County Parcels 100 N

5 250 500
Feet

CENTER ST

Center
Center Block
Block
Planning
Planning Area
Area

100
100 South
South Promenade
Promenade BUILDING ON SUCCESS,
BUILDING ON SUCCESS,
Planning
Planning Area
Area BLOCK BY BLOCK.
BLOCK BY BLOCK.
100 S

UNIVERSITY AVE
600 W

300 W
500 W

400 W

200 W
CENTER BLOCK AND 100 SOUTH PROMENADE

100 W
REDEVELOPMENT CONCEPT PLAN
DRAFT
FINAL
May 2014

200 S
PROJECT TEAM CONSULTANT TEAM
Susan Henderson, Project Director, PlaceMakers
John Curtis, Mayor Hazel Borys, Best Practices Handbook, PlaceMakers
Paul Glauser, Redevelopment Agency Director Scott Doyon, Communications, PlaceMakers
Gary McGinn, Community Development Director Bill Dennis, Urban Design, B Dennis Town Design
Josh Yost, Community Development Planner Peter Swift, Transportation, Swift and Assoc.
Kathy Poole, Landscape Design, Poole Design, LLC
TASK FORCE ON CITY CENTER BLOCK REDEVELOPMENT
Adam Anderegg, Carnegie Library Building / Kaleidoscope Pictures Lee Sobel, Economics, RCLCO

Ray Beckham, Downtown advocate Erin Talkington, Economics, RCLCO

Mike Buonomo, Downtown Provo, Inc.

CONTINUE THE CONVERSATION AT:
Matthew Burke, NuSkin Enterprises http://www.provocenterblock.org/
Kelly Christensen, Utah Valley Regional Medical Center
Redevelopment Agency of Provo City (801) 852-6160
Chris Cooper, Provo City Employee Committee on the City Center Block
Provo City Planning Division (801) 852-6408
Stephen Hales, Provo Municipal Council / Provo City Redevelopment Agency
Rick Horsley, Pioneer Book
Bill Hulterstrom, Center Focus Committee / United Way of Utah County CONTENTS
Susan Larsen, Wells Fargo Bank
Project Team 2
Michael Marcheschi, LDS Church Special Projects
Jim Pettersson, Central Area Neighborhoods / Provo City School Board A Collaborative Community Opportunity to Help Build a Better Downtown 3
Tony Thomas, Modern Shoe Best Practices Handbook 4

PROVO COMMUNITY MEMBERS Market Analysis 4

Provo community members joined with City leaders and the consultant team to provide direction
The Charrette Process 5
and edits to this plan during March and April 2014 design workshops and online on the project
website at www.provocenterblock.org. City Center Block Redevelopment Concept Plan 7

CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS Illustration: Center Street at 500 West 12

Gary Garrett Illustration: Center Street at 400 West 13
Stephen Hales
Illustration: 100 South 14
Hal Miller
Illustration: The Square 15
Kim Santiago
Dave Sewell Design Guidelines 16
Kay Van Buren Illustrative Diagrams and Plans 20
Gary Winterton
100 South Promenade Redevelopment Concept Plan 21

P R OJ E C T T E A M CENTER BLOCK AND 100 SOUTH PROMENADE P R OVO, U TA H

A Community Effort
2
A COLLABORATIVE COMMUNITY OPPORTUNITY TO HELP
BUILD A BETTER DOWNTOWN
Over the years, Provo has invested a lot of effort in planning for a better downtown future. Center
Focus, City Center Space Needs and Programming, the General Plan, the Downtown Master Plan,
and Vision 2030, to name a few, are all efforts to help fill in the blanks on exactly what kind of city
we hope to become.

The ideas that have emerged have much in common with some larger trends — Smart Growth, New
Urbanism and Traditional Neighborhood Development — and they are collectively the intersection
of history and opportunity. What happens when you take downtown Provo — what it’s been, what it
is, and what it’s poised to be — and apply the best ideas in planning, growth and development? Not
just nationally recognized ideas, but those that have emerged directly from the Provo community as
well. This report sets the stage for those results.
THE CITY CENTER BLOCK PROJECT AND 100 SOUTH
The block bounded by Center Street, 300 West, 100 South, and 500 West is the Provo municipal
block adjacent to Pioneer Park and the subject of this study. A number of groups have expressed an
interest in redeveloping this particular block, and it is important the community plays a key role in
that visioning process. The goal is to uncover ideas that are in tune with what best serves the people
of Provo, and that their impact will ripple throughout downtown and, in the process, create all new
opportunities across Downtown.
connection with the Temple and its formal gardens? And how could it create greater opportunity —
in terms of business, transportation, lifestyle and quality of life — for the people of Provo?
Together with these efforts, the potential development’s impact on traffic, pedestrians and bikes on
100 South were all considered, to ensure incremental improvement over time. This included develop-
ing frontage standards and designing a road diet to provide a more friendly pedestrian experience
from the very formal, elaborate public gardens at the Temple and NuSkin, Downtown’s front yard, to
the informal Pioneer Park with Farmer’s Market and great new splash pad, Downtown’s back yard.
The extra street width of 100 South provides an excellent opportunity for a linear park to connect the
front yard to the back yard.

The block currently contains a number of community assets but is also dominated by parking and,
in multiple spots because of walls and setbacks, doesn’t engage particularly well with passers-by. In
short, it has a lot of unmet potential.
The Provo community engaged in envisioning a better block during March 2014 interviews and work-
shops and an April 2014 design charrette. The questions posed were how could it change over time?
What might be built there and how could present uses be accommodated? What might maximize
the tax revenues received from this key piece of property? How could it inspire a more integrated
To help with the collaborative design process, the city engaged a team of consultants, led by
PlaceMakers’ Susan Henderson, Hazel Borys and Scott Doyon, with significant guidance from Robert
Charles Lesser & Company’s Lee Sobel and Erin Talkington on economics, Bill Dennis on urban de-
sign, Kathy Poole on landscape design, and Peter Swift on traffic engineering.
Every block contributes to the overall health of downtown; a healthy downtown contributes to an
overall healthy Provo, which contributes to a vibrant and successful region.

