Killing communities with urban planning

I've been criticizing the grand development schemes of Minneapolis Mayor Rybak and all those other planners who continue to try to forcibly rebuild our cities to match their vision of what a city should be. City planning on a grand scale is a virus that has spread widely.

Richfield, my own city, is planning changes in the last remaining commercial area in that city to "establish a future vision". Quoting from the city's plan, already set in motion: "The City wants to create a vision that will set the tone for a master plan for the future of the area to ensure its continued vitality."

Notice the contradiction in that statement? In order to ensure "continued vitality", it must be true that the area is ALREADY vital. Well... it is, and it got that way WITHOUT a "vision" and being part of the city's plan. That neighborhood has changed continually during the 35 years I've lived in the area. It's a strip of businesses along Penn and along 66th, surrounded on all sides by residential areas. For those who live nearby, it's a convenient shopping area, yet it has some stores that people from further away travel to visit. No, it doesn't represent someone's grand vision... it's a real mixture of separate, unconnected businesses... supermarkets, bowling alley, hobby store, a couple of secondhand stores, paint store, auto parts, restaurants, rental store, used cars, and a real variety of small specialty stores... even a podiatrist where a Sambo's restaurant once was, before Sambo's became too politically incorrect. Oh, yes... there's one of the four Richfield city-owned liquor stores there too.

Part of the problem the city sees is a typical governmental problem. There is a lot of traffic on both Penn and 66th. Odd thing is, businesses like traffic, but one might ask why it's a busy intersection. The reason is simple: both streets are heavily used to avoid the jammed-up, Crosstown freeway a few blocks away. Much of the traffic isn't local at all, but people just flowing through to somewhere else. The city claims traffic congestion and a lack of parking. Those are both just false claims... the heavy traffic flows easily, does not interfere with getting to the businesses, and that commercial area has more off-street parking than any similar area I'm aware of.

The city also claims, as justification for interference, an unfriendly pedestrian environment and aging buildings. Hogwash. I've walked the area many times, and I don't know what "unfriendly" means, but the truth is, very few people walk to shop any longer anyway. When I read that, I thought of the areas Richfield has already "redeveloped", and realized that they DEFINE "unfriendly" to pedestrians. They look nice when you drive by, precisely because there is nothing there of any importance to you... nothing to distract you. There is nothing to look at, and no interesting stores to wander into. That's NOT true of the 66th and Penn shopping area.

The truth is, judging from new developments, the people involved in city planning obviously don't know anything at all about being a pedestrian. If I walk the mile or so to the 66th and Penn area, I go under the grand new 35W overpass, that was built with wide, lighted walkways set back from the street (making the span longer). Problem is, almost nobody walks that route... it was a total waste of money that sounded good to some architectural planner. I could show you a lot of other planned walking areas that don't have any walkers.

As for "aging buildings"... what building isn't aging... and what's wrong with old buildings? Fact is, the mayor lives in an "aging" apartment building at the south end of that area. I'll wager that building won't be considered for "redevelopment". I know the "aging buildings" that are driving the planners nuts... a strip of very small, inexpensive shops along the east side of Penn, just south of 66th. Each shop is independent... no coordinated signage, so they, as a group, look haphazard, and a little messy. Personally, I call that charming. Each store has an individual identity, and its own unique clientele. If the cost of having a business in that little strip mall were to increase by 20%, I suspect all of those businesses would close or move. Those small businesses are precisely the kind planners have no appreciation for, and they're the ones most vulnerable to any interference from government. Richfield obliterated a similar strip mall at 75th and Lyndale, replaced by a big, slab-faced retirement home with a few mostly-vacant store spaces along the sidewalk, and who knows what else.

Why are those small businesses of any importance? Wouldn't we all be better off with several stronger stores there instead? Hell... I could pick several businesses I'd like to see there instead of what is there now, but should anyone have the right to do that? Come to think of it, I can think of many stores I would love to see where the Richfield City Hall sits now, and making those changes would certainly increase the city's tax base.

Small independent stores and businesses are the HEART of this nation. Some of them become successful and grow, others remain small, and many fail, but whatever they do, they do with their own money and effort... taking nothing from the rest of us. They are diversity personified... they are entrepreneurism in the best tradition, and, together, they offer the rest of us a rich shopping experience, and the ability to find almost anything we need at a price we can afford.

Our cities are rapidly driving out such small businesses. Urban planning and development inevitably raises the costs of operating within each development, destroying those individual businesses that used to be the American dream. Chain stores with better financing move in instead... often recruited by developers. If a chain store will help the image of a redevelopment, they may get special deals from the city... the exact opposite treatment the old stores received.

What do we as consumers end up with? Developed, planned shopping areas that are virtually identical to each other. Very little uniqueness in any of them. Boring... just plain boring, regardless of how pretty they may be.

Richfield has already initiated a "study" by a graduate student group from the U of Minnesota. One might ask what graduate students know about the 66th and Penn area, or about shopping, walking, business, or life in general. There is no doubt about who they will be trying to please with their study; their professor, who is undoubtedly part of the urban planning movement, determined to beautify the world at the expense of the people who built it and live in it.

If urban planning is not appropriate in our communities, what would I suggest instead?
C'mon back here, and I'll present a libertarian viewpoint of urban non-planning and try to paint a picture of what the result would be.

The Great American City?

Last Tuesday evening, I volunteered at the Museum of Russian Art for a special event sponsored by the Minneapolis Chapter of the American Institute of Architects. The speaker was Minneapolis mayor R.T. Rybak, and this was his "vision" presentation about "reweaving the urban fabric". The museum was packed - standing room only and very little of that.

