Archive for the 'Urban Policy' Category

Next Entries »

Monument Circle Not Pedestrianizing Afterall

Published June 9, 2010 Urban Indianapolis , Urban Policy 5 Comments
Tags: , , , ,

News broke yesterday that plans to pedestrianize Monument Circle and prohibit car access for one month in August is getting scrapped.  Apparently, the city received so many complaints from residents and numerous businesses that they decided to get rid of the idea and go back to the drawing board.  Still though, the city is hoping to make monumental changes to the Circle in the near future that is “something bold, something innovative” said Jen Pittman, the city’s Director of Marketing.  Originally, the plan to limit automobile traffic for one month was meant to test the feasibility of making the Circle pedestrian-only but it was this one month timeline, Pittman says, that ultimately caused trepidation from residents and business owners.  The city acknowledges that the Circle might not be ready for such a plan and more discussion is needed with all stakeholders before any significant change is implemented.   

When the news originally broke that the Circle was pedestrianizing, I offered my support for the policy but criticized the Circle’s readiness in this article.  While I do believe a pedestrianization acceleration is taking over the United States and Indianapolis should be looking at creative ways to cater to this movement, I am glad to see this one month plan is being taken off the table and more discussion is going to take place.  Essentially, I agree with Curt Ailes over at Huston Street Racing in his recent post about this topic – the city needs a legitimate plan for the Circle, not just a one month trial by fire idea.  Quite simply, a one month timeframe was too short to come to any concrete conclusions regarding the success of the idea, thus rendering the experiment pointless.  So now what…well as Curt put it in his article, “now that we are back at square one, how about a REAL plan Indianapolis?”

For a REAL plan to unfold for Monument Circle, I offer four suggestions, outlined below, all learned from Fountain Square in Cincinnati, a space that famed urbanist and journalist William Whyte called “the best public square in the country.”

  • The city needs to work with building owners that directly front the circle and transform the ground level space into pedestrian retail that spills out onto the Circle.  Fountain Square in Cincinnati recently implemented such changes and to dramatic successes – the Square now features numerous bars, restaurants, and other pedestrian retail that didn’t exist until a few years ago.  In Cincinnati’s case, the city successfully worked with 5/3 Bank and transformed the ground level space abutting the Square into something more pedestrian friendly.  Indianapolis could do the same. 
  • The Circle needs more programmed activities and on a regular basis, not just for special events.  Fountain Square again provides an example of how to implement such ideas – whether it’s movie nights, salsa dancing, market days, or coffee tastings, there is always something going on that brings in a wide array of people.  Monument Circle lacks such regularly scheduled events and real programming on a day-to-day basis, something that is critical to increasing pedestrian activity and spinoff development. 
  • If it doesn’t already, Monument Circle needs a management group that oversees events, programming, maintenance and security (if it does the Group needs to do a better job!).  Essentially, they would be in charge of programming the space and raising money and find sponsors to fund such events.  In Cincinnati, the Fountain Square Management Group LLC was created in 2006 to do manage the programming of the space.  As time has gone by and Square event popularity has increased, the Group has managed to raise incredible amounts of money and find numerous sponsors to create bigger and better events throughout the year. 
  • Changes outlined in the first three bullet points need to be a part of an overall design overhaul of the Circle.  Change needs to take place all at once to create increased excitement and energy in the district.    Again, Fountain Square implemented a complete overhaul in recent years, closing off the space and redesigning the entire area.  The excitement of the new space and the energy it created pumped life into downtown Cincinnati, and the city has seen unprecedented spinoff development as a result. 

If these ideas are a part of the city’s new ‘plan’ for Monument Circle, I think residents and business owner’s fears about the spaces pedestrianization would be eased.  Certainly, the Circle would be ready to go the way of so many other public spaces across the country – and not just for a month, but permanently.  This way, with a full plan in place, the stage could be set for Monument Circle’s space to live up to its design and become a great place.

