A Smart Growth Discussion
October 30, 2008Decatur resident David Goldberg recently sat down for an interview with Mother Jones in his capacity as communications director for Smart Growth America. Its an extensive discussion, but as TW pointed out over on the Loaf (h/t! h/t! phew!), its a good overview of the movement’s philosophies (just in case you choose to skim Scott’s posts. I kid Scott, I kid).
There’s a couple quotes I wanted to highlight. The first kind of ties into a question that “taxus” asked about developers a few days back.
MJ: Have private developers been getting on board with smart growth projects increasingly? Are they actually seeing this as something that can help their bottom line?
DG: Absolutely. The difficulty is that it is more complex to do these projects. It still takes multiple variances in the zoning codes. You often have to put together two or three different developers to do the different components: One is better versed in multifamily, the other one is single family, another one might do retail, although more and more developers are starting to get all those components in house. They’re starting to get better at it. Whey they succeed, they are more profitable. They hold their value better. And they offer a hedge against trouble in a particular market segment-you’re more diverse, so if people aren’t buying condos, they may rent your apartments. So that diversity helps. But the thing is, first of all, you need the expertise and you need a little bit of staying power, because the up-front costs can be more in terms of the planning and the approvals and in some cases installing the infrastructure.
The other talks about making residents feel like they have a vested interest in the project.
DG:…But now [transit hubs] are starting to be really hot spots for development. Communities are trying to plan for them. Neighbors look at it and they say, “That’s not what it was like when I came here, and I don’t really want it to change,” and it makes them very nervous. So in some cases, people are made more comfortable just by being involved in the planning process from the outset. Not being like they used to do, where they would present you with “Oh, look at this project, what do you think, give us comment.” Now they do these basically community design processes called charrettes-collaborative design processes where you bring in people from the community, the developer, the developer’s team, architect, planners; people come in and they get shown the parameters of what the project might be, an initial idea about it. People say, “Well, what I’m really concerned about is preserving this little green space over here,” or “I’d want a park that my kids can walk to,” or “I’m concerned that this particular intersection already has too much traffic; what are we going to do about that?” You put those concerns on the table and you address them in the design process.
Obviously this approach has been tried with 315. And I’m sure each involved party would give reasons why this tried and true method hasn’t been a smooth process.
But I’m beginning to think that maybe the project currently just doesn’t have enough carrots for the neighborhood to get on board. Filling in a parking lot and the promise of greater city density is a huge carrot to some, but for those that also fear the potential threat of that density, the developer might need to go a bit further. The promise of courtyards and street-parking on Montgomery might not be enough. And its not like they can build us sidewalks…the city has already given us them in spades! Its almost like because Decatur is already so ahead of the curve, you have to expect to give a little more, especially since we’re talking C2 next to R60.
Give the residents a real improvement/gift…compromise on density a little and build a small park or playground or commit to one lower rent retail space for a local grocery or co-op (see how I always find ways to include it?) or SOMETHING.
If the developer were to go beyond simply mitigating fears that things will get worse and give a little something back to the community, perhaps we might finally see resolution.
Triumph, the insult comic blog (I kid!).
Kidding aside, one small note. The process that took place on the 315 project was a far cry from the charrette process Dave’s talking about. With 315, there were initial “input meetings,” then the design took place away from the stakeholders, then it was presented for comment. Such an approach, by definition, creates an “us vs. them” scenario.
Charrettes work because, when all parties come together on the front end to put the issues on the table, the design is then done immediately thereafter, on site, with multiple real-time revision loops from everyone involved. This is the key factor that makes participants become mutual authors of the plan. That is why buy-in occurs.
I don’t think any of the 315 neighbors would consider themselves co-authors of what’s currently on the table, and that’s why so much friction still exists. Regardless of what gets presented next, there’s a good chance it will come across as something that’s being done “to them” rather than “for them.”
DM, The question you refer to has nothing to do with collaborative approach to design among stakeholders.
It has to do with the growing sum of tax money collected and spent on “downtown development” Yes, I do question authority.
For example, 315 will be a better product not from paid staffers’ input but from what those commited community members give to it and insist upon.
By the way, this is a great blog, even though you and Steve want to beat me up over my comments and questions.
Thanks taxus! Much appreciated. Sorry for the beatings…not my intention.
Just so we’re on the same page, we’re talking about this question right?
“Are businessmen and developers so stupid that they need us taxpayers to help them decide what to do?”
Is your position that the DDA is too large or shouldn’t exist at all? Because without that department guiding developers to work within the confines of a “smart growth” philosophy, the town would have a lot more large, front parking lots and a lot less street level retail (because that’s what developers are comfortable building).
I think everyone in City Hall does a fantastic job! They are approachable, and work hard and have helped make Decatur the success it is, and a wonderful place to live. I also think everyone at CSD does a great job. Yes, there are issues that need to be tackled, but that is in any school system and community. The folks that post on here thinking they shouldn’t trust them, or that their issues aren’t being considered are in my opinion just plain wrong.
Maybe, maybe not. There has been some OJT over the years. Notice One Town Center, (ponce and church) Two Town Center (125 Clairmont ) and the office building near the corner of Ponce and Clairmont. No ground floor retail.
I don’t advocate DDA should be abolished. Smart Growth can and should be codified. Developers are realizing that they have to deal with adjacent neighborhoods. That can be a struggle.
DDA needs to realize that they sometimes APPEAR to takes sides with the developer (E Howard project, 315, and Triangle) and the residents don’t like that.
