Don’t Permanently Alter Reno City Code to Exempt the UNR Skyway from Design Review

Posted on by

August 9, 2020 – UPDATE AND ALERT – On August 12, 2020 the Reno City Council is scheduled to cast the final vote that would permanently alter the city code regarding skyways, specifically to allow the plans and drawings for a skyway proposed by the University of Nevada, Reno to avoid being reviewed by a committee of design professionals and Reno citizens. [8-13-20 UPDATE: The UNR Skyway and permanent alterations to the city code were approved on August 12.]

In the same meeting they are scheduled to vote on whether or not to approve the Special Use Permit for that skyway, which would extend from a new seven-story parking garage on Lake & Center Streets over two lanes of traffic on Ninth Street and then continue for another 200+ feet into the greenbelt separating Ninth Street from Morrill Hall.

On July 22, 2020, the Reno City Council voted 4-3 to approve the first reading of the text amendment, which was written specifically to apply to UNR’s skyway by exempting from the recommendations of a Design Review Committee any skyway with a maximum dimension of 12 feet wide by 15 feet high located outside of downtown and spanning no more than two public travel lanes.

The agenda and agenda packet for the August 12th meeting can be found here. The Special Use Permit for the UNR Skyway is item C.4 and the second reading for the Text Amendment to allow UNR to avoid having that skyway reviewed by a City-appointed Design Review Committee is item F.7.

[For reference, the agenda and agenda packet for the July 22nd meeting can be found here.]

This exemption was first introduced in the Council’s June 10th meeting and supported by four out of seven council members—Neoma Jardon, Bonnie Weber, Devon Reese, and Oscar Delgado. Those same four Councilmembers voted to approve that amendment in its first reading on July 22nd. Their contact info can be found here.

This slide appeared in the staff presentation for item E.2 at the June 10th Reno City Council meeting, suggesting an exemption to the DRC requirement for skyways meeting the specifications of UNR’s proposed skyway.

With its meticulously defined dimensions that conveniently apply to the UNR skyway, this exemption to city code would be not only inappropriate, but completely unnecessary. There is absolutely nothing in the current Skyway Ordinance or in the Design Review Committee’s guidelines that would prevent the construction of UNR’s proposed skyway, or any skyway like it.

So why would City Council vote to create an exemption from DRC review for skyways like UNR’s?

The answer appears to be because these council members, supported by Heidi Gansert, UNR’s Executive Director of External Relations, don’t think the UNR skyway should have to be reviewed by a Design Review Committee.

Why, you may ask? Could review by the DRC potentially prevent UNR from erecting its skyway over 9th Street? Nope. The Design Review Committee isn’t a regulatory body. It is composed of design review professionals appointed by the City who are to be convened to review each new skyway proposal. Their job is to provide constructive professional input on behalf of the City of Reno about a structure to be permanently erected above the public right-of-way. That’s it. (If you’d like more explanation of the function and intent of the DRC, see my previous post from when City Council was considering eliminating it altogether.)

Description of the Design Review Committee whose review of all proposed skywalks is mandated in Reno City Code, as presented by City staff in the June 10, 2020 City Council meeting.

UNR’s Heidi Gansert does not want UNR’s skyway to be subject to that particular requirement. In fact, she doesn’t even call UNR’s project a skyway, preferring the term “ADA-compliant pedestrian bridge.”

Well, you might say, maybe UNR’s “ADA-compliant pedestrian bridge” isn’t the kind of overpass that the City was worried about when it created the Skyways Ordinance and Design Review Committee in the first place. After all, weren’t those created after objections to the erection of the enormous downtown skyways like those at the Silver Legacy and Cal-Neva in the 1990s?

Yes, they were. But what those examples clearly demonstrated to City Council and the community was the need for the City to have more oversight over any structure being permanently erected above the public right-of-way.  Skyways like those constructed by casinos to house restaurants, shops, gaming, or other uses are just one type of skyway that the code governs. Those are called “skybuildings” and defined in the code as “an elevated, occupiable structure, located over a right of way, used for occupancies that are not considered hazardous” (Section 18.24.203.4660).  However, that’s not all the code is intended to govern. It also applies to sky trams, like that at Circus Circus, which are described as “an automated conveyance associated with an elevated structure, located over a right of way” (Section 18.24.203.4670).

But the default definition of a skyway in Reno city code is simply this: “a walkway, in an elevated structure, used exclusively for pedestrian traffic that passes over a right-of-way.” (Section 18.24.203.4680)

That describes UNR’s proposed skyway so perfectly that it’s as though the code was written to apply to something just like it. Because it was.

The UNR skyway is not a “unique” type of skyway, as Councilmember Jardon repeatedly argued in the June 10th meeting; it is in fact a textbook example of one. If any City Councilmembers did not realize that—which is, I think, what has happened here—I hope they will refer to the ordinance itself (Section 18.12, Article XX), where skyways like this one are expressly included.

So if the UNR skyway is actually not out of step with the existing code, but in fact meets its definition precisely, then what other reason could be given to change that code permanently in order to treat skyways like it differently? Perhaps there is some other unique aspect of the UNR skyway that should make it exempt from DRC review?

Heidi Gansert herself laid out the reasons that she considered the UNR skyway to be uniquely worthy of an exemption to the code requirements at the June 10th City Council meeting. That’s when City Council was set to consider whether or not to completely eliminate the Design Review Committee from the city’s Skyways Ordinance.

