Ames Main Street presents 55‑page guiding vision to boost downtown housing, streets and connections to ISU

Ames Main Street and consultants from Bolton & Mink presented a 55‑page “Downtown Ames: A Guiding Vision for the Future” at a special Ames City Council workshop Feb. 18, outlining recommendations to add housing, retool streets as public spaces and improve connections between downtown and Iowa State University.

“My name is Travis Tolliver. I serve as the executive director for Ames Main Street,” said Travis Tolliver, who opened the presentation and called the document “a roadmap for the future of Downtown Ames.” Andrew Dresner of Bolton & Mink led the consultant presentation and described the plan’s four big ideas: complete the downtown neighborhood with more housing and overnight visitors, treat streets as flexible public space, improve downtown entrances and strengthen connections to ISU and entrepreneurship.

The consultants said the plan covers the area generally between Grand and Duff north of the railroad tracks and recommends targeted changes rather than wholesale demolition. Andrew Dresner told council members the plan identifies opportunities for what it characterizes as roughly 800 to 1,000 new housing units within downtown and “a modest amount” of additional commercial space, concentrated along Duff Avenue and Main Street.

“The plan is about looking inward at the center of the city,” Dresner said, adding that downtown already has many assets — grocery stores, retail, civic anchors such as City Hall and the library — and is underbuilt because surface parking consumes land that could support new housing and activity.

The document groups recommendations into four focus areas — Main Street activation; a Burnett (bank block) to Lincoln Way connection including a redesigned Tom Evans Plaza and a proposed intermodal/mobility hub; the east edge near the power plant and Bandshell Park; and the west edge around City Hall — and divides proposals into functional layers (built form, connectivity and public realm). Short‑term actions identified for the next two to three years include piloting festival streets on Douglas, expanding mural and pop‑up programming, exploring gang/shared refuse dumpsters to tidy alleys, and initiating redesign work for Tom Evans Plaza.

Dresner and other presenters emphasized a phased approach: begin with small, incremental pilot projects to shape public expectations before pursuing larger, more disruptive investments such as an intermodal ramp or a major Main Street redesign. “Documents like this should be revisited every 10 years,” Dresner said, and he recommended treating the plan as a living framework rather than a mandate.

Councilmembers asked about sequencing, parking and who would lead redevelopment on private parcels. Councilmember Gloria asked whether developers or the city should assemble private parcels; Dresner replied a mix of city‑led and private development is typical and that city‑owned sites should be city‑led. Councilmember Amber raised whether the plan includes short‑term, actionable items; the consultants pointed to an implementation list (summary at the workshop and details on page 48 of the plan) that identifies near‑term projects for the next two to three years.

Presenters discussed financing tools and governance options including a Self‑Sustaining Municipal Improvement District (SMID) to capture local assessments for area improvements. Dresner explained SMID as a self‑imposed assessment on property within a district that generates funds restricted for projects in that district. The plan also recommended offering the document for the city’s annual Capital Improvement Program (CIP) and pursuing designations and grants that could support arts, wayfinding and gateway projects.

Councilmembers generally expressed support while urging public engagement, realistic phasing and attention to parking. Mayor Halah said he wanted the council to form a guiding‑vision implementation task force and move the plan into public comment and actionable steps. Travis Tolliver said Main Street staff and partners received nearly 1,000 survey responses during the planning process, including about 100 from university students, and asked the council to sustain momentum through an implementation body.

The consultants and presenters emphasized caution about immediate large changes: “There’s no elimination of parking here,” Tolliver said, adding that recommended street treatments could include lane reductions, parallel or staggered parking, and other configurations to retain access while creating more pedestrian‑oriented space.

Next steps discussed included a return to council with an implementation and phasing plan, additional public outreach, and early pilot projects. The final plan remains available on the city’s website under Mayor and Council meeting materials.

Context: the workshop was a presentation and discussion; council did not take a formal vote on adoption at the Feb. 18 meeting.