Public Spaces and Public Places

Decisions, plans, and promises for the Lear Theater and City Plaza

Well, howdy, strangers! I’ve been out of town for a few weeks, on a rollicking road trip through some of my favorite western cities including Salt Lake, Santa Fe, Tucson, San Diego, and Austin, TX. In each, I was deeply impressed by their ability to balance growth with livability, on a neighborhood and a larger civic level.

I’ve returned more determined than ever to encourage greater thoughtfulness in planning and design here in Reno, to counter the perilous pattern of short-term thinking, the tenacious tendency to shape the contours of the city in response to what a few people want now, prioritizing what’s easiest and fastest to build, rather than reflecting carefully upon what will be best for the livability, beauty, and health of our neighborhoods, our city, and all of its residents both now and in the long run.

At the end of the day, people—whether residents, tourists, or other visitors—want to be in places that look attractive, that are vibrant and varied, and that make them feel safe. And creating those places and spaces requires us to put people at the center, to thoughtfully consider how real people act and what they like to see and experience, and to resist any decision-making that promises future benefits for all, while in reality providing only short-term gains for a select few.

In short, we don’t want to miss any more opportunities to build something great, whether that’s an individual apartment building, a mixed-use development, a university district, a public plaza, or a commercial thoroughfare. Let’s not be content to settle for the unimaginative, the expedient, or the mediocre. We deserve far better than that and so do future residents of the city we love.

---

Putting the “Public” in Public Spaces and Places

So…what did I miss? Just kidding—I’m apparently physically incapable of tuning out news about Reno, even from thousands of miles away. And while I was gone, my attention was caught by reports about two topics in particular: the news that Artown has offered to donate the Lear Theater to the City of Reno; and some possible permanent additions and alterations to the plaza in front of City Hall.  

Both of these items clearly demonstrate to me the importance of inclusive, transparent, and informed decision-making when it comes to our public spaces and places. Above all, any permanent decisions about such sites require two primary commitments from City staff and elected officials:

1. A complete and thorough understanding of the history of previous decisions made about them by our public bodies and others.

2. Early and continued consultation with the proper citizen-led public boards and commissions with jurisdiction over or all or part of those places and spaces.

The first is critical in order to understand what prior conditions and decisions brought us to this current point, while the second is key to ensuring that public spaces and places reflect what the public actually needs and wants.

That doesn’t mean forcing the City to consider every single idea concocted by every single resident for every single public space. But it does mean that City officials need (and should want!) to solicit the recommendations of the citizen-led boards and commissions that are tasked with regulating, advising on, and administering various aspects of City-owned sites—and to ensure that all residents have a chance to share their thoughts on them—long before making any permanent decisions.

Which brings me to the City Plaza.

---

The City Plaza

There are no imminent discussions or decisions scheduled about the City Plaza, at least none that I’m aware of, but that’s precisely why I’m bringing it up now. The City Plaza (AKA Mapes Plaza, AKA Believe Plaza) at the corner of First & Virginia Streets has come up recently in the news and social media, and I want to take this opportunity to reiterate what I’ve stated before: that this pivotal public space deserves a serious and comprehensive re-evaluation and re-visioning rather than a continued series of uncoordinated and piecemeal additions and alterations.

The City Plaza on the north bank of the Truckee River between Virginia and Center Streets. Google Earth

Two recent discussions have me concerned that plans are being laid for the plaza without such an overall plan in place: the first was a Reno Gazette-Journal report that Mayor Schieve wants the City to purchase the Burning Man-originated “Space Whale” sculpture, keep it on the City Plaza permanently, and make digital files (NFTs) of it available for sale to direct toward future funding of the arts—this, although the sculpture was only intended and approved as a temporary installation to be leased from the artist until August of 2020 and was supposed to be removed after that.  But the Mayor didn’t want to see it go, so it remains on the plaza in a state of disrepair, with pieces of stained glass broken and missing.

The second discussion that raised my concern was a series of comments by Councilmember Devon Reese on Facebook accompanying a photo he had posted of a bird’s-eye view of the Plaza. After one resident suggested “We should paint a mural on City Plaza” and another added, “And suspended shade structures,” Reese wrote “Coming soon!!!” and when asked to clarify, replied, “we have lots of ideas percolating for greater use and beautification of the Plaza …. Stay tuned,” later replying to another resident’s desire for the installation of some trees with “that’s the plan; gets soooo hot” and another suggestion of a Ferris Wheel with “stay tuned” and a wink emoji.  

