Unsolicited thoughts on an indefinite future
— by Jeffrey Wisniewski — 4 February 2010 — 5 comments below »
There has been some bad news around the bay recently for advocates of transit-oriented and mixed-use development (not to mention New Urbanism and smart growth)…
- Several residents of San Carlos (on the peninsula) criticized plans for a mixed-use transit village (not unlike Hercules Bayfront), largely complaining of a lack of planned parking spaces. (via Streetsblog)
- And on the island of Alameda, “voters said no Tuesday to a measure that would allow high-density development at the former naval air station. [...] It would have allowed a one-time exemption to Measure A, a 1973 ordinance that bans anything larger than a duplex on the island. If it had passed, Measure B would have allowed a development at Alameda Point with 4,500 units of apartments, condominiums and single-family homes, as well as offices, parks, a ferry terminal and other amenities.“
It is clear that there are at least two distinct avenues of thought on development, and that is not necessarily prohibitive of positive results being achieved. Although some do not, I value density and sustainability (and walkable neighborhoods), however antithetical to the suburban “comfort” that many have grown accustomed to (i.e., a contorted intepretation of the American dream). I appreciate the true cost of redevelopment, that investment isn’t returned if densities are significantly reduced. At the same time, I treasure open spaces, which is why in-fill development and redevelopment/reuse are so attractive (especially in Hercules).
Not everyone agrees with me (yet I can sleep at night). If these forces persist however, NIMBYism and anti-TOD and anti-mixed-use sentiment will have the opportunity to reappear or gain momentum in Hercules, and upend the extensive progress that has been made in the city. Preventing it requires paying close attention to both the private and public sectors. It is an omnipresent concern, a potential that may emerge at the whim of a public official, a bankrupt developer, a ballot box. (Actually, sometimes I cannot sleep at night thinking about this.)
It is worth pointing out the unique scenario we currently have in Hercules: a city staff, developers and residents all on the same page (or mostly) when it comes to the issues surrounding future development. It is a set of documented agreements (Central Hercules Plan, Waterfront Now, etc.), however it is not a permanent fixture. The scenario may change; an impasse may loom. It is critical we stay on the same path — which at present is largely ideal — as long as we can, and achieve as much as we can with as much as we can afford.
It is an exciting time in Hercules. (It is difficult to imagine another city spending so much per capita on development, most of which is in-fill or reuse, anywhere else on the west coast.) We cannot rest on past success or the promise, however real, of a picture-perfect future. There is a lot of work to do. We should applaud positive moves by the City, and prevent negatives one from happening (or from even being considered). There is an unmistakable give-and-take between a government and its residents. Its constitution is active citizenship and an informed citizenry. Its function is known; its strength is predominantly unexercised.
More free parking, please.
Interesting thoughts, however I wonder about all of us “being on the same page.” Our city officials have demonstrated time and again an alarmingly manipulative style of passing things through. I would prefer to be proud of the process, and could therefore feel more comfortable living with the outcome, even if I did not agree with it. Also, I think there is lots of room between density and suburban “comfort” as you put it to design a community where the people come first.
Very good post Jeff. There’s a lot of meat here and not too much ranting. I agree with the positive line regarding not all suburbs turning into slums, for “those that are affluent and relatively close to central cities—especially those along rail lines—are likely to remain in high demand“. I recommend the documentary End of Suburbia (assuming one is willing to entertain the controversial topic of peak oil) relevant to the challenges and potential our town of Hercules faces.
@anonymous — Good point. Density does not have to mean high-rise condominiums. Closer homes, walking distance to transit and necessities and public parks, smaller lots and driveways (or no driveways at all). That is the density I encourage.
I’m with Jeff.
In the recent past our city officials failed to move the new urban agenda forward, squandering time and treasure on all manner of pet projects. Sadly, bond money specifically allocated to Waterfront related projects was pissed away by the previous city manager while the city council turned a blind eye. Just think, with better leadership, where we might be now.
But all is not lost … yet. Residents have caused the removal of the divisive and conflicted city manager and several of his staunch defenders on the council.
I am optimistic, despite the economic issues and the spectre of RDAs going away, that more can be accomplished with the new leadership than before, when times were rosier but we lacked the policital leadership to get the job done.
With the Waterfront Initiative we have a great plan. We have elected two smart new council members dedicated to making progress, and several new council members who are competent and capable will be on board by this summer. Mr. Deltorchio is doing an amazing job as city manager. And we still have a property owner /developer who despite all the setbacks still wants to implement the initiative and wants to move forward.
Let’s get it moving.
There is still the lack of transpancy from city hall. Redevelopment consultant Jesse Harder has yet to file Form 700 and is also employed by HDR Engineering and HDR has million dollar contracts with the city. What is the city paying Harder for consulting fee’s for his service? This appears to be business as usual and the tax-payer is on the hook.