Today, I’ll
begin with scheduling notes. The Sonoma Marin Fairgrounds update that I’ve
been promising for the last couple of weeks has moved closer. However, it’s still a step away from the news
that I want to announce, so I’ll defer the update for another post or two.
Also, there
is a recently published report on a regional transit strategy that is begging
for my comment, so I’ll slide in that topic either before or after the Fairgrounds
update.
The result
of these adjustments is that I must defer the Petaluma SMART station update,
which I had planned for today, until three posts hence. It’ll be a good change. There are ramifications to the SMART
discussion that will take a couple of posts to fully explore. It’ll be better to defer the conversation until
I can give it the undivided attention it deserves.
Moving around
the chess pieces resulted in today being temporarily without a topic. I’ll use the free day to remind all of us that
the North Bay is worth celebrating, both for the distinctive elements of the communities
that have been preserved and for the geographical separations that remain. The two combine to give North Bay communities
individual identities, a reality that isn’t always true elsewhere in the Bay
Area.
An El
Cerrito reader emailed me a couple of months back. She complained about the nearly continuous
development from Richmond to San Jose and about how, although she personally walks
for many weekly tasks, most of her neighbors rely on cars for their chores. Although she didn’t quite connect the dots, I
understood her points to be that she believed herself to be living in an urban
setting and that she found her local urbanism physically and emotionally
unsatisfying.
In my response
I noted that having sprawling drivable suburbs bump into and overrun each other
didn’t make a place “urban”. I also
suggested that had the East Bay developed with a walkable urban aesthetic it would
look different than the current East Bay.
I congratulated her on her walking habit, but noted that unless non-car
alternatives were the more convenient transportation alternatives, which
clearly hadn’t happened in her neighborhood, the place isn’t urban.
I haven’t
heard from her again, but hope she remains a reader and has begun to grasp how
her community became the way it is and how it should begin evolving.
The exchange
reminded me that I’m happy to live in the North Bay where most communities
remain geographically separate. I won’t
claim that the North Bay community leaders of the 1950s and 1960s were smarter
than those in the East Bay. I’ve seen
too many Marin County master plans with low-density subdivisions sprawling up
hillsides to make that argument.
But the
North Bay was spared some of the development pressure that was applied to the East
Bay in that era, so it was also spared the legacy of built environments that were
shaped by the ethos of the time.
(A couple of
years ago, I engaged in a spirited on-line debate with Sonoma civic proponents
over a point of land-use philosophy. One
of their arguments was that I had no right to express an opinion because I
lived in Petaluma where the eastside sprawls, a development feature that Sonoma
has largely avoided, and that I therefore had no credibility.
The argument
was an easily dismissed ad hominem attack, but I also argued that the only
reason Petaluma looks different than Sonoma is that Sonoma is further from the center
of the Bay Area and was therefore less impacted by the pressure for drivable
sprawl during the post-World War II era.
I doubted that there was much difference in the wisdom of the Sonoma and
Petaluma community leaders of the time.
The Sonoma
folks scoffed at my argument, but the loss of an educational moment was theirs.)
Combined with
the geographical separation of North Bay communities is a thought that Kent
Benfield of the Natural Resources Defense Council set forth in a 2013 article.
Using Gertrude
Stein’s quote about Oakland as his jumping off point, Benfield argues that communities
work better when they have points of enduring cultural reference. These cultural references can be historic
downtowns, stately churches, or beloved parks, but their continuing presence
from generation-to-generation provides community focal points and preferred inspirations
for new development.
Benfield suggests
that it was a loss of the cultural references from her youth about which Oakland
native Stein was complaining in her famous comment about there “being no there
there.”
Here in the
North Bay, we’ve retained and emphasized many focal points, from the main
street of Calistoga with hilly vista points on both ends to the plaza in downtown
Healdsburg to the Sonoma City Hall which may be my favorite sight in the North
Bay.
Combining
these retaining focal points with the physical separations between cities, many
North Bay communities have separate and unique identities. Novato is different from Petaluma which is different
from Cotati which is different from Rohnert Park in ways with which Richmond, San
Pablo, Albany, and El Cerrito can’t complete.
Nor can San Leandro, Hayward, San Lorenzo, and Castro Valley. Or San Jose, Santa Clara, Sunnyvale, and Campbell. Or Millbrae, Burlingame, and San Mateo.
We have
something remarkable in the North Bay that we should cherish. But it can be lost, much as it was lost in
the East Bay. Urbanism is the path to
protecting what we have, both the focal points and the separations. It’s up to us to embrace the solutions that urbanism
sets forth. If you agree, I hope your
keep following this space.
Next up will
be either the long-promised Fairgrounds update or an analysis of a proposed
regional transit strategy.
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