A week ago,
I began recounting a daytrip I took through Northern California. I set an itinerary to take quick looks at
destinations that I thought would offer urbanist insights. My first stop was breakfast and a refresher
tour in Suisun City, the site of extensive and
well-conceived urban redevelopment that has become a personal favorite.
Today, I’ll
describe the next destination on my zigzag route to Sacramento, the community
of Woodland. There’s much that is
attractive and desirable in Woodland.
There’s also much that is cringeworthy.
In short, it has a lot in common with all cities that have roots in the
19th or early 20th centuries and were then subverted by more recent development
concepts.
In the days before I began this blog, I was
casting about, trying to convince myself that I would have enough subjects
about which to write three posts a week.
(Hint for potential urbanist bloggers: There is no shortage of fine post
topics. The problem is finding enough
time to research and to write about the topics in the depth and care that they
deserve, a task at which I’ve succeeded only partially.)
During those
days of nervously gathering ideas, I came across an article in the Sacramento
Bee about Woodland and its Target stores.
It seemed that Target had built an early store on the urban fringe of
Woodland. As the chain grew and the
store concept evolved into greater footprints, Target built a new store further
from downtown, leaving the first mall spiraling downward.
It seemed a
great urbanist topic. A town of 55,000
that had already gone through two versions of the same big box, leaving a
pocket of blight that had been created in only two decades compared to the eight
decades or more required to create downtown blight.
I saved the
link and even drafted up a blog post. It
wasn’t a particularly good post, but I had it in the can, ready to go when
needed. I then began the blog and found
plenty of topics about which to write.
The Woodland post stayed in the can.
Eventually, the link to the Bee article went dead.
But the
story of the small town with two Targets stayed in my head. So I looked forward to a quick tour of Woodland.
I found much
what I had expected to find, a lovely and functional downtown. Architecturally interesting buildings lining
the main streets and handsome homes in the nearby neighborhoods within walking
distance of downtown.
Indeed, I
was even more impressed by Woodland than I had expected. Because of the value of surrounding
California farm land, the original town had retained a remarkably compact form, adding density rather than
sprawl. Most of the density had come in
the form of smaller lots rather than height, but the town was well-configured
to accept height when and if that future arrives.
And I came
across several small pockets of neighborhood commercial as I cruised the streets,
which is another positive urbanist element.
It was a
downtown and nearby neighborhoods that I could explore for hours. And I plan to do so in the future
Indeed, the
only downside I could see was a lack of commercial activity downtown. Many businesses seem to be stuck in a 1950s
format, struggling to hang onto a shrinking customer base. Given the easy pedestrian and bicycle access
from the nearly residential areas, the lack of commerce was unfortunate.
But the reason
for the downtown languor became evident as I headed east. A district of the community that originally
existed to serve the surrounding agriculture had been invaded by multiple
shopping centers anchored by various big boxes.
It was a part of town that was inaccessible to all but the most
determined pedestrians and bicyclists, relegating youth and the aged to relying
on those with cars.
(To be fair,
there’s also a transit
system that serves the community, including connections
between residential neighborhoods and the big box centers. I’m
pleased that the bus system exists, but walkability is still better for
day-to-day life. Especially with the big
box centers designed for the convenience of cars, leaving long walks from bus stops
for those arriving by transit.)
I didn’t
find the original Target. It’s likely
been downcycled into another use. But I
did find the new Target. It was as
unlike the homey and comfortable downtown as I would have expected. It was with a sigh that I drove onward toward
Sacramento.
As always,
your questions or comments will be appreciated.
Please comment below or email me.
And thanks for reading. - Dave Alden (davealden53@comcast.net)
Just this week I passed through the downtowns of both Woodland and Roseville. They have an intriguing, historic, traditional-looking design and architecture that provides a classic American appeal to me. The kind of town I want to live and engage in. I was drawn to walk about and hang out. Until I looked more closely and took in the desolate, moribund feel. I had no inkling that Woodland had a population similar to Petaluma’s. Unfortunately or not, I read your blog during a low period of my day and I find the facts in what you have related disappointing and depressing. Why have we taken the life out of such beautiful city centers with shops, offices, taverns, restaurants and theatres that once thrived with community bustle?
ReplyDeleteBarry, I'm not as familiar as Roseville as I might be. And I can certainly spend more time wandering around Woodland. But based on my current knowledge, I think there's a key difference between the two. In Woodland, the big box explosion occurred primarily in one district, leaving the walkable retail and residential core largely intact. In Roseville on the other hand, the big box culture is more interleaved throughout the entire community. Because of this difference, I suspect that Woodland can more easily re-create a walkable community. If I had to pick a community more likely to thrive in a $10 per gallon gas, urbanist world, it'd be Woodland.
Delete