CENTER BLOCK AND 100 SOUTH PROMENADE P R OVO, U TA H R E D E V E LO P M E N T CO N C E P T P L A N

Overview
3
BEST PRACTICES HANDBOOK
Guiding not just this project but contributing to future downtown redevelopment as well is the
Downtown Provo Placemaking Best Practices Handbook. The handbook provides a review of Smart
Growth, New Urbanism and Traditional Neighborhood Development practices, and extracts the
most powerful ideas from these principles that apply to Downtown Provo. The community’s initial
opportunity to review and refine the draft handbook occurred during early-March 2014 focus groups
and continued with editing both online on the project’s website, www.provocenterblock.org, and
during the Provo Center Block meetings of April 14-17, 2014.
The handbook is all about downtown. It is not about forcing everybody to live in tight downtown
locations, but it is about expanding opportunities and choices in an area of the City that is already
best suited to that kind of development. Downtown Provo is generally a walkable urban environment,
with very few suburban or auto-oriented blocks. It has a significant job base, lovely parks, historic
buildings, tree-lined streets, ample sidewalks, specialty retail, visual and performing arts, two grocery
stores close by, significant stock of historic buildings, little homelessness, and little crime.
It could use additional restaurants, retail, office, urban housing, entertainment, and other reasons
to be downtown at night or on the weekend, along with meaningful connections to Brigham Young
University and Utah Valley University students. Given that market support exists downtown, a dynam-
ic drilled down upon in the April 2014 Downtown Provo Market Analysis from RCLCO, Provo could
become a model for future city “centers” or “cores” in the region. Download the 50-page handbook at
www.provocenterblock.org/handbook or contact the Provo City Redevelopment Agency, (801) 852-6160.
B E S T P R AC T I C E S A N D T H E M A R K E T
Supporting Reports
4
MARKET ANALYSIS
Downtown Provo is poised for a revival as Utah County’s primary walkable urban place. The
redevelopment of Center Block provides a strong opportunity to enhance downtown as a local
destination and spur momentum for additional development.
Rental apartments, limited-service hotel, and for-sale townhomes are construction-feasible
development opportunities today if built in an urban low-rise, surface-parked configuration.
However, with incentives such as structured parking, the Block could quickly become attractive to
more intensive development opportunities. Destination retail, especially restaurant, is also an op-
portunity as a component of a larger development, but would likely not have strong market support
as a stand-alone use. The Provo-Orem submarket has minimal demand for additional new multiten-
ant office space in the near-term, incentivizing Provo City offices to be replaced with new City office
space on-site if the City desires an office component as part of the redevelopment plan.
While these land uses represent the opportunity for mixed-use development, the success of the
City Center should be measured in its broader impact as a catalyst for future downtown redevel-
opment. To achieve this goal, City Center needs to be an anchor for the west end of downtown
that both drives activity and attracts visitors from the new Temple, cementing Center Street as a
vibrant, walkable destination. This strategy indicates a focus on activity drivers such as entertain-
ment venues, high-quality destination retail, restaurants, downtown housing, and hotel. In addi-
tion to these market-driven uses, cultural amenities and outdoor gathering places will build on City
Center’s ability to be a destination. Music venues, a children’s museum, and outdoor gathering
spaces have significant local resident support, as do other sorts of cultural venues, though additional
analysis would be necessary to confirm market support for each proposed venue.
The two large universities, Brigham Young University and Utah Valley University, have driven the
Provo-Orem area as a regional employment core, and can also be long-term sustainers of downtown
Provo’s growth. As Center Street becomes a livelier location, some students may be more likely to
trade proximity to campus for a cool environment. Students living and playing downtown encour-
age well-educated professionals to live and work in Provo after they graduate. Redevelopment plans
must strike a balance between short-term feasibility and long-term vision. In nearly all areas of the
Wasatch Front region today, development that relies on concurrent market support for a number
of different land uses and requires structured parking will be difficult to realize without public par-
ticipation. To achieve the density and mix of uses that will provide the critical mass to create a true
destination, the City Center site likely requires public help with structured parking and site prepara-
tion to make development feasible. Absent such assistance, development economics indicate that
the market provides broad support for horizontal, “multiple use” development with surface parking
planned in a format and location that could later be converted to a parking structure as additional
density is warranted by the market. See the 100-page Provo Center Block Redevelopment Market
Analysis by RCLCO for details: www.provocenterblock.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/RCLCO-
Provo-City-Center-Redevelopment-Market-Analysis-Report-Apr-9-20141.pdf.
CENTER BLOCK AND 100 SOUTH PROMENADE P R OVO, U TA H
THE CHARRETTE PROCESS
The Provo Center Block April 2014 meetings asked the question: As redevelopment pressure grows
downtown, exactly what type of development, what commercial amenities might, over the long term,
build value - not just for Center Block and 100 South Promenade, but for the entire surrounding area?
To answer this, the charrette consisted of four days working closely with the community.
DAY ONE
Provo’s City Center Block project got underway as the consultant team gathered to explore the
site, meet with local business interests and, late in the day, conduct a public workshop where an en-
thusiastic group of interested residents gathered in a roundtable exercise to, as project lead Susan
Henderson described it, “dream big.”
“What about downtown is missing the mark?” said Henderson. “If you had the power to add some-
thing or change something or solve some issue that limits the success of downtown, what would you
do? Because that’s what this block has the power to do. To be a catalyst for changes that just might
ripple out in all directions.”
Each of the meeting’s seven tables came equipped with both an aerial map of the site and a wish
list, where residents, working together, could document the dreams and schemes they felt held the
greatest promise for downtown’s future. Below is a sampling of where their enthusiasm led them.
CENTER BLOCK AND 100 SOUTH PROMENADE P R OVO, U TA H
DAY TWO
A steady stream of residents and local business owners dropped by the City Center Block studio
Tuesday, catching up on what was happening, asking questions, and sharing more of their ideas and
concerns. Such contributions, like those provided on Monday, fueled the project team as they put
ideas to paper in preparation for Wednesday’s pin-up of work-in-progress.
While this project looks specifically at Provo’s City Center Block and 100 South, its implications run
far deeper. Done right, the site’s frontage along Center Street could provide the shot of adrenaline
necessary to finally spark the street’s full-on resurgence. And, beyond that, compatibly-scaled, pe-
destrian-friendly development along 100 South, together with improved downtown connectivity
on 300 West, 500 West, and mid-block through the site itself, can make great strides towards restor-
ing some long-compromised integration with the surrounding neighborhoods.
As the block’s potential became increasingly clear, studio visitors’ only remaining question was “Why
this site, why now?” And to that, the answer is simple: This is a site that the city owns with existing,
and increasing, developer interest. Thus, it allows for an atypical level of community control over the
process.
That’s a monumental opportunity. By working with the community, Provo officials are establishing
a consensus-based vision for the property and can then shop that vision to the development com-
munity. The right developer will be the one who shares the vision for what the community wants, and
respects what it doesn’t want.
THE CHARRETTE PROCESS
Public Design Workshop
5
DAY THREE
A pin-up of work-in-progress, more open house time, and a special conversation tailored towards
downtown businesses gave the design team more specific direction.
Charrettes begin with a number of days devoted to input, discussion, and idea generation but, at
some point, designers on the project team begin putting those ideas down on paper. Some invariably
end up in the recycling bin but others withstand the team’s scrutiny and — about midway through
the charrette — get put up on the wall for an informal, work-in-progress review by residents. It’s
called a pin-up, and it’s an opportunity for the team to take a moment and ask, “Are we getting it?”
Based on reactions from locals Wednesday morning, the answer appeared to be yes.
THE CHARRETTE PROCESS
Public Design Workshop
6
DAY FOUR
Four days of intense City Center Block visioning came to a close Thursday evening as the project
team presented an enthusiastic crowd of residents, business owners and local leaders with results of
the week’s work.
Concerns and desires have been voiced and, at least according to citizens at the public meeting,
those considerations are evident in the plans coming together.
A closing presentation and community discussion wrapped up the week. Project lead, Susan
Henderson, kicked off the presentation by reiterating where the process began, what it’s intended to
do, and how the community contributed to and influenced the work as it came together.
The closing presentation video can be watched online at:
http://provout.swagit.com/play/04232014-869
The accompanying slides are available at:
http://www.provocenterblock.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Provo-Closing-Presentation-Web.pdf
Both are also available at the Provo City Redevelopment Agency, (801) 852-6160.
CENTER BLOCK AND 100 SOUTH PROMENADE P R OVO, U TA H
CITY CENTER BLOCK REDEVELOPMENT CONCEPT PLAN
WHAT THE PROJECT IS
An opportunity to work with the community to develop a vision for the City Center Block and 100
South.
WHY THE PROJECT IS HAPPENING
1. Underutilized and aging, City Center Block is experiencing growing redevelopment interest from
developers. The City can benefit most by taking the lead in these discussions, rather than responding
to random developer proposals. To do this requires a vision for the property. In short, the City needs
a way to say, “This is what we want. This is what we don’t.”
THE CONCEPT PLAN
The City Center Block Redevelopment Concept Plan looks specifically at the site and the various,
financially-realistic ways to bring increased energy to Center Street, improve neighborhood
connections, and add amenities along 100 South. It’s important to remember that this site plan is
a suggestion, illustrating the principles listed on page 8 of this report and in the Downtown Provo
Placemaking Best Practices Handbook described on page 4. Many different configurations are could
also satifsy these principles to deliver a walkable, livable place, including those illustrated on page 18.
100 N

2. The location of the block, and the fact that the City controls it, affords opportunities to better
connect downtown with surrounding neighborhoods, which carries with it economic, environmen-
tal, social and quality of life benefits for the City and its residents.