Repost: The Pedestrianization Acceleration of Cincinnati

Published May 27, 2010 Urban Cincinnati , Urban Policy 4 Comments
Tags: , ,

I originally wrote this piece last October for Randy Simes, Owner & Managing Editor, over at Urbancincy.com when Issue 9, the anti-rail initiative voted on last November,  was the talk of the town in Cincinnati and the streetcar was on everyone’s mind.  I thought it was a good idea to repost it here for urbanOut readers.  For the Indianapolis crowd, this piece is especially pertinent, considering the recent news that Monument Circle will become ‘pedestrianized’ shortly.     

If anyone has had the experience of traveling throughout Europe, you may have noticed a predominant feature in their center cities not found in typical American cities: pedestrian only thoroughfares. Many of these thin ‘streets’ have been around for decades, as European’s slowly took back their medieval centers and placed pedestrian access and connectivity in the forefront. Places like Paris, Copenhagen and Amsterdam have all created such places in their center cities, and, coupled with modern transit systems, have formed vibrant, provocative, and eclectic urban places.

Venizelou Square in Iraklion, Greece (photo by Randy A. Simes)

On a recent trip to Crete (known to be conservative by European standards) I again noticed an abundance of pedestrian only streets. After talking to a few locals, it was brought to my attention that many of these pedestrian thoroughfares were relatively new to the large city of Iraklion, and that they had finally come on board to the notion of pedestrianizing their center city, following western and northern European standards. This got me thinking; if even the most conservative western European places are completely pedestrianizing their center cities, it’s only a matter of time before the United States does the same.

Actually, the United States is already beginning to come on board with this trend, proven with the recent news that New York City has been experimenting with pedestrian only plazas in Times Square and Herald Square and San Francisco’s Pavement to Parks initiatives have been implementing such ideas as well. Even Indianapolis, Indiana has started a significant road diet, as seen in their downtown Cultural Trail, where road lanes are slowly disappearing and making way for multi-use, pedestrian/bike facility zones.

Indianapolis’ Cultural Trail (photo from Indy Cultural Trail)
These trends indicate American’s are warming up to the idea of pedestrian only thoroughfares and ‘pedestrian malls’ in their downtown’s, an idea initially rejected by American’s in the 1960’s and 70’s. In 2009, America is continually becoming an urban-oriented society and our cities need to start planning for a pedestrian acceleration that I believe will occur in our urban centers.

Cincinnati needs to understand this and start planning for the future to stay competitive in attracting the creative class. Luckily for Cincinnati, the city already has an amazing built environment suitable for pedestrian-only thoroughfares and malls; found in amazing Over-the-Rhine. A number of the neighborhood’s streets, especially the east-west routes, are thin, intimate, and well-connected, making them ideal for pedestrian only access.

So what can we do now to get ready for the pedestrianization acceleration that will eventually dominate the American urban landscape? In the immediate term, we can choke down car-centric streets like Liberty and Central, increasing sidewalk widths, adding bicycle lanes, and decreasing vehicular speeds. In the long-term, we need to develop a strong multi-modal transportation system for the city.

Not surprisingly, pedestrian only zones cannot withstand themselves without being supported by a modern, multi-modal transportation system. You simply cannot expect people to live in a car free environment if they do not have attractive public transportation options. If Over-the-Rhine is ever going to become pedestrianized, we must promote modern transportation options such as the Cincinnati Streetcar. If Cincinnati doesn’t offer these options, good luck keeping up with the impending pedestrianization acceleration and good luck attracting a more diverse population in age, income, and race to help ensure a healthy, vibrant Cincinnati for years to come.