Choosing the museum for such a forum was a natural for the AIA... TMORA had already been a cover story in their magazine, and the redesign of the old Spanish-style church/funeral home into a great art museum was the splendid work of Julie Snow, local architect. I've added my compliments to Julie, and we've joked about this event, and a previous one, being a good structural test for the suspended mezzanine level. I've enjoyed watching her pride at such events, and this one was surely special for her... a major assembly of her peers.

I had another reason for volunteering to work at that special event; I wanted to get the gist of Mayor Rybak's "vision" as he would present it to that particular group... architects and their firms. Knowing a bit of my views on the role of government, the museum volunteer coordinator felt obliged to ask me if I might "heckle" the Mayor. It was a wise question to broach, but I assured her that I would not, in that setting. It was a public forum for registered guests and I was not registered... only volunteering for the museum, and I wouldn't do anything to blemish a museum event.

However... it is not inappropriate for me to comment here about the event, and about the grand plans being laid out by Mayor Rybak.

What is "the vision"?

Mayor Rybak reported that the Minneapolis Chapter of the American Institute of Architects, in conjunction with their 150th anniversary, would recruit 150 architects to work with community organizations on visions for their neighborhoods. The architects would partner with the Urban Land Institute, University of Minnesota, and city staff to incorporate community visions into city plans and initiatives, including the city's comprehensive plan and transportation action plan.

I don't have much doubt that both the Mayor and all those groups have some good intentions. They all want to participate (and profit from) making Minneapolis, as the Mayor so understatedly put it... "the Great American City of our time". He has a grand plan for leaving his "mark" on the city, so that the future may recall the Rybak administration.

The mayor and cohorts believe that a city can be made "better" through grand plans. They are right in some ways. The city CAN be made to be impressive to visitors, and it can be built to attract more visitors. That pleases hotels and other businesses who are part of the "hospitality" industry. It also pleases many who simply own property downtown, because it will drive up the value of their properties. Such grand plans please architectural firms, planners, construction corporations, construction labor unions, and the metropolitan transit authority, because it will mean big building projects and increased transportation.

So... there are lots of folks pushing for such a "vision"... for a grand plan with plenty of construction, bright and shiny new "venues" and grand thoroughfares that would, as the Mayor says, weave it all together. When I say there are "lots of folks", I don't mean large numbers of people as compared to the population of Minneapolis, I mean a lot of individuals and groups with wealth and clout, but a relatively small part of the population. Sure... the "movers and shakers" are fans of planning and grand visions... they're the ones who stand to benefit from it.

I moved to the area in 1965. By that time, "urban renewal" had demolished 40% of the downtown Minneapolis area... leveled it, destroying great chunks of history, many historic, usable structures, and driving a huge number of people away. Aside from the architectural and population loss, the mayor and city council renigged on promises to replace the low-cost housing being destroyed. That especially destructive period has been documented and mourned ever since, but the lessons were NOT learned... the grand planning destruction continues.

Minneapolis population is currently pegged at about 374,000. In 1950, it was 522,000. Is that progress? Defenders will claim that the growth of the suburbs caused that loss, but the suburban growth was also a flight from a city that obviously didn't want residents... especially poor residents. Count thousands of small businesses among those lost to the suburbs (if they survived to make the move).

I worked downtown in the late 60's and again in the 90's for several months. Gradually, though, like many other Minneapolis residents, I've come to think of the downtown area as a place to occasionally visit... if you can afford it. Sports events, major concerts... and what else? Not a damned thing I can think of. I lived in Minneapolis for 40 years and gradually came to think of downtown as a traffic jam to be avoided. It's peculiar... although the population of Minneapolis used to be 40% larger, and freeways now take up a lot more space, why is the traffic worse?

Rybak is pushing for more "light rail", part of what he means by "reweaving" the city back together. It's very much like saying "Yes, we drove you away, but now we're providing a means for you to visit again". If you listen to light rail proponents, you're fed a sort of return-to-streetcars vision of the past, but upgraded to modern technology. That isn't even close to accurate... light rail is a train, that blocks traffic at every intersection it crosses, requires stations for entry and exit, and, at best, is a speeding danger to anyone walking, biking, or driving. It's point-to-point, no detours, no choices. One accident brings the system to a halt. The hardware may be modern, but the concept is antiquated and brutally cumbersome... and expensive. It is yet another grand scheme from the planners. To the extent that the Mayor and cohorts succeed, Minneapolis will disintegrate even further into a showcase for the benefit of the wealthy, at the expense of everyone else.

I, and perhaps you, could just write off downtown Minneapolis as a strange place we can easily avoid, except for one small detail… every resident of Minneapolis will pay for it. The 300,000+ residents who don't live downtown will be forced to subsidize those who live or own property downtown. They already are, but more grand schemes such as the one Rybak is cooking up, will only worsen the load. And still more people will flee. The cycle has been unending for many decades… Rybak is only the latest power-monger to fall into the planning trap.

Understand… I'm giving the Mayor and all those on the planning bandwagon the benefit of the doubt. If I were a bit more cynical (realistic?) I would conclude that they, like those who preceded them, were getting exactly what they want… a city formed by and for the wealthy, at the expense of everyone else. The problem for the rest of us is… they can do it, and not only get away with it, but they'll be able to convince a lot of people that they've actually enjoyed being ripped off.