Stories from CNU23: Zoning, Complexity, and Encouragement to Risk Mistakes

In my last post, I began recounting moments of insight from the recent 23rd annual meeting of the Congress for the New Urbanism.  Today, I’ll continue along that path.  Eventually, I’ll begin digging more deeply into the some of the topics covered during CNU 23, but for now, reporting the flashes of illumination, along with elucidation and comment as required, is my only goal.

Zoning Interrupted: In a long ago post, I dubiously reported a theory by urbanist flamethrower James Howard Kunstler that the unfortunate American architecture of the 1950s and 1960s was the result of Germany being a World War II enemy.  In Kunstler’s hypothesis, Hitler loved classical architecture, the U.S. hated Hitler, and the U.S. therefore rejected classical architecture.

I don’t claim to be an architectural historian, but suspect that Le Corbusier had a far greater role in creating the post World War II architectural aesthetic than did a rejection of everything Hitler.  I enjoy the barrages put down by Kunstler, but find that some of his more outlandish conjectures must be taken with a stiff dose of skepticism.

However, Professor Emily Talen, addressing a gathering of first-time CNU attendees (I observed from the back of the room), suggested a German war story that seemed far more credible.  She noted that it was in Germany where the concept of zoning was first invented during the 1870s.  By the 1910s when the U.S. was just beginning to dabble in zoning, the Germans had developed elaborate and effective theories about zoning.

But World War I resulted in a rupture from all ideas German, leading the U.S. to wander in the wilderness, including the failed experiment with sprawl, before gradually returning to some of the German concepts.

Permission Not Required:  Andres Duany takes pride in the great number of books that have been written by members of the CNU.  He also notes that much of the output is because of a lack of shackles, with prospective writers permitted to explore different ways of thinking about and presenting urbanism.  In his words, “Unlike the Catholic Church, being an urbanist and writing about urbanism doesn’t require official approval.”

Complexity: Both Talen and Duany made connections between CNU and CIAM, the Congrès internationaux d'architecture moderne or International Congresses of Modern Architecture.  CIAM was a leading player in the turn toward modern architecture.  Founded in 1928 (further undermining Kunstler’s theory about Hitler and modern architecture), CIAM was ineffective by the 1950s and folded in 1959.

Talen noted that, prior to CNU, CIAM had been the last organization to change the land-use world, so the founders of CNU had looked to CIAM for organizational ideas.

Duany did more to contrast the two organizations, noting that CIAM had focused on simplifying and streamlining the process of architecture, whereas CNU has embraced the ever evolving complexity of urbanism.   (This ties back to Duany’s comment about the CNU membership being fairly stable despite the continuing influx of new blood because current members tire of the complexity and migrate to organizations focusing on only one or two aspects of urbanism.)

Willingness to be Wrong: Consistent with nature of complex systems, Duany further noted that being a good urbanist means being willing to be wrong, including the possibility of making a fool of one’s self.  And he encouraged embracing the freedom to be wrong, as long as it’s done with a sense of humor.  In his words, “Unless the revolution is fun, no one comes to the second meeting.”

If the thought of being wrong is disconcerting, remember that absolute certainty about land-use solutions is what led to sprawl.  Working in incremental steps, including occasional missteps, is the only path to good solutions.  Indeed, it’s correctly called the scientific method.

Before closing, a note about Dallas.  The sculpture in the photo is present in several downtown parks.  The apparent intention is for tourists to stand in the middle, posing for photos as the “I” in “BIG”, representing the Dallas approach to life.  During my five days in town, I saw exactly one photo taken of the sculpture.  The role of the “I” was played by a young lady who was trying and failing to get into a handstand.  As a marketing gimmick, it was clever, but hadn’t taken hold.

My hope for the next post is to announce a step forward in the effort by Petaluma Urban Chat to prepare a redevelopment plan for a portion of the current Sonoma Marin Fairgrounds.  However, the timing is in the hands of another party.  I’ll make the announcement if I can.  Otherwise, I’ll continue with stories from CNU 23.

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

Google Buses: More Voices Offer More Opinions

I’ve previously written that the Google bus controversy, far from proving that urbanism is a flawed strategy, is instead an indictment of our tardiness in embracing urbanism.  I’ve also begun sampling some of the other voices that are commenting on the issue.  The further voices may not always agree with my thinking, but most put forth ideas that are complementary.

Today, I’ll dig more deeply into the other voices.

Writing in Slate, Matthew Yglesias argues that a land tax, in place of a property tax, wouldn’t help advance urbanism in San Francisco.  He’s responding to a Quartz article by Noah Smith.   I referenced the Smith article in my previous post.

Yglesias argues that zoning, not tax incentives, is the constraint on San Francisco urbanism.

I agree with some of what Yglesias suggests, but differ in the details.  For one, he conflates zoning and entitlement processes.  But the two are very different.

I’m sure the following explanation is unnecessary for 95 percent of the readers, but please allow me to bring the other five percent up to speed.  Zoning sets the general rules for land use, usually including the maximum project size that can be constructed without a variance.  Entitlement is the process by which the zoning rules are applied to a particular site.  During entitlement, the project size is often whittled down over concerns such as traffic capacity or building mass.  (The California Environmental Quality Act, or CEQA, is a key element of the entitlement process.)

