November 21–24, 2002 Mesa, Arizona

November 21–24, 2002

Mesa, Arizona

Joint Urban Design ProgramCAED Alumni Association

College of Architecture and Environmental DesignArizona State University

Mesa, Arizona

Published by the Herberger Center for Design Excellence

© 2003 Arizona Board of Regents

To inquire about this publication or to order additional

copies, please contact:

Herberger Center for Design Excellence

College of Architecture and Environmental Design

PO Box 871905

Tempe, AZ 85287-1905

480-965-6693

480-965-3635 fax

Email [email protected]

www.asu.edu/caed/JUDP

Publication editor Kim Shetter

This publication is also available online at

www.asu.edu/caed/JUDP

Charrette activities by the Joint Urban Design Program

Published by


College of Architecture and Environmental Design (CAED)

Arizona State University

© Arizona Board of Regents

The Broadway Corridor Community Charrette was conducted by

ASU’s Joint Urban Design Program with the committed support of

the CAED Alumni Association

Additional copies of The Broadway Corridor Community Charrette

can be found on the Web at www.asu.edu/caed/JUDP

For information about this and other community projects, contact:


College of Architecture and Environmental Design

Arizona State University

P.O. Box 871905

Tempe, AZ 85287-1905

480.965.6693

480.965.3635 fax

[email protected]

Director Mary Kihl

Publication editor Kim Shetter

Editorial assistance Julie Russ

Acknowledgments .................................................................................. iv

Design/Support Teams ............................................................................ v

CHARRETTE HISTORY AND BACKGROUND

What is a Charrette? ....................................................................... 2

Joint Urban Design Program/Studio ............................................... 2

Concerns of the Residents .............................................................. 5

A Short History of Mesa ................................................................. 6

BROADWAY CORRIDOR TODAY

The Broadway Corridor ................................................................. 12

THE CHARRETTE

The Broadway Corridor Community Charrette ............................ 16

The Charrette Schedule ................................................................ 17

Scope of the Charrette ................................................................. 19

CHARRETTE RESULTS

Context .......................................................................................... 22

Broadway Corridor ........................................................................ 27

Neighborhoods and Housing ......................................................... 37

APPENDICES

Selected Biographies ..................................................................... 50

References .................................................................................... 52

CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Mary Acosta, Mesa Junior High School

Wahid Alam, City of Mesa

Sandra Apsey, Mesa Library

Bob Baker, resident

Anne Blech, City of Mesa

Teresa Brice-Heames, Housing for Mesa

Tanya Collins, City of Mesa

Paul Cummings, business owner

Frank De Rosa, business owner

Debbra Determan, City of Mesa

Susan Douglas, Mesa Arts Academy

Doug Erenberg, business owner

Joyce Faith, Paz de Cristo Community Center

Margie Frost, Mesa Community Action Network

Pat Gilbert, Mesa Community Action Network

Jack Hannon, resident

Keno Hawker, Mayor of Mesa

Ian Jarvis, Mesa Police Department

Kyle Jones, Mesa City Council

Leonard Kawecki, business owner

Terry Louden, Assistant Principal, Mesa Junior High School

Gregory Marek, City of Mesa

Susan McAleaway, Mesa Community College

Carol McCormick, Mesa United Way

Walter McIver, resident

Frank Mizner, City of Mesa

Ben Patton, City of Mesa

Ron Peters, Mesa architect

Sarah-Catherine Phillips, CARE Partnership

Bob Schuster, Mesa Tribune

Nancy Spence, Society of St. Vincent De Paul

Cindi Svatora, Society of St. Vincent De Paul

Beverly Tittle-Baker, CARE Partnership

Deanna Villanueva-Saucedo, City of Mesa

Sharon Wagner, Principal, Mesa Junior High School

Mike Whalen, Mesa City Council

Tracy Wright, Mesa Historical Museum

Sarah Zafra, Mesa Library

Kevin Kellogg architect Kellogg Associates

David Kenyon landscape architect Design Workshop, Inc.

Mary Kihl transportation planner ASU School of Planning and Landscape Architecture

Mark Lymer architect Versar, Inc.

John McIntosh architect ASU Joint Urban Design Program

Dennis Newcombe planner Sender Associates

Bob Saemisch architect Saemisch DiBella Architects, Inc.

Jennifer Sandstrom architect Jennifer Sandstrom Architect

Terri Scheatzle interior designer Knipp Design Associates

Brian Schroeder architect ASU School of Architecture

Mitu Singh graduate student ASU School of Planning and Landscape Architecture

Emma Sirois graduate student ASU School of Planning and Landscape Architecture

Kim Shetter editor/researcher ASU Joint Urban Design Program

Gina Sorich planner Swaback Partners pllc

Tony Tang architect Tony Tang Architect

SUPPORT TEAM

Tom Awai design team planner DMJMH+N

Richard Begay designer DLR Group

Will Herrera landscape architect Logan Simpson Design, Inc.

Ron Peters architect BPLW

Darin Sender land use attorney Sender Associates

DESIGN TEAM

DESIGN/SUPPORT TEAMS

THE BROADWAY CORRIDOR

The charrette process is used by the professionaldesign community to address a difficult urbanproblem in a short period of time. It is an intensiveworkshop/think-tank effort usually held over thespan of several days, during which participants gainan understanding of the issues from the communityand then generate design ideas aimed at solving theproblem. It is a participative process involving designprofessionals, public agencies, private businessstakeholders, and community residents.

The word comes from the French word for “cart”and refers to the cart that came to collect the archi-tectural works of a student in any atelier (professor’sworkshop) of the Ecole des Beaux-Arts in Paris inthe period between 1869 and 1930. The word cameto mean the harried period in which a student’s finaldrawings were, hopefully, completed.

The unique value-added of a charrette over a simpleworkshop is the graphic image. Designers literallydraw pictures of landscapes, streets, public spaces,and buildings that illustrate, in a readily understoodmanner, regulations and policy statements that areoften difficult to visualize. Neighborhood leaders andresidents provide the context for those drawings,respond to initial images, and offer modifications.Their responses not only refine the drawings butalso help them to focus their images of what thefuture of the neighborhood should be.

WHAT IS A CHARRETTE? 2

The Joint Urban Design Program (JUDP) is the com-bined service and outreach arm of the College ofArchitecture and Environmental Design. In the greatcivic debate about the evolving form of the Phoenixmetropolitan area, the JUDP aspires to be a facilitatorof dialogue and the honest broker of decisionmaking. By itself and through partnerships withother public and private agencies, the JUDP fostersenvironmental stewardship, neighborhood and com-munity development, quality of life, sustainability,transportation improvements, and a revitalized urbanform. The program’s funded projects employ ASUfaculty and students.

The mission of the JUPD is to help residents of thePhoenix metropolitan area make informed decisionsabout the future design of their communities. Assuch, the JUDP serves as a bridge linking neighbor-hood groups and community leaders with the facultyand students of the College of Architecture andEnvironmental Design.

The Joint Urban Design Studio (JUDS) is the JUDP’sphysical location in the ASU Downtown Center. It isa place where facilitated discussions betweencommunity, civic, and private sector interests can beheld on neutral ground in an information-rich environ-ment. The JUDS displays ideas and disseminatesinformation on urban issues including models, panelgraphics, the college’s web pages, and publicationsof local, regional, and national importance.

JOINT URBAN DESIGN PROGRAM

3

Broadway Corridor Community CharretteMESA, CIRCA 1925

Center and Main Streets (view northalong Center Street), circa 1925

4

5

Broadway Corridor Community CharretteCONCERNS OF THE RESIDENTS

The following concerns are based on residents’ inputas recorded by Community Asset and ResourceEnterprise (CARE) in surveys and in meetings withthe charrette team.

