Recently I heard someone say, and I can’t remember where or who, that a community’s issues are generally not “goal” issues, but “path” issues. The idea has been stuck in my craw ever since.
 |
Most of us want to live somewhere that has public spaces
like this one, in the other Carmel (California).
|
Being intimately involved in pushing forward some of our community goals, I have seen this perception as a kind of truism. We want an equitable and healthy community, a vibrant and profitable economy that benefits all citizens, citizens happy and engaged with access to a strong education at all levels, and to the arts, activities and good food. We want a community whose residents love living here, and we want to be governed by thoughtful people full of integrity who respond to the needs of the community. The arguments we have in our community mostly result not always from competing goals, but from differing views about the paths we choose.
One thing is certain: investing in walkable downtowns, bike and walk-friendly neighborhoods and commercial areas and good land use policy that supports it all. I recently saw James Brainard, mayor of Carmel, Indiana, speak about their experience.
Carmel has been in the community-development news for a while, and I can’t pretend to any great scoops about how they did it. But a few things he said in his talk really struck me as something that is possible in small cities and towns everywhere. I would say all of that starts with commitment and policy.
Proceeding from the belief that design governs all matters, Carmel developed a set of design standards intended to create the old town feeling they sought. The overlay ordinance, Brainard said, makes it so “you can't tell if a house was built in 1910 or 2012.” Streets designed for traffic calming (1 1/2 to 2% of Carmel’s budget is for street trees, Brainard said) make active transportation comfortable and easy. Requirements for second floor (at least) residential space above retail stores in the downtown core and underground parking (paid for with tax increment financing) make for a human-scale downtown. Eighty-five roundabouts in the city give it an efficient, safe system for vehicles, and walking and biking are included in the designs, it appears.
I should add first that Mayor Brainard’s presentation left me wondering where the battles were. Especially when he (maybe) glossed over the details of a $95 million DOT swap to create an arterial under passing a spectacular double-roundabout intersection.
 |
The Indiana Department of Transportation wanted to
put up traffic lights to solve this problem
caused by Carmel's rapid growth. The city taking over
ownership of the intersection (at least) helped
work out the $95 million in funding from INDOT.
|
Mayor Brainard did comment frequently on another piece of the puzzle that I think probably facilitated the process: they had no real old downtown to redevelop. In fact, when he was running for mayor and knocking on doors, he asked about their downtown. He realized after a while that people were referring to different places when they talked about it. “People need to know where the center of town is,” he said.
So they moved over a few blocks from what they agreed was a commercial center of town, and put in place a set of incentives and design standards that did indeed attract the investment they hoped for. Building up from scratch, it seems, is easier to control, especially when you have the commitment to design that Carmel has.
I should also say that Carmel sounds a bit too contrived for me. I have never been a big fan of the kinds of giant developed communities like Ashburn, Virginia or Irvine, California. I like my urbanism messy, I guess, the way I like my nature.
But none of this detracts from the remarkable example that Carmel provides: with commitment, political will and influence (how else do you get $95 million dollars from a department of transportation?), and including walking and biking comfort in your design—and luck—you can get what you want for your community.
No comments:
Post a Comment