I went on to
suggest that at least one more major park was required, a park
that could rival the community value of Healdsburg Plaza or Sonoma Plaza. I suggested that this missing park be built
on a portion of the current fairgrounds site.
I proposed that this new park, which I’ll call Petaluma Square, be edged
by businesses showcasing local agriculture, to support local agriculture and to
recognize the history of the fairgrounds.
I also
proposed that the area around Petaluma Square be filled by multi-family urban
development to provide a base level of activity to the square, to which the
remainder of the community could add.
Not
surprisingly, I received a number of comments.
Most were positive, but some also raised topics that seemed worthy of
further response. My thoughts follow.
Make park
bigger: Some thought that I was shortchanging the community by proposing
only a square on the fairgrounds site.
They suggested that it would be better to use the entire fairgrounds for
Petaluma’s equivalent to New York City’s Central Park.
I appreciate
the passion, but disagree. For one, I
don’t know if Petaluma could make good use of a park of that size. I know that park enthusiasts believe that
communities can never have enough park space.
But when I look around the town, I see existing parks that are
underused, with far more folks enjoying culture, dining, or shopping. (The one exception is athletic fields. Petaluma, like pretty much every community,
can use more athletic fields.)
Also, there’s
the adjacency issue. The fairgrounds
site is large, but not big enough to hide that it’s tucked between a
car-oriented shopping center, a construction yard, and a school bus yard. Central Park can sell the concept of a
wilderness in the city. I don’t think
the fairgrounds site can do the same.
But the
biggest issue is financial. With a long
era of government austerity looming before us, it seems a dubious strategy to
take a piece of property than can generate significant economic activity and to
redirect it to a use that would require government support. About the only way to make the dollars work would
be voter approval of a tax increase that would pay any compensation due to the
Fair Board, fund the construction and operation of the park, and make up for
the lost revenue from other possible uses of the site. I doubt anyone believes that’s possible.
Perhaps
Petaluma can support its version of Central Park, but if so, it needs to be on
the urban fringe, not on a site that can contribute so crucially to the local
economy.
Reduce
adjacent development: Some thought the idea of the square was okay, but didn’t
seen the need for the surrounding retail or residential uses. They weren’t even sure that the community
needed more residential or retail.
To the first
comment, I can only point to the squares in Healdsburg and Sonoma. Those places are energized by the surrounding
development. Petaluma Square without
adjoining development would be another Walnut Park, a nice place but without
the vibrancy that could be possible.
To the
latter comment, the Petaluma General Plan envisions growth to 80,000
people. Where better to house and to provide
services for those new people than in a walkable urban core around an active
square?
Make
better use of existing parks: Some thought that I was undervaluing the current
parks, particularly Walnut Park.
I
disagree. I think I objectively laid out
the value and shortcomings of each existing public place. Walnut Park is a fine setting, but with the
development currently surrounding it, it can’t rival the squares of Healdsburg
or Sonoma.
Plus, there
is a need for a range of public places, with different community events
distributed according to the needs of each event. Healdsburg is finding that their square is becoming
overused and is looking to relocate some events. I can foresee a future in which Walnut Park
and Petaluma Square each host a range of events and activities.
Wake us when
the date is closer: However, the biggest single response was that my 2035
date for having Petaluma Square in place was impossibly far away. Those commenters couldn’t see a reason to pay
attention to the opportunity for ten or fifteen years.
To which I
can only point out that the City and the Fair Board have indicated a willingness
to negotiate the future of the fairgrounds this year. For all we know, the negotiations may already
be underway.
I think the urbanist
energies of Petaluma should be directed toward the Station Area for the
immediate future, which is how I derived the 2035 date for Petaluma
Square. But unless we offer our thoughts
and our visions this year or next, the opportunity for Petaluma Square may go
away.
It’s the
nature of long-range planning for all land uses, but
particularly for urbanism. Sometimes we
must plant the seeds for a crop that a future generation will harvest.
I believe in
the vision of Petaluma Square. But
getting from today to the square will be a slog. It’ll have long periods of inactivity, interspersed
with opportunities to make key comments or offer crucial support. And this year may be one of those
opportunities.
As always,
your questions or comments will be appreciated.
Please comment below or email me.
And thanks for reading. - Dave Alden (davealden53@comcast.net)
No comments:
Post a Comment