A Vision for The City

Toward a New Pueblo

I’m not keen on the word ‘vision.’ It’s a word  frequently used by  politicians who don’t have one. I’m embarrassed to be using it here, but I can’t think of a better one.

The word ‘plan’ is a good workmanlike alternative, but perhaps too workmanlike.

If  I say I have a plan for my house, you understand one thing; if I say I have a vision of what my house will be you understand something different. My vision is more than a scheme for the mechanical arrangement of rooms and utilities, it suggests how it might fit with the world around it, and the sort of life I will live within it.

City planning that is not also informed by some less mechanical, some wider-reaching vision of what the city is, or is to become, plans for a body without a soul.

There was a time when thinking of ourselves as the Old Pueblo was enough to impose, on what we built and how we lived, a certain character and style of life that made Tucson distinctive. Our public buildings, like the old courthouse and the veterans’ hospital were built in an exaggerated  Spanish Colonial style.

The interior decoration of our homes reflected the Southwest, Native American and Hispanic traditions. We wore boots and bola ties, and gentlemen were excused by the mayor from wearing suit coats or jackets during the summer. Our sense of ourselves was that we were a vacation place, a dude ranch place, a place where Spanish was spoken as well as English, a place that was part of the cowboy west  and its traditions.

As we grew in size we outgrew the Old Pueblo sense of who we were. Does rodeo week still express to ourselves and others what we are? I think not. Rodeo is still fun, but it used to be downtown, when there was a downtown, and it was somehow at the heart of things, a culturally defining event. Now it’s banished to the south side and many families use the rodeo week school holiday to take the kids to Disneyland.

Tucson needs to develop a new sense of itself.

We made a stuttering start in a small way some years ago by trying to redefine ourselves, on the electronic billboards  that welcomed travelers arriving at the airport, as “Optics Valley.” Corny, derivative, commercial, but not bad. Beats “min-wage city” or “phone center central.”

But we should also aspire to become the artistic and creative center of the southwest. We invest money to bring businesses here, we should also invest money to attract, support, and encourage  the arts. We should make Tucson a place where young artists and intellectuals want to come because it is a center of creative energy.

We could use more studio space, rehearsal space, and above all  a well designed outdoor venue for  all of the performing arts. Instead of regional malls we should should have  built  a regional art complex, with a mix of  studios, apartments, theaters, and public patio gardens; built at public expense if need be, or with the same sort of tax benefits and subsidies that we offer manufacturers.

Yes, we need a convention center, and maybe we  needed a ball park tucked out of the way on the south side, although I doubt it

Here’s the problem with conventions and ball games: They’re ephemeral events, they come and go, but a community that is constantly bubbling with creative energy attracts residents and not just visitors; its a dynamic, continuing event.

Let’s invite young architects and designers of all sorts, too. Let’s  start to think of ourselves as a place where all  the crafts flourish and are supported; a place too proud of its intellectual and artistic traditions to be nothing more than a developers’ town.

The Greek city of Athens was the center of its world. Athens was a great business and commercial power as well a  center of the artistic and intellectual  life of its time. There is no reason why we should not aspire to become the Athens of The Southwest.

It could be a transforming vision… and it would make excellent economic sense.

Councilwoman Nina Trasoff has forwarded The Data Port a copy of the letter she sent to constituents explaining why she supports the Stiteler development plan. As you see the focus of her concerns was the Rialto Theatre.

I am posting the letter (slightly edited for length) so that readers may make their own judgements abut Trasoff’s arguments. I invite your comments, and have invited the councilwoman to join us. Trasoff writes:

“I am concerned about the future of the Rialto Theatre.

“Tuesday, we had an opportunity to support a Development Agreement [DA] that’s been in the works for 6 months.  It is important to note this was an Incentives agreement.  The Developers already own the entire Rialto block except for the Theatre itself, which is owned by the City of Tucson through the Rio Nuevo Facilities District.  This agreement was designed to get redevelopment of this block under way NOW, despite the dismal state of the economy, setting the stage for other developers to want to invest in the area without future incentives.

