Today, I
reach the far extent of my outing, the unincorporated community of Carmichael,
northeast of Sacramento.
Like many
children of my era, my parents relocated several times during my youth as my
father pursued greater professional success.
I don’t begrudge my parents the moves.
I’m pleased with how life turned out for them and I even believe that
the occasional childhood move is good training for making new friends and
learning how to live in new places. Although
I wouldn’t have minded if the number of school year moves had been fewer.
Luckily for
me, the moves ended shortly before I entered high school, so I was able to
spend those key years in one place. That
place was Carmichael, which I still describe as my “hometown”.
Carmichael
was a good place to spend those final years of youth. I retain largely fond memories of my time there. Over four decades, I remain in contact with
several old classmates, some of whom even read this blog on occasion. Indeed, I communicate more regularly with my
high school friends than with my college friends, which seems to speak well to
the years in Carmichael. Also, I met my
wife during my Carmichael years.
With that
said however, Carmichael had a land use pattern that was horribly misdirected. Arterials lined by strip malls surrounded by
vast expanses of residential, much of it far beyond the quarter-mile that is a
reasonable walking distance to retail.
As a high
school student, I was disappointed that most of friends could only be visited
by a risky bicycle ride or by parental car, but it was the land use pattern to
which much of my generation was accustomed.
It was just the way things were.
It took decades before I realized that my high school discontent wasn’t
surliness but the germ of an idea that better land use patterns were possible.
My mother
still lives in the home from where I attended high school. So I’ve had a continuing reason to visit
Carmichael over the years. Like many
communities that experienced their greatest growth immediately after World War
II, it hasn’t aged well.
The strip
malls have deteriorated, working their way down the economic scale. It’s not uncommon to see a strip mall with
over half of its space available for rent on a corner, while new strip mall is
being built only a block away, as our tax codes and land use rules further
undermine the already weak walkability.
(The Walk Score for
Carmichael is 40, with the note “Most errands require a car.” I think they overestimate the walkability.)
The stores
upon which many residents rely, such as supermarkets, have concentrated into
fewer locations, further overburdening already congested streets.
The
community remains proud of their lack of sidewalks, although I suspect that the
pride is stronger among those who are behind their steering wheels than those walking
the narrow line between rushing traffic, raveling pavement edges, and roadside
ditches.
The transit
system is limited and more suited for commuting to workplaces in Sacramento
than for local chores.
Against that
backdrop, I was pleased a few years ago when Sacramento County, aided by a
committee of Carmichael residents, began to assemble a plan for turning the
community toward urbanism, at least along the main arterial. The Fair Oaks Boulevard Concept Plan was a strategy to
convert the land for a block or two either side of the arterial into a
walkable, transit-oriented setting.
I watched
from afar as the plan came together. On
several occasions, I even considered traveling to Carmichael to testify at
public hearings on the plan.
My comments
would have been simple and to the point.
I would have lauded the community for their farsightedness. Then I would have cautioned that the adoption
of a plan, no matter how well conceived, is only a minuscule step along the
path to urbanism. That the real hard
work comes in convincing developers that the commitment to urbanism is real and
in securing the funds for the infrastructure improvements to complement the new
development.
Eventually,
I choose not to testify. The trip would
have been long and I was unsure that four years of living in a community nearly
a half-century ago, no matter how many fond memories I may have collected,
entitled me to participate in their process.
Perhaps that
was a mistake by me. The plan was
eventually adopted and remains a good template for turning Carmichael toward
urbanism. But when a small amount of
funding became available for improvements along Fair Oaks Boulevard, the money
didn’t go toward building a path for urbanism.
It was instead dedicated to improving a street intersection within the plan
area. Rather than building a place that
might be better suited for people, the county once again improved the world for
cars.
I’m not
suggesting that the intersection improvements weren’t needed. Traffic has increased since the intersection alignment
was first established and multiple incremental fixes had gradually made the intersection
awkward and difficult to drive. But intersection
improvements shouldn’t have been the highest priority.
It’s true
that the intersection improvements included new sidewalks. But how many pedestrians can be seen on those
sidewalks? It was only me with my camera
and a scruffy gentleman awaiting a bus.
If the
supposed goal of the community is a move toward urbanism, spending scarce
resources on street improvements fails to open the doors to urbanist
developers. Even worse, it sends a
message that the commitment to urbanism is, at best, half-hearted.
Just because
one lived in a place years ago, and remembers it with affection, doesn’t mean
that the community should make wise decisions long after one left. But one can hope.
Schedule Note
Another
meeting of Petaluma Urban Chat is upon us.
We’ll meet at the Aqus Café at 2nd and H Streets in Petaluma on Tuesday,
April 8. We’ll convene for conversation
at 5:30, with the discussion beginning at 5:45.
The discussion will again be about “Happy City” by Charles Montgomery.
As attendance
was below average last month, we’ll return for a second time to the first five
chapters of the book, giving all a chance to comment on the logical framework
that Montgomery has begun to construct in support of his argument that human
happiness is strongly tied to well-designed urban settings. Even if you haven’t read the book, you should
find the conversation engaging.
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