I’ve
occasionally written of a large land-use project in Oregon with which I was
involved many years ago. (The photo was
taken on the site, many years later.) The
original concept had a strong urbanist component. Indeed, it was where I was introduced to the
idea that urbanism was possible in the modern world.
But the
initial plan was waylaid by a reluctant planning commission, or perhaps by my inability
to educate a reluctant planning commission, and then truly ended by a forest
fire that roared through much of the site.
(The land adjoined the city limits but was beyond the limits of the municipal
fire fighting system.)
From the
ashes, a smaller, more focused project arose.
There were still urbanist elements to the new plan, but they were less
dramatic than in the earlier plan and needed more nurturing to reach full
flower.
It was
during the entitlement process on this second, smaller project that I truly
became engrossed in the details of land-use permitting. As the only member of the team who worked locally,
with all of the partners and other consultants about three hours away in Portland,
I had the day-to-day task of assembling the applications, of writing the
utility master plans, and of coordinating with the local agencies. I was smitten.
But my role
was still limited to the engineering and entitlement tasks. As the project moved through the hearings and
approval seemed imminent, the partners began to look for someone to act as
president of the local construction and sales efforts. They soon found a candidate they liked. After several days of interviews in Portland,
they offered him the job and sent him over the mountains to tour the site.
I’ve long
forgotten his name. All I remember is
that he was then working in Richmond, Virginia.
And that I immediately enjoyed his company.
We spent
much of the afternoon touring the 500-acre site and the town. We then settled into a dinner that, with
post-dinner libations, extended far into the evening. The prospective president and I shared many
of the same perspectives on land use.
This evening was over twenty years ago, so neither of us yet had the
working language of urbanism that would come later, but we had the same
thoughts of on-site retail, of a clubhouse that would serve as the living room
for the community, of a strong network of bicycle/pedestrian paths, and of
allowing electric golf carts for on-site travel in place of cars.
By the time the evening was over, I was
excited by the prospect of working with him for the next several years. I believed we’d be a fine team, good for the
project and good for the community.
Thus, it was
with surprise and chagrin when I learned a week later that he had declined the
job. The reason, as reported to me, was
that he believed the plan was too far advanced for him to have much effect on
how the project developed. He preferred
to find a position where he could be involved at an earlier stage.
In his
place, the partners settled on a married couple to serve as the local president
and vice president. I enjoyed both of
them and learned much from them. But the
urbanist opportunities withered away during their tenure, many despite my efforts.
The hotel
that would have complemented the private homes was lost because the opposition from
early homeowners was under-estimated.
On-site housing for lower income staff fell to the same fate. On-site retail was lost due to a marketing gaffe. And golf carts were relegated to the bicycle/pedestrian
paths, undermining all modal options except cars. Even the water conservation goals were undermined. It was still a fine project, but the
prospects of it being transformational had been wasted.
As my
project involvement wound to a close a decade later, I could look at where the
project stood compared to the vision at the time of entitlement and could tick
off the vast range of changes that had been wrought, most of them away from
urbanist ideals. And I could realize how
wrong the prospective president had been when he declined the job offer because
there were too few remaining options to shape the project.
I mention
this story because it pertains to thinking I’ve been hearing about the efforts
of Petaluma Urban Chat on the Sonoma Marin Fairgrounds.
Some think
that a deal has already been reached between the City and a master developer,
making our efforts moot. Other fear that
no one will care about the Urban Chat effort.
Still more believe that offering a good plan will be adequate and that
no further effort will be required except showing up for the grand opening.
All are
wrong. I doubt any deals have yet been
struck. And even if they have, there
will be many, many changes that occur between today and the groundbreaking. Also, the public can always move the wheel. But the wheel doesn’t move unless shoulders
are kept consistently to the wheel, with feet churning.
Petaluma
Urban Chat can make a difference on the Fairgrounds, but only if we work like
Marshawn Lynch and keep pounding at the pile.
(And if the coach in a moment of weakness doesn’t call for a pass from
the one-yard line.)
There are
always a surprisingly number of opportunities to make land uses better serve
our needs. But those beneficial changes only
happen if folks work diligently for the changes.
Having forgotten
his name, I have no way to check on the man who declined the chance to work
with me those many years ago. But, based
on my initial impressions, I like to think that he had a long and successful
career.
I also like
to think that he learned a lot about how land uses can change slowly but surely
if people of good will and continual effort want it to change. Which means that he probably looked back at
some point and regretted passing on the Oregon job offer.
Petaluma Urban Chat
The next
meeting of Petaluma Urban Chat will be Tuesday, February 10. However, the agenda for the meeting has been
changed from what I previously reported.
Given the difficulty of sorting through the options for re-use of the
Sonoma Marin Fairgrounds, the conceptual design teams will need another couple of
weeks before presenting their proposed plans at an Urban Chat meeting on
Tuesday, February 24.
Instead, the
meeting on the 10th will be devoted to the teams honing their ideas. Everyone is welcome, but those not on a team
will likely find themselves looking over shoulders or chatting on the
sidelines.
However, the
doors will be wide open and all vigorously invited on Tuesday, February 24 when
the three visions are presented and opened to comment.
Both
meetings will be at Taps, 54 E. Washington Street and will begin at 5:30pm.
Next time, I’ll
bring my New Year’s “Intro to Urbanism” to a close, with a summing up and
suggestions for further study.
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