Cincinnati Takes an Important Step in the Great Streetcar Debate

Published May 11, 2010 Urban Cincinnati , Urban Policy 2 Comments
Tags: , , , , , ,

Yesterday, Monday May 10th, the Cincinnati City Council voted 6-2 to approve $64 million in bonds for the streetcar project, moving the plan very close to reality.  Because all City council members serve on the finance panel, the bonds measure is all but guaranteed to pass by the same margin when it goes before the full council this Wednesday.  Ultimately, this is a very important step in the ever-lasting streetcar debate as this sends a strong message to the federal government of a firm local commitment to the project, something top Washington officials say is important to receiving federal grants in the future.  And with $50 million more needed to fund the $128 million project, such sources of funding is key to the streetcar becoming reality in Cincinnati.

The streetcar has long been a pet project of mine, as I am a strong supporter and advocate of the idea and have been since day one.  Back in late 2009, I ran numerous pieces against Issue 9, a ridiculous anti-rail referendum put forth on the ballot last November.  Thankfully, the Issue failed in a dramatic fashion, and in doing so sent a clear message to City Council that the residents of Cincinnati support progressive transportation options like the streetcar.

So why are the people of Cincinnati and myself so gung-ho about the streetcar?  Here are a few reason why:

  • The streetcar will give Cincinnati a competitive edge in the Midwest.  No other city in the region is currently implementing this type of progressive rail transportation and Cincinnati has the chance to be the first and in doing so, redefine itself a place that takes urbanism seriously. 
  • The only way to truly revitalize Over-the-Rhine in a proper, contextually sensitive manner is through mass transportation (ala  the streetcar).  The neighborhood was developed before the car and thus has an incredible pedestrian scale and environment.  Essentially, there is no room for a car culture in OTR and  unless major transportation improvements serve the neighborhood, the only way to encourage investment is by providing ridiculous parking requirements and demolishing numerous buildings to make room for all the cars.  If the streetcar is built, parking requirements for new developments will be lessened and the neighborhood can revitalize in a true urban manner.     
  • Building a streetcar line that connects downtown and uptown is a giant first step towards a regional mass transit system.  The City has to start somewhere and connecting the region’s two largest employment centers is the perfect place to do so.  If the streetcar proves to be successful and a link to Ohio’s 3C Corridor is created, expect future rail expansions to happen in the region, both light and heavy. 

As it stands today, the City has done all it can to make the streetcar a reality.  Now, we are forced to sit and wait to see if the federal government will kick in the additional funding in their next round of stimulus monies.  Based on what local experts and inside sources are saying, the City’s federal grant application is a ‘top contender’ to receive support, with some people going as far as assuring the money is all-but-guaranteed.  As a Cincinnati lover and a true advocate, I truly hope this is true because the City deserves a world-class transportation system and this is the first step in achieving such a goal.  Make in happen Cincinnati!

By the way, for a complete, in-depth analysis and discussion about the Cincinnati Streetcar, check out the CincyStreetcar Blog, a site also featured on my blogroll to the right.  The site is known for numerous photoshopped images of a streetcar running through Cincinnati streets, a great feature that allows people to see exactly what it would be like to have this type of transit in the Queen City.

Monument Circle: Is It Ready?

Published May 3, 2010 Urban Indianapolis , Urban Policy 13 Comments
Tags: , , , ,

The recent news that Monument Circle in Downtown Indy is going the way of Times Square and Heralds Square in New York by becoming a pedestrian only space is an interesting development to say the least.  If you follow my blog, you remember that I recommended this change on a previous post, believing it should be the ultimate goal of the City to turn the Circle into a pedestrian mall, opening up the space for programmed events, outdoor seating, and other pedestrian activity.  Further, I wrote a piece on the ‘pedestrianization acceleration’ trend occurring across the country, as City after City is choking down their streets, turning spaces into pedestrian malls, and truly beginning to prioritize the pedestrian in urban designs.  So I applaud Indianapolis for continuing to be on the forefront of this movement (see the Cultural Trail for another ‘pedestrianization acceleration’ example) and hope that Monument Circle can succeed as a pedestrian mall and truly become a world-class public space.  With that said, as it stands today, is Monument Circle ready to become a pedestrian mall? 