COMMUNITY CONTRIBUTIONS CENTER ST

Throughout the April 2014 charrette meetings, residents and local businesses have been encouraged
to think big, and that’s what they did. Their unifying contribution was to make sure the design team
didn’t think solely in terms of the project site and, instead, took a broader view of how the benefits
of redevelopment could be an impetus for downtown redevelopment.
100 S

The team interpreted this directive as “Think Outside the Block” and thought considerably about

UNIVERSITY AVE
how the City Center Block Project could be an effective catalyst for a wider array of benefits. Among

500 W

300 W
400 W

200 W

100 W
them:

†† Increased life and business for Center Street through denser development and better 200 S

connections with surrounding neighborhoods.

†† A more neighborhood-friendly connection along 100 South between Pioneer Park and the new
Temple Gardens.
This potential site plan, working around the existing Covey Center, reflects both the team’s
interactions with the community, and tested best practices of walkable, urban development. The
original pattern of two blocks is restored with a narrow, traffic calmed, closable, 400 West access
route between them.

Multiple civic/green spaces are incorporated throughout the site. The block is segmented to allow
multiple points of pedestrian entry and connection on all four sides, further connecting Center Street
with 100 South, 500 West and 300 West. The scale of each individual building is not monolithic,
but mirrors existing patterns on Center Street. Parking is moved to the interiors of buildings and
screened from view. The Center Street frontage is designed to bring increased variety and activity
to the sidewalk.

CENTER BLOCK AND 100 SOUTH PROMENADE P R OVO, U TA H C I T Y C E N T E R B LO C K

Redevelopment Concept Plan
7
CENTER BLOCK DETAILS
This concept is not fully programmed, to
not pre-empt the developers’ proposals.
However, conceptually several options
are critical contributors to local charac-
ter and economy.
The plan supports the RCLCO Market
Analysis for a moderate development
scenario. At full buildout, this scenario
includes a total of 120,000 SF of City
offices, a 130-key hotel, 50,000 SF of
retail, 211 rental apartments, 41 for-sale
townhomes, 500 underground park-
ing spaces, and 267 structured parking
spaces.
PHASE ONE
Provo City Offices: City offices are envi-
sioned as an iconic welcoming moment
into Downtown, which also provides ad-
equate demand for office, which other-
wise doesn’t exist in the near term. This
six-story 120,000 SF City office on the
northwestern corner of the site houses
all existing City Center uses except for
fire and police and has 20,000 SF of
ground floor retail fronting on Center
Street. After the City relocates to its new
office space, the old City offices are de-
molished, allowing the eastern half of
the site to become available for Phase 2
of development.
Covey Center: If the Covey stays where
it is, the outdoor ampitheater can be
replaced with a more functional civic
space, the northeast corner of the build-
ing removed, and a marquee extension
on the north side calls attention to the
PHASE TWO
400 West: The street is reopened with
no curbs. Bollards permit easy closure
for special events.
Residential and Retail: five floors of
rental apartments totaling 167 units built
over an additional 30,000 SF of pre-
ferred retail fronting on Center Street.
Hotel: a 130-key hotel on the eastern
side of the site, proximate to the conven-
CENTER ST tion center and the new LDS Temple.
Townhouses: 22 three-story, fee simple
townhouses at the southeast quadrant
of the site relate to the scale of residen-
tial development across 100 South.
PHASE THREE
Apartments: A four-story 44-unit rental
apartment on the southwestern corner
of the site shields a 267-space parking
structure.
Townhomes: 19 townhomes on the
southwest quadrant of the site, front-
ing on 100 South, relate to the scale of
100 S neighbors to the south.

300 W
500 W

400 W

new entry on the northeast corner of

Covey.

C I T Y C E N T E R B LO C K CENTER BLOCK AND 100 SOUTH PROMENADE P R OVO, U TA H

Redevelopment Concept Plan
8
PHASE ONE PHASE TWO
City offices as an iconic welcome to Downtown Southbound on the reopened 400 West, the outdoor ampitheater at Covey redeveloped as a square

PHASE TWO PHASE THREE

Rental apartments built over preferred retail fronting on Center Street Row Houses on the southwest quadrant of the site fronting on 100 South

CENTER BLOCK AND 100 SOUTH PROMENADE P R OVO, U TA H C I T Y C E N T E R B LO C K

Illustrating a Range of Options
9
 100 N

WHAT MATTERS 500 W at Center illustrative scene from the

Civic Space: meaningful adequate public open spaces, that are both informal and formal, which are potential site plan: A new municipal office
completely enclosed by buildings and yet easily used by people besides those who work and live in building on 500 West overlooks Pioneer Park
these buildings. Suggested open space areas are in green below. and creates a dramatic gateway to Downtown.
100 N

See later pages for larger views.

CENTER ST

CENTER ST

100 S

UNIVERSITY AVE
500 W

300 W
400 W

200 W
100 N

100 W
100 S

The Connections: the permeability of the block provides easy and frequent pedestrian crossings
200 S

Center Street at 400 illustrative scene from the

UNIVERSITY AVE
500 W

300 W
from Center Street to 100 South. These connections ensure that the park spaces are visible and
400 W

200 W

100 W
potential site plan: Center Street at the corner
accessible. of a reopened 400 West, opens a view to the
200 S interior Covey Center court. 100 N

CENTER ST

CENTER ST

100 S

100 S

UNIVERSITY AVE
100 N
Scale. The historic downtown urban fabric was platted with lots as small as 20’ wide. Buildings

500 W

300 W
400 W

200 W

100 W
UNIVERSITY AVE
average between 20’ and 120’. When buildings are larger than this, they can be a detriment of fine-
500 W

300 W
400 W

200 W
200 S

100 W
grained downtowns. Smaller scale individual buildings encourage the sort of walkability and livabil- Center Block: Existing rear entrance to the Cov-
ity that the City Center Block envisions. ey Center is incorporated as an outdoor square
200 S and potential performance space with interior
CENTER ST
residences and offices looking down upon it.
100 N

CENTER ST

100 N

100 S 100 S

UNIVERSITY AVE
Parking should not be seen from a public space, neither garages nor surface lots. They must always

500 W

300 W
400 W

200 W

100 W
UNIVERSITY AVE
500 W

300 W

be lined by active, habitable space.

400 W

200 W

100 W

200 S

100 South imagined with townhomes compat-

CENTER ST ibly facing the neighborhood across the street.
200 S Scale is a comfortable transition from neighbor-
hood to downtown. Note linear park, described
100 N

in the 100 South Plan later in this document.

CENTER ST
100 S

Center Street Activity. The front of the buildings along Center Street must be shopfronts. Active
UNIVERSITY AVE
500 W

300 W
400 W

200 W

space like restaurants and retail are strongly encouraged. Interim uses may be retail, office, or civic.
100 W

100 S

UNIVERSITY AVE
500 W

300 W
400 W

200 W

100 W
C I T Y C E N T E R B LO C K 200 S CENTER BLOCK AND 100 SOUTH PROMENADE
200 S

P R OVO, U TA H
Redevelopment Concept Plan
10
 100 N

CENTER ST

100 S

UNIVERSITY AVE
300 W
500 W

400 W

200 W

100 W
200 S

CENTER BLOCK AND 100 SOUTH PROMENADE P R OVO, U TA H C I T Y C E N T E R B LO C K A N D 1 0 0 S O U T H

Redevelopment Concept Plan
11
ILLUSTRATION: CENTER STREET AT 500 WEST

CO N C E P T S D I S C U S S E D CENTER BLOCK AND 100 SOUTH PROMENADE P R OVO, U TA H

Civic Identity
12
ILLUSTRATION: CENTER STREET AT 400 WEST

CENTER BLOCK AND 100 SOUTH PROMENADE P R OVO, U TA H CO N C E P T S D I S C U S S E D

Shaping Design Guidelines
13
ILLUSTRATION: 100 SOUTH

CO N C E P T S D I S C U S S E D CENTER BLOCK AND 100 SOUTH PROMENADE P R OVO, U TA H

Shaping Design Guidelines
14
ILLUSTRATION: THE SQUARE

CENTER BLOCK AND 100 SOUTH PROMENADE P R OVO, U TA H CO N C E P T S D I S C U S S E D

Shaping Design Guidelines
15
DESIGN GUIDELINES
Change is inevitable in any living city, and the goal of these Guidelines is to ensure that change is in keeping with
the unique character of Downtown Provo and Center Street. The Guidelines will be used to evaluate the appro-
priateness of development proposals.