Advantages of the Broadway CorridorNeighborhoods

• Everything you need is here• Presence of extended family creates feeling of safety, security• Mesa is a safe city• Schools are good• Grocery stores and churches are near

Concerns/Needs of the Residents

• Lack of public transportation affects employability of residents• There is a lack of jobs in Mesa, especially service jobs• Lack of bilingual media in Mesa makes it difficult to get the word out about public events, available assistance, etc.• There is a lack of connection to the greater city of Mesa• Political recognition by the leadership of the city is lacking• Schools are dealing with funding cutbacks; they do not receive enough district support to deal with issues of the homeless population and the non-English speaking population• Residents need access to information about the programs and help available through Arizona State University and Maricopa Community College• There is high turnover in the multifamily rental market

• Transiency of the community makes it hard to establish traditions• Festivals that build on existing strong family ties, that are social, low cost, and family- oriented, would help to establish local cohe- siveness: the community needs a public gathering place and venue for festivals within walking distance• New infill housing lacks the character of existing structures; does not fit into neighborhood fabric• Along Broadway Road, the combination of day workers and social service clients creates the perception that the area is unsafe• A solution to the day labor issue is needed• There is a need for one or more women’s and children’s centers

Change Agents

• Self-organizing is preferred over having outside agencies come in• Individuals must take responsibility for change; currently there is no momentum for community participation• There is a need to coordinate efforts and not reinvent the wheel

6

Pioneer Era

The history of Mesa beginsaround A.D. 700 with evidence ofthe arrival of the Hohokam people.For the next 700 years theHohokam built an elaborate canalirrigation system to support anextensive agricultural network inthe areas surrounding the thenfree-flowing Salt River. Sometimearound A.D. 1400 these ancientpeople mysteriously disappeared,though much of the original canalsystem they built is still traced bytoday’s canals.

Missionaries and explorers, in-cluding Coronado, Father Kino,and Marcos de Niza, camethrough Arizona during the 1500sand 1600s. Apache Indians drovethe Spanish away from Arizona inthe 1700s. U.S. Army troopsfought the Apaches in the late1800s, opening the way for Whitesettlement. Kit Carson and otherexplorers came through the SaltRiver Valley during the early partof the 19th century.

Soldiers from Fort McDowell useda ferry to cross the Salt Riverwhen they needed to travel to thesouth. Maryville was settled in1865 at the site of this ferry, westof what is presently Val VistaRoad. The crossing greatly facili-tated travel and exploration in the

east valley region. The increasedsafety owing to the military pres-ence made the area much moreappealing to settlers, providingthe initial catalyst for the settle-ment of Mesa.

Lehi

Mormon soldiers who had joinedthe U.S. Army during the MexicanWar (1846–47) created a wagontrail through Southern Arizonaduring their journey to San Diego.Their experience in Arizona madeit possible for them to informchurch leaders that the Indianswere friendly and that the landwas suitable for agriculture.Consequently, Mormon Churchofficials asked Daniel WebsterJones to lead a group to settle inArizona. In 1876, a party of 84men, women, and children gath-ered in St. George, Utah, in an-swer to the call from the leadersof the Mormon Church to found asettlement in the “far south.”Their destination was not speci-fied. Leading the party wasJones, who would guide themtoward the Salt River Valley areathat so impressed him just a fewmonths earlier.

First Mesa Company

The First Mesa Company, com-prised of 85 members, left Utah

and Idaho in September 1877. Thecompany leaders, some of whomwere polygamous, were CharlesCrismon, Francis Pomeroy, GeorgeSirrine, and Charles Robson. Theybecame known in Mesa as the“four founding families.” Theleaders of the Mesa Companyreached Utahville, as Lehi orJonesville was then called. DanielWebster Jones invited the group tostay, but they moved up to themesa. They marked off land andbegan clearing the originalHohokam canals. On July 17,1878, Theodore Sirrine went toFlorence to register Section 22,now called the Town Center: thesquare mile from Mesa Drive toCountry Club and University toBroadway. Early names for Mesavaried because the post office useddifferent ones, however, the townitself was always called Mesa City.

In 1888, Mesa’s populationreached 300. To open up moreirrigable land for colonization andfarming, the Highland Canal innorth Mesa was constructed. Thiscanal was longer than the MesaCanal completed 10 years earlier,and construction was considerablymore difficult because the newcanal did not follow the path of theprehistoric Hohokam canal system.It was used little until the GreatDrought of 1901.

A SHORT HISTORY OF MESA

7

Broadway Corridor Community Charrette

Original Mesa townsite:Broadway Road to University Drive,Mesa Drive to Country Club

Coun

try C

lub

Mesa D

rive

University Drive

Broadway Road

Main Street

ORIGINAL MESA TOWNSITE

8

The Second Mesa Company,which came from Idaho in 1879,included the Phelps, Hibbert,Dana, and LeSueur families. In1880, the Rogers, Standage, andPew families came. Because thebest land had been taken, the1880 pioneers establishedStringtown, along what is nowAlma School Road. The StandageFarm became the University ofArizona experimental farm onMain Street between Alma Schooland Dobson. The property stoodundeveloped until the late 1990swhen a Wal-Mart Shopping Cen-ter and the East Valley Institute ofTechnology were built on the site.

An economic boost occurredwhen Mesa was connected to therest of the valley and UnitedStates by the railroad in 1895. TheMaricopa, Phoenix, and Salt RiverRailroad connected Mesa toTempe and Phoenix, and Santa Feopened a line connecting Phoenixwith northern Arizona. Amongother things, this made the ship-ping of lumber from the northmuch more feasible for Mesasettlers. Electricity for the com-munity was brought to the areaby Dr. A. J. Chandler, veterinarian,canal magnate, and successfulfarmer (for whom the neighboringcommunity of Chandler was

named in 1912), who beganconstruction of a powerhouse onhis crosscut canal in 1895. Uponthe powerhouse’s completionthree years later, Mesa enteredthe electric age. The City of Mesapurchased the utility companyfrom Dr. Chandler in 1917, be-coming one of the few cities inArizona to own utilities. Utilityearnings enabled Mesa to pay forcapital expenditures withoutbonds until the 1960s. It alsoprovided the shared funds thatallowed construction and serviceprojects to be implemented forthe Works Progress Administra-tion during the Depression. Dr.Chandler enlarged the Mesa Canalwith heavy machinery in 1895. Healso built the first office complexin Mesa on the northwest cornerof Main and MacDonald using thefirst evaporative air cooling sys-tem in Arizona.

In 1897 Mesa had the longestperiod of drought the region hasever experienced. The “GreatDrought” lasted until 1905, caus-ing massive crop failure andresulting in the arrest of dozens offarmers on water theft charges.During the latter stages of thedrought, the reduced water flowin the rivers even impacted theavailability of electricity, just as

Mesa residents were beginning tostock up on electric fans.

Mesa’s population reached 722 asthe century turned. Beginning in1903, Mesa’s growth included thearrival of new ethnic groups tothe community, as the first Japa-nese and the first Black familiesmove to town. The first African-American family, the McPhersons,arrived in 1905. Dr. JamesLivingston, a Black veterinarian,came before 1910. The contribu-tion of Japanese farmers helpedMesa become one of the premiergarden communities in the state—giving it the unlikely nickname of“Gem City,” not for any miningactivity, but for its green agricul-tural lushness. Chinese immi-grants were mostly farmers andbusiness owners, arriving about1910. Willie Wong, the mayor ofMesa from 1992 to 1996 and thefirst Asian-American mayor of amajor city, is the descendent ofsuch a family.

Originally called Roosevelt Road,the Apache Trail was constructedin 1904 primarily using Apachelaborers, many of whom broughttheir families with them. This 60-mile stretch of road leads fromMesa to the site of the Reclama-tion Bureau’s first major project:the construction of the Roosevelt

9


Dam just below the confluence ofthe Salt River and Tonto Creek.The narrow, winding road was thescene of many accidents andnear-tragedies, complicated by theintroduction of the automobile toMesa at about this time.

Construction of the Granite Reefdiversion dam just north of Mesawas authorized to control floodingof the Salt River, and the damdedicated in 1908. Further north,work continued on RooseveltDam, which reached completionin March 1911. Workers andprofessional men moved to Mesafrom Roosevelt after the dam was

finished, helping to populate thegrowing city.