In her public comment (accompanied by a powerpoint presentation), Gansert focused not on the proposed text amendment, but solely on why the UNR skyway should be exempt from DRC review. In the process, however, all she ended up showing was that UNR’s proposed skyway is in fact completely typical of any other skyway to which the code applies.

Included in Heidi Gansert’s public comment about UNR’s proposed skyway was this image showing its extension from the future parking garage, across E. 9th Street, and over the greenbelt on the south end of the main UNR campus.

First, she said, UNR really needs its skyway to be approved by the City, in order to meet its construction schedule for its planned new parking garage. That’s certainly not unique. Every applicant for a special use or building permit wants to begin construction, which is a complicated process involving various levels of review and oversight. If every expression of urgency from an applicant warranted creating a permanent change to city code, we’d have no codes left.

Second, Gansert argued, the UNR skyway is “very well done,” citing its use of the traditional campus combination of brick and white stone. Again, such confidence is not unique. Every applicant undoubtedly believes the design of his or her project to be well done; the designers of the Silver Legacy’s massive skybuildings no doubt considered them to be well done. However, review by the DRC is intended to allow design professionals acting on the City’s behalf to evaluate that design with the interests of the City and the public, not just those of the applicant, in mind.

Third, as Gansert emphasized repeatedly, UNR needs this skyway in order to provide ADA access to the Gateway. That’s also not unique. All skyways have to be ADA accessible if they’re open to the public, and there is nothing in the Skyways Ordinance that would prevent UNR from constructing an ADA-accessible skyway connecting new Gateway construction to the main campus. It would in fact be more unusual if the UNR skyway did not require some degree of ADA accessibility.

Fourth, Gansert argued that images of UNR’s proposed skyway have been shown in four different public presentations since last November, implying that the amount of public awareness of this particular skyway, when including future presentations, surely provides enough opportunity for input from any design professionals interested in weighing in. That might be true under normal circumstances, but skyways were set aside in city code as requiring a level, quality, and structure of professional, collaborative review specifically because they are constructed above the public right of way.

So if these concerns and factors are all typical of any skyways that might come along, what argument is being made for why the City should forgo having a committee of design professionals provide it with input on skyways like this one? Is it because skyways outside of the downtown area don’t matter as much? Because they don’t need to be as sensitive to the surrounding environment? Because smaller skyways over fewer lanes are less likely to be poorly designed than larger and longer ones?

No. None of those things are true. In fact, the existing code deliberately makes no exemption from the DRC for skyways of any size or location (as long as they’re in permitted areas) because the need for design review by a City-appointed committee of professionals was rightfully and deliberately deemed to be mandatory and beneficial for all.

What is troubling is that four out of seven City Council members seem at this point to believe otherwise, even though creating this exemption would be against the City’s own best interests. (A quick thanks here to the three City Councilmembers who voted against the exemption: Jenny Brekhus, Naomi Duerr, and Mayor Hillary Schieve.)

UNR’s proposed skyway is not a “special case” that warrants less design scrutiny than others. It is, on the contrary, a typically problematic one from both a landscape and architectural perspective, warranting close examination from the very type of professional design team that the Design Review Committee would comprise.

If City staff had dedicated its efforts toward clarifying how to convene the Design Review Committee when UNR’s skyway was first submitted to the City in February—four months ago—that committee’s review could have been completed by now. As it is, City Council now has had to devote two meetings to formalizing the exemption of skyways like UNR’s from city code—the first on July 22nd, and the second on August 12th.

In doing so, these City Councilmembers have clearly succumbed to flawed interpretations of both the existing city code and of UNR’s proposed skyway. City Council should not add a permanent exemption to a code requirement in order to expedite a specific project—in this case, the UNR skyway—as both Jenny Brekhus and Naomi Duerr have pointed out, and any Councilmember’s refusal to support such an exemption should not imply any opposition to that specific project. It simply has nothing to do with it.

There is no objective reason to exempt any skyways over the public right of way from review by a Design Review Committee, which is an integral part of the code and of immense benefit to the City, regardless of a skyway’s size, location, or owner.

Rather than continue along its current path, City Council needs instead to take steps toward doing what it should have done in April: schedule an agenda item to approve the precise method of forming the DRC and convene it. The DRC can then review the UNR skyway and provide their recommendations to the Planning Commission so City Council can give it their approval (if they so desire) and get on with it.

For City Council to proceed with this exemption would be to reveal its willingness to needlessly and permanently alter a city ordinance in order to allow UNR to avoid what basically amounts to a single, but critical, non-regulatory meeting—a constructive, mutually beneficial professional review of its proposed skyway that would without question make it a better project for the university and the entire community.

Quick note: Also on the next agenda are proposed changes to the City Ordinance on Development Agreements, which is worthy of more attention later.

Don’t Let Reno City Council Gut the Skyways Ordinance!

Posted on by

The Design Review Committee is a pivotal component of the Skyways Ordinance that is in place to help improve the design and appearance of skyways above the public right-of-way. It is a benefit to the City, not a hindrance, and should not be eliminated.

June 5, 2020 – ALERT: The Reno City Council has scheduled a vote that, if it passes, would make a drastic change to Reno’s Skyways Ordinance that would vastly reduce City, public, and professional oversight over and input into the design of skyways spanning city streets, specifically to expedite a University of Nevada, Reno (UNR) construction project and flouting the recommendation of their own Planning Commission. City Council has scheduled the first of two required votes on this for their June 10th meeting. Here’s a rundown of what has happened so far, why making this change is such a bad idea, and what you can do about it.