My simple answer is a cautious no; the Circle does not currently have the storefront activity or pedestrian traffic to support such a move.  If there is one lesson to be learned from the failed American pedestrian malls of the past, it is that such spaces should not be used for economic development or to attract business.  Instead, malls should only further enhance spaces where existing pedestrian activity is healthy and strong.  Essentially, pedestrian malls can be an urban design technique to make good spaces great.   Ultimately, this is why the Times Square pedestrianization experiment has been so successful.  And yet, Indianapolis leaders are heralding their own pedestrianization experiment as an economic development initiative, something that worries me and makes me dubious about turning the Circle into a pedestrian mall right now. 

While I truly believe in pedestrian policies, I think a few things need to happen before such a change can take place on the Circle.  First and foremost, the City needs to be engaged with the current owners of Circle real estate frontage, creating more storefronts and having an inside-out approach to retailing which would connect the public realm with private uses.  This would attract investment and higher pedestrian counts, creating a healthier pedestrian realm.  After such investment occurs and the Circle turns into an even better place for pedestrian activity, then the City should look into turning the space into a pedestrian mall – taking the Circle from good to great. 

With that said, the Circle will be going the way of a pedestrian mall in August, whether it’s ready or not.  Since it is going to happen, I have a few questions about implementation.  First, why is this experiment only lasting a month?  This timeframe seems too short to come to any concrete conclusions regarding the success of this trial.  Instead, the City should look at a June-August schedule, lasting the duration of summer and allowing the populace to get used to the idea of a pedestrian mall downtown.  Second, are there any events or space utilization planned for this month-long experiment?  I hope so, as something special needs to happen to draw patrons down to the Circle to see firsthand the vitality a pedestrian mall can create.  If the space is simply opened and the new space isn’t utilized, expect the experiment to wane in popularity.  And third, what are the pedestrian mall boundaries going to be?  I recommend extending the mall out a half-block in each direction on Meridian and Market, giving even more space for possible programmed events that are badly needed on the Circle. 

Despite my cautious tone towards this development, I am hopeful for its success.  But in order for this to occur, the City needs to answer the questions I put forth and make sure the experiment is carried out in a monumental way – if you will.  Only then will the public truly see the possibilities of a pedestrian mall and begin to champion its permanence.  If this doesn’t happen, don’t expect the Circle to be a part of the pedestrianization acceleration trend going on across the country – something Indianapolis can’t afford to miss out on.    

Image Source

It’s the Urban Design, Stupid!

Published April 26, 2010 Urban Policy 2 Comments
Tags: , , , , ,

Design studios at Cincinnati were the best part of my collegiate experience – the ideas, the energy, and the creativity were constantly flowing, and I gained a significant amount of design knowledge as a result.  Another great aspect of these studios was the interdisciplinary nature they took on, as architects and civil engineers often partook in the class, bringing different viewpoints and positive ideas to the table. However, with the good always comes the bad and, in particular, working with the engineers was often frustrating and, well, annoying.  Side note: working with these student engineers has proven to be a real life lesson as I am currently surrounded by engineers on a day-to-day basis.

There is one particular encounter that I remember having with a civil engineer regarding, of all things, the issue of single-family vs. multi-family housing.  It was towards the beginning of the design studio and we were still in the field reconnaissance stage, trying to understand the lay of the land and develop a S.W.O.T analysis of the community in which we were doing design work for.  One of the civil engineers was presenting his ideas and mentioned a weakness of the community as having ‘too many rental/multi-family units adjacent to owned single-family houses.’ 