A primary purpose of the Design Guidelines is to reinforce the historical character of the streetscapes within
downtown. Streetscapes are the public spaces formed by buildings along streets in an urbanized setting. These
outdoor, linear rooms have buildings as walls, street and sidewalk paving as flooring, the sky or the overhanging
tree canopy as a ceiling, lighting provided by the sun by day and street lights by night, and furnishings consisting
of vegetation, planters, benches and signage. Streetscapes are dynamic and change with the weather, time of
day and season. The public perception of a neighborhood, city block, or downtown is formed by the quality of
the streetscapes. Both the character of the buildings and the character of the floors, walls, and ceilings of these
outdoor rooms determine the overall perception of the streetscape.

The design of any new structure in downtown is of utmost importance because it must harmonize with the
character of the neighborhood and also be compatible with existing structures. The following guidelines are
not based upon a particular architectural style. Instead, they are general in nature and are intended to identify a
range of design options that will encourage development compatible with the existing character of downtown. Figure 2. PEDESTRIAN PASSAGES ILLUSTRATED

CONNECTIVITY
While downtown Provo has experienced recent street closures because of various large projects, the redevelop-
ment of City Center is an opportunity to improve connectivity. Redevelopment of the site shall include re-opening
400 West to vehicles, bicyclists and pedestrians. The alignment shall be within thirty feet of the centerline of 400
West to the north of Center Street and the South of 100 South; see Figure 1 below. The developer may pro-
pose to maintain the street privately to facilitate closures for special events, but permanent, public egress shall
be provided. The configuration of the street may be at grade rather than including curb and gutter to promote
public pedestrian events, but the frontage shall be treated as a public thoroughfare, and a minimum clear width
of twenty feet shall be provided for vehicular traffic plus pedestrian facilities.
In addition to 400 West, each of the two new blocks shall provide at least one pedestrian passage from Cen-
ter Street to 100 South. Passages shall remain open at all times, but buildings may span the passage above.
Passages shall be treated as public space, and the walls of adjacent buildings shall provide a minimum of 30%
clear glazing at the first level for purposes of safety. Passages should intersect open spaces that are visible from
Center Street and 100 South to draw people through the block.
CIVIC SPACE
Downtown Provo is blessed with the informal, un-programmed open space at Pioneer Park, and will soon have
the formal and elegant gardens at the Temple. The 100 South linear park will connect Pioneer Park with the Tem-
ple gardens, and the City Center blocks should provide
additional squares and plazas to incentivize cross-block
pedestrian traffic.

SQUARES
A square is a formal gathering place that provides un-
structured recreation or civic activity. A square at City
Center should be a commercial activity center visible
from Center Street and 100 South, and spatially defined
by buildings. Squares may be as small as 1/4 acre and
may be paved or landscaped. A square may also func-
tion as outdoor concert or theater space in conjunction
with the Covey Center.
Figure 1. ALIGNMENT OFFSET – 400 WEST

DESIGN GUIDELINES CENTER BLOCK AND 100 SOUTH PROMENADE P R OVO, U TA H

Center Block
16
PLAZA STEPBACKS
A plaza is a small, formal community-gathering place While 14.21A of the Provo City code requires
that is available for civic and/or commercial activities. A a twenty-foot stepback along Center Street,
plaza should be spatially defined by building frontages. this is having a negative impact on corner
Plazas may be partially or completely paved. Plazas may conditions. The historic precedent for cor-
be as small as 1/8 of an acre. Note the proportions of the ner towers is prohibited by this requirement.
space in Place de Furstenberg in the image to the right. These standards propose an alternative to
The height of the buildings is the same as the width of the stepback for a corner condition. Using
the space, creating a very pleasing outdoor room. Com- the northern corners of Center Street and
bined with shade from the trees, this is an excellent ex- University Avenue as a prototype, towers at
ample of a small urban plaza. a corner may be exempt from the stepback
requirement, but may not exceed thirty feet
in width in any direction, and must be sym-
BUILDING CONFIGURATION metrical in plan.
HEIGHT
The height of a proposed building should be visually compatible with adjacent buildings along Center Street, with
a possible exception of a taller building at the corner of Center Street and 500 West. The DT1 zoning district Figure 4. CORNER TOWER
requires a minimum of two stories and a maximum of six stories or 100 feet, with a twenty-foot stepback after
the third story for buildings facing Center Street. The public process showed support for up to eight stories.
Mezzanines greater than 33% of the floor area shall be counted as an additional floor.
WIDTH
Table 1. FLOOR HEIGHT The historic parcels in Downtown Provo
Level Height [finished floor to finished floor] range from 20 feet to 110 feet and should
be used to determine the visual rhythm of
1 16 ft. min. – 25 ft. max.
new construction. New development should
2–8 14 ft. max.
avoid the appearance of a monolithic proj-
The block face of 100 South is subject to the transitional height limitations of three stories for the first sixty feet ect. Buildings shall not apparently exceed
facing 100 South. These standards recommend measuring the required sixty feet from the centerline of the 100 150 feet in width for a depth of 30 feet facing
South realignment rather than from the property line. (See Figure 3 below.) The linear park serves as the front Center Street. However, changing style, ma-
yard for this street and provides the setback and landscape buffer required for the RC-zoned properties to the terials, and heights to emulate the historic
south. rhythm of the street may accommodate
larger buildings.

Figure 5. APPARENT WIDTH

Figure 3. 100 SOUTH SETBACK

CENTER BLOCK AND 100 SOUTH PROMENADE P R OVO, U TA H DESIGN GUIDELINES

Center Block
17
ARTICULATION BUILDING MATERIALS
In addition to limited building width, infill au- Avoid using materials that are incompatible with adjacent buildings or the historic Downtown character. Prohib-
thenticity is dependent upon simplicity of ited materials are wood siding, vinyl siding, metal panels, or glass curtain walls.
massing. Reviewing the Center Street con-
Building cladding may be combined on each façade horizontally. Heavier materials shall be placed below lighter
text prior to 1950, one finds the buildings
materials. All glazing shall be clear. Reflective and tinted glass will not be approved.
were very simple volumes or assemblies of
volumes. Today’s propensity to articulate the PARKING
facade is out of character with the Down- Parking, although key to commercial success, can also harm a downtown if it is not located with care. The ap-
town context. The normative condition of proach encouraged by these Guidelines is to utilize the historic pattern of on-street parking as well as a Park
Downtown Provo buildings is a very simple, Once strategy. Parking, whether surface or structured, should be grouped in the middle of the block.
regular flat facade. The historic facades
typically have no more than an 8-inch depth Street parking should be conserved for customers of retail and commercial establishments. Off-street parking
variation for pilasters. The rhythm of pilas- shall be shielded from street view by placement of the buildings. Provide clear signage and pedestrian access
ters used for articulation must be regular in from parking areas to the main building entry and to the street.
width and there should be an odd number
Recommended parking ratios for Downtown, and specifically for the City Center block, are as follows:
of bays in this type of configuration. Odd
bays enable a central entry location that is Figure 6. FACADE BAYS Residential: 1 space/unit up to 2,000 SF
intuitively anticipated by the pedestrian and
is important for orientation. 2 spaces/unit over 2,000 SF

