Managing the Entropy of Neighborhoods

Orenco Gardens, near the Orenco Station
urbanist community in Oregon

StrongTowns recently highlighted a post from Chicago-area planner Pete Saunders.  I don’t know Saunders, but wish I did.  (If he was at CNU 24, I regret not meeting him.)  He makes many points with which I agree and finds ways to make those points in ways that were new and fresh to my ears.  But that doesn’t mean I can’t quibble with or elaborate upon a few details.

Saunders writes about the dynamics of neighborhoods, how they fit within their cities and regions, how they evolve over time, and how their residents can affect their trajectories.

Usually when I link an article or blog post, it’s with the hope, but limited expectation, that readers will follow the link.  I know what percentage of links I follow.  It isn’t particularly high.  We all have limited time.

But in this case, I really hope you’ll follow the link.  It’ll make my comments below more intelligible.  Also he makes at least one point that I’ve rarely read as cogently.

He notes that both metropolitan cores and suburban fringes aren’t monolithic, but are composed of many distinct communities, primarily at a neighborhood level.  The Bay Area isn’t a ring of homogeneous suburbs surrounding three homogeneous cores in San Francisco, Oakland, and San Jose, but is instead three clusters of relatively dense, but distinctive neighborhoods, surrounded by a constellation of relatively less dense but still distinctive neighborhoods.

Sometimes, in our desire to make our world more understandable, we simplify our way out of that complexity, but we lose ability to comprehend our world when we do so.

Saunders concludes his post with his ten “immutable laws of neighborhood and community dynamics”.  I’ve copied the ten below and responded to each, not so much to disagree with Saunders, but to provide my own coloring to his laws as a way of furthering the conversation.

Neighborhoods have life cycles -- they are born, they grow, they mature, they age, they die. – I think the point here is the definition of “die”.  To me, with the exception of some neighborhoods in Detroit where the circumstances were exceptional, neighborhoods don’t die.  Given a location with continuing value, the land will never fall fallow.  Instead, neighborhoods will regularly slide toward periods of being relatively moribund and then reincarnate.

Our goals, as urban planners and as citizens, is to provide the right set of rules, incentives, and stimuli such that the declines are relatively shallow, that the slumps don’t become vacuums sucking in lives and hope, and that the reincarnations can reuse much of the existing building stock.

Neighborhoods are built to serve economic classes -- poor, working class, middle class, upper middle class and wealthy. – Perhaps not always true in the misty past, but largely true beginning with the dawn of the 20th century and indisputably true beginning with the post World War II boom.

Neighborhoods are also built to serve the needs of a certain era. – A few years back, I found myself in an extended comment thread exchange with a couple of Sonoma residents over a matter of urban practice then on the Sonoma ballot.

(Actually, I thought they were a pair of Sonoma residents given their differing perspectives and their strong interest in the Sonoma ballot measure.  I later found that both were a single individual who liked to argue with himself.  And he lived in Riverside.  That’ll teach me to debate on the internet.)

Anyway, they (he?) told me that my perspective as a Petaluman wasn’t valid because Sonoma was a cooler place than Petaluma.  They pointed to several districts of Petaluma to illustrate their point.  And I had to admit that I found Sonoma a cool place.

But I argued with their dismissal of Petaluman opinions.  I noted that the only difference between the two cities was that Petaluma had been economically active and growing during the 70s and 80s, a period during which the concepts of land-use were something that current urban thinkers find unfortunate, and that Sonoma had been quiescent during that period.

So, yes, I concur that neighborhoods are built to serve the needs and/or planning concepts of a certain era and add that it’s not fair to judge the current thinking of current community members just because their community expanded during a past era when the planning concepts may have been less than ideal in current views.

Neighborhoods built prior to the middle of the 20th century were built to serve multiple (but usually not all) classes. – Great point and a key reason why many urbanists, a list that includes Jeff Speck, have stated that the pre-World War II subdivisions are more capable of becoming walkable places than more recent subdivisions.

Because older neighborhoods were built to serve multiple classes, they are more adaptable to reuse. – Again, very true and a reason that older neighborhoods can reincarnate with less stimulus and shorter, shallower periods of decline.

The shelf life of older neighborhoods is long; the shelf life of newer neighborhoods is short. – Yup.