By 1940, Mesa’s populationincreased to 7,244, and afterWorld War II, Mesa’s populationmore than doubled to 16,790.Falcon Field Airport and WilliamsAir Force Base were built in 1941to provide training for World WarII pilots—Falcon Field for theBritish Royal Air Force and Will-iams for U.S. pilots. After the war,many veterans’ families decidedto settle in Mesa. Air conditioningcame into more common use andtourism grew in the late 1940s.

The decade of the 1950s broughtmore commerce and industry toMesa, including early aerospacecompanies. By the end of the1950s, Mesa’s population onceagain doubled to 33,772. Wright’sMarket opened on Broadway atMesa Drive in 1954 with parkingfor 400 cars and became Mesa’sfirst suburban shopping mall.

Tourism grew into Mesa’s primeindustry, bringing in more than$10 million annually. Mesa’seconomic base shifted fromagricultural to manufacturing andservice industries. Until 1960,more than 50 percent of the

Aerial view of Mesa and surrounds, circa 1935

10

residents earned their living di-rectly or indirectly from farming,mainly citrus and cotton. Asplanned unit development beganto consume farmland from Broad-way Road south to Baseline Roadduring the 1960s and 1970s,multifamily housing and industrialbuildings encroached upon theorginal neighborhoods of laborerand farm worker housing.

The upward spiral of growth inMesa continued into the secondhalf of the twentieth century.Developments of two majorshopping centers—Tri-City Mall in1965 and Fiesta Mall in 1980—provided the east valley with asolid retail base but also had theeffect of siphoning retail activityaway from the downtown area.The construction of the Supersti-tion Freeway through Mesa,which began in 1977 from Inter-state 10 near the Phoenix/Tempeborder across Mesa and easttoward Apache Junction, pro-vided the link to lure Phoenixresidents to its doors. Severalnew manufacturing plants bycorporations such as Motorolaand McDonnell-Douglas opened,providing jobs and a larger taxbase to a growing city.

Mesa’s population was nearly aquarter of a million people in1986. By 1987, the city of Mesa

had grown to a geographic areaof 100 square miles—100 timeslarger than the town’s “originalsquare mile.” Today the land areastands at 128.5 square miles.

The 1960s through 1990s sawmore high-technology companiesmove to Mesa, today numberingover 100 firms. The number ofhealth facilities grew, especiallyduring the 1980s and 1990s, toservice the larger population. Mid-1990s figures show Mesa em-ployment percentages as retail—31.2%, office—25.7%, public—16.1%, industrial—14%, other—11.6%, and residential—1.4%.

With the exception of the decadeof the 1920s when the cottonprices plummeted, Mesa in-creased by at least 79 percentevery decennial census through1990. In 1990, the censusshowed Mesa to have the highestgrowth rate of any city over100,000 in the United States: thepopulation grew 89 percent from152,404 in 1980 to 288,091 in1990. In 2000, Mesa’s populationwas approximately 404,000—over100,000 people more than in1990. Mesa has developed intothe third largest city in Arizonaand the 46th largest city in theUnited States. The Census Bureaunow designates the Valley as the

Phoenix-Mesa MetropolitanStatistical Area.

An important change in demo-graphics is due to the immigrationof families from Mexico—thepopulation of Mesa is almost 20percent Hispanic as of the lastcensus.

As Mesa and the BroadwayCorridor strive to reinvent them-selves, several issues need to bekept in mind. The Central Broad-way Corridor Sub-Area is desig-nated for redevelopment in theMesa General Plan 2002, and theMesa Town Center Plan adoptedin 2002 designates its southernBroadway edge for “landscapesetback.” An effort to encouragerehabilitation of existing olderhousing and identify new infillconstruction sites should beundertaken in the predominantlyHispanic Broadway neighbor-hoods. Human service providershave been established along theBroadway Corridor, and the daylabor tradition from the days ofthe seasonal farm workers re-emerges to serve the constructionand landscaping industries.Finally, two transportation arterieswill be completed in the future:the Santan Freeway in 2007 andthe Valley’s light rail system, to besited along Main Street, in 2015.

12

For the purposes of the charrette, theBroadway Corridor was defined as extend-ing from Country Club Road on the westto Stapley Road on the east, and fromBroadway Road south to 8th Avenue.The Corridor lies within Mesa’s GeneralPlan Central Broadway Sub-Area. Twoneighborhoods, the Nuestro Barrio and theWatertower Improvement Neighborhood, liewithin the charrette boundaries.

Broadway Road was the southernmostedge of the original townsite of Mesa.Today it is a major east-west arterial linedwith warehouses, light manufacturingplants, auto supply stores, liquor stores,human service providers, and discountretail. Directly to the south are neighbor-hoods that date from the 1920s and earlierthat were annexed by the city in the 1930s.The housing was originally built for laborersand agricultural workers for the citrusgrowers and small farmers of the area. It issurrounded by postwar planned unit devel-opments. The area is now predominantlyHispanic, with a unique character of diver-sity, street life, and ethnic culture.

THE BROADWAY CORRIDOR

We found the neighborhood to be highly transient with 2/3 ofresidents having lived there less than two years: the vast majorityof these transient residents rent. Forty percent of householdssurveyed owned their own home (in Arizona, according to the2000 census, 68 percent of households own their home). WhileHispanics were just as likely to own their home as Whites and justas likely to be living in a single-family home, they had significantlylarger families than did Whites. However, most troubling was thatHispanics, despite their larger family size, tended to live in equalsize or smaller accommodations, yet pay a similar amount for theirrent or mortgage.

Survey Profile of the Broadway Corridor

Research carried out in support of thecharrette by an ASU interdisciplinarystudies class in the fall of 2002 examinedhousing conditions in the Broadway neigh-borhoods (full report available on HerbergerCenter website: see References). Thefindings are summarized in the followingstatement.

13


Census Tracts

Demographic analysis of the twocensus tracts to the north and twotracts south of Broadway Road showsa marked increase in population southof Broadway Road, with much of theincrease occurring in Hispanic andfamily population. This supports theissues voiced by the community atthe charrette—a call for more familyhousing, more involvement by thecity in Hispanic issues, and moreopportunities for youth education andactivities. The tables and chart on thispage show that the increases inpopulation are almost completelyHispanic. The percentage of Hispanicpopulation in each tract is currently ashigh as 72.6 percent: this compares tothe city of Mesa as a whole, wherethe Hispanic population is 20 percentof the whole.

14

The Central Broadway Corridor Sub-Areais defined as the south side of Main Street,North of Highway 60, east of Alma Schooland west of Gilbert Road. The CentralBroadway Corridor has unique features thatdistinguish it from the remainder of theCity, including a history that begins withthe founding of Mesa that has evolved intoa community that offers a wide range ofdiversity. The people in this area provide anexample of how those of all races, ages,cultures and ethnic backgrounds may worktogether to improve their community. Withgrowth in Mesa focused in the easternreaches, the Central Broadway Corridor hassurvived without significant investment,new housing stock, employment opportuni-ties, infrastructure enhancement, or schoolimprovements.

The vision for the Central BroadwayCorridor is to become a healthy, stable,culturally diverse, mixed-income commu-nity that allows all residents to enjoy abetter quality of life. To attain this, plan-ning and implementation strategies areneeded to preserve stable neighborhoods;stabilize transitional neighborhoods; andgive new lie to deteriorating neighborhoods.Planning in this area must reflect a balanceof racial, economic and social perspectives.

CENTRAL BROADWAYSUB-AREA

from Mesa 2025 General Plan

Revitalization plans must meet the eco-nomic, environmental, and social needs ofsocio-economic diverse neighborhoods.

The rich heritage of this area should bepreserved and protected. Historic andcultural preservation and conservation ofunique neighborhoods and developmentpatterns contribute to community pride,investment and redevelopment. Propertyconditions, as well as infrastructure, shouldbe maintained at a high level to maintainits character, quality and value of the area.Sustainable economic and communitydevelopment should be promoted.