He went on about how homeownership is the key to the community’s future and blighted multi-family apartments needed to be rehabbed into single-family houses or condominiums.  At the time I was  a young and impressionable 23-year-old(1.5 years ago, ha) and felt the need to stand up and give him a piece of my mind.  So I raised my hand, stood up (on my soapbox), and ranted on and on and about the shortcomings of his way of thinking and the problems associated with an engineer’s linear mind.  I may have (did!) come across abrasive and probably could have (should have!) delivered my message in a more couth manner, but I still believe that the principles of what I was trying to explain were and are legitimate.  So below I outline the argument I tried to lay out then, this time around in a less intense manner:         

The problem with the rental/multi-family apartments the student engineer was referring to have nothing to do with their use, but rather with their urban design.  All too often, problems of ‘blight’ occur on multi-family uses because of one of two scenarios:

  1. Single-family homes turned into multi-family apartments.  This leaves considerable land in the front yard and back yard where ownership is no longer clear, leading to decline in maintenance.  While these problems has a lot to do with landlord responsibility, it also has to do with the simple fact that the single family homes were designed with owners in mind, not renters, resulting in a use mismatch (this gets to another issue regarding single-family homes and their inability to adapt to changing environments, but this is another blog entry unto itself.)  This confusion and lack of communication can ultimately lead to property aesthetic declines and thus the ‘blighted’ label.    
  2.  The multi-family site is poorly designed, with significant setbacks and considerable open space, and often in very Le Corbusier-esque styles.  Once again, this leaves considerable land where ownership is no longer clear, leading to decline in maintenance.  And on top of this, these structures are typically bland and architecturally pathetic – perhaps one main reason why people don’t maintain the property after a while.  Once again, this confusion and lack of communication can ultimately lead to property aesthetic declines and thus the ‘blighted’ label.    

Instead of assuming rental properties are bad for a community at face value (which, believe me, many many people in this country truly believe to be true and national policies reflect this sentiment.  After all, the way to achieving the American Dream, so we’re told, is through homeownership) we need to emphasize the need for better urban design.  Ultimately, multi-family buildings need to be designed in more urban ways, where buildings are built to the sidewalk line, with little to no parking requirements, and great access to transit.  Not only does this get rid of questionable land where no one is clear who owns what, but the rental buildings become indistinguishable from other uses, as ideally other buildings are built in similar styles and urban forms. 

Look at Manhattan, New York – most of the housing on the island is rental occupied, yet no one would know which buildings are rented and which are owner occupied, thanks to high quality urban design.  In Cincinnati, the former Metropole apartment building is an example of proper urban design for multi-family uses and proves that, if the form is designed properly, no one cares about the use behind the walls and investment can and will still occur in the immediate neighborhood (see all the investment activity in the Backstage District prior to the Metropole being redeveloped into 21c.) 

I am not advocating for all multi-family or rental properties to be concentrated in the region’s downtowns or most urban neighborhoods, but I am advocating for better urban design, site design, and urban forms.  Until this is achieved on a national level, this country will continue to wrongly assume the problem with rentals is the use, and continue to place priority on achieving higher home ownership numbers in their community, leaving many who can’t afford to own their own home in the dark.  As I have always said, it’s not about ownership; it’s the urban design, stupid!

More Ideas, Less Process in Urban Planning & Design

Published April 22, 2010 Urban Policy 2 Comments
Tags: , , ,

I’ve been an urban planning and design practitioner for almost a year now.  Sure, I have had my fair share of internships and co-ops, but none has given me the hands on experience and understanding of how urban planning and design works in a consulting firm the way my last year in the real world has.  During this time, I have been taking in every experience, trying to soak up as much planning knowledge as possible.  While on this journey for knowledge (so corny, ha!), I have been repeatedly told “an understanding of the planning process will form the basis of knowledge for your career.”  I thought to myself “Ok, processes are usually easy.  Done and done.”   

As I continued to work on projects and interact with my peers and colleagues at planning events and began to see this ‘process’ for all it was worth, I realized that a lot of what the profession is focused on, at least in my current surroundings, is this all important process of planning and design.  And unfortunately, what seems to be forgotten about or paid little attention to is the actual end result of what we as planners and designers are ultimately creating.  This observation has led me to question a few things about the profession and wonder: if planners are more worried about the process than the product, have we simply become cogs in the machine, going through the motions of the planning process and ignoring the overarching end results?

