• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

mMm till —m • « » • lift ••-• PV i '-•Si SAN BERNARDINO R/UDAT NA9127 .S248S35 1981 REGIONAL URBAN DESIGN ASSISTANCE TEAM/AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS/OCTOBER 8-12, 1981 .- —**<•«*•*?••>» isms vivf^s^^mSsSSSS^i^^^^SBSStSKSSS^ I JMHififi'aiffii?fs^iff •- ""-^--i* •+•-».«** • -~;:^>:-*. *-.•.*> [«•"!»IV*'•"•-'•••-' HHS!3«^9^BSEg?wH3B8MSBMn sfflBBW '. 'JU'I_Jl M* it '"THE" ' i i • ifcj 1H -"r'•'•':„ /,,«~ri~,^~w:^'3!3w*3^ • "'i"'—*^-* ; :*£*? lP sffi&9i?©5SV^^. i "^j:. - •HH fc^*;^^^ •' **^ S**\ "T^ *• •••••••••I •?.-$ Hll m WSBm p 1 CONTENTS INTRODUCTION 4 ISSUES 8 RECOMMENDATIONS 10 CONTEXT 12 PROCESS FOR COMMUNITY CONSENSUS 16 ORGANIZING FOR GROWTH 19 PHYSICAL PLANNING COMPONENTS 36 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 50 eft to bo < 5 I INTRODUCTION WHAT IS R/UDAT AND WHY ARE THEY HERE? The Urban Planning and Design committee of The visit is a four-day, labor-intensive the American. Institute of Architects has process in which the members must quickly been sending Urban Design Assistance Teams assimilate facts, evaluate the existing to various American Cities since 1967. situation and arrive at a plan of action. The format of the visit consists of air, The San Bernardino Team is the 71st such automobile and bus tours to determine the team to be invited into a specific area to visual situation first hand; community deal with environmental and urban problems meeting and interviews to generate user which range in scale from a region to a input and to build community support; brain small town, and in type from recreational storming sessions to determine a direction areas to public policy and implementation and to develop implementable solutions; methods. and finally, the preparation of a written report and presentation to the community. The assistance R/UDAT provides is a community R/UDAT studies characteristically produce service (project/function/programs) of the implementable solutions. This means a American Institute of Architects (AIA). The proposal which can be accomplished within Urban Planning and design Committee of the a reasonable period of time; which can be AIA receives the community's request for reasonable financed; which can be executed assistance, then selects professionals for legally; and which satisfies the community their expertise in the specific disciplines enough to support it. which have been deemed necessary to respond to the particular problems of the community. The members of the team receive no compen­ sation for their services. Furthermore, they agree prior to the visit that they will not accept any commissions or consulting work which might result from this effort. 4 HOW IT BEGAN IN SAN BERNARDINO After construction of the Central City Mall, The city was visited by Pete Hasselman, Co- several city-appointed committees, local business Chairman of the National AIA R/UDAT Committee in people and citizen groups became concerned with March of 1981, and shortly thereafter San Bernar­ the rapid deterioration of the "E" Street dino was approved for a team visit. The City commercial strip north of the Mall. As a result Revitalization Committee was reformed again as the of the Mall construction, the San Bernardino R/UDAT Steering Committee and was new a standing Area Chamber of Commerce formed an ad hoc committee under the Economic Development Division committee in November 1978 to study the problem of the Chamber of Commerce. Preparations began in and offer input to the city government and earnest for the visit, and in August the city was community. visited by Chuck Redmon, San Bernardino R/UDAT Committee, to assess local readiness and to In mid 1979, the Chamber Committee was introduced coordinate preparations. The remaining seven to the R/UDAT concept by Denny Jones, A.I.A., team members were selected and the team visit representing the local chapter of the American was set for October 9-13. Institute of Architects. At that time, it was apparent to the "E" Street Committee that the scope of the problem reached far beyond the boundaries of "E" Street, and that in order to define the true nature of the problems at hand, a professional study of the downtown core was essential. The Committee was reformed as the City Revitalization Committee and set out to secure the services of R/UDAT. Presentations of the R/UDAT concepts to the community and city officials, including a film of a study done in Lafayette, La. and fund raising drives soon provided the enthusiastic support and funds pledged to support an application by the Chamber of Commerce to the American Institute of Architects for a R/UDAT. 5 WHAT HAPPENED DURING THE R/UDAT VISIT Throughout this process, the team felt that al­ though the citizens input was genuine and The R/UDAT Team has been asked to assist the enthusiastic, it was not broad based or well citizens of San Bernardino in identifying