Planning should address the reuse andrehabilitation of vacant structures, as wellas improvements to occupied buildings, toprovide a positive image for the area. Newdevelopment and reinvestment should bepromoted as a means to prevent furtherdeterioration. Preserving viable communi-ties or rebuilding those that have declinedover years of neglect cannot be accomplishedor sustained solely by one entity. Successfulrevitalization requires the commitment ofavailable resources from the City, businesses,civic groups and individual residents. Theseresources should be strategically used as acatalyst to improve confidence that encour-ages new funding sources and reinvestment.

16

Planning for the Broadway Corridor Com-munity Charrette came about through theefforts of Beverly Tittle-Baker, President/CEO of the Community Asset and ResourceEnterprise (CARE) in Mesa. Tittle-Baker wasone of four ASU Community Fellows in theacademic year 2000–2001. The CommunityFellows program is sponsored by Motorolaand administered by ASU’s Morrison Insti-tute for Public Policy to serve as “a catalystto foster partnerships among neighbor-hood, university, and business interestsseeking to improve quality of life valley-wide.” In addition to lecturing in ASUclasses and speaking at university meet-ings, Fellows are encouraged to developoutreach projects to link the university withneighborhood residents.

During her year as a Community Fellow,Tittle-Baker became acquainted with theASU Joint Urban Design Program and itsseries of charrettes. Consulting with Dr.John McIntosh of the JUDP resulted in aplan to hold a charrette for the neighbor-hoods surrounding CARE for the purpose ofrevitalizing the residential properties thatwere home to many of her neighbors andclients. Other stakeholders became involvedand the charrette boundaries eventuallygrew to include the Nuestro Barrio to the

THE BROADWAY CORRIDOR COMMUNITY CHARRETTE

west and also the retail, commercial, andlight industrial businesses along BroadwayRoad. Meetings were held over the springand summer of 2002 to gather informationand work out the proposed scope of thecharrette.

McIntosh invited the CAED Alumni Associa-tion to bring its pool of planning and designtalent to participate in the charrette. Repre-sentatives of the Association met withresidents on June 22, 2002. Other Collegealumni participated in the planning phases,with a dozen dedicating a full weekend tothe charrette activities.

Once the charrette started, the charretteteam broke up into three groups that ad-dressed:

(1) the context of the Broadway Corridorand its residential areas and their relation-ship to the city as a whole and to thedowntown in particular

(2) the streetscape and business revitaliza-tion of Broadway Road itself

(3) the neighborhoods south of BroadwayRoad, with special recommendationsconcerning housing

Thursday, November 21

4:00–6:00 PM Optional charrette design team tour with neigh-borhood guides

7:30–9:00 Public reception and buffet, China Buffet, 1110 W.Southern Ave., Mesa

Friday, November 22

7:30–8:00 AM Continental breakfast, CARE Partnership Center,466 S. Bellview St., Mesa

8:00–10:00 Reinventing Neighborhoods Presentation 10:00–12:00 Brunch at St. Vincent de Paul, 67 W. Broadway

Rd., Mesa 12:00–5:00 PM Interviews with representative community stake-

holders 6:00–9:00 Full design team dinner, briefing, and task assign-

ments at DMJMH+N office.

Saturday, November 23

8:00 AM–12:00 Continental breakfast and morning design session,Mesa Junior High School, 828 E. Broadway Rd.,Mesa

12:00 –2:00 PM Working lunch and preliminary pin-up 2:00–4:00 Afternoon design session, Mesa Junior High

School 4:00–5:00 Pin-up and discussion by design teams

Sunday, November 24

9:00 AM–12:00 Continental breakfast and presentation drawingsession, Mesa Junior High School

12:00 –1:30 PM Working lunch and presentation set-up 1:30 –2:30 Public presentation by charrette design teams,

Mesa Junior High Cafeteria

THE CHARRETTE SCHEDULE

17


18

19


Following community meetings and research done in the spring and summer of2002 on the topics of land use, human services, population growth, housing,and commercial uses in the Broadway Corridor area, the JUDP proposed thefollowing provisional goals for the charrette.

• Conceptual master plan for the future build-out of the Community Asset &Resource Enterprise (CARE) campus on Bellview Street. This is a relativelywell-defined architecture/planning problem. The graphic end product willprovide CARE with a promotional tool to go the next step of fundraising anddevelopment.

• Schematic design of alternatives for city-owned property backing on theBoys & Girls Club in the Nuestro Neighborhood. There is no plan for this3-plus acre site at present, so this will be a design exercise for what theneighborhood desires versus what is economically feasible—park, playingfields, new housing?

• Visioning of Broadway Road, from Country Club Drive to Stapley Drive, as ifit were in compliance with current design guidelines for landscaping, set-backs, sidewalks, curbs, and walls. There are huge hot-button issues thatcannot be confronted head-on: homelessness, undocumented day laborers,small business owners, and human service providers. But the charrette canleap forward in time to look at a thriving commercial strip in a vibrant ethnicneighborhood; we can draw pictures of the corridor in 2020. This will be apowerful going-forward exercise for the stakeholders.

SCOPE OF THE CHARRETTE

20

22CHARRETTE RESULTS: Context

The first charrette group exam-ined the context of the BroadwayCorridor—both the internal circula-tion of the Broadway communityand its relationship to the city as awhole, with particular emphasison the downtown core.

Relationship to DowntownDirectly to the north of the corri-dor is the Mesa Town Center, anarts, culture, and entertainmenthub currently being implementedby the city of Mesa. With thetraditional downtown retail havingmoved to the malls at the edgesof the city, Mesa is following thelead of many other cities that areattempting to revitalize theirdowntowns through arts andentertainment.

Politically, any actions recom-mended for the Broadway com-munity must take into accountboth its unique location in the cityand its growing Hispanic popula-tion. Improvements to the Broad-way businesses and neighbor-hoods should support and en-hance the revitalizing downtownarea, and vice versa. Connectionsbetween Broadway Road andMain Street, so important histori-cally, should be maintained andencouraged, both geographicallyand politically. Communication

must remain open between stake-holders to the north and to thesouth. The growing Hispanicpopulation is finding its own voiceand should continue to organizeand present a unified and dynamicseries of proposals to the city.Whatever benefits the Broadwaybusinesses and neighborhoodswill benefit the city as a whole.

Internal Circulationand AestheticsThe residential areas of the Broad-way Corridor are well located forthe pedestrian. Most amenities,including grocery stores, schools,and the Mesa Town Center itself,are within walking distance. Theproblem is that there are barriersto pedestrian use. One of themain barriers is the railroad spur,which segregates the NuestroBarrio from other neighborhoodsto the east. Also, Broadway Road,a busy arterial street, makesaccess to the north difficult.(Broadway Road is examined ingreater detail in the followingsection.) Recommendations toaddress these barriers looked atopportunities to make the landuse more contiguous andsimplified.

East-west connections throughthe Broadway community are

largely located along BroadwayRoad and 8th Avenue. Broadwayis a busy commercial street withits own character. Eighth Avenue,on the other hand, would benefitfrom a program to develop acirculation character that couldlink the cores of the variousneighborhoods together. Recom-mendations to achieve this in-clude street lights, pedestriancrossing lights, bike lanes, specialpaving, and street furniture. A 60-foot right-of-way is recom-mended, which would allow fortraffic calming measures to beimplemented. Eighth Avenuecould be a true neighborhoodspine.

One issue posed repeatedly bythe residents was the problem oftrash pickup and street beautifica-tion. The charrette team foundthat many of the streets thatwould benefit from a beautifica-tion program of street trees andenhanced pedestrian access wereconstrained from developingthose amenities by the existingoverhead power lines. Trees andpower lines, because of safetyconcerns, cannot coexist. There-fore, one of the key recommenda-tions was that the utilities beundergrounded wherever possibleto open up the overhead access.