Here’s why these two discussions worry me.

First, returning to my earlier theme, the City Plaza is a public space. And it’s a varied one with multiple components that fall under the purview of at least four citizen bodies: the Recreation and Parks Commission (the plaza is categorized as a park); the Arts and Culture Commission (it contains multiple pieces of public art); the Historical Resources Commission (it is the home of the Ginsburg Clock, which is on the city’s historic register); and the Ward 3 Neighborhood Advisory Board.

You shouldn’t alter some component of this space without considering its potential impact on the others, and certainly without bringing those ideas in front of the bodies dedicated to their oversight. So the concerns of those entities alone warrant a much more inclusive discussion about anything new or permanent to be implemented (or retained) there and demonstrate the need for a coordinated and comprehensive plan.

The second reason such a plan is needed is because that’s what the people of Reno were promised of this space, and what we deserve to see come to fruition there. I’m not sure a lot of people even know that what we see now as the City Plaza—a massive expanse of unshaded concrete with landscaping around a few edges—was only the first stage of a much grander master plan for the site that was the product of an international design competition nearly 20 years ago.

The 2003 design for the City Plaza, complete with ice rink, canopy, landscaping, and a multi-story building on the Center Street side. swvb architecture

The decision to transform the site into a City Plaza was only reached several years after the City demolished the Mapes Hotel with hopes to sell the site to a private developer, raising much-needed cash for the Redevelopment Agency (and recouping the $6 million expended to purchase and demo the building). After the site failed to sell, and the City decided to purchase and move City Hall into the Cal-Neva Tower, the idea of creating a permanent City Plaza was hatched.

The design competition for the space attracted more than 20 applicants. Three finalists were invited to submit detailed proposals for the space, with the local firm svwb architecture (now VanWoertBigotti) creating the winning design, which was approved in 2003, only partially implemented, and then—for a number of reasons—gradually and unceremoniously abandoned.

What we now see as the plaza’s central feature—a huge, dismal expanse of concrete—was never supposed to remain open and exposed, but be covered by a soaring, signature canopy to provide shade over the seasonal ice rink in the winter, and other events in the warmer months, with light shows projected on it year-round.

But that’s not all. Central to the original design was a multi-story building at the site’s east end that would house equipment and concessions for the ice rink plus restaurants and shops. A place-based art installation inspired by the post office that preceded the Mapes on the site was to lead across the plaza and integrate with the new building, along with a fountain flowing along a low wall. Upon the selection of this design, Mayor Bob Cashell said, “It’s going to be the focal point of downtown and the city.”

So…what happened? In short, budget woes, shifted priorities, and the recession. Negotiations with the artist originally selected to create the extensive art piece fell apart over fees, and a much different piece was commissioned. The concrete and housing for the ice rink and supports for the massive canopy were laid, and some landscaping went in. The ice rink operated there for many years. But the rest of the project stalled. Faced with competing needs, City Council balked at the cost of the canopy. The building never went up. Years passed.

In 2007, public outcry and Reno Gazette-Journal editorials pressured the City to finish the plaza as promised, and plans to install more public art, landscaping, seating areas, and possibly shops, were underway in 2008 when the recession hit, scuttling plans again. In the years to follow, the City moved the seasonal ice rink, built a new Virginia Street Bridge (in the process apparently permanently damaging the cooling coils underneath the ice rink pad), decided to use the east side of the plaza as a surface parking lot for City vehicles, and in 2016, installed the BELIEVE sculpture on the plaza’s southern edge. The grand signature plaza design was permanently shelved.

So why revisit this sorry tale? Because we seem as a City to have collectively forgotten why this key space was reserved from private development in the first place: to create a beautiful signature plaza where residents could gather together in comfort and safety at all hours of the day, year round. And we’re not going to get there by continuing to plop an assortment of things down on a big concrete slab that is the residual detritus of an unfinished plan that never came to pass. That’s not a plaza; it’s a parking lot.

The City Plaza from Center Street, where the east side is being used to park City vehicles. Google Maps

We need to take a huge collective step back and revisit what a plaza is supposed to do—and what this one was intended to do: bring people together. A successful public plaza requires a catalyst for activity, some reason for people to weave in and out of the space at all times, creating a sense of vitality and safety. Public art can provide visual interest and beauty, but it alone can’t attract the constant flow of people needed to make a place feel occupied and loved, and a little extra shade and seating won’t do the trick, either. If you can’t buy something to eat and drink right on site, most people are not going to sit there.