Actually, OneTownCenter was designed to have first floor retail…I randomly brought it up a few months back.
http://decaturmetro.com/2008/09/07/potential-street-level-retail-space-along-ponce/
That doesn’t mean I still lament the destruction of the Candler Hotel on that corner. But OneTownCenter was a much better development compared to the four block development proposal that got Mayor Crichton thrown out of office and was the impetus for the Town Center Plan. Not sure about TwoTownCenter, which was built in ‘89 (?)…but remember that especially with One, it was way ahead of its time in the mid-80s. Since then, policies have evolved substantially.
I can’t speak for the city, but I know they are aware that some people view it that way…there’s probably more they can do to mitigate this with some folks, but I doubt they would ever convince those who didn’t want any development.
Also, in regards to E. Howard, the city essentially spearheaded the neighborhood’s effort to create the Old Decatur historic district as a reaction to that project…so I really think its hard to argue that they were one-sided in that battle.
Taxus said: “DDA needs to realize that they sometimes APPEAR to takes sides with the developer (E Howard project, 315, and Triangle) and the residents don’t like that.”
This is an accurate statement, Taxus, but not without a healthy dose of irony. Something needs to be made clear. The DDA was established to manage implementation of the Town Center Plan. That means *their job* is to recruit developers whose projects will fulfill the goals of the plan. In that sense, they absolutely take sides with developers — by design. That’s what we pay them to do.
So, if residents don’t like that, it’s essentially discontent because city workers are effective at doing their jobs.
This is not to say that citizens shouldn’t voice their opinions and it would be another matter altogether if the Commission advocated particular projects the way the DDA does. But, for the life of me, I can’t see the logic in criticizing someone for effectively doing what they’ve been asked to do.
No, Scott, WE don’t pay them to take sides with developers. We pay them to recruit developers, market property, promote downtown, wave pom-poms, etc.
In any given design problem, there is more than one way to “fulfill the goals of the Town Center Plan”
That’s the catch – ‘how’ it’s done.
If the citizen taxpayers arrive at a better way to fulfill the goals than what is proposed by the developer, and DDA lines up with the developer, then DDA will incur the hard feelings of taxpayers.
Tough position to be in, for sure, but the apppearance of neutrality is essential.
Just for clarification sake — the DDA is a seven member board appointed by the Decatur City Commission to serve as advocates and advisors on issues related to downtown development and the Town Center Plan. Just like the members of the Planning Commission, this board is made up of residents of the City of Decatur who volunteer their time. They are not paid. They review projects, offer suggestions and ideas to improve on developments and make a recommendation to the Planning Commission and the City Commission.
DM – I didnt realize there was a hotel there, I found one picture but its black and white…any idea of where to find a color pic? Glad the brunt of “urban renewal” is over!…
I’d be interested in seeing the plan from Crishton as well, to see how bad it must have been!
Sorry, I was playing loose with the terminology. In referencing gettin’ paid, I meant the city’s ED staff specifically. But Lyn makes an interesting point. Taxus, does the fact that the DDA is a citizen board make any difference?
If they review a project and come out in support, isn’t that just the voice of — some of — the people? I would think you’d support their right to push a project in the same way you support a neighborhood’s right to oppose it.
They don’t strike me as shills. In supporting the initial proposal at 315, they tempered their recommendation with caveats requiring that there be overflow parking contingencies in place to protect the neighbors. That certainly seems to reflect an understanding of the oppositional issues, doesn’t it?
newbie, every now and then you can run across an old postcard of the Candler Hotel. It was an attractive red brick building that looks to have been built in the 1920s.
The DeKalb History Center in the Old Courthouse probably has photos of it. I’m relatively certain that there are photos in the postcard book the published a few years back. It was on its way down when I arrived in the early 80s. Wish it was still here – would have made an awesome adaptive reuse for residential.
Lyn’s right. The DeKalb History Center actually has a great blowup of it somewhere, saw it very recently…but its a black and white.
If memory serves me right…Crichton’s plan involved redeveloping the East Courthouse Square block and the Church St./Sycamore block where Java Monkey and Mingei now reside. Can’t remember if the other two blocks were north or south of that though. Essentially it would have wiped out a huge % of the remaining historic inventory downtown…and after enduring the big-dig MARTA project and the closing of Sycamore, the citizenry wasn’t having it. There are many articles written about it…some at the History Center!
We actually have some of the renderings of those 1970s plans somewhere in our warehouse. We uncovered them during the renovations at city hall a few years ago. It definitely was a different time and a different direction.
Scott
I made the same mistake you did so your first question doesn’t apply.
They don’t strike me as shills either. At last we agree on something.
Regarding your second question if ‘they’ means ‘DDA’, see above .
Again, I agree with you that the caveat shows an understanding.
But it doesn’t go far enough.
I’ll rephrase what I tried to say earlier. Paid staffers should try to remain (appear) as neutral as they possibly can and let those affected, interested, and committed try to work out some kind of compromise with the developer.
The October 15 facilitated session was an EXCELLENT start toward this. I sincerely hope that this sort of thing becomes routine.
Of course it is really too early to say what kind of outcome there will be but it sure puts all the ’stuff’ on the table in plain view of everyone. Now it’s time to poke around in it and try to assimilate some of the better ideas. That remains to be seen. But it is reason to be optimistic.
taxus, most of those paid staffers are also Decatur residents.
Rebecca
Yes, I agree! You’re so right.