-go here ^ and watch the vid-
Just a few weeks ago, Mayor Heuther and the consultant architects on the events center project - Sink Combs Dethlefs - held a press confrence on the resultant site analysis of the best "downtown site" for the events center. While I haven't followed the project very closely, having not really lived in the city for about 3 years and also having reservations on the "need" for an events center of this scale (given the 'stellar' attendance at Stampede and [shudders] Skyforce games), I was wholeheartedly intrigued by this process, given its relation to my current and previous semester's studio work.
As you will see from the posts below, I worked on a scheme for an 8000 seat velodrome in downtown Boston. At that point, given its access to mass transit, parking was less of a concern, and our site selection was less about pragmatics and more about having interesting site constraints. Oddly enough, the site my partner and I chose was also right next to some rail tracks in an existing parking lot. The building barely fit... it was quite a wrestling match to make it work, having the building cantilever over road and track.
This semester I am in a planning studio for Des Moines, focusing on an area full of warehousy office buildings in the River Hills District on the east side of the river. If you are not familiar, Des Moines is somewhat famous for its abundance of parking (and numerous parking garages, some of which are actually well designed), so parking was the primary concern (in order to continue the trend) for this planning process. Des Moines, luckily, already had loads of data on parking variables based on usage and square footage, so it gave us a good idea of the amount of parking we would need for our proposed scheme (if I find time you might see some of that up here). I still don't think we maybe had quite enough.
Anyway,
The point of the Des Moines work is that cars are big and parking takes up a lot of space. And the Boston work showed that 8,000 seats (let alone 12,000) is a huge building. So huge + huge = huge (which generally equates into money). Now, I already hinted at my reservations about the project in general, but when you really begin to understand the scope of the project, money is going to be a huge factor. This doesn't necessarily make me totally against it, I just feel press conferences analyzing primarily parking could be better spent discussing some other concerns the city has in regards to the events center.
What I'm alluding to is that there wasn't a single mention of busses (that I can remember without sitting through the whole presentation again). No analysis of "mass transit" options. SCD (and I'm hoping it was mostly SCD's analysis and not Hazard's) talked only about cars, furthering the reluctance midwesterner's have about walking. However, I am glad there was a walking distance analysis, but I feel that the events center, especially on the Cherapa site, could benefit greatly from a more developed mass transit system (more convenient bus routes/schedules downtown, etc.) Maybe even a park and ride wouldn't be a bad idea (i.e. Jazz Fest?)
Anyway, while I'm souding off about the project, I should mention (once again) that I am on the fence as to its good. While I truly don't believe that its use will outweigh its cost, there is that idealistic progressive part of me that loves progress for the sake of progress. A friend of mine expressed something similar a couple years ago when my alma mater was building a football stadium. While he (and I) wasn't really into the whole college sports scene... especially at a liberal arts college... he was excited to see something the scale of a stadium built on campus- an admittedly huge undertaking. It's hard to balance these two urges... one to be responsible, the other to be productive and progressive.
Anyway, other comments about the presentation.
It took me a bit to orient myself. This could have been aleviated by, 1. a return to architecture school ideals of "north should always be up" or 2. a better cameraman (I mean really, c'mon).
I don't know about the whole "attaching onto" Cherapa. I like that building as a stand alone, and I don't see the benefit of attaching an events center to an office building (unless it became a hotel). There are other ways to solve the problem of floorplate... perhaps some unique seating conditions... something Guthrie-esque (Rapson, not Nouvell)?
True, Mike, polling the city would not be a good idea. Honestly, most would have no clue what analysis was done and pick a site based on baser instincts. Also, you'd probably get some negative feedback about the whole project in general. Mr. Dethlef's nod to this "controversy" was well played.
I think the site-plan will be crucial to this project. I already know the awkwardness of trying to get to Cherapa (the access isn't very legible since it doesn't front any major street). I suppose this would be partially resolved with the general scale of the building.
In terms of parking, again, parking garages aren't all bad (even if expensive), but maybe this could be a way to generate revenue for the center. You have to pay if you want to park. I know Sioux Falls is trying its best to avoid too much urbanity too fast, but I think it is about time.
In the end, I am excited to see the next step of this project. The convention center area analysis will be interesting to see, but my hesitation with that site is that it is not urban enough. That is also why I don't know if I love or hate this project: I am concerned about its success based on the arena's performance, but the arena's failure could be about its accessibility and legibility... it's not in an urban area and it is surrounded by a see of asphalt. Regardless, whatever comes should be interesting to see, looking at SCD's site, their buildings seem functional enough. I'm excited what this could mean for Sioux Falls.