Last night's Plan Commission Meeting was quite long and deserves a detailed recap. Until I can put together an analysis of the evening, I can say that the big news of the evening for me was when developer Mark Carstensen suddenly began referring to "my part of the development" and "their part of the development" when talking about Target's store.
"Target is actually owning their own store here," said developer Mark Carstensen.
The situation I predicted here has come to pass - - preemptively!
City engineer John Bennett later assured the assembled, "This is no surprise. This is still a unified site plan."
I heartily disagree on both points. It was surely a surprise to the persons in city administration who described to me in past months what they felt was a lease situation with Target.
Secondly, the fact that Target owns the building and land in front of their store means that the awful site plan - - which is now approved - - has as much to do with the fact that Carstensen had to design around Target as it does with lack of imagination.
This is anything but a unified site design. This is a Target strip mall with smaller "barnacle" businesses held out at arm's length across a moat of unimpeded asphalt. Zero interaction. Zero significant, welcoming public space. Zero character.
Why come to this particular location rather than half a dozen others within a 15 minute drive?
The talk of a "nicer looking Target" is all fine, but here's a basic truth: site design trumps architecture.
Another alarming revelation: Target will have a Starbucks in its store. Isn't there supposed to be a Starbucks (or, better yet, local independent) coffee shop occupying an "outlying building"? Evidently, that coffee shop's main role will be that of a drive-thru. Very sad, and another indication that Target is living on an island of its own.
I'd assumed Target might not sell basic groceries at this location in deference to the next-door Sendik's, but in light of the in-store Starbucks I'm certain they'll stock a lot of the food Sendik's offers - - to the detriment of the grocer.
Looking and acting more and more like a strip mall. More later ...
At this point, you're doing better than Sylvia Browne concerning predictions...
Posted by: Greg Kowalski | August 24, 2007 at 02:01 PM
John,
I have to admit, I liked this very informative first pass on last night's meeting. Nice job. I'm looking forward to your detailed account.
Posted by: Fred Keller | August 24, 2007 at 02:59 PM
Yea all the discussion of good or bad "architecture" was kinda besides the point because as you say "site design trumps architecture".
Posted by: daver | August 24, 2007 at 05:44 PM
Thank you, Fred.
The note-pile is very high, so this may be another multi-post effort.
And I GOTTA mow my lawn at some point now that it's stopped raining ....
Posted by: John Michlig | August 25, 2007 at 11:49 AM