Lodging: 1 space/guest room

FRONTAGES Commercial: 3 spaces/1,000 SF

Façades shall be built parallel to the prop-
erty line along a minimum of 90% of its Shared parking reductions may be utilized for uses that have disparate parking demand based on Table 2 be-
length unless interrupted by a Civic Space. low. A spreadsheet that will calculate these parking reductions will be provided by the Redevelopment Agency.
A Civic Space that fronts Center Street may Additionally, on-street parking directly adjacent to the property may be counted toward the site’s commercial
be no wider than 30 feet. Limiting the set-
Lighting parking requirements.
Beam
back from the street activates the pedes-
trian zone and forms an urban edge along Transom Table 2. PARKING OCCUPANCY RATES
the street. Corners of the block shall also
Mullion
address side streets along a minimum of USES M-F M-F M-F SAT & SUN SAT & SUN SAT & SUN
70% of their length. The principal pedestrian Windows 8am - 5pm 6pm - 12am 12am - 6am 8am - 5pm 6pm - 12am 12am - 6am
entrance(s) shall be on the frontage line. Ori- Residential 60% 100% 100% 80% 100% 100%
Base
ent and screen service areas to limit nega- Office 100% 20% 5% 5% 5% 5%
tive impacts on neighboring areas. Retail 90% 80% 5% 100% 70% 5%
Pier Windows Doors Windows Pier
Hotel 70% 100% 100% 70% 100% 100%
Restaurant 70% 100% 10% 70% 100% 20%
Figure 7. SHOPFRONTS Movie Theater 40% 80% 10% 80% 100% 10%
Entertainment 40% 100% 10% 80% 100% 50%
Center Street frontages shall be shopfonts regardless of use. Shopfronts shall have no less than 70% clear glaz-
ing. Shopfronts shall be composed of beams, transoms, shopfront windows, and a base as illustrated in Figure
7 above. Loading docks and service areas shall not be permitted on frontages.

DESIGN GUIDELINES CENTER BLOCK AND 100 SOUTH PROMENADE P R OVO, U TA H

Center Block
18
USES
Table 3. USE MATRIX
The DT1 zone is very permissive of use. However, this block requires special programming to activate the
western end of Downtown. The following general uses are permitted with specific uses in each category further ENTERTAINMENT AND CIVIC
limited by 14.21A.030. Please note that automotive, manufacturing, and storage uses will not be approved. Live Theater or Movie Theater P
Gallery P
Table 3. USE MATRIX
Interpretive Museum P
RESIDENTIAL
Museum P
Townhouse P
Libraries P
Accessory Dwelling Unit P
Legislative and Court Chambers P
Multi-family Dwelling P
(P) Permitted (C) Conditional (A) Accessory
Residential Hotel or Motel P
LODGING CONDITIONAL USES
The conditional use of bars and nightclubs refers to local and State requirements associated with the sale and
Inn (up to 12 rooms) P
service of alcohol.
Hotel P
RECOMMENDED ZONING AMENDMENTS
OFFICE
While the DT1 zone of the Provo City zoning ordinance is a very good urban zone, the following are recom-
Accessory Office, Small (250 sf or less) A mended amendments to assure Downtown is economically and culturally sustainable.
Accessory Office, Large (250 - 500 sf) A PARKING
Accessory Assembly Areas (750 sf or less) A As mentioned previously, the current parking requirements are established City-wide for a car-dependent en-
Live-work Unit P vironment. While Downtown permits a 50% parking reduction, as transit becomes more robust and housing
increases in the area, more progressive best practices are recommended for the Downtown parking standards.
Office P
No additional Center Street curb cuts are allowed.
RETAIL
USES
Open Market Space P The uses in DT1 are very permissive, which is appropriate on many levels. However, uses such as manufactur-
Retail P ing and storage diminish the vibrancy of Downtown and create dead zones of pedestrian activity. Current best
Push Cart P practice in urban areas is to widen the use catagories and eliminate industrial and storage uses. The Use Matrix
provided for the City Center block is recommended for all areas of the DT1 zone.
Kiosk P
FRONTAGE TYPES
DINING
The setbacks permitted and required in the DT1 zoning district are very appropriate to Downtown Provo. There
Accessory Dining (for employee use) A are no requirements for the types of private frontages required. In addition to the provisions for Shopfronts re-
Accessory Dining or Cafe (750 sf or less) A quired here, it is recommended that Common Entry, Gallery, and Stoop defintions and descriptions are added
Restaurant P and that Downtown frontages are limited to that range of urban types. Also the clear glazing requirements of
these Guidelines should be required throughout the DT1 zoning district.
Outdoor Cooking A
BUILDING CONFIGURATION
Outdoor Dining A
Finally, it is recommended that the requirements for Stepbacks, Width, and Articulation are required throughout
Tavern or Bar C Downtown, or at a minimum, along Center Street and University Avenue.
Nightclub C

CENTER BLOCK AND 100 SOUTH PROMENADE P R OVO, U TA H DESIGN GUIDELINES

Center Block
19
ILLUSTRATIVE DIAGRAMS AND PLANS
Illustrative ideas were tested to help develop and confirm the Center Block design guidelines
governing the urban form, such as building massing, cross-block access and public open space.

HOLD THE EDGE COVEY ENTRANCE FOCUS

Keeping the Covey Center intact, the simplest solution is to ring the two blocks with buildings, with all This option emphasizes the rear entry of Covey with terminated vistas from 100 South and 300 West.
parking located on the interior of the block or on-street.

ORGANIC FLOW CLEAN SLATE

This design skews the Center Street block face to provide a view to the Covey Entrance but is not If the Covey Center is relocated to a new more commodious building within in the block, then multiple
recommended because it diminishes the street wall on Center Street. options become available, including exterior performance space and mid-block squares.

I L L U S T R AT I V E P L A N S CENTER BLOCK AND 100 SOUTH PROMENADE P R OVO, U TA H

Testing Design Guidelines in Action
20
100 SOUTH PROMENADE REDEVELOPMENT CONCEPT PLAN
TRANSPORTATION DESIGN
Transportation planning on the 100 South Promenade included: Analyze existing traffic volumes; re-
design critical intersections; observe traffic behavior; understand existing and proposed building use;
determine emergency response needs; and formulate a plan for pedestrian friendly corridor.

DAILY CAR TRIPS

Since the closure of 100 South at 100 West, anticipated traffic volumes will be decreasing. As a
comparison, prior to closure the daily car trips for Downtown streets were as follows:

†† Center Street – 15,840

†† 500 W – 16,295 The most challenging intersection is 100 South at 500 West. This plan suggests changing this
intersection to:
†† 100 S – 3,755
†† Reduce pedestrian crossing time next to the park and on the east side with bulbouts
†† Freedom – 12,535
†† Ladder striping at all crossings
100 South hourly volumes are about 10% of the daily total, with only 375 cars per hour on peak.
†† Pedestrian activated walk signs (yellow/flashing), then red pedestrian signal after redevelopment
A one-lane peak directional ADT of about 60% represents about 225 vehicles per hour. Two way stop
control works for all intersections except 500 West. 500 West at 100 South has no stop control nor RE-ENVISIONING DOWNTOWN PROVO’S CIVIC LANDSCAPE
signal and is a very dangerous intersection for pedestrians. Imagine a leisurely stroll along 100 South Street between Pioneer Park and the Provo City
Center Temple Gardens. Today, crossing 500 West is a dangerous activity and the walk along all the
SPEEDS ALONG 100 SOUTH parking lots on the north side of the street is lacking in any charm. The buildings are far from the
†† 500W – 35 to 40 miles per hour street and sparse activity makes the pedestrian feel conspicuous, alone, and uncomfortable. Unless
you’re a Provo resident with a specific retail or dining need and “in the know,” there is little to draw
†† 200 - 300W – 28 to 35 miles per hour the pedestrian from 100 South to Center Street.

