This is the third post in the critique of New Urbanism series, in it I will focus on how to best propel the movement in order for it to be widely accepted by the public.
1) Public Meetings
Public meetings, and lots of them. One of the major reasons the last full scale urban reconstruction effort failed was because the public was not allowed to give input on the projects. This should be changed. Input means more than a monthly planning commission meeting in which each proposal is devoted less than an hour of discussion. Input means holding town hall meetings with citizens, explaining how urban development effects their lives, explain the need for what is being proposed, and allow them to make informed suggestions and decisions.
2) Civil Discussion
This is perhaps the most important part of advocating anything, and one of the most ignored. Calling someone bigoted, stupid, or idiotic for disagreeing with a particular viewpoint does not make them more likely to reconsider their ideas or become more supportive of the one being presented. Countering hate with more hate only serves to level any moral or ideological high ground held by one side in a debate. Vitriolic discussion only serves to inflame one side of a debate and boost the ego of another, which is counter productive to whatever actions are being debated. It all comes down to one question: What's more important, solving a problem or making a statement?
3) Tangibility
Many members of the public consider some of the core concepts of urban development hard to understand. This is because most people have little to no experience with them and thus do not know how they operate. A core idea of urban development is to design a built environment that makes people as happy and as comfortable as possible. A good way to demonstrate this would be through workshops and walking tours of urban areas where things such as public/affordable/market rate housing, mixed use development, business improvement districts are visible and can be interacted with. Abstract concepts could be made concrete and emotional reactions could be gathered.
4) Competence
Elected officials seem to be losing their will to make hard decisions and to use foresight on public projects. Thus, many large infrastructure projects are over-studied and under-built, the justification being that perpetual study leads to cost savings, when it in fact does not.
A good example of this is the DC streetcar project. The original incarnation of the project was a light rail line running along reserved right of way in Anacostia. The right of way was bought from CSX and three cars acquired. Estimated opening was set for 2010. However, it was soon determined that the city already owned some of the right of way that was bought from CSX, so an alternative route was planned through city streets, the opening was still set for 2010.
After several years of route changes, the opening date was moved to 2012. To boot, then councilman Vincent Grey issued a proposal to cancel the entire plan, only to be swiftly shot down. In the meantime, the cars were delivered to the Greenbelt metro yard and placed in storage.
The DDOT has instead decided to construct a line down H street, construction of which started in 2009. This was being built parallel with the Anacostia line until 2010, when DDOT shut down construction of the Anacostia line, which has been incorporated into phase II of the master system.
Two extensions (east and west) are being planned for the H Street line, which even then would only be a minimum operational segment. The opening date has now been set for 2013.
This is not to say that the streetcar system should be shuttered entirely. In fact, a recent editorial in the Washington Post noted that most lines of the streetcar system would be built to a more appropriate timeline, and many others have noted that the streetcar system is about connecting neighborhoods, spawning economic development, and making neighborhoods more livable, whereas Metrorail is designed primarily for commuters.
No comments:
Post a Comment