23

Overall context of charrette

24

Potential Development and Opportunities


25

Goals

■ Establish connections

■ Slow and reduce traffic

■ Improve safety and aesthetics

■ Encourage, enhance, and celebrate existing facilities

■ Review locations for redevelopment

■ Create identity and focal points

■ Reduce trash and beautify the area

Strategies

■ Encourage east-west and north-south pedestrian, bicycle, and transit

connections

■ Establish policies to systematically underground utilities

■ Establish tree planting program such as Tree City USA

■ Support neighborhood days such as clean-ups, pot lucks, yard sales, and

neighborhood home painting/renovation

■ Support traffic calming: review solutions tried by other cities, including Tempe,

Phoenix, and Glendale

■ Support and upgrade 8th Avenue as the neighborhood “spine” by adding special

paving, street furniture, signage, local art, trees, and signalized pedestrian/

bicycle crossings at major intersections

Tactics

■ Study the cost of undergrounding the utility lines or putting them in the alleys

■ Redesign the local streetscape without the utility lines

■ Research funding potentials

■ Provide data to support the economic vitality of the Broadway Road commercial

corridor and the neighborhoods to the south

■ Promote separate design minicharrettes in future follow-up

■ Façade development along Broadway Road

■ Build a Zócalo Plaza

RECOMMENDATIONS: Context

26

Concept Plan for the Mesa Town Center at theintersection of Main and Center Streets

27


Broadway Road was the originalsouthern boundary of the Mesatownship. The land directly to thesouth was annexed in 1930.Today Broadway is a busy arteriallined with mostly successfulcommercial and light industrialuses, service agencies such asCristo de Paz, St. Vincent’s, andMesa CAN, and day laborersseeking hourly work. The follow-ing are opportunities for improve-ment along the corridor:

• High traffic volume at peakhours makes it difficult forpedestrians to cross

• The railroad tracks that runalong Broadway and curvesouth on Center Street havehad an adverse effect on theresidential areas, acting muchlike a freeway by separatingneighborhoods on the eastand west of the Center Streettracks

• On the south side of Broad-way at Sirrine Street, land thatcould be used by the neighbor-hoods is currently used to

park school buses • The street’s potential as a

gateway leading north fromthe neighborhoods to theactivities along Main Streethas not been developed

• Having a centralized locationthat provided needed minimalservices would help the daylaborers that line the street inthe morning hours

There are four major recommen-dations for Broadway Road. Thefirst is the development of a towncenter/marketplace, known inSpanish as a zócalo, on theschool district–owned land that iscurrently used for bus parking.This prime land is located whereSirrine Street, a wide avenue withgreat potential, terminates intoBroadway. The width of Sirrinecould accommodate a landscapedmedian that would enhance thestreet and tie the proposed ZócaloPlaza and the Broadway residen-tial areas into the Mesa TownCenter to the north.

CHARRETTE RESULTS: Broadway Corridor

Zócalo Plaza Site Plan

28

Zócalo Plaza

29


The Zócalo Plaza, a smaller neighbor-hood version of a town center,would serve several populations. Asshown in the proposed site plan,uses would include a senior center, aday care center, medical services,public space for festivals and gather-ings, and neighborhood-level retail.The Zócalo, with its day-to-dayfunctions, family atmosphere, andcelebratory festivals, would be afocal point and gathering place forthe local community.

While the Mesa Town Center isbeing developed to draw users froma wide regional, national, and eveninternational area, the Zócalo Plazawould focus on local neighborhoodneeds. The two centers, at com-pletely different scales, wouldcomplement each other and provideservices, shopping, and entertain-ment for a multigenerational anddiverse population.

Proposed landscape median on Sirrine Avenue,connecting Zócalo Plaza to Mesa Town Center

30

The second recommendation is tomake the presence of the railroadtracks into a positive experience. If,as has been discussed, the railroadis to become a regional transporta-tion amenity, there is an opportunityto establish a train station and com-muter station at the point where thetracks curve to the south.

Transportation hubs such asthis often provide a catalyst forsurrounding areas to developshopping, restaurants, and otherservices for commuters. It wouldbe a chance to reestablish thecultural history of the rail line,turning the negative impact of therailroad’s right-of-way into some-thing positive for the community.

Commuter Train at Grain Silowith Old Train Station ‘Gate’

Commuter Rail Station Site Plan

Broadway Road

Cente

r S

treet

31


In a related recommendation, theabandoned grain silo near the rail linecould be used for an extreme sportsvenue, tying in with the city’s pro-posed marketing of sports venues inits downtown area. The outside ofthe building could be a strikinggraphic locator for the train stationand adjacent businesses.

The third recommendation is todevelop Broadway Road itself into acohesive place with its own charac-ter and identity. Coordination

between businesses could be ef-fected through a business associa-tion that could address designissues such as street paving, streetfurniture, signage, and public art,along with social issues such aslocal crime and vagrancy. Cohesive-ness would benefit all the busi-nesses along the street: regularmeetings among business ownersoften lead to creative solutions toproblems all of them face but maynot feel they can address alone. Inaddition, partnering with the service

agencies along the corridor wouldbenefit both sets of stakeholders.

The unused land along thecorridor should be developed asneighborhood-level retail. High onthe residents’ list of desired ameni-ties for their area was a smallgrocery store that would serve theimmediate residential area. Thiscould be located along BroadwayRoad within walking distance ofmany of the homes.

Adaptive Reuse of Grain Silo at Center Street

32

The fourth recommendation ad-dressed the issue of a day laborexchange. Day labor is part of thechanging demographic of the com-munity, part of the economy of theValley. It is a fact not just in thePhoenix area, but all over the coun-try. In a report released in 2000, atask force made several recommen-dations to the City of Mesa, includ-ing creating a day labor work centerto be operated by a private, nonprofitagency. In March 2002, the MesaCity Council refused to allocatefunding for such a center. Thisaction was one of the impetuses forthe Latino Town Hall, held in May2002, which stated in its report,“Policy makers seemed to be payingno attention to Latinos, despite a149% increase in Mesa’s Latinopopulation in the last decade.”

The task force’s recommended daylabor work center should be imple-mented. It could provide basic ser-vices to the workers—services suchas employment assistance, languageclasses, job training, and other help.Preliminary discussions with alandholder in the area uncovered apotential site for this exchange—anexisting building near Mesa Driveand Broadway Road.

The structure, an industrial metalbuilding that is currently in use as alarge warehouse, could be easilyremodeled to meet the needs of aday labor exchange. The building hasan air-conditioned office spaceinside, along with plumbing andrestrooms. Large enough to drivevehicles inside, it could function as alarge weatherproof structure thatwould be an assembly area for the

workers. Since it is set back fromthe street, it is unobtrusive. Thissuggestion would fit in with therecommended adaptive reuse ofexisting buildings in the railroad-oriented warehouse district. Theexchange could be administered by anonprofit agency with experience indelivering the kinds of servicesneeded for this population.

Day Labor Work Center

33


Goals

■ Further neighborhood retail with special character

■ Create employment opportunities

■ Address railroad crossing issue

■ Establish distinctive identity for area

■ Further pedestrian use

■ Identify, create, and strengthen medical and religious institutions and centers

■ Address issue of day labor workers along Broadway Road

Strategies

■ Establish a Town Center—Zócalo Plaza— that would:

• Meet need for neighborhood shopping

• Provide space for neighborhood services

• Provide open space for formal and informal social gatherings

■ Use existing railroad track for commuter rail

■ Develop new depot and transportation hub for buses and train travel

■ Develop a Broadway Civic Association of the businesses along Broadway Road

that could:

• Control use of existing space and encourage new businesses

• Create a design guide and zoning guide

• Promote improved streetscape design

■ Establish public art and a gateway

■ Remodel existing warehouse to serve as a day labor exchange, to be administered

by a nonprofit agency

RECOMMENDATIONS: Broadway Corridor

34

Tactics

■ Develop streetscape along Broadway Road

■ Establish design guidelines for the corridor similar to, for example, Phoenix’s

Camelback Road corridor guidelines

■ Establish pedestrian themes—use low, distinctive fencing (a fence ribbon)

along the street edge

■ Establish crosswalks with distinctive paving

■ Develop streetscape along neighborhood streets

■ Further the use of streetscape elements such as street furniture, hardscape,

lighting, signage, planting, and parking opportunities

■ Focus on railroad crossing and station. Work with railroad to identify way for

bikes and pedestrians to cross. Railroad crossing is actually at the heart of

the neighborhood—a distinctive feature.