balanced. Attendance at meetings was low and the and resolving some very basic issues. These R/UDAT team's information gathering process seemed issues relate to defining the city's overall image, to be misunderstood by the local people. Prior the development and preservation of the downtown contacts to notify the various interest groups of core, connections between the west and east sides the team's visit have been incomplete. of the city, crime and public safety, land use and growth pattern, strategies and implementations. To compensate for this vacuum, the team later It is our intention to develop a clear, concise sought additional leadership from both business, approach for addressing these problems. political and neighborhood interest. Key members from the City's administration, leaders of Inland Prior to the R/UDAT Teams visit much preparation Action, leaders from the westside neighborhoods, for citizen input to the R/UDAT Team was initiated and many other interested citizens were contacted by the local R/UDAT Steering Committee. City and by the R/UDAT Team. Although the team's additional county leaders, business and civic leaders, and effort to get input was helpful to its definition neighborhood groups were invited to participate of issues and problems, it was by no means complete; with the team during its four-day visit. In time was short. addition, various documents, plans and data were assembled for the teams review. Publicity Late Saturday and all day Sunday, the team came announcing the R/UDAT visit was carried by radio, together to organize their observations and re­ TV and the press. commendations in order to complete their report to the community of San Bernardino. During the R/UDAT Team visit, team members travel­ ed many areas of San Bernardino on foot, and by It was clear by R/UDAT's difficult and incomplete car, bus and helicopter to get a feeling for the attempts to gather broad based community input city and its environs. They met with the mayor from the citizens of San Bernardino that there and council, city and county officials, leaders exists a lack of communication between various from the Chamber of Commerce, business leaders and factions of the people and that concensus on developers, civic leaders and representatives community values and goals does not exist. of Norton Air Force Base in a series of meetings and interviews. Saturday morning the team held However, the R/UDAT Team members feel that the a public forum to elicit input from residents and discussions held both planned and induced with citizens at large. Further discussion with the many people of San Bernardino conveyed their various interest groups and individuals were held local support for R/UDAT. It is our hope that this later. study may serve to help resolve the many issues facing San Bernardino. 6 p^fffi ; 1 pi Ml •••••• 7 ISSUES ISSUES & PROBLEMS IN SAN BERNARDINO Among the first questions which the R/UDAT representative the input had been. So we set out members posed to the business leaders which greeted to conduct our own poll. Using the 15 issues us was, "What are the most pressing issues, the identified at the Forum we surveyed those who most entrenched problems confronting the city as participated in the R/UDAT process during the perceived by the people of San Bernardino?" weekend - business leaders, elected officials, The most authoritative answer we received was a community leaders, interested citizens, et al listing of issues which has been developed during and had them rank the problems in order of pri­ an "Open Forum" sponsored by the Chamber of ority and add any others they felt should have been Commerce in 1980. There were two major drawbacks on the list. As is evident, there is more than a to the list: it was not prioritized and we could little correlation between the perceptions of the not tell who had attended the Forum - how two groupings of people for which we tallied the results. BUSINESS LEADERS/ELECTED OFFICIALS CITIZENS ATTENDING PUBLIC MEETING PRIORITY PRIORITY (1) CRIME (1) CRIME (2) REHABILITATION OF E STREET - DOWNTOWN (2) NEED FOR UNITED LEADERSHIP IN COMMUNITY PARKING (3) LOCAL GOVERNMENT DISCORD (3) UNEMPLOYMENT (4) REHABILITATION OF E STREET-DOWNTOWN PARKING (4) DEVELOPMENT OF THE "WESTSIDE" (5) UNEMPLOYMENT (5) NEED FOR UNITED LEADERSHIP IN COMMUNITY (6) URGING MORE QUALIFIED PEOPLE TO RUN FOR OFFICE (6) LOCAL GOVERNMENT DISCORD (7) DEVELOPMENT OF THE "WESTSIDE" e> WHAT THE R/UDAT TEAM SAW: (3) Even for a young California city, we find a surprising disregard for preservation of historic As a result of our four day "immersion" in San landmarks - an insensitivity to the value of the Bernardino, the R/UDAT Team members began finding cultural expressions still evidenced in the few a concensus about our own perceptions of the issues remaining "historic" architectural structures in related to development in the City. These did not the city.

Load more

  62

Copy Link