Neighborhoods can change their trajectory by becoming attractive to a class different from what it was originally built for. – Not a point about which I’d previously thought, but several examples came quickly to mind.  I don’t think neighborhoods need to change their nature, but I concur that it can be valid tool of reincarnation.

Regional assets represented at a neighborhood scale can also impact a neighborhood's place on the spectrum. – Again, very true.  In Petaluma, one of the most significant examples is the soon-to-open downtown Petaluma SMART train station across from the comfortable but sleepy East D Street neighborhood.  I suspect the train will have significant impacts on the neighborhood, impacts for which little planning has yet been done.  I’m intrigued by the direction the neighborhood could go, but also fear for the neighborhood in the absence of a plan.

Wealth clusters within neighborhoods and spreads outward slowly.  Poverty taints a neighborhood and spreads outward quickly. -  Unfortunately true and the urban planner equivalent of “Bad news travels around the world in the time that it take good news to put on its shoes.”

Neighborhoods can mitigate conditions within them, but they are largely subject to broader social and economic trends at the regional or even national level, and are beyond their control. – Yup.  There is little that many Detroit neighborhoods could have done to change the path of their descent.

That was a good exercise.  Saunders offered insights on which I enjoyed building.  I trust he won’t mind me hitching my wagon to his star.  (I’ll advise him of this post.)

When I next write, it will be my updated calendar of opportunities for North Bay urbanists to become more publicly involved.  As an advance hint, if you missed Chuck Marohn during his January visit to Santa Rosa, you might wish to block out Saturday, July 9 on your calendar.

As always, your questions or comments will be appreciated.  Please comment below or email me.  And thanks for reading. - Dave Alden (davealden53@comcast.net)

The Reality of Reducing Neighborhood Speeds

Even if a neighborhood chooses to accept a lower speed limit, the realities of effecting that change can be daunting.

In earlier posts, I wrote that the joint use of public streets was reduced by the advent of the automobile and that some people are pushing back by proposing a maximum speed of 20 mph in all residential neighborhoods.  (Tying together my recent threads on streets and parks, I’ll note that park use would likely improve under a “Twenty is Plenty” policy.  Parents may be more willing to let children walk to a park if cars were well-behaved.)

Let’s assume for a moment that a neighborhood unites behind the “Twenty is Plenty” concept and wishes to reduce the speed limits on their streets.  How should they proceed to implement the change?  Most would probably assume that a petition to the city council would be the right first step.  They’d be wrong.

Cities have a surprisingly small role in setting speed limits.  Instead, rules written in Sacramento are used to set the speed limits, with only a small bit of local autonomy permitted.  And those rules mandate that the speed limits be established based on how fast we actually drive.

The process is simple and objective.  Vehicular speeds are collected by radar when speed limit signs aren’t present.  The speed limit is then set at the 85 percentile of measured speeds.

Most people are startled when they first learn this.  They’re shocked that speed limits are set by how fast we do drive, not how fast we should be driving.  But it’s indicative of how well the automobile lobby has played the public policy game.

To be fair, cities have a small bit of remaining authority.  A City Engineer can unilaterally reduce the speed limit if he believes that there are traffic hazards not visible to the driver.  But those reductions can be challenged in court by a driver who feels wronged, so City Engineers are cautious in their use.

Some may have spotted a possible loophole in the speed limit process.  They may be thinking, “What if we ask neighbors to drive slowly while the speed data is being collected?  The 85th percentile would be pushed downward and our neighborhood would be safer.”

The idea isn’t new.  I recently learned of a North Bay city that tried the trick.  City employees were recruited to slowly cruise through the speed check area.  At first, the plan worked.  A lower speed limit was established and the police began enforcing it rigorously, with speeding tickets being written.

But as happens with most conspiracies, someone blabbed.  The tale got back to the traffic court judge who was heartily displeased.  The collected traffic fines were returned, the speed limit was raised, and a round of hand slaps was administered.  

If we assume that Sacramento isn’t about to change how speed limits are set, what other options do we have?  We can build streets such that the comfort zone of driver is affected, with resulting lower speeds.

In recent years, we’ve already begun seeing some of these driver comfort zone modifications, which are collectively known as traffic calming strategies. 