†† Nuskin – 30 to 35 miles per hour

Why do cars travel so fast along 100 South? Drivers travel at the speed that feels safe, so the wider
the street, and more importantly, the greater the distance between the buildings, the faster cars
move. Today’s speeds along 100 South are not safe for pedestrians and cyclists.

To make a more livable street, the best building height to street width proportion is 1:1. When the
proportion of building height to street width reaches 1:6, we no longer perceive a sense of enclosure.

After meeting with the Fire Department, we determined that 10’ lanes and parallel parking on
the south side would work for ladder truck setup. Pursuing a road diet with the additional space
allocated to a linear park will increase safety without impeding traffic. This illustrative plan is not the preferred option, but shows a mid-block alternative to a linear
extension of 400 W.

CENTER BLOCK AND 100 SOUTH PROMENADE P R OVO, U TA H 1 0 0 S O U T H CO N C E P T P L A N

Transportation and Vision
21
In the future, pedestrians and cyclists will feel safe and find 100 South a highlight of their day. The LINEAR PARK • GARDENS OF FIRE AND ICE
street has been narrowed, slowing traffic. The neighborhood to the south of 100 South is better con-
nected, encouraging residents to frequent the area’s businesses and partake in its unique charm. MAKING SPACE FOR THE GARDENS
The space for the linear park will be created by reducing the pavement width of 100 South Street,
A leafy canopy of a double row of trees offers a shady respite for the walker or the lingerer. To the since it now terminates at the Temple and NuSkin and will carry significantly less traffic.
north side of a now-spacious sidewalk, the parking lots have been replaced with appropriately scaled
buildings that form pleasant enclosures and activate the corridor with people and activities.

The north side of the street has been transformed into a series of gardens conceived as outdoor
rooms. A range of activities and a variety of aesthetics attract city residents and visitors of all ages.
This series of gardens are distinct from one another yet still visually permeable enough to feel con-
nected and safe.

The gardens’ expression has been derived from the climate, geography, history, and aspirations of
the community. The gardens, like Provo, are enjoyable during all seasons despite the temperature 100 SOUTH BEFORE
extremes. Ice gardens celebrate the dramatic mountains, ski culture, and Olympic heritage of the
place. Fire gardens embrace the positive aspects of the sunny, high desert, the Olympic flame, and
the marvelous street cauldrons created for the Olympics that still festoon Provo’s downtown.

Uniting the two themes is the idea of water, drawing upon the history and existing water elements
of Downtown: the Grand Fountain of the Temple Gardens, the beloved new Splash Pad of Pioneer
Park, the former street fountain on University Avenue, and the historic irrigation canal that is located
directly beneath the park along 100 South. Citizens at project stakeholder meetings frequently ex-
pressed desires for “more water downtown.”
100 SOUTH AFTER
Collectively, the “Gardens of Fire and Ice” form a Linear Park that connects the Temple Gardens, the
NuSkin landscape, and Pioneer Park into a string of pearls that does not compete with Center Street
programmatically or aesthetically but instead supports its vitality. In fact, the linear park connects
Reducing the street width and making its edge more distinct with a robust stand of trees will also
Center Street and 100 South Street in an emphatic way through the creation of a large community
make the street safer for pedestrians and cyclists because it will slow vehicles as mentioned in Trans-
gathering landscape mid-block where 400 West was formerly a through street and will once more
portation Design.
be a connector.
The Linear Park Conceptual Plan imagines a width of 41’ from curb to building face. Allowing for a 10’
This quality civic landscape is a destination in itself while connecting into a greater whole. Like great
walk adjacent to the future buildings, the net width of the linear park is 33’, wide enough to create
streets, it is a classic that withstands the test of time. The true civic landscape has something for all,
meaningful spaces. Should there be compelling reasons to narrow this width due to utility or traffic
residents and visitors, young and old, and of all economic levels.
concerns, great care should be given because once the linear park is too thin, it will become a mere
The gardens significantly improve the arrival experience of the anticipated annual visitors to the Tem- through-corridor and unable to accommodate anything recognizable as a “space” in which people
ple and NuSkin, and provide a vibrant infrastructure to catalyze new development. They encourage would want to stop.
more people to visit downtown and stay longer, and they significantly contribute to the revitalization
of downtown.

1 0 0 S O U T H CO N C E P T P L A N CENTER BLOCK AND 100 SOUTH PROMENADE P R OVO, U TA H

Road Diet
22
DEVELOP IN CONCERT WITH CENTER STREET
The linear park should neither replicate nor replace Center Street. It is a distinctly different aesthetic
from the urban charm of Center Street with distinctly different program elements. Where Center
Street is a continuous and unified expression—a streetscape—that defers to the “main attraction” of
the street’s businesses and the activity of commerce, the linear park must knit together an antici-
pated array of building types and programmatic uses.
Center Street has always been the central hub of community activity, and the planting is secondary
to commerce and people. The linear park provides a quieter space in which the plants and the sense
of “park” and “gardens” are predominant. The two streets complement one another and are part of
the larger ensemble of landscapes that form the public realm of Downtown Provo.
The Gardens of Fire and Ice is a series of outdoor rooms that are unified but express more than one
aesthetic. Like interior rooms, outdoor rooms require clear spatial definition. Ceilings are made of
tree canopies. Walls are created with trellises, seating, and masses or lines of low plants all that allow
visibility over the top. Floors are created through ground plane treatments—pavers, concrete, sand,
gravel, and groundcovers/lawns. All of these elements are needed to create a park that is distinct
from a streetscape. It is necessary to balance the landscape into a unified whole that also contains a
variety of experiences.
RESPOND TO CONTEXT
It is crucial that the linear park maintains its own artistic and spatial integrity, while responding to
the anticipated context around it. The park’s development requires clear strategies for connecting to
adjacent landscapes, especially important in four instances.
First, the park plan should not only connect Pioneer Park and the Temple Grounds but also solve the
existing safety problem at 500 West and 100 South. This uncontrolled intersection has no light, no
pedestrian controls, and an under-demarcated pedestrian crossing in both pavement marking and
signage/signaling.
Second, the existing treatment at the side street intersections, 100 West, Freedom Boulevard, and
300 West, should “open up” in ways that deflect to these streets and to views toward Center Street.
CENTER BLOCK AND 100 SOUTH PROMENADE P R OVO, U TA H
Third, while the linear park will improve visitors’ east-west movement, it is important to envision
ways to encourage the north-south pedestrian movement between 100 South and Center Street. The
linear park is not wide enough to accommodate a medium-sized gathering focused on a communal
presentation or performance. Therefore, the linear park should seamlessly connect to larger, more
open public spaces mid-block.
Fourth, the NuSkin property ownership shift that occurs mid-block between 100 West and 200 West
requires a clear transition strategy so that the park’s aesthetic integrity is preserved and NuSkin’s
existing and desired campus aesthetic is respected.
INCLUDE A GATEWAY
Just as the Temple has its golden Angel Moroni statue and the Temple Gardens have their grand
fountain on axis with 100 South, the park should have a stronger visual destination than the indis-
tinct corner of Pioneer Park. Providing a place marker, in the form of element or space or both, that
designates where the linear park begins and ends, will not only provide definition for the park but
also function as a gateway for delineating the western edge of the Downtown district.
DEVELOP IDEAS NOT THEMES
The outdoor rooms are developed from enriched ideas and not “themes.” Where themes often re-
sult in simplistic icons and literal interpretations that strike of Disneyesque triteness, well-developed
ideas can allow visitors to fully engage in them because they can bring their own associations. Where
themes wear out quickly, landscapes developed from well-honed ideas age well and can become
classics. For example, rather than literally exposing the water of the canal, which would bring safety,
liability, and maintenance problems, selective implementation of water, layered with other inflected
ideas and historical associations, introduces water in a more powerfully way.
Similarly, rather than referring to the area’s heritage and desires for again hosting an Olympic Games
by replicating one of its symbols (the flame, winner’s platform, rings, etc.) the linear park could
include a more potent expression by starting with the idea of a symbol, infusing it with other ideas
and associations, and transforming it into something completely new and utterly fascinating. Rather
than using icons, the linear park’s rooms should include rich expressions that are uniquely Provo.
1 0 0 S O U T H CO N C E P T P L A N
Vision
23
PRESERVE AND REPURPOSE EXISTING ELEMENTS
While the design should be attentive to budget, it should not be overly limited by trying to incorpo-
rate existing elements exactly as they are. Rather than trying to reuse the in situ trees, grates, and
light standards, they can be reused in another area of Downtown or the linear park.
The recently installed street trees are not yet of a substantial size to warrant the gymnastics required
to save them. However, three trees on the Covey Center site (two Hemlocks and a Pine) are of suf-
ficient stature and value that all reasonable effort should be expended to incorporate them into the
plans for both the linear park and the development of the block, an effort that will require establish-
ing setbacks and construction restrictions within the block development to protect the trees’ roots.
†† Discontinue the planting of annuals in the raised planters, as they do not have adequate visual
impact spread out over such a large area
†† Plant annuals in newly acquired pots that are grouped in configurations of threes throughout the
five blocks of Center Street between University and 500 West
†† Acquire pots of coordinated colors that are not so saturated that they appear brash. Acquire
three different heights: 1) at least 24” tall, 2) as much as 42” tall, and 3) one in between, to ensure
that the colorful flowers are high enough to be in the pedestrian’s field of vision