A truly, functional and appealing City Plaza needs more. That’s why the original plan for this one always involved constructing a building on the Center Street side of the site with a few eateries and shops and shaded seating outside. A lot of people work at City Hall, inside the historic post office across the river, and in other buildings nearby, but they need something to bring them to the plaza, to stop by for a bagel and coffee in the morning, schedule an outdoor meeting, and grab a bite to eat at lunch. This could easily become a space where residents want to gather to read the paper, play chess, catch a free midday performance by a local musician, and maybe even have a spontaneous chat with their favorite local politician. But we need the vision to do it.

Clearly the original plan for the plaza will never be realized. So why confine ourselves to the foundations of an obsolete ice rink? Let’s get rid of that confining concrete slab, and commission an entirely new landscape design that can still accommodate the assembly of large crowds when needed but look beautiful and appealing all the time. Plant more trees. Add some peaceful water features. MAKE A NEW PLAN.

Large open spaces, like city streets, can only be activated by giving people of all ages and from all walks of life reasons to linger there. Activity is what makes a place feel interesting and safe. I’m hoping that Mayor Schieve and Councilmember Reese intended their recent comments about the Plaza as precursors to initiating inclusive public discussions about what residents actually want to see there, so let’s give them a hand and start that discussion right now, and begin to lay the groundwork for the City Plaza we need and deserve.

---

The Lear Theater

The agenda and supporting materials for next week’s (July 21) Reno City Council meeting have been posted (click here) and under Item D.2 the Council will be considering accepting the proffered donation of the Lear Theater and its adjacent parking lot from Artown, which was gifted them (for free) in 2011.

Ward 1 Councilmember Jenny Brekhus broke the news of the offer in the June 28 issue of her e-newsletter and the story was picked up by This is Reno. (The City staff report erroneously identifies the Lear Theater as 528 West First Street, but that’s actually the address of the adjacent house that Artown was gifted along with the Lear Theater and which they have been using as their office. It is apparently not part of the proposed donation to the City. The Lear Theater is at 501 Riverside Drive.)

The Lear Theater (First Church of Christ, Scientist) in March 2021. Google Maps

This is big news and an important decision. I’ve written about my concern for the fate of the Lear Theater several times in the Brief—providing an explanation of the context leading up to this moment back in January and an update in February, when local developer Ken Krater was proposing to renovate the building in conjunction with the construction of luxury apartments next door. That plan was apparently scrapped, paving the way for Artown to make their current offer.

I’m supportive of the City acquiring the building, because its renovation clearly needs to be someone’s top priority, and Artown has admitted that they simply can’t devote the necessary energy to it. I’m also supportive because public ownership should bring transparency to all decision-making about the building—and a lot of decisions need to be made, in order to responsibly and successfully renovate and reopen this architectural and cultural treasure, which was designed by the prominent architect Paul Revere Williams (one of the most prestigious African American architects in the U.S.) and opened in 1939 as the First Church of Christ, Scientist.

You can read through the materials that accompany this item to view the resolution from Artown, some photos of the interior, a 2013 feasibility report that Artown commissioned to consider the building’s potential adaptation into a theater, and a staff report outlining some possible next steps, should the City agree to take it on.

Artown’s resolution lists their conditions of transfer, including half the profits if the City sells, leases, or otherwise transfers the building to a third party. Obviously Artown holds most of the cards here, since they own both buildings and the parking lot outright, so they could, conceivably, turn around and sell it all for a tidy profit, but it’s still worth asking whether that and the other conditions seem warranted.

If the City does decide to take the building, the key question is WHAT NEXT?

The staff report suggests and elaborates briefly upon three possible options:

1. Maintain ownership and contract with another entity to manage

2. Long term lease or sale of the property

3. Solicit Requests for Interest (RFI) to determine market viability

I don’t expect City Council to make any of those decisions at this point, and fortunately neither does staff, suggesting that “Regardless of the path forward, engagement of subject matter experts, and possibly a community workshop, could be the first step in bringing back the Lear Theater into productive use.”

Coming back to my earlier point about relevant public bodies, a key player in any of those discussions will be the City’s Historical Resources Commission (HRC). The report mentions that the building is subject to the jurisdiction of the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), although not that it’s also subject to the jurisdiction of the HRC due to its listing on the city’s historic register. That means that any exterior changes to the building require a public hearing to secure a Certificate of Appropriateness from the HRC in advance, as well as SHPO approval.  

