The Petaluma
Urban Chat meeting last week was nicely successful. Thanks go to City Council candidate Dave King
for responding to occasionally hard-edged questions with good humor and cogent
responses. Perhaps not everyone agreed
with his perspectives, but he presented his thinking well.
To attend a
prior obligation, King departed before the end of the Urban Chat meeting. In the general conversation after his
departure, there was a spirited discussion about the long-term vision for
urbanism and the incremental steps that are often taken toward that solution.
Some found
that incremental steps, local examples of which were freely tossed about but
needn’t be re-enumerated here, were so inadequate as to represent little real
progress.
Others felt
that incremental steps were a necessary evil while markets and regulatory standards
adjust to a more walkable urban future. Those folks felt that supporting urbanism
required accepting incrementalism as a necessary phase, while also trying to
make the incremental steps as bold as possible.
I’m securely
in the latter camp. As many advantages
as I see in a more walkable urban future and as urgently as I think we need to
reach that future, I recognize that we can’t jump from today to that
future. The disruption would be
significant and, more importantly, too many of our friends and neighbors don’t
yet comprehend the need for the change.
And so, as urbanists,
we must try to make the world a little more urban all the time and to encourage
developments that can transition as we move toward urbanism. I remain a big fan of surface parking lots
that can be built upon as parking demands ease and of sidewalk cafes that can
serve as personal homes until sidewalk traffic increases sufficiently to
support the café.
But even a
belief in incremental steps leads to the next question. How do we increase the rate of change so we
can reach an urbanist future sooner, limiting the climate change impacts and
municipal finance distress of our current drivable suburban paradigm?
I’ll try to
answer that question in three parts, market, financial, and regulatory.
For the market, availing ourselves of new
urban living opportunities and asking our friends to considering doing the same
is the best step. Few things incentivize
the next urban project as much as the financial success of the last one.
However, it’s
likely that little effort is needed as the market is already leading the charge
toward urbanism, with polls showing up to half the population is eager for
opportunities to live in more walkable settings. (I recently chatted with a North Bay
politician who took pride in the fact that his community was building up to 20
percent of its new housing in walkable places.
I suggested that, in a world where half of all people want to live in a
more walkable world, his 20 percent number shouldn’t be a source of pride. Yeah, being an urbanist can sometimes mean
bursting balloons.)
On the financial
side, continued hesitancy by lenders toward urbanist projects is a lingering
concern, but market successes and time will be the remedy. Unfortunately, urbanists can’t attend lending
committee meeting for banks to push the change along, so our efforts must go
elsewhere.
This leaves
the regulatory side, where outdated zoning codes and obsolete ideas about where
to spend public moneys continue to repress urbanism. Luckily, the public arena is also a place
where urbanists can make their voices heard.
I fantasize about 300 urbanists filling the chamber for a city council
hearing on an issue bearing on urbanism.
(I love Urban Chat, but a dozen folks in a café discoursing on urbanism doesn’t
move the needle at city hall.)
And that
gets us to the crux of the matter. How
to rally more folks to the urbanist banner?
There are plenty of folks who are sympathetic to the goals of urbanism,
but the daily demands of life, securing a paycheck, raising children, planning
for retirement, etc., interfere with active commitment. How do we convince folks to dedicate a chunk
of their limited free time to support the cause?
Unfortunately,
I think the only solution to that question is persistent effort. It’s finding opportunities to chat with friends
and neighbors about the issues and slowly motivating them to put forth time and
effort. It’s not an easy task nor will
it be readily accomplished. But it’s
essential.
Before
closing, I’ll share a recent story that illustrates the difficulty of
collecting supporters for urbanism.
I’ve worked diligently
to build the readership of this blog.
Perhaps my prose isn’t perfect, but I’ve maintained a regular publishing
schedule for nearly three years. And others
tell me that I occasionally find words that make a post halfway memorable.
As a result,
I’ve built a sustained readership of perhaps 5,000 site visits per month. Not every site where I publish provides
numeric feedback, so the number is a little fuzzy, but I’m comfortable with its
accuracy. And if it’s wrong, the actual
number is likely a bit higher.
I’m proud of
the readership. I continue to work for
more, but I’m still proud of the number.
But I
recently had a glimpse of the other side.
After a football game won by my alma mater, the opposing coach made an
odd and peevish comment after the game, blaming bloggers for conspiring to hide
an new offensive strategy that my college deployed.
The comment
struck a discordant note with me. But I
wasn’t sure if my response was valid, so I began a chat room thread asking for
the thoughts of others. Within 24 hours,
over 3,000 people had viewed the thread and more than 30 had commented on it.
There’s
difference between reading a thousand-word blog post and checking a
three-sentence chat room thread. But
still, that was as many readers in one day on a quirky point about college
football as in two weeks on a subject that is pertinent to the financial and
environmental viability of our communities.
It was
indicative of the mountain that urbanists still must climb, whether our goal is
the ultimate vision or bolder incremental steps.
Next time, I’ll
write further about Petaluma Urban Chat.
After several months of talking about the Sonoma Marin Fairgrounds, we
broke away this month to talk about Measure Q with Dave King. The consensus for next month is to return to
the fairgrounds topic. But I have some
thoughts about how to make the conversation most effective and to build our
participation toward that 300 people. I’ll
offer those thoughts in my next post.
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