In a couple
of recent posts (here and here), I wrote about the dichotomy between vision
and incrementalism. The difference
between focusing on the small steps toward a big goal and focusing on the goal
itself. The difference between awaking
in the morning thinking about winning the World Series or awaking thinking
about spending a hour in the batting cage learning to hit a curve ball.
In some
ways, it’s a silly distinction to try to draw.
No one can reasonably reach any desirable goal without being able to
embrace both the goal and the incremental steps. One doesn’t win the World Series without
spending time in the batting cage. But
one doesn’t spend the time in the cage without having the World Series, or at
least the high school varsity, as a goal.
This topic is
pertinent to urbanism because the vision of urbanism is grand indeed, with
cities that are financially stable and secure from the threat of environmental
degradation. Even the more immediate
visions, the downtown residences where seniors can live their later years
without the need of a car or the public plazas where all a city’s inhabitants
can mingle comfortably, are enticing.
But the steps, the grinding, trudging steps that are essential to get
from the world of today to the vision of the future, can’t be overlooked.
I remain an
incrementalist. To me, land use is like
crossing a rock-strewn field to a desirable destination in the middle distance,
perhaps a spreading shade tree along a babbling brook. Yes, looking up occasionally to check that I’m
remaining on line to my goal is essential, but I still must spend much of my
time watching my feet, not the destination, if I’m not to end up on my face.
But others may
have different strategies for crossing that field. Perhaps they can spend more time with their
eyes on the destination without sprawling over a rock. As long as we keep making progress, all is
good.
In response
to my earlier posts, a North Bay architect and planning commissioner emailed me
in general concurrence with my thinking, but with the thought that compelling urbanist
visions were sometimes lacking in the public forum. To my eye, the vision is always there, but
I’ll concede that he may be right, that many people may not see the urbanist
vision with the same clarity as I do.
So I want to
write today about a couple of different Petaluma situations, one in which a
vision is being developed and another in which a vision is seemingly being
overlooked.
Redevelopment of the Sonoma Marin
Fairgrounds: I’ve previously written on several occasions about the possible
redevelopment of the Sonoma Marin Fairgrounds, most recently here.
With the expiration of the lease agreement between the City of Petaluma
and the Sonoma Marin Fair Board looming, the two parties have been engaged in discussions
about the future of the site for over a year.
The possible new uses of the site is a remarkable opportunity for the
community.
But because
of the nature of the process, little information has reached the public about
the possible new uses, which is unfortunate.
As a result, Petaluma Urban Chat has been trying to build a public
vision in the expectation that the vision will provide the public with a basis
from which to review whatever proposal results from the City/Fair Board negotiations
and also with the emotional commitment to keep pushing for the best possible
redevelopment over the years to come.
The most
recent Urban Chat meeting on the subject was held a few days ago and was the best
meeting yet on the subject. Nearly thirty folks participated, most of whom
grasped the nature of the process and participated in the meeting with vigor.
Considering
that implementation of a new vision for the Fairgrounds may still be a decade
away, thirty folks in a ninety-minute meeting likely didn’t create the momentum
necessary to roll to the finish line, but it was a start and the process will
continue.
Hopper Street: As an apparent
counterexample, the City Petaluma has recently been processing the land-use
applications for the River Front project within the Central Petaluma Specific
Plan. To set the background for a
land-use conundrum in the permitting process, I recently gave an overview of the project, including the quote
below. The quote was inspired by the intended
improvements to Hopper Street that would provide a direct route between River Front
and the coming SMART station while also providing improved access to several
parcels in between that are now in industrial use.
“I can
foresee a better future, perhaps thirty years from now, when the parcels
between River Front and the train station have all been redeveloped, when
transit is stronger, when the current generation of young adults that is less
attached to their cars has reached full maturity, and when River Front will be
among the most desirable addresses in town.”
I believed
those words when I wrote them and I believe them now. However, I may have been largely alone in
that belief. I didn’t read every word
written about River Front or attend every public meeting, but I didn’t come
across a single other person who was fired by that vision.
Instead, the
public became mired in questions about developer exactions and architectural
standards. Those questions are valid and
I certainly have my own opinions on them, but I was disappointed that no one,
with the exception of me, even noted the long-term vision.
So the planning
commissioner may have been right when he doubted the existence of good
visions. I still believe the
incrementalism is the better path for me.
One footstep at a time. But we
also need a vision to guide those footsteps.
This blog has always had and will continue to have the goal of establishing
those visions. The absence of a vision around
Hopper Street reinforced that need for that goal.
In my next
post, I’ll provide a more complete description of the recent Urban Chat meeting
on the Sonoma Marin Fairgrounds. It was
a successful meeting, with folks embracing the need to make tough choices and
passionately defending their preferences.
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