“The Development Agreement included several important ‘gives’ on behalf of the Rialto:

“§         The Developers would have given the Rialto Theatre a 1,000 sq. foot bay for new bathrooms;

“§         The Developers would have given the Rialto Theatre 450 sq. feet at the northeast corner of the building to provide adequate space and a great entrance for the Theatre’s own bar, downstairs.

“§         The Developers would have provided $400,000 to the Foundation for development of the bathrooms and the bar. [This was NOT a loan! No repayment was required.]

“§         The Developers would have installed an elevator that would have made the balcony of the Theatre handicap accessible for the first time. In exchange, the Foundation would have provided access so balcony patrons could go to the Developers’ bar upstairs before and after shows, with appropriate protections both to assure they’ve paid to enter the Theatre and that liquor law provisos are met.

“There was intense pressure from the Rialto board that the Developers also had to give them the 2,500 square foot Green Room/Office space.  The problem is the Developers have other plans for that building.  But, I believe that issue was taken care of with this additional concession:

“§         The Theatre would be given use of the Green Room rent-free guaranteed for 5 years. After that, a series of 5-year leases would be negotiated at market rate.  When the Developers were ready to raze the Broadway building for redevelopment, Green Room facilities would always be made available to the Theatre on the Rialto Block at market rate rent.

“There were many other elements in the DA, including incentives to move forward NOW with renovating the ground floor of the Rialto Block, bringing in a major art gallery and JANOS, in his important return to Downtown.  Several small nonprofits would have received important funding support, including WAMO, Skrappy’s youth program and the new artist in residence program called ‘Distributor’, creating an important upgrade of one of the gateways to Downtown.

“My motion to express strong support for the Development Agreement, just working to retool a couple of language points to clarify the deal, failed to gain support.  Yes, there were a few changes needed, but I believe the basic framework was in place and felt we needed to confirm it since the deadline to which we agreed was June 17^th (the next day). I believe we had a deal that would greatly benefit Downtown’s East End, the Rialto Theatre and Downtown revitalization as a whole.  The developers would also reap benefits in the form of City property earned in exchange for their risking their cash redeveloping before the economy turned around.  Instead, Council voted to delay the decision for three weeks so the parties could continue to talk and work out details.

“Bottom line: I believe this multi-faceted development agreement was in the best interest of our community as a whole: it protected and strengthened an important City asset, the Rialto Theatre; it provided a necessary ‘push’ or incentive to getting this project moving quickly, providing a boost to other local restaurants, retail, commercial business, neighborhoods; and it gave the business community the confidence that the City would be a partner in getting our economy moving again.

“I’ll keep you posted.

“Nina J. Trasoff

Councilmember - Ward VI”

Comments? Criticisms? Objections?

There is an issue with the Stiteler development that has gone unreported. I suspect that’s because, like so many economic issues, it hasn’t been understood. It surely hasn’t been understood by the City Council.

I will now perform the death-defying feat of trying to explain it. Before I do, let me remind you that a great deal of development and improvement has gone on downtown fueled by purely private investment. I.E: with little or no public support.

Mr. Private Developer, henceforth PD, sees a downtown property he thinks is ripe for re-development. He buys it, and does all the preparatory and clean-up work to start building his lofts, or studios, or restaurant space–whatever his plan is. Let’s say that he invests a million bucks in all that, in buying the property and in development preparation. Now PD goes to the bank. He needs a two million dollar loan for his project.

Mr Banker, henceforth MB, takes a look at the projections, PD’s pro-formas and so forth.

MB: See here, PD, you have a cost basis of a million dollars in this project and now you want a two million dollar loan. That means you’ll be into the project for a total of three million bucks. In order for it to cash flow you’ll have to charge rent at so-and-so many dollars a square foot.

MB: Now here’s my problem. There’s another developer in the neighborhood who has been given his land by the City. His cost basis is zero, zip, nada. He’s come to me for a loan, too. Like you he wants 2 million. In order to cash flow he could charge fewer dollars per square foot than you. But even if he charges what you plan to charge, he is a better risk because he’ll be into the project for only two million.

He’s a better risk and I have limited resources so if I make your loan at all it will have to be for a higher interest rate.

Hence it is at least arguable that giving away City property makes it harder for private developers, not easier. In the attempt to spur development the City Council has placed all other development at a disadvantage.