■ Promote grocery store

■ Establish a distinctive gateway to the neighborhood at pedestrian scale

■ Establish Zócalo Plaza at Mesa Recreation Center site (Sirrine Ave.

and Broadway)

■ Use grain silo—a distinctive neighborhood landmark

■ Introduce roundabouts for traffic calming

■ Attract political attention

35


SERVING LUNCH AT THE

SOCIETY OF ST.VINCENT DE PAUL

from the email journal of John McIntosh

24 October 2002

I turned into the courtyard parking lot ofthis old produce market at 67 West Broad-way Road in Mesa about 8:45 a.m. Thurs-day morning. Cindi Svatora, Director ofDining Rooms for St. Vincent de Paul, hadalerted Richard Nieto to expect me. It is notunusual for volunteers to show up unan-nounced, as did Kevin and his mother thismorning. Richard signed me in, introducedme to the serving crew, and assigned me astation on the line. Sarah-Catherine fromC.A.R.E. arrived shortly after 9:00, and Ihelped set up a table outside for her tointerview guests (the preferred term). I tooksome unobtrusive photographs from behindthe reflective glass. No faces were directlyvisible, so I did not bother getting signatureson photo release forms. Shortly before thedoors opened at 9:30, I gathered with thevolunteers in a handholding circlefor grace.

There is a routine to this daily meal. Thesecurity guard opens the gates to the court-yard about 9:00 a.m. Many customers areusually waiting outside already. Theyimmediately place their packs or bundles ina line to hold their position in the queue,then retreat to the shade under the mural onthe east wall of the liquor store next doorthat forms the west side of the courtyard.At 9:30 the dining room doors areopened, and customers are admitted tenat a time.

This Thursday was fried chicken day, andthe word was out. Bernie, an eleven-yearveteran, anchored the serving line by placinga piece of chicken on each compartmentedstyrofoam plate. David added a boiledpotato. I was next on string beans. Carladded a scoop of salad, Mary a wedge offruit, Lucy a muffin or nuts, and the lastlady a slice of bread with butter. If asked,two ladies would hand out personal hygienepackages to departing customers.

Sister Eleanor Gibbons from St. Vincentde Paul was also there. She comes in everyTuesday and Thursday to provide the guestswith information and referral. MaryHoulihan, an MSW social worker with St.Vincent de Paul, comes Mondays andWednesdays. Mary is involved with theguests in the Mesa Opportunity Program,which is designed to provide homelessindividuals the opportunity to overcomemany of the barriers that prevent them fromgetting off the streets. Those on the programalso volunteer in the dining room. I learnedthe Mesa Dining Room is more thanjust food.

Meals are prepared at the big WatkinsStreet commercial kitchens in Phoenix,transported hot, and served off steam tables.One day a month, Serrano’s Mexican FoodRestaurant brings in hot Mexican food,along with family members to serve. Theusual daily plate count is 325+. As agreed

36

with the City of Mesa and as per the rulesand regulations of the Maricopa CountyHealth Division, no hot food may leave thedining room. There is, however, no limit onthe number of times a customer may goaround the serving line.

The first hour was hectic. I could barelyglance up to look at the faces going by asDavid handed me plates to fill. String beansare tricky; you must let them drain beforeflipping the spoon and one or two always tryto escape. Bernie kept up a steady patterwith familiar customers, the standard linebeing, “What, no possum today, Bernie?”There was a balanced mix of White,Hispanic, Black, and Native American.About a quarter were women and a half-dozen families with small children camethrough. The customers were predominantlymen of working age, many quite clearlymonolingual Spanish-speaking. Others wereclearly SMI homeless. I wondered about oneneatly dressed middle-aged woman, hairdone and made up, who looked like atypical shopping mall matron. Within thefirst half-hour, faces started to repeat.

I went through seven steam trays of stringbeans, and Bernie served all fourteen traysof chicken. There was one tray of potatoesleft. Richard’s plate count today was 390, areally big serving day by 16 regular volun-teers and 4 walk-ins, including me.

37


The housing and neighborhoodssouth of Broadway Road betweenCountry Club and Stapley representneighborhoods typical of manySouthwestern cities. An aginghousing stock supports a growingHispanic population that relies on anetwork of friends and family.The housing is affordable and theschools are for the most part good.People like living here.

Older neighborhoods such as this,however, are in need of interventionto repair the aging infrastructure andprovide services to support the newpopulation. Existing neighborhoodcoalitions have been addressingthese needs in a grass-roots, unifiedmanner—an ideal way to attacksome of these problems.

The charrette team determined thatthere were three action areas in theBroadway community that wouldbenefit from focused attention. Inaddition to the action areas, housingneeds were assessed and sugges-tions were made for future housing

development.

CAREThe first action area is the propertysurrounding the Community Assetand Resource Enterprise (CARE) onBellview Street south of BroadwayRoad. Established by Beverly Tittle-

Baker in 1994, this nonprofit agencyoffers services that include pediatricand dental clinics; economic pro-grams such as job training, homeownership workshops, and businessplan workshops; education pro-grams such as English as a secondlanguage, service learning, andtutors; peer support through arts,

CHARRETTE RESULTS: Neighborhoods and Housing

Site Plan for CAREand MesaCAN

38

crafts, discussion groups, and ser-vice projects; family communityleadership workshops; and an Emer-gency Santa shop.

The 4-acre property is set back fromthe street and is accessed fromBellview through a narrow driveway.Parking for visitors is on the street.In 2001, a site plan was developedfor CARE by BPLW Architects &Engineers, Inc. that designates thenewly purchased northern part ofthe property as playfields and bas-ketball courts (see References). Mostof the current campus is shelteredfrom direct street access.

CARE has been a catalyst for fund-ing, development, and planning inthe area. In order to build on CARE’ssuccess, the charrette team recom-mended expansion of the currentcampus to the north as far as Broad-way Road, more than doubling itscurrent size. Expansion would pro-vide room for needed services thatwere requested by the community,including language education, em-ployment education, a health center,and a women’s and children’s center.On-site parking would be provided.

Expansion to the north would allowCARE to use the public thoroughfareof Broadway Road to provide theservices listed above that reach outto the broader community. At the

same time, neighborhood-levelservices, especially the women’s andchildren’s center, would be main-tained internal to the campus in thecurrent sheltered property. Outdooractivity spaces would be maintainedfor public use.

MesaCANIn the same area of Broadway Roadis Mesa Community Action Network(MesaCAN). The City of Mesa con-tracts with MesaCAN to assist low-income families and individuals inmoving toward economic self-sufficiency. They also offer rentassistance to prevent eviction orutility shut-off and other emergencyassistance. The agency’s neighbor-hood services program works withresidents in low-income areas toplan and implement projects thatimprove their neighborhoods. Thereare plans to make space available forfood and clothing distribution and torent out incubator space to tenantsfor business development.

Future development of the MesaCANfacility should separate the variousfunctions of the agency, with legaland financial activities located acrossthe street from the aid, distribution,and tenant spaces. If MesaCAN addstransitional housing to its goals, thathousing could be sited to the westof the existing building and set backfrom the street for privacy.

39


Boys & Girls Club/MesaArts AcademyA third opportunity in the Broadwaycommunity is the area in the NuestroBarrio that is occupied by the Boys &Girls Club of the East Valley, theMesa Arts Academy, and vacantland, recently purchased by the city,to the west of these properties.

The Mesa Arts Academy is aK-through-8 charter school that wasfounded in 1995. At that time, theBoys & Girls Club partnered with theMesa Unified School District to useits new clubhouse as an arts schoolto help relieve overcrowding atnearby Lincoln Elementary School.The school soon improved theacademic skills of its students,showing, according to an article inEducation Week, “greater improve-ment than any other public school inArizona.” It has been widely praisedas a charter school success story,most notably in a Time magazinearticle last summer.

Of its 180 students, almost halfcome from the immediate neigh-borhood. The school has been astabilizing influence on the neighbor-hood. Its success in the communityprovides an opportunity to expandits program and activities.