1. What is the Skyways Ordinance?

The Skyways Ordinance is a section of the Reno city code that governs structures that are built over the public right-of-way, including skywalks, skybuildings, and skytrams. All skyways are subject to the same requirements and procedures in Chapter 18.12, Article XX. Additionally, skyways constructed over a city street must adhere to specific Skyway Design Guidelines, that are described in Appendix B of that code.

2. Why is this coming up now?

City Council initiated this proposed ordinance change in conjunction with a request from UNR for a Special Use Permit to construct a skyway over E. 9th Street. This pedestrian skywalk would connect the main campus to the new six-story parking garage that UNR intends to build at the corner of Lake Street and E. 9th Street and would provide ADA access to any future campus buildings built in the “Gateway” district. This request prompted the City to examine the code governing approval of skyways.

An image of UNR’s future Gateway Parking Complex and proposed skyway across E. 9th Street submitted to the Reno Planning Commission for their meeting of May 20, 2020. The Planning Commission did not hear this item, determining that they could not review a skyway that had not been reviewed first by the Design Review Committee that city code currently mandates–a committee that they recommended NOT be eliminated.  Click on the image for more photos of that design, beginning on page 35 of the City Staff Report.

3. How does the City of Reno want to change the Skyways Ordinance?

The current requirements for approving skyways include a unique component: the required review of any skyway proposal by an appointed citizen Design Review Committee (DRC) comprised of planning and design professionals from the community. Like all construction projects requiring a Special Use Permit (SUP), skyways are subject to review by the Planning Commission and then the City Council. In the case of skyways, however, this appointed DRC must first review and discuss the skyway proposal and provide their recommendations on its design, appearance, and adherence to guidelines to the Planning Commission before its review. Applicants are also advised to meet with this DRC prior to that formal review to proactively discuss their designs. The City is proposing to eliminate that level of professional review and design assistance and input by removing the Design Review Committee entirely from city code.

4. Why does the City want to eliminate the Design Review Committee?

At least one City Councilmember and the Acting Community Development Director are arguing that eliminating the DRC will expedite approval of skyways, including UNR’s proposed skyway, since the DRC is not currently formed. During the discussion of this item at the April 8th City Council meeting, Acting Community Development Director Arlo Stockham repeatedly stated that convening a DRC would delay UNR’s project, which he said was scheduled to begin this summer (contradicting UNR’s own website, which says it is scheduled to begin construction this fall, to be completed in Spring 2022) and argued that such a committee is not necessary because the public, including design professionals, can provide input on skyway designs through public comment during the regular SUP process. Councilmember Neoma Jardon, who introduced the item (she represents Ward 5, where UNR is located), directed her comments solely toward UNR’s skyway, making clear her goal to specifically expedite that project. You can view their comments on the meeting video (Item H.2; Stockham speaks around 4:02). City staff provided Council with no arguments for why the DRC should be retained.

5. When was the Design Review Committee put into city code?

This section of city code was written in 2000 after years of intense public discussion and concern about the massive skyways being constructed in the 1990s. They included skyways connected to the Silver Legacy, Cal-Neva, and Atlantis. The city at the time had no detailed guidelines governing skyways, which were very unpopular, due not only to their size but their appearance. After years of inclusive and exhaustive discussion and input from casino and other business owners, design professionals, and citizens, the City created the current Skyway Design Guidelines in which the Design Review Committee is to play a pivotal role. It appears that only one skywalk has been constructed since then—the skywalk over Peckham Lane that connected the Atlantis Casino Resort to the Convention Center in 2008—and it is unclear whether this committee was convened for that project. There is obviously no reason for a committee to meet if there are no skyways to discuss.

The massive skybuildings constructed downtown for the Silver Legacy were among the projects that prompted the establishment of a Design Review Committee in the current Skyway Ordinance, to ensure that the City of Reno would receive citizen and professional design input on any future skyways. Alicia Barber photo.

6. Why does the city need a special Design Review Committee for skyways?

Review of skyways by a professional citizen Design Review Committee is for the benefit of the City and the public. It ensures that the City both solicits and receives careful and thorough professional input about the design and appearance of a permanent structure to be constructed in public space by a non-City entity. The code is very specific that the DRC is to consist of representatives recommended by five groups:

  • The Nevada chapter of the American Institute of Architects
  • The Nevada chapter of the American Society of Landscape Architects
  • The Nevada chapter of the American Planning Association
  • The Reno Planning Commission
  • The Citizen Advisory Board to the Reno Redevelopment Agency

There are specific reasons for including these particular groups. The City’s design guidelines for skyways are extensive, technical, and architecturally complex and may exceed the capacity of City staff, the Planning Commission, and City Council to thoroughly and accurately apply to skyway proposals. The position of City Architect was eliminated in 2009. The position of City Landscape Architect has been unfilled since 2010. Convening a committee of citizen experts ensures that the City has the expertise to conduct a thorough review of any proposed skyway regardless of current staff capacity and experience.

But their role is not a regulatory or punitive one. The professionals and citizens appointed to this community have expertise in design and planning that they can share with applicants, for the benefit of all parties. Their role is not to simply vote a skyway design up or down but to apply their cumulative experience to help improve its appearance, its connection to the surrounding natural and/or built environment, and its relationship with other projects, both existing and proposed.

