A Resistance to Reflexively Go Along Part I
I did not expect to take many notes Planning Commission meeting Wednesday morning but thought I would listen to the Q&A between the Planning Commission and the Dover Kohl consultants.
Three hours later I had nine pages of notes and at one point wrote in all caps: STALE THINKING!
The Planning Commission (PC) let Dover Kohl (DK) know parts of the plan that needed adjustment either in language, clarity, redefinition, or CYA. And compromise and not upsetting anyone were the orders of the day.
Richmond is legendary for its indecisiveness and fear of going against the business elite and doing anything without consensus (esp. among those elite and the government). The Braves and the arts center/meals tax are perfect examples.
This plan, despite all the great public input and participation, is likely to be watered down and if the pattern holds the impact we all hope it will have will remain on paper and never make it to the street. Our last Master Plan session five years ago drew 20 people. Did the city ever do much (if anything) with it? Was it also long on vision or riddled with caution?
The meeting yesterday can best be summed up by saying the PC as a whole is hesitant to make any bold declarations about the Downtown Master Plan (DMP). Even the definition of the DMP was up for debate throughout the session - "is it more than a vision? The city uses the DMP to decide on specific projects and how property will be used; therefore the developers are vocal because they know it will have a long term impact."
What about the long term impact on the rest of us?
DK responded that some recommendations could be put in an addendum or separate document that serves as a guide but not a rule. To me that translates into not only CYA, but it gives the city and big shots an out to say "that wasn't part of the master plan." Then planners and leaders say "Well, we tried!"
The only vocal proactive DMP advocate was Bev Lacy (who, full disclosure, is a family friend). She advocated a more specific but flexible DMP. Others on the panel, including Chair Robert Mills, said it should be more of a vision document or an Executive Summary without too many specifics because it would take too much time.
We've been waiting around here for change since Lee rode out on Traveller. What's a few more years?
Council rep and PC member Kathy Graziano chimed in that two separate documents were a bad idea and we could adopt a specific plan with a vision because not all of the provisions have to be approved.
Then someone (not clear from notes who) said that formed based zoning was "a shift in the way we do things" which should be the point of this revised DMP. This DMP and so many other areas of this city's future need to be about doing things differently, as scary as that is to the old guard.
There is a wealth of intellectual talent and capital out there to be tapped and utilized but we seem all too willing to rely on the same play book. If Richmond were an NFL team we would be the Miami Dolphins. Shifting the way we do things should be our mantra from the top levels of the city on down so we can try and run with the New England Patriots.
Unfortunately, the next two hours were digging through the Miami playbook.
Where the DMP said definitive things like streets and the traditional grid pattern should not be closed and we should avoid creating anymore "superblocks," some on the PC asked for an out so it was not set in stone.
Victor Dover then said something that stood out like Wilt Chamberlain.
He said Richmond should summon "a resistance to reflexively go along" with what we are told will work or be great for downtown. Changing the DMP to allow wiggle room and exceptions does not mean we have to grant them or ignore the long term picture for the short term gain and promises of the seller. This was Kohl's warning.
Allowance of exceptions should be rare but our history is we make them the rule. Our exceptions become the rule when we are told the next big project will do x and y but fails to deliver on either.
We have historically seen exceptions as a CYA valve so we can say we tried to follow the Master Plan but there was this exception.
Richmond has routinely granted bulldozer rights for people to close of street grids without any thought of the effect it has on the rest of downtown. The convention center's demolition of wholesale blocks in Jackson Ward is another prime example.
Kohl noted our downtown has always been about the next big thing and they have not worked. The deck has always been skewed in favor of such projects and today the PC was looking for softer language to allow the possibility that it could be done again if we had to put up our hands.
Kohl reminded - hell, told us - that the small guy and small project should not be shut out because they are small and many small projects add up to one big one (hello, First Fridays?). Small space can be advantageous because of its constraints not in spite of them, but we don't and never have seen it that way because we don't think out of the box. I can't recall an instance when we as a city have.
When the Valentine Museum opened Valentine Riverside at Tredegar Iron Works in 1994, a lot of people laughed and scoffed and said it would never work. It didn't.
I always said it was foresight to be by the river (especially at that site) before other people woke up and said hey that is where our heart and soul is and so should be our focus. It is amazing how when people around here have vision and think outside of the box they are ridiculed by those from within the box as the bottom is ripping apart.
When the issue of the DMP itself came up again later in the meeting, Melvin Law asked if it was a misnomer and outdated concept. The DMP has to be updated every five years but with a 20 year planning vision it was said. Kohl replied that the DMP was a "reason to be aspirational to decide on a long term legacy and inspire action."
Those are fighting words around here, pal!
I think it was at this point John Sarvay and I looked at each other and bemoaned the lack of gumption in the room to use the DMP as an opportunity to better Richmond instead of the moment to see how safe we can play it and not piss anyone off because they may talk about us later.
Kohl also mentioned he heard that in his discussions with the city that five trees are removed for every one that is planted. He reminded the person that current use of resources does not mean that is static and must remain that way; it can change if we change it.
What a concept!
At this point I began to think that Kohl is the patient teacher with the kid who just doesn't get fractions. The teacher is trying to make us think differently, act boldly, stake a claim for the betterment of downtown, the city, and the future (and not just certain interests), but we just refuse to do the math.
