PLANNING THE UNPLANNED

In this week's issue of the Grand Rapids Business Journal, reporter David Czurak wrote about an award that the Grand Valley Metro Council received for devising a uniform zoning, the "Metropolitan Blueprint", that area municipalities and townships could adopt.  Apparently what got everyone's attention was how this blueprint eschewed such zoning mugwumpery like focusing on separating uses into different district in favor of mixing uses together in a single district.

Christina Anderson is an urban planner from Chicago whose firm, Farr Associates, was one of the authors of the Metropolitan Blueprint.  She commented to Czurak that zoning that separates uses -- e.g., keeps that pig farm away from your subdivision -- makes it difficult to recreate mixed-use districts.  Well, I suppose so, because that's precisely what zoning was designed to prevent.  Anderson, like many "new urbanists", have a yen for old-fashioned core city neighborhoods that are a jumble of stores, small businesses, public facilities, and homes that somehow work in harmony.  I enjoy places like that, too.  In fact, I live in a neighborhood like that.

However, you can't zone by government fiat those sorts of neighborhoods.  As Anderson noted, "Often those locations were something that was done before zoning."  Precisely.  They are organic.  They didn't pop up from a top-down municipal master plan.  They came together through the efforts of individuals working out their conflicts over a period of time.  Nevertheless, Anderson's firm thinks that local governments can dictate these "new urbanist" mixed-use neighborhoods by dictating the types of buildings, the layout of streets, and all manner of goo-gaws like porches, stoops, window design, and storefronts that must be constructed.

In other words, Anderson and company think that function will follow form.  Hmm, I'm not so sure about that, but squaring that circle is probably less of a fool's errand than the whole notion of planning the unplannable.  Current zoning practices have some real flaws that impede the harmonious development of communities.  The Grand Valley Metropolitan Council was not wrong to have Farr Associates address these deficiencies.  However, the solution is not further constraints forcing property owners to conform to the aesthetics of a handful of planners, but fewer which emulate the free-wheeling conditions that allowed those 19th-century mixed-use neighborhoods that "new urbanists" love to sprout in a 21st-century way.

Comments

[Beentheredonethat]

The problem with reinventing the wheel, so to speak, is that many of the older neighborhoods have an established clientele that helps keep them in business. The pharmacy in the neighborhood where I live no longer carries milk because they didn't sell enough for the suppliers to deliver it to them. They also don't have the room to sell the larger packages or selection of items for family use, so I can't shop there for these things. I do however make it a point to buy the smaller items, even allowing the kids to buy candy and stuff there, because I enjoy the employees who have been there for years. You can't "create" that type of atmosphere. A newer store opening up would have a hard time staying in business. Unfortunately, many of the people who want to create this "cozy corner" where they live are the same people who moved away in the first place.

[The Executive Director]

You make a good point, Nancy. The neighborhoods that the "new urbanists" love are the result of innumerable factors that play out over decades and cannot be re-created by a zoning ordinance in the suburbs some many have fled to.

For example, the northeast side neighborhood I grew up in 30+ years ago was nothing special back then, but it had everything the "new urbanists" are looking for. It was a modest street with houses with front porches, the fire barn was half a block away in one direction, Aberdeen Park a half block in the other.

A block or two further in other directions took you to the Catholic church, the Christian Reformed church, the school, the bowling alley, gas station, Kay Drugs, Dick's barbershop, and everything else you needed.

And if you trekked about a half mile, you had Kent Country Club for sledding in the winter and the woods that Aberdeen Creek flowed through next to Huff School to catch frogs and snakes in the summer. On top of that my grandparents from both sides of the family lived within a short walk of my house.

It was a great place for a kid to grow up, and it was taken for granted at the time. Some much of that is now lost, and so I can understand the nostalgia of the "new urbanist" planners and their desire to bring all that back. But I don't see how they'll make it work by trying to re-fashion such neighborhoods out in the 'burbs by fiat.

The real solution is bring people back into the core city where these mixed-use neighborhoods still exist (even if in a degraded state) and revivify them. But I don't see that happening until the schools are reformed. That is the crux of the problem.

Regards, Bill

[Beentheredonethat]

Don't forget the Knapp Ave. Creamery, where they handed out banana flavored popsicles on Halloween and "the corner store" (as we called it) where everyone knew you. You could go in there with a note from your parents as a kid and go home with everything you needed.

Looks like we grew up in the same neighborhood! In fact, we still live in the area. I use to catch guppies in the "crick" by Huff School. Today, my family enjoys walking the boardwalk through the park.

[Steve Smith]

I think five dollar gasoline will do more to bring back the traditional mixed-use urban core than any planning scheme.

BTW I've also been a happy resident of the good ol' northeast side for over 40 years!

[The Executive Director]

Hi, Steve.

I agree that it will be the rational, individual decisions of thousands of families that bring back the traditional neighborhoods rather than a top-down planning scheme. I think the renaissance of residential living in downtown G.R. is evidence of general interest in the city again. However, it must be admitted that the state of the GRPS remains a roadblock for many to move from the 'burbs into town.

By the way, a belated welcome to the old neighborhood, Steve. (I assume your comment was in reference to the exchange Nancy and I had about living on the Northeast side, which Typepad blew away last night.)

Regards, Bill

[Steve Smith]

Exactly my point, Bill. When the cost of driving 40 miles each way from your 10 acre McMansion to your downtown job goes high enough, you will begin to pine for that old neighborhood you used to live in that was close to everything. Planners must be reminded that the tail cannot wag the dog.

Another interesting thought: while the GRPS bristles at any competition from charter or parochial schools, it is exactly those schools that are keeping many families in the "nice" neighborhoods that remain in Grand Rapids. I admit I have no statistical evidence for that, just anecdotal. Imagine the effect on the tax base the schools depend on, if those families threw in the towel!

[The Executive Director]

Hi, Steve.

I couldn't have put it better: "Planners must be reminded that the tail cannot wag the dog."

As for the GRPS versus other schools, I agree that the alternatives are keeping a number of families in the city. How many is a good question. Here's a quick calculation ...

When I was a kid there were about 35,000 to 40,000 students in the GRPS. The city's population has remained about the same, maybe grown a little actually, yet the GRPS enrollment is down to about 25,000. Therefore, I would hazard the guess that about 10,000 to 15,000 kids are in alternative schools.

Regards, Bill

[Beentheredonethat]

Actually, the enrollment number for GRPS is closer to 21-22,000 with a loss projected of 800 this next year. Although some of the decline can be attributed to a lower birth rate, you are right, many are leaving the city schools for charters, parhochials (although they are struggling, also),school of choice and even home schooling.

The problem I have with some of the new developments, in the downtown area especially, are they are not geared toward families. If you look at many of the new condos being built, they aren't conducive to kids. I spoke with one developer and he said pets were okay, but kids wouldn't be a good fit. So what you are going to have is a bunch of singles moving in, and when they meet Mr or Ms Right, once they start having kids they move out to the "burbs". This is even happening in the neighborhood I live in now. Until the schools listen to the parents who have decided to stick it out so far and make changes to address their concerns, instead of telling them to "leave if you're not happy", the school system will continue to falter and people will chose to send their kids elsewhere even if they do move back into the city.

Cute store fronts and new buildings are not going to be enough to retain the "tax base", continuing the vicious circle.