Additionally, the DRC gives the public a formal role in the oversight of skyways, which are constructed above the public right-of-way. This is explicitly stated in the design guidelines:

The design review committee (D.R.C.) will review skyway plans to ensure a public perspective is provided related to conformance with the intent of the skyway design guidelines. It is recommended that an applicant hold a “pre-application” hearing with the D.R.C., prior to formal submittal of a “major” special use permit application. Prior to appearing before the planning commission, the skyway plans and drawings will be presented to the D.R.C. for their formal review. (Reno Land Development Code, Title 18, Appendix B, 18)

The thorough deliberations of a committee of professionals and formulation of a recommendation to the Planning Commission far exceed any voluntary input that may or may not be provided through the regular public comment process. Convening a committee comprised of qualified citizens ensures that the City need not depend upon arbitrary public comment or the current composition of City staff at any given time and allows members of this committee to discuss and deliberate together and with the applicant prior to the request for a Special Use Permit. Public comment allows for no such discussion. The goal is to make skyways better by paying particular attention to discussion of their design.

7. Would forming the Design Review Committee take a long time?

The City Council has the ability to appoint members of an ad hoc advisory board, as they did most recently for advice on their response to the COVID-19 pandemic. The Council could place an item on their next available agenda to clarify that they would be selecting the members of the DRC through direct appointment, solicit the required representatives from the designated organizations and entities, and begin the review process immediately. The City seems to be deliberately exaggerating the difficulty of convening this committee in order to move UNR’s construction project along.

8. Would implementing this committee delay UNR’s construction project?

It is difficult to imagine it taking more than a few months to convene this committee and allow them to review UNR’s proposed design and provide their suggestions to the Planning Commission. But any potential delays to the construction of UNR’s proposed skyway are not relevant here. City code should not be permanently changed in order to expedite a specific construction project, public or private, particularly when the change would significantly reduce public and professional input and oversight and–in this case—greatly reduce the quality of skyways designed in public space.

Keep in mind that City staff received the initial application from UNR for a Special Use Permit for their proposed skyway in February of 2020 and the City could have begun the process of forming this committee months ago. Instead, one or more City Councilmembers directed City staff to work toward eliminating the DRC, which as a text amendment to a City ordinance needs to be considered at one Planning Commission meeting (which occurred on May 20th) and then two different City Council meetings, currently scheduled for June 10th and July 22nd. City Council could cancel those readings, agendize a clarification of the committee selection instead, and be on their way.

Construction delays are unfortunate, but they happen all the time. UNR officials obviously want to start building their new parking garage this fall, to open in Spring 2022, but any delay would be minimal and in any case, fully warranted considering the need for the City to subject the proposed UNR skyway—and every future skyway project—to the thorough professional citizen review that the code requires. Why should the City handicap its own ability to improve a design for something in the public right-of-way?

9. What do others think of eliminating the Design Review Committee?

The Planning Commission voted 5-2 against eliminating the Design Review Committee after deliberating for more than an hour at their May 20th meeting. Multiple members expressed how much they value the expertise and input that such a committee could provide. They also received public comment from professional members of the architecture, landscape architecture, and planning communities and the general public, who opposed eliminating the Design Review Committee. You can read submitted written public comment in the Agenda packet for the June 10th City Council meeting here (it is a large file; see p. 519). Despite those objections, the City Council has placed on its June 10th agenda (Item E.2) the first reading of two required votes to eliminate the Design Review Committee from city code.

10. What can I do?

Let City Council know that you care! Your opinion matters whether you are in the professional design community or simply care about thoughtful design and thorough review of what is being constructed in public space. There are links to an online public comment form as well as registration information to provide live comment at the virtual meetings on the June 10th agenda. But you should also engage Councilmembers directly in advance, if you can. You can find their contact information here. Most Councilmembers have social media accounts and you can engage them there, too.

A Community Response to UNR’s Plans to Demolish the Historic Houses of the University’s Gateway District

Posted on by

NOTE: The following represents a collective effort among many individuals in the Reno community to establish a timeline for developments related to the historic houses of the UNR Gateway and to urge the university to give the community more time to save them.

Reno community members who have been closely involved with matters related to the University of Nevada, Reno Gateway are urging UNR President Marc Johnson to halt UNR’s imminent plans to demolish ten of the historic Queen Anne houses of the University Gateway district. It is our collective position that to raze these houses months or even years before building anything in their place would be a senseless act of destruction in violation of the public’s trust. A petition posted just last week by the Historic Reno Preservation Society already has more than 1,700 signatures from concerned citizens who also strongly oppose these plans.

All alternatives to demolition have not been exhausted and time has not run out. Contrary to the repeated assertions of UNR officials and spokespersons, those closely involved in preservation efforts strongly believe that the university has not provided the community with every opportunity to save as many of these houses as possible. Rather, UNR’s two efforts to relocate the houses were formulated and executed without any input from state or local historic preservation experts or organizations, and their failure in no way represents the exhaustion of all alternatives.

The claims by UNR that this demolition is required in order to raise funds and design the Gateway’s new buildings seem unsupported by previous university construction projects. Fundraising and architectural design for new construction can easily proceed, as it always does, without clearing a site, as the construction of the Engineering Building now underway on Evans Avenue clearly demonstrates. Indeed, fundraising and design for the College of Business building are clearly both well underway; Collaborative Design Studio has produced several generations of renderings for the new Business building, and the administration informed the UNR Faculty Senate as far back as November 2016 that a major private donor was interested in funding nearly all of its cost.

We urge university officials to be transparent with the community about how much time remains before potential groundbreaking for any new construction in the Gateway, and in the interim work openly with the community, this time with input from experts in historic preservation and state and local history, to formulate strategies to preserve these irreplaceable aspects of Reno’s disappearing 19th century heritage.

