In my last
two posts, I’ve written about a property swap being considered by SMART, the
regional rail authority for the North Bay.
Initial planning for the coming SMART train had assumed a second Petaluma
train station at corner of McDowell Boulevard and Corona Road. But SMART didn’t own the site and hasn’t
secured it, leaving a question about where the station would go.
As a result,
SMART is now considering a trade with a North Bay development company. SMART would acquire an alternative site for
the second station along Old Redwood Highway northeast of McDowell. In exchange, SMART would grant development
rights for the SMART land adjoining the downtown Petaluma station.
In the first
post, I provided a more detailed introduction to the possible swap. In the second, I wrote about the land-use restrictions that would limit the possibilities,
including transit oriented development, around the alternative station site. Today, I’ll weigh the pros and cons of the possible
trade and then philosophize globally about the issues highlighted by the
situation.
From an
urbanist perspective, the primary arguments for the swap are the earlier
development of a second Petaluma station and the momentum that the swap would give
to possible transit oriented development at the downtown Petaluma station.
Also looking
from the urbanist perspective, the primary argument against the swap is the restrictions
that would limit or prohibit transit oriented development around the second station
without changes to the urban growth boundary, the community separator (depicted in the photo), or both.
(Although
not an urbanist perspective, many Petalumans also have a concern about the
traffic issues of putting the second station at the far north end of town.)
At first view,
the pros and cons may seem roughly balanced.
They certainly seemed so to me when I first learned of the possible
deal.
But on further
consideration, my focus improved. I
think transit oriented development around all SMART stations, including the
second Petaluma station, should be an essential element of regional
growth. As a region, state, and nation, we’ve
done too much to encourage sprawl not to encourage walkable development, such
as well-designed transit oriented development, wherever we can.
But doing
transit oriented development at the second station would require adjusting the
urban growth and/or community separator.
Indeed, I would advocate for adjusting one or both if needed to
facilitate transit oriented development at that station. But I don’t want to advocate for those adjustments. I would find them antithetical to good
urbanism. Therefore, my only possible position
is to oppose the swap.
I still thank
those who have pushed to bring the possibility to our attention. But ultimately, the costs are too high.
Instead, I
encourage SMART to expeditiously proceed with a process to identify the best
developer for transit oriented development next to the downtown station and to simultaneously
continue a search for a second station site that better meets the long-term
needs of the community.
I know that time
and resources are tight around the SMART office, but this stuff is
important. If we can’t facilitate the type
of places where people would live who be likely to ride the SMART train, then
the train may be an engineering success, but a financial and social failure,
which isn’t what any of us want.
Having
reached that conclusion, let me pull back and take a larger view. In the preceding posts, I’ve written about
concepts such as urban growth boundaries, community separators, and transects
as they pertained to the possible second train station. They were helpful lenses through which to
view the immediate issue.
But thinking
about those concepts also led to bigger conclusions that crystallized around a
couple of recent interactions.
An architect
acquaintance, after chatting with the regional coordinator for a rural space
preservation organization, emailed me with a question. He was intrigued by the idea of development supported agriculture, one manifestation
of which could be clusters of homes surrounded by working farms, perhaps with the
residents helping to work the farm and definitively with the value of the homes
integrating with the farm to make the land immune from further development.
The
architect liked the concept, but asked me how, when the urban growth boundary
leapfrogs past the farm and homes, the developments don’t just become low-density
pockets inimical to good urbanism.
Also, someone at CNU 23, the most recent
annual meeting of the Congress for the New Urbanism, made the point that it’s ridiculous
to have urban growth boundaries that we define as the ultimate limits of our
communities and then to consider changes in the boundaries every twenty years.
The only
conclusion to my mind is that urban growth boundaries need to be far less movable
that we’ve considered them in the past. Perhaps
they need to have a target life of fifty years or more, except in extreme
circumstances.
The urbanist
concept of transects, as a logical progression from natural and rural settings
up through low-density residential developments and all the way to urban cores,
supports the argument for stable urban growth boundaries. It becomes nonsensical to have a low-density
residential development at the urban fringe only to move the urban growth boundary
and allow a shopping center on the far side.
Some,
engrained in the American pattern of continual growth constantly reclaiming the
wilderness, will rebel at the concept.
But growth needn’t always be horizontal.
Vertical growth, such as changing the transect of an area from T5 Urban
Center to T6 Urban Core, can allow significant population bumps without expanding
the urban growth area.
And having
urban growth boundaries that rarely move, if paired with strictures on the
entity with planning authority outside of the urban growth boundaries, could
reduce the need for community separators.
Instead, all of the land outside of an urban growth boundary would
effectively become the urban separator.
Some with a
sense of history may point out an apparent logical flaw in the suggestion of
fixed urban growth boundaries. What if the
founders of San Francisco had set a permanent urban growth boundary for their
city in 1850? Seeing that the future of
the community as a supply center for the miners extracting gold from the
Sierra, the founders might have set their boundary a dozen blocks above the
bay, leaving the remainder of the peninsula tip as a permanent rocky and sandy
native area and denying us the eventual delights of Golden Gate Park, the Sunset
District, and Ocean Beach.
How can we
logically constrain ourselves on urban growth boundaries today while also
enjoying the urban places that resulted from not having those constraints in
the 18th and 19th centuries?
I think I
can answer that question, but will defer the answer to the next and final part
of this series.
As always,
your questions or comments will be appreciated.
Please comment below or email me.
And thanks for reading. - Dave Alden (davealden53@comcast.net)
Dave, your concluding question calls to mind Albert Einstein, whose mouth I shall now proceed to put what I think to be consistent words into: We can constrain our urban growth boundaries, the 18th and 19th centuries notwithstanding, by recognizing we shall not maintain a livable community and planet in the 21st century by using the same thinking that got us climate disruption and ecological destruction we shall be continuing to repair in the 22nd.
ReplyDeleteBarry, I agree with you, with the clarification that the 18th and 19th century urban growth, although imperfect on some social levels, was probably close to environmentally sustainable. It was the car that brought disruption, some good and some bad, very bad.
DeleteLet me add that I will do what I can to support efforts to encourage the SMART board to select a second Petaluma station site that supports urbanism.
ReplyDeleteBarry, I think there is a growing consensus to advocate for the same solution you note. But a consensus to advocate can sometimes be different from actually making voices heard. Public participation may be required later in the year.
Delete