Not
surprisingly, site design is more complicated in an urban setting than at the
urban fringes. Existing conditions and
the need to maintain traffic and utility service during construction are often
significant constraints. And those
challenges can’t be solved in silos, but require broad coordination and
cooperation.
Two months
ago, I wrote about how effective urbanism relies on effective teamwork between the city, development team, and
public. Two posts ago, I gave
an example of when the city/developer teamwork broke down. I have another example to offer today.
As before, I’ll
obscure the city, the project, and the individual involved. There are multiple reasons for this decision,
but the most important one is that the individual was a fundamentally good person
responding to a flawed collective mindset.
And my goal is to improve the mindset, not to castigate the individuals
who were seduced by it.
This is a
different project than my last example, but is again a medium-sized mixed-use
project in an urban setting.
But it was in
a part of the city that wasn’t expected to be urban. Although only a few blocks from downtown, the
site had been industrial for nearly a century.
And consistent with the industrial use, earlier generations of city
public work staff had aligned city utilities for maximum industrial utility and
minimum construction cost, without considering the possibility of future
redevelopment.
As a result,
when the development team had to determine an alignment for a public street to
front the proposed mixed-use buildings, there was no alignment that would
contain all the existing utilities. No
matter how we looked at it, a major sewer line, serving a large area of the community,
would need to be relocated.
The
developer was a part of the decision, understood the intractability of the
problem, and accepted the realignment as a cost of doing business.
We developed
a reasonable conceptual plan for the realignment that was sufficient for the
project to be entitled. But one of the
conditions of approval forced us to further adjust the alignment. As we moved into the design phase, the
question of sewer realignment and resulting adjustments to the other utilities
remained an open question.
It was a
dense utility setting, with complex storm drainage to be accommodated around
the water, sewer, and dry utilities. It
was like a thousand-piece jigsaw puzzle of which only five hundred pieces fit
together, with the other five hundred to be carefully inspected and then
discarded.
Given the
complexity, I proposed to the city engineer that he review the drawings at 50
percent design completion. He initially
demurred, noting the city policy only anticipated reviews at design completion. But I persisted, arguing that policy had been
developed with greenfields in mind and that urban settings, especially with
city utilities already in place and needing relocation, demand a more
cooperative process.
The city
engineer eventually agreed and reviewed the 50 percent drawings.
He offered
relatively few comments, generally concurring with the decision on the sewer
realignment, noting a few minor adjustments, and highlighting a couple of
points that he wanted resolved as the design moved ahead.
It was an
effective and helpful review. I thanked
him and the design continued onward to 100 percent completion, which was then
submitted to the city engineer for his final review.
And he
responded by directing that the realigned sewer be moved to the opposite side
of the street, which would in turn force us to realignment the water, storm
drainage, and dry utilities and to completely revise the storm drainage
report. It was tantamount to throwing
away much of the second half of the design effort.
I’m not
saying that his solution was wrong. It
was a fine solution. It was a solution
that I’d seriously considered and went the other direction only on the
narrowest of margins. Had we known the
city engineer would prefer the other option, we’d have gone that way from the
beginning.
But I’ll
forever be puzzled by why the city engineer didn’t choose to make his
preference known when he reviewed the 50 percent drawings. He didn’t break any laws or city policies
when he stayed silent. But he broke a covenant
to work cooperatively with developers, particularly on urban projects where the
design decisions are multi-faceted and complex.
Perhaps some
believe that the covenant doesn’t exist and shouldn’t exist. But I think it’s essential to building better
urban communities.
In my previous
example of poor coordination, I noted that projects don’t die of a single
cause, but instead succumb to a multitude of paper cuts. This project was no different. And the sewer realignment wasn’t even one of
the cuts. The project was already
teetering before the city engineer made his wishes known. A variety of other factors did in the project. But the failure of the project was a
shame. It would have made the city a
more vibrant place.
Before
closing, it’s only fair to note that these examples of flawed teamwork are the
exception. Over three decades of civil
engineering, I can point to far more examples of good coordination, although
those examples aren’t nearly as entertaining.
I still recall a community development director calling me at home
several times in one evening to resolve a thorny water pressure issue that
resulted from a poorly written development agreement.
My point
isn’t that good cooperation never happens.
Indeed, poor cooperation is the exception. However, each instance of poor teamwork has a
significant cost to the community. The
goal shouldn’t be for bad teamwork to be the exception, but for it to not exist at
all.
My next blog
post will leave my desk on the Fourth of July.
My practice is not to take off holidays.
However, as I’ve often done before, I’ll use the holiday post to wax
philosophical, looking at the bigger picture.
And if you don’t choose to read my thoughts until after the holiday,
good for you. Have a great long weekend.
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