. Our main concern is that no one at the college sees enough value in that property, cares to deviate from their original plan, and/or would be interested in donating the time and money to make it happen. The building does need another few million in renovation just to be used. We could make the West (retail) building profitable. I have no doubt about it. But the South Building that contains the majority of the guest rooms posts the biggest challenge. Unfortunately, its not like anyone is begging for office space these days. We'd just be adding another 61,000+ s.f. of vacant space into the mix. The hotel needed a 50% occupancy to be profitable @ $100-120/night ($1500/month.) But they also had a $5mill loan to pay on. COP/ASU own it outright. So what would these spaces need to rent for, I wonder? And since they sold out – errr I mean teamed up with the Sheraton, now they are stuck with a need to provide them parking, but perhaps they could just share another one of their lots with them IF they really wanted too. IF only.
Nina:
I'm all for the School of Law being downtown and I whole heartedly appreciate the historic renovation and thoughtful design of ASU's new buildings. With that said, I completely disagree with your statement of “The city of Phoenix saw an opportunity to meet that design problem with this space, at the least cost possible.” The problem is that they picked that particular space. Sure the location is perfect, but it is on the wrong site to say “at the least cost possible.” It costs more money to destroy and remove debris than not to. And adhering to a plan created in 2004 has nothing to do with our city's downtown issues today. At that time the plan actually called Phoenix “one of the most rapidly urbanizing metropolitan areas in the nation.” Today it would call us the “sunken ship.” We all had plans back in 2004 and have had to either give them up or adjust them completely. The City and ASU should be the ones who are leading the way in actually helping to solve our biggest issues – a catastrophic commercial real estate bust. And why not help to solve our city's more immediate problems and put the School of Law in an under occupied existing building that might actually have real lawyers in it? $5million in bond funds could have tenant improved us a fairly sizable Law School by this upcoming fall semester and created a few white and blue collar jobs in the meantime. Or is that too much “community engagement” for the self proclaimed innovators at ASU?
It was assumed by the public that ASU wanted that site for student housing. When they decided to build their own dorms it was assumed they gave up on that site. Was it ever made public until now that they wanted to raze it? The mere fact is that we are still at least a couple thousand hotel rooms short for the Convention Center’s capacity. Someone with a vision would have eventually bought the hotel site from the bank and given us back our Sahara. Coupling that with the fact that it’s been vacant for long time, I don’t consider this site to have been putting a strain on our community (besides eyesore) or to have been in need of emergency relief like our commercial office buildings do. Who and what are ASU’s priorities?
Gene:
Popcorn ceilings and possibly acoustical ceiling tiles in the West building. Those would be removed and replaced in any standard gut renovation – as they are old, damaged and dated looking. Not a big deal. If it were – then ASU should probably also be tearing down half of their Education buildings on the Tempe campus as well.
Since its too late and the Sahara site has already been purchased, I would love to prove all those city and college folk wrong and round up all my unemployed Architect, Engineer and Designer friends to design them an amazing and much more economical School of Law ($8-12million), Boutique Hotel ($7-9million), or Social / Entrepreneurial Incubator space ($5.5million since the tenant spaces have no furniture) in those existing buildings if only they would let me. Compare that to a $35million + tear down/asphalt/tear down asphalt/new build School of Law. In fact – I dare them to let us do it. Because I’m sure they would thank us later as they finally see its history revealed and get to spend the extra $25million left over on building another brand new pretty LEED Certified building on another of their asphalt lots. It’s a two-for-one special.