Vision versus Execution

The Petaluma River from downtown Petaluma

Among many other things, Thomas Edison is famous for having said that genius is one percent inspiration and 99 percent perspiration.

His formulation is fine.  My only comment is that if he had replaced “genius” with “success in most walks of life”, he would have been equally accurate and even more insightful.

And I include land use, walkable urban and otherwise, within those walks of life.

I mention this because vision, the land-use equivalent of inspiration, was mentioned frequently in the comments regarding the recent video on pending development projects in Petaluma.

(For those who missed the flurry of activity around the video, I won’t recap the story here.  However, I’ve written about it four times previously.  I’ve touched on my concerns that similar information dumps have triggered flawed policies, that effective public input is always difficult, that one can fill a week with effective public involvement, and that forums for education and cooperation are essential.)

In the comments on the video, many called for stronger visioning for Petaluma land-use as the path to better future.  It was an ironic suggestion.  Visioning has rarely been a problem in Petaluma.  Instead, Petaluma has a history of being well ahead of the curve in its visions.

In the early 1970s, Petaluma, along with the State of Oregon, pioneered urban growth boundaries.  Think of that.  Of all the cities in the country, Petaluma was the first to argue for confined growth, a city planning tool that is now taken for granted.

In the early 2000s, Petaluma was the first city in the country to adopt the SmartCode, a cutting edge approach at a form-based development code.  Form-based codes direct development by the shapes of new buildings rather that transient uses of the buildings.  Today, cities across the country are adopting form-based codes, but it was Petaluma that got there first.

And we can look deeper into the history of Petaluma to find visions such as the Petaluma River Access and Enhancement Plan and the Petaluma Station Area Master Plan.

Petaluma has been remarkably visionary, including twice when it led the nation.  It’s a strong visioning history.

On the other hand, execution, the land-use equivalent of Edison’s perspiration, hasn’t been nearly as good.

After getting the first urban growth boundary approved, Petaluma didn’t move onto the next obvious step of denser development, instead filling up the new boundary with conventional single-family homes with little walkability.  It was if our forebears stepped boldly into the future and, surprised to find themselves there, stumbled about aimlessly for the next three decades.

The story with the SmartCode was different, but similarly unfortunate.  In its final adoption, a critical section was somehow omitted, to the dismay of many who had committed long hours fighting for its adoption.  Without the section, development under the code was severely constrained, with few projects moving forward.  But it took ten years before the politics lined up to fix the omission.

It'd be imprecise to assign numbers, but I’ll try anyway.  In visioning, Petaluma may well be at the 95th percentile among U.S. cities, with much credit given to the two bold actions they took ahead of the rest of the country.

In execution, Petaluma doesn’t seem to be climb above the 40th percentile, with a consistent failure to follow up on its visions.

So, dissatisfied with the state of the Petaluma land-use planning, what do some commenters call for?  More visioning.  If Thomas Edison was still with us, he’d be shaking his head in disbelief.

I understand the love for visions, I really do.  Visioning is fun.  Offering bold, provocative ideas can be an adrenaline rush.  (I know because this blog often offers visions.)   But execution, the honing off of the rough edges, the conversion of a vision into a realistic plan, and the years of defending the plan from those who would undermine it, is the hard work, the essential work, the 99 percent work.

I think back to the Petaluma Urban Chat work on the potential re-use of the Sonoma-Marin Fairgrounds.  The initial meetings, the big picture meetings, attracted large, enthusiastic crowds excitedly sorting through possibilities such as parks and performing arts centers.

But the crowds dwindled when the talk turned to topics such as how to accommodate the existing community pool and library, how to align a street grid to allow a strong transit connection to the train station, whether to accommodate the existing speedway, and how to assemble a project that made financial sense for all parties.

It was disappointing to watch as people who had vigorously espoused big picture concepts were reduced to puzzled indecision when a pencil was placed in their hands.  And that was long before the myriad of public meetings and workshops that would someday be required to bring the fairgrounds re-use to fruition.

I’m not making jest of the folks who struggled with the transition from vision to execution.  I know it’s hard to move from grand hand-waving to the minutiae of compatible adjacencies and market absorption rates.  I struggle with the transition myself.  Visions are just so much fun.  But it’s a transition that must be made.  And it’s the transition that moved Edison from being someone of great imagination to someone who changed the world.

I’ve written before about Petaluma Urban Chat and have now created a page especially for Urban Chat.  I know, Thomas Edition notwithstanding, that Urban Chat will never have a ratio of 99 parts execution to 1 part vision.  The vision thing is just too much fun to be reduced to that level.  But my hope is to get more attention to execution in Urban Chat, whether through advocacy or public participation.  If you’re in Petaluma, I hope you join in.  If you’re not in Petaluma, perhaps you can create or support your own version of an Urban Chat.