The community should build on thisopportunity by planning for theschool’s expansion into the adjacent

city-owned land. The Mesa ArtsAcademy and the Boys & Girls Clubwould share the campus, whichwould include athletic fields, agardening area, and expanded class-rooms.

To facilitate circulation, 6th Avenueshould be extended to Country ClubRoad, allowing access to the sitefrom the main arterial on the west.

Current access is nondirect, comingfrom the north or south throughneighborhood streets or throughindustrial areas. If 6th Avenue isextended, student drop-offs couldtake place in a pull-out in front of theschool building.

The area around the school and theclub should be stabilized by devel-opment of a mix of high quality

Site Plan for Mesa Arts Academy

40

Mesa Arts Academy and Boys & Girls Club Campus

41


housing and neighborhood-levelretail. Vine Street could be relocatedto the south to allow room for devel-opment of two rows of townhousesthat would partially surround a smallneighborhood park. The townhouseswould provide a residential bufferbetween the school and the indus-trial areas that lie south of BroadwayRoad.

Another issue to consider is thenecessary duplication of services inthe Broadway Corridor. Because ofthe geographical division caused bythe rail line along Center Street thatseparates the Nuestro Neighborhoodfrom the residential areas to theeast, it is necessary to provide aduplication of services for this area,including language education, em-ployment education, and a women’sand children’s center, as provided byCARE and MesaCAN to the east.

Housing

The residential areas in the Broad-way Corridor present numerousopportunities for developing infillhousing. The drawings on the fol-lowing pages show suggestedstrategies for infill housing on a 50-foot by 125-foot lot that includeadditional units for an expanded

family and/or a home business. Thesite plan drawings reflect the impor-tance of maintaining a presence tothe street with the front façade andthe front yard landscaping. To reducethe impact of the automobile on thepublic space of the neighborhood,parking is located at the back of thelots for all types of housing, includ-ing the courtyard apartments. His-torically, successful residentialcommunities have respected thisseparation, with backyards beingused for parking and utility and frontyards for play and socializing andsymbolic gestures.

In any plan for future single-familyand multifamily housing, it is impor-tant to maintain the scale and char-acter of the current housing. Thecurrent fabric of 1920s-style housingtypes should be respected whenplanning new infill. Principles ofneighborhood design, site design,and housing design as published inCommunity Housing Design, a 1996publication of ASU’s Joint UrbanDesign Program together with theArizona State Department of Com-merce, provide sound standards forany future development and plan-ning activities.

Townhomes for area adjacentto Mesa Arts Academy

2 Units /Home Business

42

Single Family with 2nd Unit

43


Single Family with 2 Additional Units 1-3 Units Alternative

44

Site and Floor Plan IdeasCourtyard Apartments

45


SELECTED PRINCIPLES FROM

COMMUNITYHOUSING DESIGN

a workbook for community-based housingdevelopment published by the JUDP and

the Arizona State Department of Commerce

Principles of Neighborhood Design • Private and community property

boundaries are clearly defined • Traditional principles of neighborhood

and home design are used to reinforcefamily lifestyles

• Energy efficiency is promoted throughenvironmentally sensitive housing andlandscape design

• Street environments are pedestrianfriendly, with tree canopies for shadeand passive cooling

• The neighborhood revitalization pro-gram is focused toward long-term homeownership as the key to communityempowerment and pride

Principles of Site Design • Provide for clearly demarcated bound-

aries of community and private property • Position building facades on each site in

relation to each other in such a waythat they define streets and open spaces

• The form, scale, and setback of newdevelopment should enhance theexisting neighborhood fabric

• Minimize conflicts between autos andpedestrians

• Minimize driveways, curb cuts, andparking in front yards

• Use alleys for rear parking access

• Set carports and garages back fromprimary street façade of dwelling unit

• Provide a clearly identifiable entry toeach unit

• Provide a private outdoor area for eachunit

• Locate unit windows and entry doors toprovide visual surveillance of propertyaccess points

• Provide lighting for nighttime security • Place children’s play areas within visual

surveillance of adult activity areas

Principles of Housing Design • Homes should be integrated into the

neighborhood context by addressing thestreet with the front entry façade andfront yard landscape, by minimizing thevisual impact of the parking, and byobserving setbacks similar to adjacentproperties

• Affordable homes should look like themarket rate housing in the area by usingsimilar building forms and materials

• Homes should be flexible and expand-able to allow for long-term residencyand the changing needs of families

• Homes should be builder-friendly,simple, modular, and use locally avail-able stock building components andtrades

46

Goals

■ Advance the programs of the CARE campus, the Boys & Girls Club, the Mesa Arts

Academy, and MesaCAN

■ Further public interactive action areas that will focus community activities

■ Improve aesthetics and neighborhood circulation

■ Improve existing housing

■ Develop new housing

Strategies and Tactics

■ To support expansion of CARE

• Building on the current success of CARE, support the organization in providing

more services to the community

• Acquire property to expand the CARE campus north to Broadway Road

• Place services that reach out to the broader community along Broadway to

minimize internal traffic: language education, employment education, health

center

• Place women’s and children’s service area in internal, more private areas, within

the site

• In programming the site, include open space that can be used for public events

• As site expands, the current building can transition to administrative uses: new

construction will be dedicated to programs

■ To support expansion of MesaCAN

• Proximity of MesaCAN to CARE suggests that they can grow together and

remain good neighbors

• Separate legal and financial activities from the aid, distribution, and tenant

spaces in new construction east of existing building

• Place transitional housing to the west of the existing building, with access to

Broadway Road

■ To support expansion of the Boys & Girls Club and the Mesa Arts Academy

• Develop city-owned property to expand the school site

• Continue 6th Avenue through to Country Club Drive (to provide access from a

major thoroughfare and avoid driving through industrial areas)

RECOMMENDATIONS: Neighborhoods and Housing

47


• Provide parking for teachers to be accessed from the new entrance along

LeBaron Street

• Provide open space internal to the school

• Encourage adjacent private land areas to support the school by transitioning

to venues where students can experience a school farm

• Provide sports fields

• Share open space and programs with Boys & Girls Club

■ To support the area surrounding the Boys & Girls Club and the Mesa Arts

Academy

• To provide a buffer for the school and also provide housing, develop

townhouses along relocated Vine Avenue and LeBaron Street

• Encourage high employment functions on the lots along the east side of

Robson and the west side of LeBaron Street

■ To improve aesthetics and circulation

• Put utilities underground, add street trees, promote short 3-foot walls with

personal decoration, schedule clean-up activities, reuse alleys as either

community gardens or as access to auxiliary houses facing on alleys, further

8th Avenue as a neighborhood circulator, promote neighborhood access to

action areas, promote neighborhood circulator buses

• Create streetfront improvements to encourage on-street parking that does

not encroach on pedestrian sidewalk space

• Provide more frequent trash pickup

• Enhance walkways with street trees and lighting and a distinctive sign for

all streets, perhaps highlighting theme of children at play

■ To improve existing housing

• Develop a Home Improvement Program that would include:

• Low interest loans

• Homeownership training

• Home improvement training

• Publish a user-friendly guide for housing rehab that would include an

explanation of zoning and design guidelines, ideas for housing modifica-

tions, and sources of technical assistance

48

■ To develop new housing

• Single-family infill on existing lots

• Establish standards of appropriate infill that would specify site design,

elevation, and a floor plan that is expandable, low maintenance, and

energy-efficient

• Multifamily infill on existing lots

• Establish standards for multifamily infill

• Encourage courtyard apartments

■ Explore ways for the neighborhoods to partner with the proposed Broadway

Civic Association

■ Provide programs for a center for women and children and adult English

language education

• Programs should be located in agencies throughout the Broadway Corridor area,

including the Mesa Arts Academy and CARE

50

BROADWAY COMMUNITY CHARRETTE CORE TEAM

KEVIN KELLOGG AIA, is an architect and urban designerwith Kellogg & Associates in Santa Rosa, California.His work includes housing and community designfor neighborhoods as well as traditional urban de-sign projects. He was a faculty associate in theCollege of Architecture and Environmental Design atArizona State University from 1990–96, where hedeveloped a hands-on design-build workshop andparticipated in numerous planning charrettes. Kevinhas been actively involved in grass-roots communitydesign efforts and is a founding board member ofthe AIA’s Santa Rosa Regional Urban Design Assis-tance Team. He holds a Bachelor of Architecturefrom Arizona State University and a Master of Archi-tecture in Urban Design from Harvard.