A Summary of UNR/Community Meetings Regarding the Gateway Houses

Those in the community who have been working to find solutions for these houses would like to help set the record straight when it comes to the university administration’s characterization of the past three years of discussions with that community regarding these houses and their fate. Since representatives of UNR have been meeting with the City of Reno’s Historical Resources Commission (HRC) and others about the houses, their removal has always appeared to have been the university’s primary objective. In contrast, the City’s Historical Resources Commission has encouraged a methodical and open-ended approach employing best preservation standards and practices to evaluate these historic resources and all options for preserving some of them in place before condoning their relocation.

Should relocation of these houses be deemed the only viable option to preserve them, the view of preservation organizations and specialists has always been that it should proceed with a view toward the long-term safety, integrity, and viable use of the structures, not as a simple act of removal to sites with sufficient square footage to fit them.

The HRC is the City of Reno’s professional advisory board for historic resources and the body that represents the public voice regarding historic preservation in Reno. This body was unfortunately not among the hundreds of people consulted in the creation of the University of Nevada’s Campus Master Plan 2015-2024.  Neither were the Nevada State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), the Historic Reno Preservation Society (HRPS), or anyone with specific expertise in historic resources. Because the university has no set policies governing evaluation of the historic structures it acquires, UNR was apparently unaware of the historical and architectural significance of the houses its new growth strategy planned to displace. A 2016 investigative report by This is Reno confirmed that, indeed, historic resources had not been considered in the university’s master planning.

As a result, the larger community and the HRC only became aware of the university’s plans for the Gateway after the revised campus master plan had been completed. Growing concerns in the community for the fate of the historic houses located there only intensified in February of 2016, when UNR was seeking the approval of the City of Reno’s Regional Center Plan, which formalizes the desired density for the UNR Gateway to bring it in keeping with the Master Plan. Because the new Floor Area Ratio (FAR) specified for the Gateway seemed to preclude retaining any of these houses in place, the HRC approached Reno City Council and UNR with their concerns.

University representatives attended several HRC meetings that winter and explained the need to build in the Gateway District to accommodate the university’s growth. In a February 16th meeting on the UNR campus attended by UNR President Marc Johnson, Todd Lankenau of Collaborative Design Studio, HRC chair Alicia Barber, HRC commissioner Melinda Gustin, and a few others, UNR Executive Director for External Relations Heidi Gansert showed a Powerpoint featuring photographs of various Queen Anne houses throughout town, ostensibly to demonstrate that the houses in the Gateway were not unique in the city. At that point, it became clear to those in attendance that the UNR representatives were not familiar with how historic resources are professionally evaluated, and the HRC began a series of significant efforts to help out in this regard.

They began by formulating new language for the amended Regional Center Plan that acknowledged the historic resources located in the Gateway and indicated that “In relation to potential historic resources, redevelopment in the University Campus Gateway Precinct on parcels not abutting North Virginia Street should prioritize in the following order: 1) preservation; 2) adaptive reuse; and 3) development that evaluates compatibility and integration of potential historic resources. Relocation of historic resources should be encouraged only in lieu of demolition.”

There was strong community support for integrating some of these houses with proposed new campus construction. Mike Van Houten of Downtown Makeover argued that the houses were valuable aspects of Reno’s history that should be incorporated into the University’s plans, as the City’s Master plan supported.

Facing increasing public concern that UNR intended to demolish these houses, President Johnson came to the City Council meeting on March 9, 2016, and explained the need for more dense development in the Gateway. He also, notably, committed to preserving the houses, if not in place, then in appropriate locations. His statements voiced there included the following:

“The last meeting we had, we talked about some alternatives to just leaving the houses where they are, the alternatives of possibly moving some of the historic homes to appropriate locations.  Alicia Barber and Melinda Gustin are working on some additional alternatives. We are actively looking for additional alternatives as well, and we are committed to preserving these historic houses that are in this Gateway District, not necessarily in their current locations, but in locations that are appropriate to their history.”

“We’re committed to work with the HRC and start from scratch. We haven’t got the building built yet, or designed….we will continue that discussion and find some good alternatives before we finalize the design.”

 

This commitment to relocate the houses as a last resort was incredibly reassuring to the entire community because it indicated Johnson’s commitment to—but only as a last resort—relocating the houses to appropriate locations in coordination with the HRC, rather than demolishing them. But first, he publicly committed to starting from scratch with the university’s designs for new construction in the Gateway, taking the identified historic resources into account, and bringing some of those ideas back to City Council.

At this point the HRC’s next goal was to provide the university with as much information as possible regarding this historic cultural landscape linking the community to the university, in order to allow UNR and the HRC to best collaborate on ideas that might integrate some of these houses with campus expansion plans. At HRC urging, the City of Reno commissioned and funded a professional architectural survey of the houses and provided the results to Heidi Gansert. That survey concluded that six of the Gateway houses were individually eligible to the National Register of Historic Places and most of the rest are eligible as contributing structures. That’s just the National Register. One—the Mary Sherman House—is already listed on the city and state historic registers, and they are all eligible for those registers as well.

Additionally, with the help of the community, a digital tour of the Historic UNR Gateway was created for Reno Historical to confirm their dates of construction and to illuminate some of the stories and people that, along with their architecture, lend all of these houses such rich historical significance.

At President Johnson’s invitation, representatives of historic preservation interests including HRC chair Alicia Barber met with UNR officials and Todd Lankenau of Collaborative Design Studio on campus on March 29, 2016. Barrie Lynn brought a large interactive map that would allow the group to experiment with different configurations of historic houses along with new university structures with the square footage the university required for its new buildings.  Community members held a well-attended meeting later that same day where local residents were excited to use the board to consider various options.