When I next write, it will be about tactical urbanism, which might be an urbanist home for those unwilling to sit through interminable committee meetings toward the execution of big ideas.  Execution is still essential to tactical urbanism, but the rewards are quicker.  I have a favorite anecdote to share.

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

Identifying and Building Urbanist Visions

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)

Balancing Vision with Incremental Steps

A couple of posts ago, I wrote about two alternative paths to strategize the transition from suburbia to urbanism.  The dichotomy I suggested was a grand vision versus incremental steps, between motivating the public with the big vision of where urbanism will eventually lead and motivating them with the next incremental step on the path toward the long-term goal.

Although I acknowledged the appeal of a big vision, I feared the disillusionment of proponents when the vision seems always to recede toward the horizon.  Therefore, I described myself as an incrementalist.  That doesn’t mean that I abjure the grand vision, indeed this blog regularly touches upon grand visions, but means that I believe progress is made more effectively when we focus on the next step, not the destination.

As often happens, I had barely published the post when a quote arrived in my email that caused me to further ponder the question.

“If you don't like the way the world is, you change it.  You have an obligation to change it.  You just do it one step at a time." - Marian Wright Edelman

Edelman’s words provide a fine counterpoint to a quote of which all urban planners are aware. 

“Make no little plans.  They have no magic to stir men's blood and probably will not themselves be realized.” - Daniel Burnham

Who of the two is correct?  Both of them are.  But to my way of thinking Edelman’s truth is the more effective truth.

It’s informative to compare the careers of the two.

Burnham is likely the more familiar name.  He designed one of the first steel frame buildings, The Rookery (pictured above), one of the first skyscrapers, the Monadnock Building, and the 1893 Columbian Exposition, which changed the course of architecture and urban design, and is often considered the standard against which all future world fairs should be measured.  (In an example of how urban planning can change lives, cases can also be made that the Columbian Exposition led to “The Wizard of Oz” and Disneyland.)

After the Columbian Exposition, Burnham turned with enthusiasm toward urban planning, triggering the City Beautiful campaign, an international movement toward improving the aesthetics of cities.  The goal of City Beautiful was to enhance municipal function and to cultivate civic virtue.  It was about the City Beautiful ideal that Burnham offered his thoughts about “no little plans”.

The problem is that, while the City Beautiful movement had successes such as the National Mall in Washington, D.C, the vast extent of most of the City Beautiful visions made their execution impossible.  In a typical story, Burnham had delivered a City Beautiful plan to the City of San Francisco when the 1906 earthquake struck.  Despite having an unexpectedly blank slate on which to work, the City focused on rebuilding rather than vision and Burnham’s plan remained on the shelf.

By the time of Burnham’s death in 1912, the City Beautiful movement was already fading.

In comparison, Edelman, an American activist for disadvantaged and disabled children, particularly those who are minorities, remained focused on incremental improvement.   As the founder of the Children’s Defense Fund, she had a vision, but her daily life was about making the incremental steps needed to make children’s lives better.  Nearing her 80th birthday, she continues to be productive.

When running a race, or trying to reach a base safely in baseball, there is a temptation to take an extra long leap for the final stride.  Despite studies conclusively showing that the better strategy is to maintain stride through the tape, the intuition to leap is hard to overcome.   Burnham leaped for the tape, while Edelman has maintained stride.

Both Burnham and Edelman lived exemplary lives.  We could use more of each.  But as urbanists, I think we do better to emulate Edelman, never forgetting the ultimate goal, but focused on maintaining stride.

Although not immediately, I’ll soon look at a couple of Petaluma situations from the incremental step versus grand vision perspective.

Meanwhile, my next post will touch upon my old grievance about “infrastructure investment”.

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

From Incremental Steps to Grand Visions

The Petaluma Urban Chat meeting last week was nicely successful.  Thanks go to City Council candidate Dave King for responding to occasionally hard-edged questions with good humor and cogent responses.  Perhaps not everyone agreed with his perspectives, but he presented his thinking well.

To attend a prior obligation, King departed before the end of the Urban Chat meeting.  In the general conversation after his departure, there was a spirited discussion about the long-term vision for urbanism and the incremental steps that are often taken toward that solution.

Some found that incremental steps, local examples of which were freely tossed about but needn’t be re-enumerated here, were so inadequate as to represent little real progress.