In theory, using entitlement process to fine-tune zoning rules to a specific site seems reasonable.  And it often results in appropriate compromises.  But activist neighbors can also use the process as a cover for selfish ends.  Arguing that the building mass is out of scale for the neighborhood can be code for wanting to preserve a personal view.  Contending that traffic impacts are excessive can be code for wanting to preserve street parking for guests.

Through use and abuse of the entitlement process, a site that was zoned for fifteen units might be reduced to six units or even result in the developer giving up.  And for every unit that isn’t built, housing costs go up because of lack of supply and more households must find alternative accommodations, often in drivable suburban locations.

While I agree with Yglesias that zoning can sometimes be improved, it’s the entitlement process that’s the true weak link.

Also, Yglesias takes an either/or approach to zoning versus taxation system incentives.  To me, the best solutions require multiple adjustments.  For urban housing, I suggest that adjustments are required to the entitlement process, tax incentives, and zoning, in that order of decreasing importance.

In my first post on the Google bus issue, I wrote that the Google buses aren’t the true issue underlying the protests in San Francisco and Oakland.  Instead, it’s the concern among existing residents that the push for residential development represented by the Google buses will result in increased residential costs, forcing current residents to relocate.  To put a term to this concern, it’s gentrification.

Thus, it’s coincidental that several studies have recently come forth suggesting that gentrification isn’t nearly as detrimental as feared.  Per the studies, it’s true that the elderly and disabled can be displaced if that impact isn’t mitigated, but the studies are finding that relocations among other residents are actually reduced.  Furthermore, the financial health of the existing residents generally improves, presumably buoyed by the increased job opportunities in a gentrifying neighborhood.

The increased employment opportunities were intuitive, but the reduced displacement certainly wasn’t.  Nor will the debate be modified by a handful of studies.  But if the bogeyman of gentrification can be reduced, it’ll be a good thing for urbanism.

Lastly, Atlantic Cities suggests that the agreement reached between San Francisco and the Google buses for the use of public bus stops may set the value of public curb space, which could have implications for other urban activities such as parking and merchandise deliveries.

It’s an interesting suggestion.  However, the author undermines his own argument by noting that California law prevents charging the fair value of the curb space and instead limits the fee to the cost of implementing the program.

As urbanism proceeds, it’s likely that we’ll need to place a value on curb space, but the Google bus agreement won’t provide that benchmark.

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

Germantown and a Possible Flood of Dollars

I had a spare afternoon in Nashville two years ago.  As is my preference when I have free time in an unfamiliar city, I looked around for urbanism.  I stumbled into the Germantown neighborhood, a comfortable enclave of older brick homes.  There was also a scattering of newer wood-sided homes that blended well with the older homes.  And there were a few modest commercial storefronts.

Germantown was a short distance north of downtown, barely more than a mile from B.B. King’s nightclub.  The average Walk Score for the neighborhood was 68, which implies that many daily chores can be accomplished on foot.

Overall, it was pleasant middle-class urban neighborhood, of which we need more.

But there were warning signs.  At the end of the neighborhood closest to downtown, a multi-story mixed-use building, residential above and retail below, was under construction.  And there were vacant lots within the neighborhood that had mixed-use zoning and were for sale.

Overall, it looked like a neighborhood that was at risk of gentrification, with the existing businesses pushed to become more upscale and the current residents becoming marginalized in the neighborhood that was their home.

I’m pleased when an urban neighborhoods show economic improvement, but improvements that occur too quickly can risk the fabric that made the neighborhoods desirable in the first place.

 

Since my visit, I had often wondered what was happening in Germantown.  At CNU 21, while awaiting a session on form-based codes, I found myself sitting in front of Rick Bernhardt, the Planning Director for Metropolitan Nashville.  I introduced myself and asked about Germantown.

Bernhardt reported what I had expected.  The gentrification of Germantown was well underway.  The neighborhood was changing.  The existing restaurants had begun going more trendy and upscale.  But the risk that most concerned Bernhardt was the pressure on the small industries that still existed in Germantown.

As he described it, Germantown had a certain “grittiness” that needed to be preserved.  And that grittiness required industry to retain a foothold in Germantown.

Fifty years ago, Jane Jacobs warned about “cataclysmic flow of capital”, the rapid influx of money that can overwhelm good places.  It’s a conundrum for urbanism.  How to make better use of existing urban neighborhoods without burying them in money and newcomers.

A theme that was heard during CNU 21 was libertarianism.  That building good places doesn’t require extensive planning as much as it requires common sense and a hands-off approach.

I‘m dubious about the concept.  Even setting aside the concern that we don’t yet have enough common sense in a land-use decision-making, I fear that a hands-off approach would open the door to Jacobs’ “cataclysmic flow”.

It’s hard to restrain capital.  Once a tipping point is reached on urbanism, or any land-use concept, money tends to flow toward it with unrestrained velocity.  Having CNU 22 in Buffalo, near Niagara Falls, may be unintentionally apt.

Nor is zoning, whether use-based or form-based, an effective response.  Zoning is about what, not about how quickly.

I don’t have good solutions to offer.  But it’s a challenge that we should face so that neighborhoods like Germantown can be simultaneously better utilized and preserved.

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