To a degree, I think the answer to this question is ‘yes’, as many planners have taken on a linear, incremental approach that focuses more on the ‘here and now’ and less on the future.  This process seems to go something like this:

  • Field work – check
  • Opportunities and constraints – check
  • Vision statement, principles, goals, objectives, and action steps – check
  • Transportation, Economic Development, Land Use, and Urban Design Recommendations – check
  • Public input interlaced throughout – check. 

What we get from this process is a profession bogged down in an incremental approach and details such as properly articulating goals and objectives, putting together meeting minutes, interfacing with clients, and updating schedules.  While I understand the importance of these details, I can’t help but feel that new, fresh ideas have been lost in the fray, resulting in the recycling of old ideas and concepts time and time again.  To me, this does a huge disservice to our profession and the communities we serve.

The solution?  I think planning and design professionals, both public and private, needs to start thinking outside the box, worry less about the business side of the profession, and start brainstorming new ideas and outlooks for communities.  Ultimately, we need to ask ourselves ‘what are we going to produce?’ instead of ‘how are we going to produce it?’.  From this, I think a fresh viewpoint can be brought into each ‘process’, making each plan different from the other.  And ultimately, this should be the goal of the profession – to create uniqueness instead of homogeneity in our end products.

Image Source

Emergent Urbanism: The Future (& Demise) of Urban Planning?

Published April 7, 2010 Urban Policy 5 Comments
Tags: , , , , ,

As a professional, I am an urban planner and designer who believes in the role of planning in a 21st Century capitalistic society.  Ultimately, this is why I advocate for the profession’s principles to be carried out in communities across America.  But as an individual and urbanist, I tend to take a different attitude towards planning and actually support the eventual removal of the profession from our communities.  In essence, I believe planners number one goal should ultimately be to rid ourselves of…..ourselves.  Just don’t tell my boss.  ;)  

This way of thinking may seem backwards or self-destructive but, the way I see it, planning has become more the obstacle than the solution in dealing with our cities problems of sprawl, urban decay, traffic congestion, poor design, etc.  And really, planning has caused a lot of these problems or has at the very least accelerated the processes (the history of this is a ridiculously large essay unto itself, so I won’t go there.  You’re welcome). 

A lot of zoning ordinances in modern-day America are so restrictive and single-use oriented that the only type of development that can legally occur is what we see today: big box, low density, homogenous development.  Essentially, the places we love – the traditional Main Street, business district, or downtown with its mix of uses, pedestrian scales, and vibrant activity – are rendered illegal in suburb after suburb, and we’re left with placelessness, all thanks to the rules, codes, zoning, and regulations of urban planning. 

Just think about it, the modern-day cul-de-sac is planned down to the finest detail – the mailboxes, street trees, building façade materials, setbacks, etc, are all regulated in the name of ‘good planning.’  You even see new suburban/exurban subdivisions marketed as ‘a planned community.’  With all of this going on in our suburbs, this begs the question: are our regions better off as a result of this excessive planning?  The obvious answer is ‘no’, and the appropriate answer is ‘hell no.’   Essentially, we have planned and regulated ourselves to death, disallowing more interesting development to occur and creating single-use zones that plagues mobility, place making, and community building.  In my opinion, the solution to these problems is simple: take the rules and regulations of planning out of the process and let the community (not the market, a distinction I’ll make later) decide for themselves.     

The theory of emergent urbanism relates to my view-point and is a relatively new idea that closely follows the principle of ridding planning from the city building process.  Emergent urbanists believe cities are complex organisms that deal with many issues simultaneously and, like other complex beings and organs, have the capability of naturally self organizing themselves to act and move efficiently.  Emergent urbanists think the city, through community activism and self policing, can ‘emerge’ in ways that deal with modern-day city problems in better, more efficient, more sustainable ways.     