Others felt that incremental steps were a necessary evil while markets and regulatory standards adjust to a more walkable urban future.  Those folks felt that supporting urbanism required accepting incrementalism as a necessary phase, while also trying to make the incremental steps as bold as possible.

I’m securely in the latter camp.  As many advantages as I see in a more walkable urban future and as urgently as I think we need to reach that future, I recognize that we can’t jump from today to that future.  The disruption would be significant and, more importantly, too many of our friends and neighbors don’t yet comprehend the need for the change.

And so, as urbanists, we must try to make the world a little more urban all the time and to encourage developments that can transition as we move toward urbanism.  I remain a big fan of surface parking lots that can be built upon as parking demands ease and of sidewalk cafes that can serve as personal homes until sidewalk traffic increases sufficiently to support the café.

But even a belief in incremental steps leads to the next question.  How do we increase the rate of change so we can reach an urbanist future sooner, limiting the climate change impacts and municipal finance distress of our current drivable suburban paradigm?

I’ll try to answer that question in three parts, market, financial, and regulatory.

 For the market, availing ourselves of new urban living opportunities and asking our friends to considering doing the same is the best step.  Few things incentivize the next urban project as much as the financial success of the last one.

However, it’s likely that little effort is needed as the market is already leading the charge toward urbanism, with polls showing up to half the population is eager for opportunities to live in more walkable settings.  (I recently chatted with a North Bay politician who took pride in the fact that his community was building up to 20 percent of its new housing in walkable places.  I suggested that, in a world where half of all people want to live in a more walkable world, his 20 percent number shouldn’t be a source of pride.  Yeah, being an urbanist can sometimes mean bursting balloons.)

On the financial side, continued hesitancy by lenders toward urbanist projects is a lingering concern, but market successes and time will be the remedy.  Unfortunately, urbanists can’t attend lending committee meeting for banks to push the change along, so our efforts must go elsewhere.

This leaves the regulatory side, where outdated zoning codes and obsolete ideas about where to spend public moneys continue to repress urbanism.  Luckily, the public arena is also a place where urbanists can make their voices heard.  I fantasize about 300 urbanists filling the chamber for a city council hearing on an issue bearing on urbanism.  (I love Urban Chat, but a dozen folks in a café discoursing on urbanism doesn’t move the needle at city hall.)

And that gets us to the crux of the matter.  How to rally more folks to the urbanist banner?  There are plenty of folks who are sympathetic to the goals of urbanism, but the daily demands of life, securing a paycheck, raising children, planning for retirement, etc., interfere with active commitment.  How do we convince folks to dedicate a chunk of their limited free time to support the cause?

Unfortunately, I think the only solution to that question is persistent effort.  It’s finding opportunities to chat with friends and neighbors about the issues and slowly motivating them to put forth time and effort.  It’s not an easy task nor will it be readily accomplished.  But it’s essential.

Before closing, I’ll share a recent story that illustrates the difficulty of collecting supporters for urbanism. 

I’ve worked diligently to build the readership of this blog.  Perhaps my prose isn’t perfect, but I’ve maintained a regular publishing schedule for nearly three years.  And others tell me that I occasionally find words that make a post halfway memorable.

As a result, I’ve built a sustained readership of perhaps 5,000 site visits per month.  Not every site where I publish provides numeric feedback, so the number is a little fuzzy, but I’m comfortable with its accuracy.  And if it’s wrong, the actual number is likely a bit higher.

I’m proud of the readership.  I continue to work for more, but I’m still proud of the number.

But I recently had a glimpse of the other side.  After a football game won by my alma mater, the opposing coach made an odd and peevish comment after the game, blaming bloggers for conspiring to hide an new offensive strategy that my college deployed.

The comment struck a discordant note with me.  But I wasn’t sure if my response was valid, so I began a chat room thread asking for the thoughts of others.  Within 24 hours, over 3,000 people had viewed the thread and more than 30 had commented on it.

There’s difference between reading a thousand-word blog post and checking a three-sentence chat room thread.  But still, that was as many readers in one day on a quirky point about college football as in two weeks on a subject that is pertinent to the financial and environmental viability of our communities.

It was indicative of the mountain that urbanists still must climb, whether our goal is the ultimate vision or bolder incremental steps.

Next time, I’ll write further about Petaluma Urban Chat.  After several months of talking about the Sonoma Marin Fairgrounds, we broke away this month to talk about Measure Q with Dave King.  The consensus for next month is to return to the fairgrounds topic.  But I have some thoughts about how to make the conversation most effective and to build our participation toward that 300 people.  I’ll offer those thoughts in my next post.

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