REMAIN ATTENTIVE TO SUSTAINABILITY

In concert with the City’s sense of landscape stewardship, the gardens should be attentive to sustain-
ability concerns, with special attention to the following:

†† Utilize native plants to the greatest degree possible

†† Limit water to special moments—as opposed to proposing large, linear elements that in a high
evapotranspiration environment will require substantial water replenishment

†† Use stormwater as irrigation when reasonable

†† Use water-saving irrigation technologies

†† Limit maintenance needs on the part of the City

INCLUDE CENTER STREET IN REVITALIZATION PLANS
Since the Downtown should be considered holistically, any plans for revitalizing 100 South should
include revitalizing Center Street. The City and downtown stakeholders have considered numerous
schemes for redeveloping the streetscape of Center Street, an endeavor that is not a prudent course
of action at this time because it would involve infrastructure reconstruction and a significant financial
commitment. Nonetheless, there are immediately implementable and very low cost measures that
would demonstrate Provo’s continued investment in Center Street and go a long way in improving
the street appearance.
†† Replace missing ornamental trees with the existing ornamental species
†† Do not remove the grass in the narrow center strip associated with the Sycamores. These trees
are already enduring tremendous stress, and disturbing the top few inches (the location of their
most vital roots for air, water, and nutrient acquisition) will likely significantly increase their stress.
Mulching the trees on top of the grass will have little effect. An arborist can advise on the best
method for feeding the trees via soil infusions or directly to the trees.
†† Consider quantities of pots: 8.5 Blocks (NuSkin and Temple blocks omitted) x four clusters per
block minimum = 34 pots of each height, for 102 total pots
†† Remove all the shrubs in the raised planters and pack each planter with a single species per
planter, resulting in a vibrant and burgeoning image of thriving botanic life. Take care not to disturb
roots of ornamental trees.
†† Use only shrub species or cultivars that have low maintenance, low water use, preferably native,
and at least 2’ in height so that they have visual impact, but not more than 3’ in height, so that from
vehicles they do not become visual obstructions to the shop windows.
†† Consider having the volunteer groups accustomed to planting annuals shift their efforts to “adopt-
ing” a raised planter, its planting, and its maintenance
†† Discuss the plan with merchant owners to decide on a strategy for where the clusters of pots will
be located
†† Encourage merchant owners to “adopt” pot clusters to better ensure their proper watering.

1 0 0 S O U T H CO N C E P T P L A N CENTER BLOCK AND 100 SOUTH PROMENADE P R OVO, U TA H

Garden Structure
24
TRANSFORMING STRATEGIES INTO FORM: CONCEPTUAL PLAN Within this unified and disciplined structure, the gardens contain a variety of uses and expressions.
This is achieved by varying the sizes of the rooms. Since the width of the linear park is limited to a
consistent dimension, varying the sizes of the gardens must be accomplished primarily by varying
the east-west “lengths” of the gardens, responding to different parts of a block:

†† Plazas at corners respond to views and solar gain

†† Interior block gardens provide quieter spaces

GARDEN STRUCTURE †† Evergreen tree grouping on the Covey Center block leverage the value of mature trees and estab-
The Gardens as “outdoor rooms” have a consistent set of elements and formal language that give lish Center Block “forecourt” to interior public gathering space
them spatial definition and lend them an overall, unified expression:
†† Tapering of the road responds to safety concerns
†† A spacious walk along the right of way line and proposed building faces forms a consistent, main
†† Transition to NuSkin campus assures harmony with the existing NuSkin landscape
“hallway.” The walk is consistently straight and does not meander, in part because of the limited
width of the strip but mainly because:
In addition, it is important to coordinate private development within the blocks with the linear parks,
even “extending” the rooms into the block interiors to create wider gardens in selective locations that
1) the walk needs to be continuous along the building face and
the City deems appropriate.
2) the walk should function as a hallway that leads to each room, allowing pedestrians to choose
where to stop or to move on and not as a walk that goes through each room.

†† A row of deciduous trees along the 100 South edge enclose the space, the trunks forming the
“columns” and the leafy canopies forming the “ceiling.” In all but selective locations, a double row
of trees is used to ensure a strong sense of enclosure.

†† Hedge-like rows and masses of shrubs form “partitions” between rooms.

†† Orchestrated ground plane materials form various “carpets.”

†† Interior elements form the “furniture” of the rooms, some appearing as literal furniture and others
as centerpieces and animating elements.

†† Consistent palette of trash receptacles, light standards, bike racks, and seating, along with a strat-
egy for their placement.

†† Corners visually open to the side streets to ensure the park is connected to its larger context.

CENTER BLOCK AND 100 SOUTH PROMENADE P R OVO, U TA H 1 0 0 S O U T H CO N C E P T P L A N

The Gardens
25
THE GARDENS WESTERN PLAZA
PIONEER FLAME PLAZA This outdoor room is a relatively open plaza that responds to the
street taper and takes advantage of the sun. It contains a small kiosk
that holds information on the linear park and Downtown highlights.
Its “floor” is a hard, paved surface that can accommodate chairs and
tables and gatherings.

WESTERN SITTING GARDENS

Planted hedges enclose seating and separate this series of intimate
garden rooms. Some encourage quiet conversations. Some contain
a table and seating. All of the gardens remain visually open to one
another for safety, with plantings that remain under 3-1/2 feet tall. All
of the rooms operate as bioretention gardens that capture and treat
portions of roof runoff from the buildings to their immediate north.
The gardens are not large enough to hold and treat all of the block’s
stormwater.

This outdoor room is a new plaza at the southeast corner of Pioneer Park formed through the re-
configuration of small portions of the driving lane of 500 West and the northern parking lane of 100
South. This road reconfiguration is crucial for pedestrian safety, especially given the marked increase
in pedestrian crossing at the intersection due to the development of both the linear park and City
Center Block development in addition to the existing Farmers Market pedestrian traffic.

