Cesar E. Chavez Plaza

April 29, 1999

Community Workshop Summary

 

Workshop Summary

The April 29, 1999 event was the second of two interactive public workshops providing an opportunity for the community to assist the Cesar E. Chavez Plaza Advisory Committee (CECPC) to prepare a design plan. The first meeting in September provided input on the scope of and objectives for plaza enhancements. The April 29 workshop provided the CECPC input on desirable design features for enhancements.

(right: Marq Truscott, ASLA of Quadriga presents design alternatives)

WORKSHOP OBJECTIVES:

AGENDA

1. Introduction
Welcome
Workshop Objectives
Process/Schedule Status
Review Agenda
 
2. Review Results of Workshop #1
Principles
 
3. Review Plaza Alternatives
Key Features
Planning Teams
Alternative Review
Best Features Summary
Present Back
 
4. Summary and Next Steps

DESIGN ALTERNATIVES

The project landscape architects prepared four alternative designs for the workshop. The design was developed to allow the CECPC and workshop participants to identify key features they would like to see in the final plan for the Plaza.

(click here to review the alternative plans for the Plaza)

Alternative A: Cesar Chavez Strada
Alternative B: Formal and Classical
Alternative C: Lower Terrace Plaza
Alternative D: Preservation Plan

TEAM EXERCISE

The workshop participants worked on teams to review the alternatives prepared by Quadriga, the project landscape architects. They assessed the alternatives using the three overall design objectives from the first workshop (below).

1. The Plaza is part of a larger place.
2. The Plaza is a place of retreat.
3. The Plaza should not be significantly altered.

They then picket one that most reflects the three planning objectives. Then they listed the three things that would make their preferred alternative stronger.

Of six teams, three thought alternative 'C' had the most desirable features. The misting fountain was also a popular feature regardless of the alternative. The teams expressed the desire to keep the Plaza a comfortable and accessible place. Movable seating and public restrooms were recommended by several of the teams. The teams also restated the importance of visual access and physical linkages to the Plaza.

TEAM 1

Team 1 felt Alternative C had the most going for it. They suggested the plan could be improved by:

1. Internalizing the farmers' market, expanding the covered seating area, relocating the restroom and storage to be able to enlarge the kitchen in the café.
2. Including the misting fountain concept from Alternative A.
3. Adding a fence around the beer garden area.

TEAM 2

Team 2 felt Alternative B had the most desirable features. They suggested it could be improved by:

1. Moving the stage north along I Street.
2. Improving visual connections through the park.
3. Minimizing the hardscaping in the park.

TEAM 3

Team 3 liked the features in Alternative C and felt it could be improved by:

1. Improving the relationship to City Hall and J Street.
2. Removing the hedges from the plan and adding seating in its place.
3. Add the market activity to J Street.

TEAM 4

Team four especially liked the farmers' market solution in Alternative C. They felt Alternative C could be further improved by:

1. Adding a second building.
2. Improving the continuity of the farmers' market.
3. Assuring there will be sufficient seating.
4. Identifying special locations for food service vendors.
5. Thinking about new restrooms and expanding the kitchen in the café.
6. Including the mist feature in the fountain.

TEAM 5

Team 5 liked Alternative D because of it felt more open and had less pavement. They felt it could be improved on by:

1. Using the market plan layout in Alternative C.
2. Adding a full-time restroom.
3. Reducing or eliminating the café area.

TEAM 6

Team 6 felt Alternative A was the best plan because it felt as though it was part of a larger place and it did not significantly alter the Plaza.

Return to Cesar Chavez Plaza Home Page
Return to RACESTUDIO Home Page