Existing Proposed

When I am looking into something that requires a map I use google earth. I have to limit my usage, however. For an architect, and someone who loves cities, google earth can be a grim, yet amazing time trap. This afternoon, I was checking into a location and gave google earth a whirl. I flew above a few location here in the city and came upon a place where a new community plan is being developed. I was interested to see what was being proposed and, as usual, I was not impressed upon my cursory review.

I will start with a disclaimer and the main concern. The disclaimer: First, I was not involved in the process and there are simply my personal thoughts and opinions based solely upon what I view in a draft version of the plan. Second, I understand that community plans are extremely complicated and require countless hours of work by dedicated professionals and public volunteers. My thoughts and opinions, although raw, are intended to challenge what we have and what we can become. I also want to illuminate the fact that my review was based on one draft document. In a situation at an official capacity I would spend the countless hours working to research information and piece the various part together.

My main concern: Before browsing the plan I caught a glimpse of a news headline and scrolling article. It said that this area was looking to become a more walkable community. Below is the section diagram of the modification of the street located in the area which, in my view represents the center of the community. This street, better described as a highway, fronts a the large parking lot of a High School on one side and a shopping center and collection of parks and playing fields on the other.

The image clearly states: “Proposed” and “Existing.”

I saw the image and immediately laughed. For a community with a mission to become more walkable, this is a farce. OK, you added a few painted stripes to demarcate carpooling lanes, a barrier, and a bike lane, but essentially, this organization has not changed. The street, or highway, that bisects the community is still the same width and retains its primary service to vehicular traffic, not people walking. This road is still dangerous. I would not advise a senior citizen to cross this street to visit the local market. I would not allow my young child go to the store to purchase a snack. I would not want my child riding a bicycle on the bike lane, unless that barrier is made of concrete or continuous steel. Even then, you must contend with intersections. I would not even ride a bicycle in that lane and I have been known to speed demon my way on bikes and skateboards down large hills. Falling on the ground is one thing, being crushed by a vehicle is another.

Our community plans are composed on that familiar and basic premise - Existing Proposed. There is nothing innovative about the plan. Yes, I see some images of self driving cars and some dream of alternative transit. In this location with a large commercial and industrial section comprised of some of the world largest tech companies, I can see this type of technology being utilized. I can see these new technologies being successful, but I can also see them as being failures, on the large paved road heading directly to a place called “business as usual.”

I say that because this community plan looks no different than the community plan in another area of the city, and another community elsewhere. The layout has a few different colors and highlights, but it is still the same as the rest now bordering on looking tired. When I see things like this it makes me think about that good ol’ rallying cry of community character. There is not character in the community when they are all basically the same. There are a few communities in the city that do have their own strong idiosyncrasies. Most do not and I could compare photos of where I live and you would not think there was much change. Long block walls facing the winding street.

I’ve been in this area many times and it is a dead zone on that road. It is a place where cars can only exist. If that is the case, it makes sense to use this as a corridor for rail public transit. I’ve questioned it many times before and will state it again, How are we integrating new transportation alternatives when we have not even mastered what we have now?

Another concept about walkability I heard previously rings true here as well: If you hate traffic congestion and hate seeing a car with a single driver, wait until you a vehicle with no driver.

The thing that we are forgetting when thinking about community plans is the process of addition and subtraction which is relevant in the ways we craft cities. These community plans, and others throughout this city are only perceiving the built environment through an additive process. The plans seek to add new elements, new technologies, new infrastructure, new regulations, new desires, and new means and methods. I am speaking more about the community plans that I have read completely and research thoroughly (this one was a cursory review): They are all seek to add, which is understandable. Maybe we only seek to engage in additive measures, because in reality, we are living our daily lives and have our own daily challenges and most people are not thinking about the built environment. Most people outside of the building professions (and a lot in the professions), are not looking critically at their environments because they simply, and maybe smartly, utilize what exists in the best way possible.

All these additive measures get built upon again and again. Each time we build more it makes it more difficult to modify and improve. Also, if we are not viewing the built environment in a critical way, we are not thinking that things need to change. Most times, we just think: “yeah, this would be better, if we added this, or changed that.”

In a city that has been dominated and built by with vehicles as the primary residents, we need to look at our cities through a subtractive lens. A perfect example is San Diego’s International Airport. There is a great need to integrate a light rail hub that connects the airport to the existing light rail system and the urban center. Unfortunately, the clear area in front of the airport, which was a series of surface parking lots, were evolved into a series of large parking garages. That area, directly in front of the terminal, yet behind the narrow vehicular loading and unloading area was prime to be tapped as a light rail station. That did not happen. Again, disclaimer time: I was not apart of the process, and there could have been many reasons for not planning for a rail hub there - there are now a bunch of parking garages for cars and no room for real public transportation in a city that consistently calls out to that desire to improve. It is sort of like that heroine addict that is determined to return back to school and get things together. I’ve known guys like that and they too were adding rather than subtracting.

Our cities, and more importantly, our planners, and the consultants that they do business with need to have a keen sense towards transit and walkability and clearly understand what those things mean. It all begins to boil down to semantics, politics, and using key words and headlines to convince the community that the colorful drawings and diagrams are indeed what they desire. It is an easy sell to a community who have no idea about how cities come together and may have never travelled to a city that actually circulates and works.

The problem is that the community despises those cities that actually work and have true character. Like I said before, community character is not just the houses and roads, it is comprised of everything. Take a look around, your community character might be dead grass and RVs parked on the sidewalk pouring their urine in the gutter. We are afraid to look at the truth and hide behind the various veils of community. How do you change that? A new development might not change it, but it is a fresh start into communities that are rotten and stale.

Existing Proposed. This is the comfort food of America. “Yes, we will add diamond carpool lanes on a road that bisects a low density residential community.” That idea is completely absurd and I am baffled that an industry professional would actually draw that up and put it out for the public to view.

Where is the professional that is willing to put up the fight and show our leadership what is needed? To create a great city and mend the years of destructive practices that make our communities dangerous places to move about, we have three options that I can think of right now. We can reduce the amount of roads and use those lanes to implement light rail transit. Or we can reduce the lanes and use that space for linear parks and trails. Or we can completely remove the roads for a park or some type of linearly organized housing.

There is always a fourth and fifth option, the options we typically turn to: continue at same clip where we add and integrate measures without eliminating the bad ones. We can continue to allow residents to tell our industry professionals, those experienced practitioners that have years of experience, how cities should be put together just because they love down the road. In those cases, I rebut those demands with: Show me. Show me how what you want or how you want to remain is good for the city. Show me how what you want evolves into something positive. Show me a place where what the community desires is effective and safe for senior citizens and young children. Show me how what the community desires is something more than creating a few temporary, high paying, construction jobs. Show me.

Then there is the best of all, the fifth and most convenient option: Do nothing.

Existing Proposed.