President Johnson and Heidi Gansert then attended a special meeting of the HRC on April 7, 2016 where Johnson stated that the Business building’s designers, Collaborative Design Studio, would go back to the drawing board and evaluate whether some of the houses might be incorporated. Johnson stated the following:

“So are all options on the table, forever, until we find your solution? Well, maybe not. But we certainly do want to continue to have conversations in this order of—well, in the other order—of opportunities. Right now we’re only trying to place one building. The rendering of a closed Center Street, to actually have a good campus feel, could that include some of the historic homes? Certainly. Could it have buildings on both side of the street? Yes. Could some of those be historic homes? Possibly. I think we would have to work with our professional planners to try to work that out.”

That sounded incredibly encouraging, and the HRC—a group that by its very requirements includes professional historians, architects, engineers, and preservation specialists—looked forward to more hands-on collaboration with university-hired planners to discuss options for retaining some of the Center Street houses in place. Unfortunately, that did not occur. At the City Council meeting on April 27, 2016, when the Regional Center Plan was up for a vote, Councilman David Bobzien, the council’s designated liaison to the Historical Resources Commission, expressed disappointment that he had not received any of the promised materials from President Johnson.

In her public comments to City Council, HRC chair Alicia Barber urged City Council to adopt the HRC’s amended language but also expressed her disappointment in the lack of productive dialogue regarding how to integrate these houses with new construction in light of their demonstrated significance. However, given the assertion from UNR that they would continue to collaborate with the HRC to discuss all options, City Council passed the amended plan.

Less than three months later, on July 14, 2016, President Johnson and Heidi Gansert attended an HRC meeting and announced that the university’s planners had completed their analysis and had determined that all twelve of the historic houses must be removed. As a justification, it was stated that based on their analysis, the university could secure far fewer offices from converting the houses into offices than they could from a new multi-story building. President Johnson then asked a stunned HRC to help UNR find new locations for all of the houses. It seemed then that the university’s analysis of these historic resources had been limited to quantifying their useful square footage, not a comprehensive evaluation of their intrinsic historical and cultural value.

Frustrated by the university’s seemingly superficial and end-driven analysis, the HRC composed and circulated a letter to all involved parties in September 2016 in which they expressed their cumulative frustration that University of Nevada officials were not taking seriously their commitment to evaluate all alternatives to relocating all of these houses or taking their historical value into account.

At that point, the HRC did not believe that the university’s stated desire to move ahead with relocating all twelve houses was warranted. The community’s interest in discussing the possibility of leaving the Center Street houses, in particular, in place stemmed from several comments Johnson had made earlier:

  • First, on April 7th, he told the HRC that the university’s initial goal in the Gateway was to construct a “signature building” facing Virginia Street that would alert the community of the university’s presence. Obviously, Center Street does not face Virginia Street, so it seemed reasonable to further evaluate the possibility that the new College of Business building might both be sited closer to Virginia Street and at the same time integrate the row of historic houses on the west side of Center Street.
  • Second, the Regional Transportation Commission of Washoe County (RTC) revealed that their plan to install some sort of transit stop on Virginia Street between Eighth and Ninth Streets would require much less land than UNR appeared to be reserving for this purpose. Here is a comparison of those two assessments by the RTC (left) and UNR (right):

Source: rtcwashoe.com (left) and UNR President Marc Johnson, as presented to the HRC (right)

  • Third, President Johnson had publicly committed on March 9th to preserving the Gateway houses in place or elsewhere. He told Mayor Hillary Schieve, and she assured the public, that the houses would not be demolished. As a result, the community believed it was important, and fully warranted, to further explore all options to keep some of the houses in place, focusing on those of Center Street, before moving on to what was mutually agreed upon as the final option: relocation.

Again, the HRC and HRPS set out to methodically explore alternatives. HRPS commissioned an architectural rendering to depict how the historic houses on the west side of Center Street could be integrated with the square footage the UNR said it needed for its new Business building. After months of analysis, she was able to demonstrate that the desired massing for the new College of Business building would be compatible with retaining the historic houses on the west side of Center Street (with their non-historic additions removed) were the Business building to be moved a bit further west toward Virginia Street, onto property that it appeared the RTC would need to acquire for its new transit station, but would not be using in its entirety. The below image is only intended to demonstrate available massing, not design.

In the diagram, the historic houses on the west side of Center Street are indicated in red, the stated RTC spatial needs appear on the bottom, and all the remaining space is shaded blue.

This visualization depicts the space that could be available for prominent UNR construction, were the university to enter into a partnership with the RTC to coordinate development on the Virginia Street-facing parcel. Again, this is simply showing massing, not design or setbacks.

 

Johnson and Gansert agreed to meet with representatives of HRPS in July of 2017 where they viewed these 13 boards and a short visualization of this option. President Johnson seemed, by their accounts, to exhibit interest in the idea, but never followed up with them.

What the community did not know at the time was that the UNR administration was already working on plans to relocate the houses without the involvement of the HRC or any other preservation professionals or organization. Ron Zurek informed the Faculty Senate about this plan in November of 2016, although the community did not find out about it until much later.

From the recording of that November meeting, Ron Zurek:

“On the west side of Center St. there are six houses, including our Real Estate house. We have a commitment to the City Council, the historical community, and to others that we will re-locate these houses. We are going to make every attempt to keep them together as a group. We have located a site; thank goodness it belongs to the State of Nevada, so we will be able to negotiate a good deal. It is just south of the freeway, and we are hoping to present a plan that will be approved by everybody–that will allow us (one by one) to move these houses and again, keep them together and preserve the historical context, and yet be able to use that very important site south of the campus.”