Should the City choose to accept the donation, the HRC should play a central role in helping to determine the next steps, since it is (as indicated on the City website)  “the official advisor to the City of Reno on matters relating to the historic preservation of cultural resources and buildings. The Commission recommends to the Council possible uses and funding options for historic buildings, places, and sites.” It doesn’t get more relevant than that.

The interior of the Lear Theater in June 2021. Alicia Barber

This is the perfect moment for the City of Reno to reassert its recognition of the HRC’s pivotal role in advising the City on all matters pertaining to historic properties in Reno, particularly those the City owns or may own. The City is already at a huge disadvantage in matters related to historic properties and preservation, since unlike most communities of comparable size (and many smaller ones), there is no one on City staff whose job requires expertise or experience in historic preservation. I lobbied for years for the City to create such a position, generally called a Historic Preservation Officer/Planner, only to be told time and time again that the funding wasn’t there.

As a result, there is no one with preservation expertise at the table whenever conversations about historic buildings happen to spring up at City Hall, making it even more important for City staff and officials to take the time to consult the HRC whenever (like now) the topic comes up. That commission is comprised of design, structural, and history professionals and other community members with abundant expertise in and knowledge of preservation. (And just for the record, the City should still hire a Historic Preservation professional to help implement their goals and give them the professional support they deserve!)

But the input of all residents, not just the HRC, is needed on this issue. Clearly discussions about the potential transfer of the Lear to the City have been underway for some time, but I think it’s imperative for anyone who cares about this beautiful, important, but long-neglected building to let City Council know what you think.

You can write to them and/or submit public comment via phone (775-393-4499), email (publiccomment@reno.gov), through the Public Comment Form, or in person. Again, it’s Item D.2 and the agenda is here. You might let them know, for instance:

• What does the Lear Theater mean to you and what are your hopes for it?

• Do you think City ownership of the Lear is a good idea? Why or why not?

• What do you think of the proposed conditions (view Artown’s Resolution here)?

• If the City accepts it, what do you think the next steps should be?

One last aspect I want to bring up are the financial implications of accepting this donation. The staff report states that rehabilitation costs for the Lear could reach $5 million to $10 million (although of course, that would depend on the determined use), and that neither the City nor Redevelopment Agency currently has that kind of funds.

That may be true, and even managing a vacant building is not cost-free, but it’s important to note that renovation would not be imminent and that plenty of public and private funding options exist for a building of this cultural and architectural import. I just would hate to see this important building become a pawn in any larger but completely unrelated development deals, and the fact that the Lear was brought up in April during City Council’s discussion of the Jacobs Entertainment proposal for the “Neon Line District” has already made me a bit wary.

---

UPDATE: Lakeridge Golf Course Driving Range

Last time I wrote about the Lakeridge Golf Course Driving Range, back on June 15, we were anticipating an appeal of the Planning Commission’s denial of the zone change that would allow its conversion from open space to townhomes. If you haven’t heard, plans for that appeal were dropped at the end of June, via a letter from the developer’s attorney that was posted on Facebook by Councilmember Devon Reese. That means the driving range cannot be developed for housing, but its future is still unclear, as Duncan Golf previously stated that the driving range would be closing regardless. I’ll keep you posted if I hear anything more about that.

---

Upcoming Development Projects

More development projects are on the way, as you can learn by signing up here to have Development Project updates delivered to your email inbox. If you haven’t done that yet, you can view the list released on June 28 here and the July 16 list here.  

---

BRIEF TIP: Sign up for Councilmember Jenny Brekhus’ e-newsletter

I mentioned above that Ward 1 City Councilmember Jenny Brekhus publishes a free e-newsletter, and if you haven’t signed up for it, you should. She covers issues in Ward 1 and citywide and she’s reliably candid in her assessments of local politics. In her latest issue, she offers some thoughts on deal making vs. policy making on City Council, which is something I've been monitoring, too, particularly with respect to some recent development-related decisions. You can sign up and view back issues here.

I'm a big fan of newsletters (obviously!) because they're more universally accessible than social media and can give us helpful insight into what the author is thinking and doing. I will happily post to any that are published by our local elected officials or others pertaining to local development issues in some respect, so please let me know if you hear of any others (and if you are one of those officials, please consider starting a free newsletter--they're easy and effective, and your constituents will thank you).

---

As always, you can view my previous e-newsletters, with more context, analysis, and tips, on my Substack site, https://thebarberbrief.substack.com/. Thanks for reading and have a great week!