When it comes down to it, emergent urbanism is about tying together the loose ends in urban fabric, the parts where individuals can unite into small groups and make an immediate difference, outside of traditional planning processes that are clouded by what coders call ‘cruft’ – the irrelevant code that can create friction around otherwise graceful structures.  Emergent urbanists might even go one step further, arguing for the removal of all planning guidelines and structures. The way they see it, most of the world’s great cities are not the product of planning, no matter how enlightened.

One type of emergent urbanism I wanted to quickly highlight is market urbanism.  This theory examines how market forces and property rights enable the complex city to “emerge” through the order of the marketplace.  They believe that, When left to market forces (instead of pure community activism which is what traditional emergent urbanism calls for) as opposed to the codes and zoning of planning, land use patterns and transportation systems would reflect a society that is more economically and environmentally sustainable, efficient, and just than when imposed in a top-down fashion seen today in many government bureaucracies. 

I believe in some if not most of the principles behind emergent urbanism, namely that of placing the community voice over the planning regulator voice.  On the other hand, I do not support the notion of market urbanism.  In short and in summary form, I believe in planning by way of community activism as opposed to planning by way of financial gain or drain. 

Hopefully and eventually, we can live in a society where community interest and participation is so high and people’s understanding and awareness of urban issues is so sharp that the role of the planner is diminished.  To me, this is an ideal situation.  That way, we can once again create cities and societies that reflect organic growth and human scales instead of homogenous, car scaled, and predictable planned cities.  Then, planners could focus more on being advocates for their community instead of a facilitator or regulator. 

Until this magically happens, there still needs to be a planning presence in today’s society but what we need to do is start focusing on finding a better balance between the planning profession and the general public.  In my experience, people have a general distrust with the profession and look at us with a skeptic eye.  This often creates friction between the two parties and progress becomes difficult and cumbersome.  How this is fixed and a balance found seems very difficult.  Perhaps planning should start focusing more on the technical aspects of the profession, providing high quality urban design and sustainable technology ideas that the untrained general public can’t produce.  Other aspects of planning decisions could thus be turned over to the community.  This could result in utter chaos or urban collapse, but it could also result in better places and spaces being created in a modern city.  And with places like China and Korea creating global cities in quick, progressive fashions, we need to start thinking about how American cities can keep up and be the best they possibly can.  Emergent urbanism could be one way to go, it could be the future (and demise) of urban planning in the United States. 

Image Source

Regulating Urban Centers to Death

Published March 11, 2010 Urban Cincinnati , Urban Indianapolis , Urban Policy 3 Comments
Tags: , , , , , , , ,

There has been two news stories out of Indianapolis and Cincinnati within the past week that have stuck with me and got me thinking about regulation and its effect on the urban environment. Recently, an Indianapolis planning board denied the Indianapolis Business Journal (IBJ) from installing a new sign which featured a variable message screen outside its headquarters on Washington Street in downtown. Meanwhile, news broke that downtown Cincinnati is finally getting their first dog park, joining the many other wonderful dog parks throughout the City.

First, let me clarify something. The reason why the opening of the dog park was such a big deal in Cincinnati is because of an existing regulation that does not allow dogs on Fountain Square, downtown’s premiere public space. Since this regulation went into effect within the past few years, dog owners have been clamoring for a dog park, and now they have one! So these two stories are directly related, even if it isn’t evident at first glance.

The regulation on Fountain Square banning dogs is something I find particularly interesting and, when it comes down to it, quite ridiculous. Supporters of the law would tell you how such regulation is needed to mitigate dog litter and its associated problems. Opponents of the law (myself) would argue that such regulations dehumanize a public space, discourage users from using a space naturally, and encourage a lack of spatial civic ownership.

