Perhaps
because I spend much of my time studying and writing about urban planning, I become
prickly when folks write something that misrepresents the nature of good land
planning.
A recent
example illustrates my point.
I had a long
professional involvement in the Mission Bay neighborhood of San Francisco. It was a fascinating urbanist challenge to
take land with a history of tidal marsh to landfill to railyard and turn it
into a productive part of the city.
(Before anyone objects, I agree that it would have been environmentally
preferable had the land had remained a tidal marsh, but that ship sailed over a
century ago and there’s little we can do about it today.)
The
engineering of building a multi-story city on top of more than a hundred feet of
unconsolidated material is challenging, as is the extension of utilities into a
neighborhood surrounded by land uses that extend back a century or more.
Given my
familiarity with the area, the recent conflagration at a condominium
construction site snagged my attention.
I had no involvement in the particular project, but knew the site and
the context.
I read many
of the articles about the fire, including the recent article in the San
Francisco Chronicle, reporting the findings that the fire has been accidental.
The sentence
that raised my hackles was at the end.
“City officials have pledged that the fire would not deter the
revitalization of the neighborhood.”
On the
surface, the sentiment seems reasonable and soothing. No one need be worried that the fire would
sidetrack the Mission Bay redevelopment.
And as the sentence isn’t a direct quote, but a summation by the
article’s writer, perhaps the sentence doesn’t exactly capture what the “city
officials” intended.
But there is
nonetheless a proposition within the sentence that shouldn’t be there. That proposition is that the City has the
unilateral ability to keep the revitalization moving ahead, that if they decide
that revitalization shouldn’t be deterred, then it won’t be.
That
proposition and others of its ilk, have the potential to plant wrong and
harmful messages. Good land use planning
requires the city, the developers, and the public to work as a team.
All the
parties must be pulling on the same end of the rope. The city’s role is to establish reasonable
and appropriate goals for development.
The developers’ role is to react to those goals, to offer alternatives
that may differ from the city’s vision but remain as consistent as possible while
also capable of securing construction financing. The public’s role is to keep everyone on
track, to provide clear descriptions of what new development will meet the
public need, not the need based on self-myths, but the need based on how we
truly live.
When we
forget those roles and begin to point fingers, we hear contentions such “The
city is ignoring our wishes”, “Developers are all crooks”, or “The public is
being unreasonable.” And when those
accusations begin to fly, our ability to build well for the future is
diminished.
So, better
than “City officials have pledged that the fire would not deter the
revitalization of the neighborhood” would have been “City officials have
pledged to work with developer of the burnt structure and the neighborhood
residents to learn how to do their part to keep the neighborhood revitalization
moving ahead.”
Am I
overreacting? Heck, yes. I can undoubtedly scan the same issue of the
Chronicle and find dozens of propositions that are equally or more severely
flawed. But this is one that is close to
my heart on several levels, so it’s the one that rankled. Or maybe it was just my day to be grumpy.
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