Calming strategies are often categorized as horizontal or vertical.  Horizontal modifications can include street markings, such as center stripes or the City Repair intersection painting concepts that were discussed last fall.  Other concepts include narrower streets and center medians.  Even roundabouts can temper traffic speeds, unlike stop signs which sometimes result in dashes between intersections.

Vertical modifications can include speed bumps, speed humps, which are wider than speed bumps and allow higher speeds, and speed tables, which are wider yet and usually include crosswalks or other pedestrian accommodations.  The new East Washington Plaza in Petaluma makes extensive use of speed tables.

But there are two problems with traffic calming strategies.  First, they’re costly.  When cities don’t have the funds to fix potholes, street modifications to reduce speeds are likely out of fiscal reach.   Second, public safety agencies, fire, police, and ambulance, often push back.

This isn’t to criticize public safety agencies, but for too long they held too much influence over street geometry.  Streets were built with widths and turning radii such that emergency vehicles could respond as quickly as possible, the street geometry encouraged higher driving speeds thereby pushing up speed limits, and parents began keeping their children inside because of concerns over pedestrian safety.  In one of great ironies of urbanism and vocabulary, public safety became the enemy of public health.

In recent years, public safety agencies have been forced to negotiate emergency access versus pedestrian safety, although not always happily.  Within the past few days, a San Francisco Supervisor and the San Francisco Fire Chief had a public contretemps over street widths in new development.

The balancing act between public safety and public health will hopefully continue.  It’s another reminder of Jeff Speck’s observation that cities should be designed by generalists who can find reasonable balances between alternative goods, rather than by specialists who push only their own agenda.

Even if reducing traffic speeds in residential neighborhoods is a good idea, and I think it is, the path to making those changes won’t be easy.

As always, your questions or comments will be appreciated.  Please comment below or email me.  And thanks for reading. - Dave Alden (davealden53@comcast.net)

More Travel Destinations and Petaluma Also Makes a List

A couple of months ago, I wrote about a list from Planetizen of the best public places in the U.S. and Canada.  I suggested that the list would make a fine set of destinations for an active retirement fueled by wanderlust.

My retirement planning has now become more challenging, but also potentially more fulfilling.  The American Planning Association (APA) has released three lists.  One for the best public spaces in the U.S.  Another for the best streets.  And a third for the best neighborhoods.

And there’s not a single public space, street, or neighborhood on the lists that I don’t hope to visit someday.  Just to buy a deli sandwich and to hang out on a park bench, enjoying the ambiance.  I’m easy to please.

Coincidently, I was on one of the streets just a week ago, Broad Street in Charleston, South Carolina.  Although it was without a deli sandwich, I did find a few moments to sit on a bench and watch the world.  It was a fine experience about which I’ll soon share more.

Unfortunately, the North Bay isn’t represented on any of the APA lists.  However, downtown Petaluma does appear on another list, as a final contender for the Southwest spot on the list of “Prettiest Painted Places in America”.  (A hat tip to Petaluma City Councilmember Mike Harris for tweeting about the list.)

It’s an odd list, lacking the cachet or panache of the APA list.  It’s hard for the Paint Quality Institute to compete with the American Planning Association.  One obvious quirk is the inclusion of Cape Cod.  I spent two days on Cape Cod this summer, driving the entire length from the ship canal to Provincetown, and loved it.  But never once did I remark about the great use of paint.

It’s also curious to see a subdivision, Northwest Crossing in Oregon, on a list that is mostly cities.  However, I had a small but peculiarly pivotal role in the start of Northwest Crossing, so will let the anomaly pass.  (The beginning of Northwest Crossing is a story for another time.)

Despite my quibbles about the Prettiest Painted Places list, it’s good to see Petaluma get noticed.  There are downtown buildings and residential neighborhoods for which the use of paint is truly praiseworthy.

Now, the challenge is to get the North Bay onto the APA lists in future years.  I think Petaluma Boulevard in downtown Petaluma is close to being worthy of inclusion as a great street.  Perhaps all that’s needed is an architecturally distinguished hotel at B Street to close the deal.  And I remain a big fan of Sonoma Plaza.  There are few places where I’ve enjoyed an open air sandwich more.

It can be one of our goals for the next decade.  To truly complete our already great North Bay downtowns and to let the world know about it.

As always, your questions or comments will be appreciated.  Please comment below or email me.  And thanks for reading. - Dave Alden (davealden53@comcast.net)