~
A Resistance To Reflexively Go Along Part II: The River
A Resistance To Reflexively Go Along Part III: VCU
~~
Three hours later I had nine pages of notes and at one point wrote in all caps: STALE THINKING!
The Planning Commission (PC) let Dover Kohl (DK) know parts of the plan that needed adjustment either in language, clarity, redefinition, or CYA. And compromise and not upsetting anyone were the orders of the day.
Richmond is legendary for its indecisiveness and fear of going against the business elite and doing anything without consensus (esp. among those elite and the government). The Braves and the arts center/meals tax are perfect examples.
This plan, despite all the great public input and participation, is likely to be watered down and if the pattern holds the impact we all hope it will have will remain on paper and never make it to the street. Our last Master Plan session five years ago drew 20 people. Did the city ever do much (if anything) with it? Was it also long on vision or riddled with caution?
The meeting yesterday can best be summed up by saying the PC as a whole is hesitant to make any bold declarations about the Downtown Master Plan (DMP). Even the definition of the DMP was up for debate throughout the session - "is it more than a vision? The city uses the DMP to decide on specific projects and how property will be used; therefore the developers are vocal because they know it will have a long term impact."
What about the long term impact on the rest of us?
DK responded that some recommendations could be put in an addendum or separate document that serves as a guide but not a rule. To me that translates into not only CYA, but it gives the city and big shots an out to say "that wasn't part of the master plan." Then planners and leaders say "Well, we tried!"
The only vocal proactive DMP advocate was Bev Lacy (who, full disclosure, is a family friend). She advocated a more specific but flexible DMP. Others on the panel, including Chair Robert Mills, said it should be more of a vision document or an Executive Summary without too many specifics because it would take too much time.
We've been waiting around here for change since Lee rode out on Traveller. What's a few more years?
Council rep and PC member Kathy Graziano chimed in that two separate documents were a bad idea and we could adopt a specific plan with a vision because not all of the provisions have to be approved.
Then someone (not clear from notes who) said that formed based zoning was "a shift in the way we do things" which should be the point of this revised DMP. This DMP and so many other areas of this city's future need to be about doing things differently, as scary as that is to the old guard.
There is a wealth of intellectual talent and capital out there to be tapped and utilized but we seem all too willing to rely on the same play book. If Richmond were an NFL team we would be the Miami Dolphins. Shifting the way we do things should be our mantra from the top levels of the city on down so we can try and run with the New England Patriots.
Unfortunately, the next two hours were digging through the Miami playbook.
Where the DMP said definitive things like streets and the traditional grid pattern should not be closed and we should avoid creating anymore "superblocks," some on the PC asked for an out so it was not set in stone.
Victor Dover then said something that stood out like Wilt Chamberlain.
He said Richmond should summon "a resistance to reflexively go along" with what we are told will work or be great for downtown. Changing the DMP to allow wiggle room and exceptions does not mean we have to grant them or ignore the long term picture for the short term gain and promises of the seller. This was Kohl's warning.
Allowance of exceptions should be rare but our history is we make them the rule. Our exceptions become the rule when we are told the next big project will do x and y but fails to deliver on either.
We have historically seen exceptions as a CYA valve so we can say we tried to follow the Master Plan but there was this exception.
Richmond has routinely granted bulldozer rights for people to close of street grids without any thought of the effect it has on the rest of downtown. The convention center's demolition of wholesale blocks in Jackson Ward is another prime example.
Kohl noted our downtown has always been about the next big thing and they have not worked. The deck has always been skewed in favor of such projects and today the PC was looking for softer language to allow the possibility that it could be done again if we had to put up our hands.
Kohl reminded - hell, told us - that the small guy and small project should not be shut out because they are small and many small projects add up to one big one (hello, First Fridays?). Small space can be advantageous because of its constraints not in spite of them, but we don't and never have seen it that way because we don't think out of the box. I can't recall an instance when we as a city have.
When the Valentine Museum opened Valentine Riverside at Tredegar Iron Works in 1994, a lot of people laughed and scoffed and said it would never work. It didn't.
I always said it was foresight to be by the river (especially at that site) before other people woke up and said hey that is where our heart and soul is and so should be our focus. It is amazing how when people around here have vision and think outside of the box they are ridiculed by those from within the box as the bottom is ripping apart.
When the issue of the DMP itself came up again later in the meeting, Melvin Law asked if it was a misnomer and outdated concept. The DMP has to be updated every five years but with a 20 year planning vision it was said. Kohl replied that the DMP was a "reason to be aspirational to decide on a long term legacy and inspire action."
Those are fighting words around here, pal!
I think it was at this point John Sarvay and I looked at each other and bemoaned the lack of gumption in the room to use the DMP as an opportunity to better Richmond instead of the moment to see how safe we can play it and not piss anyone off because they may talk about us later.
Kohl also mentioned he heard that in his discussions with the city that five trees are removed for every one that is planted. He reminded the person that current use of resources does not mean that is static and must remain that way; it can change if we change it.
What a concept!
At this point I began to think that Kohl is the patient teacher with the kid who just doesn't get fractions. The teacher is trying to make us think differently, act boldly, stake a claim for the betterment of downtown, the city, and the future (and not just certain interests), but we just refuse to do the math.
~
A Resistance To Reflexively Go Along Part II: The River
A Resistance To Reflexively Go Along Part III: VCU
~~
Labels: change, development, downtown
posted by Jon Baliles | 8:20 AM
<< Home