Similarly, I find the principles behind the recent decision to ban the IBJ’s sign ridiculous. The urban design guidelines for downtown Indianapolis were created in response to concerns over urban feel and clutter. As a result, signage in downtown Indianapolis must fit certain requirements, be of specific sizes, use certain lettering sizes, and follow various other signage control regulations. Proponents of this regulation would tell you that this law is important to create a desired ‘feel’ for downtown and ensure the streetscapes are consistent. Opponents of such laws (myself) would argue that such regulations encourage homogenous streetscapes, creating predictability and monotony in a place that ought to celebrate the ‘human touch’ and allow for diversity and eclectic environments.

I am an urban planner/designer by trade, and have written signage standards before, so I understand the need for certain regulations in today’s capitalistic society. With that said and with these types of regulations occurring in our urban centers, I think some regulations going too far and see alarming trends happening on a number of levels. General regulations, represented here by the Fountain Square dog ban and the IBJ sign ban, are an attempt to control the use of public spaces and create predictability for its users, the human. The human, being an unmanageable, unique, and complex being, will over time naturally reject such a space. As a result, a human is less likely to form a bond or connection with the space, leading to a lack of civic ownership and sense-of-pride of the space.

With this lack of space ownership or caring comes other users who thrive on abandonment, forcing remedies such as ‘no loitering’ and surveillance through cameras and police officers. Soon enough, this endless cycle of dehumanization spirals out of control and you’re left with a barren, sterile space rid of anything resembling human. On the flip side, if public spaces and associates streetscape elements are completely humanized, allowing users to use the space as they see fit and in various ways, the community will eventually feel ownership of the space. As a result, small tasks like picking up your dog’s crap will become a communal expectation that a user would be held responsible for. Yes, this scenario seems quite idyllic, and critics would argue that while nice on paper, this scenario almost never plays out and users will simply take advantage of the space and its lack of regulations.

I am sure this is true to certain extents in the American city, but my observations in European and North African cities point to the contrary, and show public spaces with little to no obvious regulation, high user count, and a sense of chaos and order all at once. In places as diverse as Iraklion to Tripoli or Amsterdam to Athens, it was my observation there was little to no surveillance of the public spaces (compared to American counterparts). If I had to summarize a typical public place, it would be one of no policemen keeping a watchful eye, no visible cameras watching your every move, and little to no urban designs that obstructed movement throughout the spaces. Further, all space, whether it was public or private, seemed to be integrated into the public realm. There were no signs that said ‘Private Property: Keep Off’ or no security guards banning you from certain places. Essentially, the city’s public spaces felt communal, as if all types and creeds of people were welcome to wander the streets and frequent the businesses.

In particular, the Greek and Libyan public realm seemed to rely not on surveillance and the ‘purifying’ of public spaces but rather allowed a more bottom-up approach to dominate the public sphere. In Athens, Iraklion, and Tripoli, it was my observation that spaces were controlled by the surrounding community and they set the ‘rules of the street’ if you will, where community members were responsible for a hands-off regulatory structure. This way, the space was humanized and owned by the community itself, something that lead to place identity creation and thus a higher user count. Because there was a higher user count, so too was there a higher populace diversity.

This hands-off regulatory structure is something places like Indianapolis and Cincinnati ought to implement. While I am aware that the Midwest is by no means Europe, I do think public spaces in each city could stand to become more humanized and allow users to ‘own’ the space and form an intrinsic identity with public spaces, thus making people more likely to pick up that dog crap off the grounds at Fountain Square. Thus, the regulation itself isn’t needed as the community is by nature and need regulating themselves and from the ‘bottom up’ and not the ‘top down.’  I’ve seen it occur in other places in this world, so why not Indianapolis and Cincinnati? If achieved, a more vibrant, energetic, and urban public realm can be created in these two Midwest cities, something that ought to be attempted for an increasingly urban population.

Image Source

« Previous Page

Follow me on Twitter (@GMeckstroth)

Blog Categories

The Archives

streetsblog.net
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.