Last week, the Sacramento Bee took the city council to task for turning down a “more ambitious proposal with greater potential to transform downtown” in favor of a more modest proposal that promised its own notable change but required less public subsidy. The accepted proposal is projected to create 250 housing units and associated retail, while the rejected proposal centered around a live music venue and a farmer’s market. The Bee concludes that as a result of this choice, “what developers may take away is that the council does not share a vision for downtown, and is unwilling to think big. That is an unfortunate message.”
There’s a problem here. “Vision” and “think big” have a history of being damaging words. Those two ideas gave us the urban renewal of the 1950s and 60s, the demolish-downtown-and-build-a-mall-projects of the 1980s, and a number of the other urban planning debacles that have given “planning” a bad name in many communities. Big plans may have the power to move men’s souls, but they can also make bad assumptions, create massive unintended consequences, disrupt lives and livelihoods and often fail to generate the transformative benefits they promised. We have been down this path in this country so many times… why do we keep returning to the idea that there is some kind of one-shot solution out there that will magically solve our problems?
There’s a couple of interesting details in the Sacramento K Street story: first, the area to be “transformed” is a downtown pedestrian mall — one of those big-plans responses to the challenge of the suburban mall that did more damage than good — “If we just remove the cars, our downtown will be just like the mall, and all the people will come back.” Yep, that worked well. Second, the more “modest” proposal was one that was chosen by a broad city selection committee made up of “experts, the Downtown Sacramento Partnership, labor unions and historic preservationists.” Hm.
Truly effective downtown revitalization, like any kind of economic development, isn’t accomplished with a one-shot magic bullet. It never has been. Economic revitalization happens when a series of consistent efforts, big and small, create an interesting, attractive, human-scaled place filled with human energy and activity. Downtowns already have the raw materials for that – people-scaled buildings, public spaces that are truly public, spaces where businesses and services of all types can get started, be successful and reinforce each other.
If we want to have healthy downtowns, we will be most effective when we focus our efforts on removing the barriers to letting downtowns be successful. We don’t need to over-engineer it; we need to find what’s working and let more of it happen.
http://www.sacbee.com/2010/07/15/2891187/council-misses-a-golden-opportunity.html
Small incremental steps are a sensible way to create lasting value. Adding housing units will create a market where retail and entertainment can be added later. Seems like a a sound, very prudent decision!
Comment by brian inderrieden — August 24, 2010 @ 9:56 am
Thanks SO much to everyone who has read, commented on LinkedIn, or tweeted this blog post! This post has had the largest single readership since I started this blog. I am so glad so many of you have found this useful!
Comment by dellarucker — August 27, 2010 @ 10:19 am
This was a great read. I wholeheartedly agree. I was around to witness “urban renewal in the 60s and 70s.” So yes, I saw what came of it, good and bad. There is no singular magic bullet to cure all. In addition to what the article advocates, I would like to underscore the importance of buy-in from the business community and the local constituents at large. “Community focused” revitalization endeavors needs to be a key criteria. What should the branding be for the revitalizaton project? Keep the old? Blend it? Town Centers are taking on steam across the country. Though, such a concept may be new to some people, it actually incorporates what used to be when towns and cities had vibrant downtown centers.
Comment by JOe Lam — August 30, 2010 @ 9:16 am
Thanks, Joe! I am so glad you enjoyed it. You’re absolutely right about the critical importance of getting the community and local constituents engaged. It cannot happen successfully without them — I think that was one of the many learnings of the urban renewal era.
One ongoing challenge that I see everywhere is how to help people envision the potential impacts of these decisions – keeping the old, blending in the new, branding, creating Town Centers, etc. It’s hard enough for professionals with broad exposure and a lot of experience thinking about this stuff to identify the best way forward — what can we do to help people who don’t have that level of exposure, who don’t think about these issues all the time, to make intelligent decisions on something so complex as the places where we live?
Comment by dellarucker — August 30, 2010 @ 9:48 am
I love this post. I’m using some similar ideas in an upcoming downtown newsletter. I’ll be sure to give you credit for them!
Comment by Molly — May 18, 2011 @ 11:07 am
Thanks, Molly!
Btw, if you’re interested in more, I migrated this blog to a dedicated web site, http://www.wiseeconomy.com. Enjoy!
Comment by dellarucker — May 18, 2011 @ 11:37 am