The plaza contains a tall, vertical sculpture that is reminiscent of an

Olympic Cauldron without replicating it and running the risk of min-
iaturizing it into a diminished expression. Instead, the sculpture incor-
porates other elements and ideas to make it truly multipurpose. It is a
focal point at the terminus of the linear park that is a corresponding
element to the City Center Temple grand fountain. It functions as a
gateway marker to the Downtown and the linear park from the.

The sculpture is topped by a flame. A fountain interacts with the form

of the sculpture and in winter creates ice patterns as the water freezes
and further animates the sculpture. Surrounding the sculpture is arcs
of misting fountains that will form ice particles in winter. The sculpture
is envisioned as 15 feet tall plus a 12 inch flame, while the rows of mist
are 1 to 3 feet tall, but can be up to 4 feet in height.

1 0 0 S O U T H CO N C E P T P L A N CENTER BLOCK AND 100 SOUTH PROMENADE P R OVO, U TA H

The Gardens
26
FOREST FORECOURT
Leveraging the three existing, mature evergreen trees creates this garden.
The garden acts as a forecourt to the larger public gathering space on
the interior of the block and as the entrance to the reopened 400 West
between Center Street and 100 South. To ensure their survival during con-
struction and continued health post-construction, special care will be re-
quired for the linear park construction and specific provisions need to be
imposed upon the development plan of Center Block. On the south side of
the Walk, the preserved trees are complemented with additional evergreen
trees, forming a forest-like collection and punctuating the linear park.
COMMUNITY COMMON
On the north of the Forest Forecourt is a sizeable Community Common to
complement the Covey Center by accommodating larger public gatherings and performances. This
bosque-covered plaza functions as vestibule to both the block interior landscape and events in the
renovated Covey Center, while making a strong connection between Center Street and 100 South.
COMMUNITY FIRE GARDEN
A series of permanent, in-ground fire troughs are surrounded by moveable chairs, encouraging ca-
sual gatherings for conversation and playing music. Celebrating the winter culture of Provo and the
area, the garden is located at the intersection of 100 South and 400 West to maximize visibility and
to be accessible to the proposed large gathering space planned for the interior of the block. The fine
gravel ground plane lends the garden a more casual feel and may be developed as biofiltration.
CENTER BLOCK AND 100 SOUTH PROMENADE P R OVO, U TA H
ICE GARDEN
In warmer weather, a collection of specially designed sculptural elements
interacts with water that overflows their exteriors. When it is cold enough
outside to freeze the water, continually changing ice sculptures will form.
Essentially fountains, the all-season sculptures emphasize the thriving win-
ter culture of the area and have the potential to become signature ele-
ments of Provo.
EASTERN SITTING GARDENS
These gardens comprise a complementary series of intimate garden rooms
to those of the Western Sitting Gardens. Also separated by low, planted
hedges that contain seating and incorporating bioretention, the gar-
dens are similar in structure but are inspired by the eastern rising sun.
WATER GARDEN
This garden alludes to the irrigation canal directly beneath and the
fountains of Pioneer Park and the City Center Temple Gardens via a trio
of water features. Specifically geared toward children, this garden in-
cludes a pair of “bookend” water features that are more environments
than objects. Manually operated pumps actively engage children in wa-
ter play while conserving water that otherwise would be lost to evapo-
transpiration in a continuously running fountain.
The water features contain multi-level, very shallow troughs that en-
courage water to take on many forms and dynamically move from the
1 0 0 S O U T H CO N C E P T P L A N
The Gardens
27
pumps through a series of pools. The garden also includes a small wading
pool in the center. No pool holds water of greater than 20” in depth to limit
safety concerns and comply with regulations.
SUN COURT
This small, relatively open plaza takes advantage of the morning sun. The
hard surfaced garden provides a sitting space for chillier days. The plaza
provides a safer pedestrian crossing by narrowing the street at the east and
west corners of Freedom Boulevard by taking away a few parking spaces,
while keeping all existing driving lanes.
FIRE CIRCLE GARDEN
Complementary garden to the Community Fire Garden, this room contains
a circular shaped, permanent, in-ground fire burner with moveable chairs
and a fine gravel ground surface. The garden is located to maximize
solar gain of the more open, less-canopied street corner of Freedom
Boulevard. Where the Community Fire Garden’s series of troughs en-
courages larger gatherings, the Small Fire Garden is sized to be com-
fortable for a gathering of only a few, giving it more of a campfire
feeling.
SAND GARDEN
This linear garden can accommodate a range of activities. The sim-
plest of the outdoor rooms, this garden contains no planting beyond
the double row of trees that define a natural colonnade around a de-
fined ground plane—a long, thin rectangular panel of dense sand sur-
rounded by paving. This sand court can be used for a bocce ball game
or treated as a sand garden (often termed a zen garden) in which peo-
ple can rake their own patterns and imaginings. The simplicity of this
garden allows it to hold many activities that need event-
driven elements like tables, chairs, or other light furniture.
TRANSITION GARDEN
This garden combines the vocabulary of the linear garden
and the aesthetics associated with the landscape in the
block between 100 West and Freedom Boulevard asso-
ciated with NuSkin. Much like the newly configured 100
South between 400 West and 500 West, in this section of
100 South, the roadway tapers to meet the existing street
as it enters the NuSkin campus and ends in the “square
about” at the LDS Temple Gardens. This taper results in a
triangular shape and demands a different treatment than
1 0 0 S O U T H CO N C E P T P L A N
The Gardens
28
the typical double row of trees. Therefore, it is fitting to create a garden using the large, shrub-filled
planting beds of NuSkin and overlaying them with the northern row of trees of the linear park, the
result being another layer of variety and a smooth transition between City landscape and NuSkin
campus.
SUMMARY
Some sections of the linear park will precede immediately adjacent to new development, where it will
be prudent to demarcate the edge of the park with a low horizontal element, like a row of shrubs or
seating, or a vertical element, like a trellis, as shown along the left hand edge of The Water Garden.
LINEAR PARK NEXT STEPS
In order to successfully realize the Linear Garden Concept Plan for the Gardens of Fire and Ice, the
implementation and funding strategies include the linear park’s coordination with the development
of the City Center Block. In the meantime, a number of actions should be undertaken to ensure a
quality product that is also an efficient and economic use of the City’s resources:
†† Encourage and materially support citizens who are interested in executing “tactical urbanism”
interventions that foreshadow the future park. Currently a group of BYU students are interested
in creating small, temporary park-like installations that will demonstrate the value of the proposed
park by allowing people to experience and imagine it. This is an effort that will not only help publi-
cize the park but also to encourage citizens to become engaged in its development.
†† Discuss the Concept Plan with City traffic engineers and those involved with bicycle issues, as the
final determination of lane configuration and widths is the single, largest determinant of the linear
park width and, therefore will impact all of its spatial parameters, elements, and aesthetics.
†† Explore consequences of Conceptual Linear Park Plan and possible creative solutions regarding
the existing utilities along 100 South, taking into account the likelihood that the City Center Block
development will involve utility work within the 100 South Promenade.
†† Engage Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT) regarding proposed bulb out, striping, and
signaling at 100 South and 500 West to safeguard pedestrians crossing 500 West.
†† Engage NuSkin regarding Conceptual Plan proposals at the threshold to the NuSkin campus.
†† Consider an official and more interesting name for the park besides “linear park,” whether “Gar-
dens of Fire and Ice” or some other name that is more in concert with Provo City’s branding.
†† Decide on the sequence of design for the most advantageous development of the linear park in
relation to that of City Center Block.
†† Develop a Request for Proposals for design development and construction documents.
CENTER BLOCK AND 100 SOUTH PROMENADE P R OVO, U TA H