The community only learned later of this plan, spearheaded by Heidi Gansert, apparently to secure funds from the State of Nevada (perhaps through Housing and Urban Development?) to move some of the houses to publicly-owned land (eventually a city park, although other sites may have been considered) in Reno to be used for housing by Washoe County. She did not involve the HRC or anyone in the preservation community in that plan.

After working on this plan for what must have been close to a year, President Johnson and Heidi Gansert attended a meeting of the HRC in September 2017 and presented it to the commissioners as a done deal. Slides in their presentation depicted five of the historic houses wedged into Eighth Street Park, a narrow park perched on an embankment on the south side of Interstate 80 between Record Street and Valley Road. In the following slide shown to the HRC by UNR, north is at the top of the slide.

Source: Marc Johnson presentation to Historical Resources Commission

The HRC tried to explain that this site was completely inappropriate to the long-term preservation of these five houses or their intended use. The houses would have no front or back yards, and would have backed up against the steep embankment stretching down to the rushing traffic of the interstate. The houses originally located there had been removed in the 1960s to make way for the construction of I-80, and the land had been allowed by NDOT to become a city park because it had been deemed unsuitable for any development, much less habitation.

Apparently City of Reno Assistant City Manager Bill Thomas was also involved in formulating this plan, because he showed the exact same presentation shown by President Johnson to the City of Reno Recreation and Parks Commission in October of 2017. Clearly officials at the state and county levels were also involved, but no one mentioned anything to the HRC or SHPO.

The Board of Regents was then asked to pre-approve the relocation of all of the Gateway houses, something that was also not mentioned to the HRC or SHPO. It was at that time that historian and former HRC chair Alicia Barber wrote a previous blog post stating that the fate of the Gateway houses deserved a transparent public discussion.

In any case, sometime over the next few months, that plan fell apart, because the UNR spokesperson said so in the announcement that UNR was opening a Request for Proposals (RFP) in April of 2018 to relocate the houses.

Like the university’s previous relocation effort, this RFP was uninformed by historic preservation best practices and did not demonstrate knowledge of what responsible relocation of these houses must entail. Its writers did not consult the HRC, the SHPO or any preservation specialist when formulating its language, requirements, or timeline. Its description of the houses contained barely any information about them, not even their dates of construction or any of the information that was provided to UNR including the architectural survey or information posted on Reno Historical.

The university’s RFP gave applicants just six weeks to “show ownership, or show written contractual site control, of the real estate proposed which the house(s) will be relocated to.” For anyone hoping to acquire multiple houses, this was practically impossible. Indeed, as it turned out, no applicant could demonstrate ownership of enough land in Reno in that short timeframe to relocate more than a single house. It is surprising that the university did not then conclude that perhaps its stated timeline was unrealistic.

The HRC and HRPS backed one group’s proposal to move the houses to Evans Park, in the UNR Gateway. Because that land is publicly owned, the group had to quickly schedule public meetings with the HRC, the Recreation and Parks Commission, and Reno City Council to discuss it.  In truth, the only reason they were even able to present as complete a proposal as they did was because they had begun work on it in February, a full two months before the surprise RFP was issued, in order to offer a responsible alternative to the university’s Eighth Street Park plan. Reno City Council expressed interest in the proposal and unanimously supported their application to UNR, contingent upon continued discussions over valid uses of the park.

City attorneys later issued their opinion that the Deed of Gift granting Evans Park to the City of Reno in the 1920s would prohibit its use as anything but a park, although the applicants, Truckee Meadows Heritage Trust, contended that their proposed use would still quality as a park. Reno City Manager Sabra Newby contacted the group to see if they would be interested in two other city-owned sites: one on an industrial site near Keystone Avenue adjacent to the railroad tracks, and another at the former CitiCenter site in the shadow of the National Bowling Stadium and a massive parking garage. Both might have contained the requisite square footage for multiple houses, but they were completely unsuitable for these historic Queen Annes, both in terms of their settings as well as the inability to conceive of any practical use or tenants for them there. Other options might have been considered, but the university’s timeline precluded any additional exploration.

In private discussions, UNR’s evaluation committee, whose members have never been identified, decided to award two of the houses to individuals, and selected the proposal submitted by Common Ground Urban Development on behalf of Burning Man plan to relocate the remaining houses to vacant land two miles north of the small town of Gerlach, 120 miles north of Reno.

Source: Common Ground’s proposal in response to UNR’s request for proposals, made available by Reno-Gazette Journal

The university then engaged with this group in negotiations for three months, and when Common Ground ultimately withdrew their application in October 2018, the university spokesperson stated that the next step would be demolition, an incomprehensible leap. It is not the community’s fault that Common Ground submitted an unworkable proposal or that the university’s rushed RFP had elicited no other options for saving the ten remaining houses.

Conclusion

The charming row of Queen Anne houses on Center Street comprise an incredibly significant cultural, historical, and architectural landscape, as they have nearly since the university’s establishment. Through their history of occupancy, they touch upon every aspect of Reno’s history, from education, business, and politics to journalism and the arts. The dates of their construction are contemporary with those of the university’s Lincoln and Manzanita Halls and their architecture and construction reflect a level of detail and craftsmanship that is increasingly rare in our rapidly developing city. In their longtime use as everything from residences to churches and offices, as well as their location adjacent to campus, they physically embody the true meaning of a “university town.”

