Ben Brown, who is also working on the DecaturNext team, did this short interview with urbanist, straight-talker Andres Duany at the Congress for the New Urbanism in Atlanta yesterday.
As is often the case, Duany isn’t all that concerned about ideology and his thoughts on post-2008 city evolution will likely please both progressives and Libertarians alike.
As for Duany’s promotion of “bottom-up” transportation, Decatur’s already got one (Decatur’s Easy Living Pedicab) and is talking about another in the Strategic Plan round-tables (some sort of Decatur Transit System).
Right on! That was really refreshing!
We’ve enjoyed the Pedicab on occasion. And the DTS option is interesting. I’d like to hear what others have to say about the DTS option. I have to say that I can walk to the Square in 15 min so I would be most interested in taking a shuttle during wet or cold weather or to get to MARTA with luggage (so as not to bother my neighbors asking for a dropoff) but for people who can’t walk or walk quickly, a shuttle seems cool!
Excellent, Andres. Just what I was saying a week or so ago – New Urbanism needs to be more of a bottom-up movement, rather than top-down.
With top-down you get a Marta system that doesn’t come near Turner Field, because 40 years ago the Braves’ ownership used their political influence to kill any nearby station in order to protect their parking revenues. With bottom-up you get tons of sports bars throughout the metro area offering Braves game shuttles.
On the Decatur front, the logical first step for a bottom-up, private transit service would be a transport between Oakhurst Village and the Square. My personal vision is one of those sky-way things like they have at amusement parks. Then we could look down at everyone’s backyard chicken coops along the way.
Who operates the OWL Transport vans I see driving around town ? Seems like this company may be doing the jitney transport Mr Duany describes.
An article in the June issue of The Atlantic offers a different take on “bottom up” public transportation: allowing/expecting developers to create privately-funded public transit in the neighborhoods where they invest and build.
Like Duany, the author looks to the early 20th century for inspiration and proof of the viability of his recommendation.
His bottom line: transportation drives development, so development can and should help pay for transportation.
Here’s the link to the article: http://tinyurl.com/2ers8gh
The city evolution theme segues interestingly into the article linked below.
Just like any skeptic of Abe Froman’s identity (Chicago’s Sausage King) recent big-picture/long-term strategies that have come out of the metro make me weep for our future.
http://www.newgeography.com/content/001574-is-it-game-over-atlanta
I like the part about letting property owners build without getting a million permits. Permits-a-rama are appropriate perhaps for big developers who push the limits, but are suffocating and insulting for the small guy, who just wants to improve their owner occupied building or house.
New urbanism is really old urbanism. Before everything was designed for automobiles, development occurred based on need. No zoning, no land planning, just built for people, not cars. The more things change the more they stay the same. Maybe some city leaders, so called, should look at development patterns in old sections of Atlanta and Decatur.