DAVID A KENYON, ASLA, is a principal with DesignWorkshop, Inc. of Tempe. David has over twentyyears of practice as a landscape architect and urbandesigner. He joined Design Workshop in 1995 as thefirst head of its Vail office and is now the principal incharge for its Tempe location. Prior to joining DesignWorkshop, David was the manager for site develop-ment at EuroDisney in Paris. His work has won anumber of national and regional awards. He is alsoan accomplished educator and has taught designstudios, freehand drawing, and professional practicecourses at Texas A&M University, the Italart StudyAbroad program in Florence, Italy, and the Universityof Colorado in Denver. He received his Bachelor ofLandscape Architecture from the University of Illi-nois, Urbana, in 1981 and was a research fellow atTexas A&M University from 1987 to 1989.

MARY KIHL joined the Herberger Center in January1996, after serving on the faculty and administrationof Iowa State University. Dr. Kihl also held facultypositions at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln and

SELECTED BIOGRAPHIES

the University of Pittsburgh at Johnstown andserved briefly with the Iowa Department of Transpor-tation. Her graduate degrees are from the Universityof Michigan, Pennsylvania State University, and theUniversity of Pittsburgh. She is active in the Archi-tecture Research Centers Consortium, the Transpor-tation Research Board, and the American PlanningAssociation.

MARK LYMER, AIA, is vice president of Versar Arizona,a division of Versar, Inc., an architectural, engineeringand construction services group. Versar Arizonaspecializes in recreational design and municipalaquatic centers. Since joining Versar, Mark hasdesigned projects for several Valley cities. His pro-fessional experience includes residential, commer-cial, school, and municipal projects. Notable projectsin California include the Master Plan for a HewlettPackard Recreation Camp in the Santa Cruz Moun-tains and the Bay Area Children’s DiscoveryMuseum, Sausalito. In Arizona his project experi-ence includes the renovation to an elementaryschool of an LDS Church in Chinle, renovation of thehistoric Town Hall of Clarkdale, designs for theMargaret T. Hance Deck Park, Phoenix, and the newPublic Safety Complex in Gilbert. Mark has a BFA-Painting 1977 from Towson College, Maryland, aB.S. in Environmental Design, ASU, 1987, and Mas-ter of Architecture, ASU in 1993.

JOHN MCINTOSH is Coordinator of the Joint UrbanDesign Program. His background is in architectureand computer-aided design, which he has taught atthe graduate and undergraduate levels. Since head-ing up the JUDP in 1995 at the ASU DowntownCenter, his interests have turned to communityoutreach, service, and design assistance fordistressed neighborhoods in metropolitan Phoenix

and around Arizona. He holds a Doctor of Architec-ture degree from the University of Michigan andbachelor's degrees in architecture and English fromthe University of British Columbia.

DENNIS M. NEWCOMBE is a land planning specialistwith the law offices of Sender Associates, Char-tered, located in downtown Tempe in the historicCasa Loma building. He appreciates and enjoysapplying the multifaceted field of planning in his dailylife. His understanding of both the public and privatesectors and his strong belief in teamwork, facilita-tion, and communication allows for ease in resolvingissues. Dennis is currently a member of Tempe’sFriends of Rio Salado, Tempe East Rotary Club ofArizona, Phoenix Rio Salado (Army Corps of Engi-neers) Restoration Project, Valley Partnership, andthe American and Arizona Planning Associations. Aspresident of the CAED Alumni Association, Dennisserved on the Dean’s Council for Design Excellence.He has served on the alumni board of directors since1997 in various capacities and was instrumental inimplementing the highly successful mentoring pro-gram sponsored by the Alumni Association. He is a1995 B.S.P. graduate from ASU’s School of Planningand Landscape Architecture.

ROBERT SAEMISCH, AIA, is president of SaemischDiBella Architects, Inc., a full service architecturaland planning firm, where he handles marketing,contracts and contract administration, design, con-struction documents, specifications, field administra-tion, CADD management, and client relations. He haslived and worked in Mesa for 25 years where he hasserved on many community boards and designedmany downtown projects. He received his Bachelorof Architecture degree from ASU in 1971 andreceived an Outstanding Graduate award fromASU in 1987.

BRIAN SCHROEDER is a recent graduate of ASU’s Schoolof Architecture, having earned his Master of Archi-tecture degree in 2002. A member of the CAEDAlumni Association Board of Directors, he is cur-rently working independently as a designer in Phoe-nix and teaching an introductory architecture designstudio at ASU.

MITU SINGH is a student in the Master of Environmen-tal Planning program at ASU. She received her Bach-elor of Architecture degree from the Sushant Schoolof Art and Architecture in Gurgaon, India, in 2001.As architect for S.K.Das Associated Architects inNew Delhi, India, she was involved in several urbandesign projects. Other projects included housing,bus stop designs, a children’s museum, privateresidences, a neighborhood club, and a public schooldesign. For the Ansals group of Industries,Architects and Planners, in Katmandu, Nepal, shemade architectural, construction, and presentationdrawings for a 150-apartment housing project. Shehas also worked with a real estate developer on theremodel of a private residence in the Palisades areaof Los Angeles.

KIM SHETTER has been with the Herberger Centersince 1992. She has worked on all aspects of theCenter's publication mission, including books, work-ing papers, newsletters, and journal articles. She hasalso been involved in the planning, implementation,and filming of various charrettes coordinated by theJoint Urban Design Program, has overseen publica-tion of the charrette proceedings, and has producedvideo documentaries for selected charrettes.A graduate of Pomona College, she has a Master ofEnvironmental Planning degree from ASU.

51


52REFERENCES

City of Mesa General Plan. 2002. Mesa: City of Mesa Planning Division.

City of Mesa website. November 14, 2002.<www.ci.mesa.az.us/citymgt/am_mesa_history.htm>

Community Housing Design: A Workbook for Practitioners. 1996.Tempe: Joint Urban Design Program, Arizona State University, and ArizonaState Department of Commerce.

East Mesa U.D.A.T. Report. n.d. Phoenix: Urban Design Assistance Team,Rio Salado Chapter, American Institute of Architects.

Hughes, Ken. 2002. Ten Ways to Get Back to the Plaza. Planning 68:12(December): 10–13.

Mead, Tray C. and Robert C. Price. 1988. Mesa: Beneath the Shadows ofthe Superstitions. Northridge, Calif.: Windsor Publications, Inc.

Mesa Latino Town Hall 2002. 2002. Sponsored by Mesa Association ofHispanic Citizens and the East Valley Chapter of the Arizona HispanicCommunity Forum.

Mesa Public Schools. 1991. Our Town: The Story of Mesa, Arizona1878–1991. Mesa Public Schools.

Otis, Reta Reed. 1996. Mesa: Desert to Oasis. Mesa Historical Society.

Town Center Redevelopment Plan. 1999. Mesa: City of Mesa Office ofRedevelopment.

THE FOLLOWING SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL IS AVAILABLE IN PDF FORMAT FROM THE BROADWAY

CORRIDOR COMMUNITY CHARRETTE WEBSITE, LOCATED ON THE PUBLICATIONS PAGE OF ASU’SJOINT URBAN DESIGN PROGRAM: www.asu.edu/caed/JUDP

CARE Partnership Neighborhood Center Site Plan. 2001. BPLW Architects and Engineers, Inc. (December 13).

Survey Profile of the Broadway Corridor. 2002. Research done for the CARE Partnership by ASU BIS 302 Fall2002 Class, Dave Wells, Ph.D., Professor (November 15).

Date post:	15-Jan-2022
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times

November 21–24, 2002 Mesa, Arizona

Documents