The community would not be going to all this effort to responsibly evaluate the potential of retaining some of these houses in place, and crafting responsible relocation alternatives for them, were the houses not so significant. The local community did not voice widespread objections to the demolition of the historic houses on Evans Avenue, but the houses on Center Street are special.

The university may have fulfilled the requirements mandated by state law to document the houses of the Gateway before disposing of them, but these houses deserve more than the university’s “due diligence.” A state university should be leading the way in responsible stewardship of historic resources—not just those that were purpose-built for the university campus, but also for those the university acquires.

UNR officials have revealed multiple times to the UNR Faculty Senate that they have been speaking with a private donor or donors for years about funding a new College of Business building in the Gateway, and the university is understandably eager to announce this burgeoning partnership, but first wish to “resolve” the issue of these historic houses once and for all. We would respectfully state that this is not the way to go about it.

If the university does not wish for its new College of Business building and its donor(s) to be permanently associated with the destruction of irreplaceable historic houses, then the university should not demolish them long before the groundbreaking for any new buildings would begin. It is time for the university to get more people in the room—people representing both the university and the community—as well as specialists in historic preservation, to discuss the future of these houses.

Nobody knows when the RTC will be able to proceed with the northern component of their Virginia Street transit project, in the university area. If all the RTC plans to build in the Gateway is a bus pullout, then the majority of the half-block fronting Virginia Street between Eighth and Ninth Streets could ultimately be available for UNR’s new College of Business building. If the RTC plan never transpires, then the campus entrance that UNR wants so badly to enhance will still consist of two downtrodden motels. Why not wait until we know for sure what will be available on the Virginia Street-facing parcels and enter into a partnership with the RTC to plan the area together?

The row of houses on Center Street, perhaps with the single Riegg House on the east side moved to the south end of the west side, could be enormous assets if remaining in place. Responsibly restored, renovated, and filled with new life, they could house not just offices but retail, commercial, coffee shops or eateries, benefiting the campus community. Interpretive signage would reveal the incredible story of their survival and link past and present, for the future benefit and pride of the entire community.

However, if the university truly wishes all of the houses removed, they owe it to the broader community to provide an opportunity to give UNR its blank canvas without needlessly sacrificing these irreplaceable houses long before the site is needed. University leaders including President Johnson have stated repeatedly over the last 2+ years a commitment to relocating these houses rather than demolishing them, and the community believed them. If the university is currently open to proposals to move these houses, they should make that option public as soon as possible so that everyone is aware of what they are doing. But first, it is critical that UNR halt its demolition plans and be transparent about the anticipated timeline for new construction in the Gateway.  With so much at stake, let’s work together, as befitting a true university town, to find a solution that works for everyone.

 

Join me for these events in September 2018!

Posted on by

This September brings an abundance of literary and historical activities to the Biggest Little City, and I’m thrilled to be participating in so many of them with fellow readers, writers, and lovers of history! From the Nevada Humanities Literary Crawl to my curatorial talk for Reno’s Sesquicentennial at the University of Nevada, Reno to chatting about writing about Reno with one of its best contemporary authors, I hope you’ll join me. They’re all FREE!

Nevada Humanities Literary Crawl: Saturday, September 15th, 12-8 pm, various locations. FREE

First up is the Nevada Humanities Literary Crawl on Saturday, September 15th. This is such a fun annual event, combining readings and literary panels with food, drink, and general carousing. My panel this year is all about food writing (in my case, for the Food Network, edible Reno-Tahoe, and America: The Cookbook), and I’ll be sharing the stage at the Washoe Public House with the fabulous Sharon Honig-Bear of edible Reno-Tahoe and Michael Tragash of Yelp from 1:30-2:15 pm. More information and a full schedule can be found on the Nevada Humanities website. Plan to make a day of it!

Reno at the Crossroads: 150 Years at Reno’s Shifting Center: Sunday, September 16th, 2-4 pm, Mathewson-IGT Knowledge Center, UNR campus. FREE

On the afternoon of Sunday, September 16th, I’ll be giving a highly visual talk about Reno’s changing downtown at the Mathewson-IGT Knowledge Center. This is in conjunction with the exhibit I curated there on all five floors of the main library at the University of Nevada, Reno. You can read more on the exhibit here.

I’ll be focusing on Reno’s downtown, a perennial source of discussion and sometimes frustration, using all the photos and maps that I can fit in. Here’s the official description:

The talk will be from 2-3 pm, followed by refreshments and plenty of time to wander through the five floors of the exhibit. Parking is free on weekends, and for this Sunday only, the exhibit room in the Special Collections will be open, allowing you to see some of the show’s best components! RSVPs are encouraged but not required.

Writing Reno with Ben Rogers and Dr. Alicia Barber: Tuesday, September 25th, 6:30 pm at Sundance Books & Music, 121 California Avenue. FREE

I’m excited to finish off this September’s events with an evening with my friend, the writer Ben Rogers on Tuesday, September 25th. I’ll let Sundance Books explain what we’ll be up to:

“To celebrate the long-awaited reissue of The Flamer, the beloved debut novel by Ben Rogers, we are proud to present Writing Reno, a community book talk with Rogers and Reno historian Dr. Alicia Barber.

Dr. Barber and Rogers will discuss what makes Reno such an interesting setting for a novel, and what makes it so worthy of our interest and inquiry, from both an artistic and historical perspective. Community members will gain deeper insight into how setting impacts the novel, and why Dr. Barber and Rogers are drawn to exploring Reno through their writing.”

For more information on this event, head to the Sundance Books & Music website.

And as the song goes, see you in September!