I’m pleased
to write a blog on urbanism and feel amply rewarded by the many readers. But editing posts for length is an on-going
challenge. There are so many
interrelated aspects of urbanism that it’s often a difficult to prune a blog
post into a good length for readers. In nearly
every post, I note narrative branches that logic dictates I follow, but length
constraints argue that I avoid.
Sometimes, I
skip the branch completely, hoping that readers will remember my comments from
earlier blog posts or from other reading.
Other times, I explore the first few steps of the branch, but quickly lop
it off, hoping that my truncated version will be comprehensive enough to be
understood.
And
sometimes, neither of those approaches works. My last post is an example.
Within a few
hours of publishing, I heard from a frequent reader taking me to task on a
couple of points. On one, I’d omitted the
subject to maintain brevity. On the
other, I gave brief, and apparently unsatisfactory, coverage.
I responded
to the reader privately. Perhaps I could
have considered that response sufficient.
But I spent many years working for a firm with a mantra that a client
who complained was one of your best friends because he represented another nine
clients who didn’t bother to complain but just stopped using your service. The complaining client also gave you a chance
to respond to the complaint.
So, on the
grounds that the reader may represent another nine readers who shared her
concerns, I’ll copy her complaints below, in edited form, and also provide my
responses.
It makes me uncomfortable that people are
sitting down to discuss the fate of the fairgrounds without, it seems, even
acknowledging that there is a very successful and growing K-8 charter school on
site which serves nearly 300 local families and has a high probability of
staying there. I’d really like it if
that would continually be brought into the dialogue, as it is part of what’s
happening on that site.
Actually, the
presence of the charter school on the fairgrounds was noted in my initial post on the subject. I’ve since been advised that there are also a
nursery school and a pre-school on the fairgrounds. And the schools have been mentioned in both meetings
to-date. I can't know the extent to
which the participants will take note of it in their conceptual thinking, but
the existence of the schools is certainly on the table.
Also, when
the reader notes the “high probability of [the charter school] staying there”,
I assume that she’s referring to the near-term, prior to 2023, when the lease
is strictly a matter between the Fair Board and the charter school.
Urban Chat
isn’t looking at the near-term. Our
perspective begins in 2023.
However, as
long as we’re discussing the schools, I should offer my expectation that they may
be in for a difficult road after 2023. The continual regeneration of healthy
cities requires that economically lower-end uses, such as start-up businesses,
non-profit offices, and charter schools, usually occupy buildings near the end
of their economic life. As their current
buildings are demolished and new site uses constructed, the uses move to other
end-of-life buildings. Urban theorists
such as Jane Jacobs have noted this process for years.
While it’s
certainly possible that redevelopment can make accommodation for current site
users, such as the charter school, that accommodation is effectively a subsidy
for which someone will be paying. And in
the current economy, subsidies are increasingly unlikely. Because the City is dealing with the
unsustainable costs of suburbia, they'll try to squeeze every nickel out of the
fairgrounds. And that makes relocation likely,
unless the school becomes capable of paying market rate for new construction.
For the
record, if you’re a charter school supporter, I’m not the person with whom you
should be arguing. I’m only the
messenger, describing how the process will likely work. If you’re don’t like my projected outcome,
then work to change the system. And
depending on the changes you advocate, I may be your ally.
(As one
final thought on the subject of schools, if a large residential component is constructed
on the current fairgrounds, it’s likely that a new public elementary school
will be required. Obviously, it wouldn’t
replace the function of the charter school, but it might provide a good
community focus point.)
Onward to
the next query.
What is your idea of the “eco-village
concept” that puts you off so much? Would
"high density, low-carbon footprint neighborhood" work better for
you? An eco-village is a place where the
balance between human and nature is better designed than anything we’ve
currently got going. What could be the
problem with that?
And why limit any site from food growing and
agricultural uses, especially as Petaluma continues to be destroyed by poorly
planned, unnecessary in-fill developments (like Freedman’s Plaza and the
hideous Target Plaza), both of which threaten the water supply of our city, not
to mention its scale and size, and to stretch the bounds of the necessary far
beyond where they already are in our consumptive culture?
On
eco-villages, yes "high density, low carbon footprint neighborhood"
works far better for me. The problem that
concerns me is that "eco-village” alone often becomes a justification for reducing
density, allowing room for other low-carbon uses, such as reducing building
mass to allow more sunlight to reach gardens.
Many folks
don't understand this, but density, if accompanied by walkability, is the
single greatest carbon-reduction tool. (Fun
fact: Per capita gasoline usage in New York City is roughly the same as it was
for the entire country in 1925.) Whittling
away at walkable density, even for other laudable goals, is often
counterproductive. There are ways for
density and other low-carbon approaches to co-exist, but if there are
conflicts, density needs to be given the higher priority.
To give one
example, I suspect that a 100 unit per acre walkable urban development where
people take streetcars twice a week to work family gardens at the urban fringe
would have a lower carbon footprint than a 50 unit per acre development with
on-site gardens.
However,
I'll acknowledge that rooftop gardens can have a more meaningful role, as long
as other locations can be found for photovoltaic arrays.
(For the
record, I’m also not a fan of either East Washington Place or Deer Creek
Village. I think Freedman’s filled a
niche, but that’s about it.)
Any other
questions or quibbles? Toss them my
way. They may end up being shared with
all.
Schedule Notes
Monday,
August 18, 6:00pm: This is the final reminder of the celebration of Petaluma Transit evening service. This evening, any student with a valid
Petaluma Transit student pass or a transfer dated today, can attend a movie at
Boulevard Cinemas for the reduced price of $7.
And if any parents tag along to check out Petaluma Transit, please say
hello. Please we can have a beverage while
the students are enjoying the movie. I’ll
be near the cinema wearing a blue ballcap.
Tuesday,
August 26, 5:30pm: The next meeting of Petaluma Urban Chat, talking about the future
of the fairgrounds, will convene at a location still to be announced.
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