It's the place, stupid! Placemaking as the Way to a Brighter Future

[iheartthed]

Is the leadership finally starting to get it?

Michigan Cities See Placemaking as the Way to a Brighter Future

There’s no consensus in the urban planning profession — or in public opinion more generally — about how to handle declining cities like Detroit.All sorts of solutions have been proposed, ranging from the outlandish [[making Detroit a “skyscraper ruins park“) to the more widely accepted [[converting vacant land into urban agriculture).

But lately Michigan leaders have seized on a strategy that may be the most promising yet: placemaking.
From newspaper columnists to business executives, from theDepartment of Transportation and Governor Rick Snyder, Wolverines of all stripes seem to be coming to the conclusion that creating vibrant, walkable urban places is perhaps as important to the future of the state as the auto industry was to its past.
Leading this philosophical sea change is a nonprofit group representing the state’s incorporated cities and suburbs: the Michigan Municipal League. The League recently published a manifesto for the state’s renewal titled “The Economics of Place.” [[They also started a Streetsblog Network blog by the same name.)
League CEO and Economics of Place author Dan Gilmartin explains, studies have shown that 65 percent of college-educated young people look, first, for an attractive place to live and, second, for a job.
“We’ve spent a lot of time in the last several decades disinvesting in our cities, and all of a sudden that’s what makes you competitive,” Gilmartin said.

Creating places that young people find vibrant, exciting and attractive is essential to the state’s health, Gilmartin said on the blog:

"It started several years ago, in exploring what it will take to return Michigan to greatness. We looked high and low and came to believe with absolute certainty that our future depends on our ability to compete for talent. And as we dug deeper, we found that “talent” [[young, college educated, creative people, often entrepreneurs) demands great places. To them, an absolute prerequisite is a vibrant urban center that appeals on an emotional level. They want to live and work where they feel something — connected, challenged, inspired, excited, free and effectual. These are 21st century communities."

You just don’t get that in a subdivision thirty miles outside the city center, no matter how nicely the lawn is manicured. Don’t get me wrong, many people feel wonderful in that setting too, but for this key demographic, the urban experience is paramount.

This point is especially hard to get across for some reason:

Gilmartin agrees. “We don’t lose to the Chicagos, and Seattles, Minneapolises and places like that on taxes and regulations,” he said. “We just don’t.” He agrees with Dzwonkowski that creating vibrant urban spaces is far more important in revitalizing Michigan’s cities.

http://dc.streetsblog.org/2011/11/28...n-placemaking/

[coracle]

What a daft idea. A city development should be suitable for everybody; young, median years and seniors not just 65% of some unique group that might be interested by a particular scenario for a short period of their life. That's just a gimmick. We need a city where all people feel comfortable to live the whole of their lives and fully enjoy the results of their education and labor in an urban area. Detroit doesn't do that for a lot of people according to the people that have left. Placemaking sounds like BS from the mind of a space cadet.

[Detroitnerd]

RADIO ANNOUNCER: "We're out here at the historic intersection of Hall Road and Hayes Road. Back in the 19th century, this was all a bunch of farms. In the 18th century, this was all wild woodland. Go back 100 years earlier, and you'll find the spot where Pontiac's grandfather took a crap in the woods. Standing here, taking in the awe-inspiring sight of historic Lakeside Auto Care, National Coney Island and ABC Warehouse, watching the traffic zoom by,we're reminded how this commercial strip has enticed travelers to stop and find succor since time immemorial -- or, that is to say, 98 months..."

[fryar]

Is the leadership finally starting to get it?

I think so, some of them. Not to get off on too much of a tangent, but I do seem to recall some past voices in the wilderness from pockets of MI leadership on this issue [[for example, "Cool Cities"). Those who do get it plod away in their Sisyphean task, hopefully gaining momentum. It's not like there have not been changes in the right direction.

“We’ve spent a lot of time in the last several decades disinvesting in our cities, and all of a sudden that’s what makes you competitive,” Gilmartin said.

Yep. A real don't-blink-or-you'll-miss-it development there.

[urbanhat]

A city development should be suitable for everybody; young, median years and seniors not just 65% of some unique group that might be interested by a particular scenario for a short period of their life. That's just a gimmick. We need a city where all people feel comfortable to live the whole of their lives and fully enjoy the results of their education and labor in an urban area.

Yes, yes, you're right we need places for everyone! Public places should welcome everybody. I would hope the placemaking crowd understands this. The point is that young people are more mobile than other populations, and quality public spaces tends to be a factor in where they choose to live. [[True, the article isn't that clear about this.) As a young person myself, I would be pretty bored by a public space filled only other people like me.

On another note, while I applaud any effort to make better public space, I find the term "placemaking" kind of weird, or at least confusing. Often "placemaking" implies an intentional effort to build a sense of place. That makes sense for small towns and cities without a long history [[although sometimes it seems artificial). But Detroit has plenty of sense of place! Detroit has a stronger awareness of place than just about any other city.

Detroit already has the "place" made. It just needs better public spaces.

[ordinary]

RADIO ANNOUNCER: and you'll find the spot where Pontiac's grandfather took a crap in the woods.

LOL. That's beautiful.

[Detroit Stylin]

This idea sounds just as stupid as building those fake ass downtowns around strip malls. Yet suburbia thinks building light rail that will actually help them out in the long run is a colossal waste of money?!

[lilpup]

building strips malls and stand-alone fast food joints in once-upon-a-time real downtowns isn't so great, either

[Ravine]

Lemme get some popcorn. I'll be right back. This thread promises to be a hoot.

[ghettopalmetto]

A city development should be suitable for everybody; young, median years and seniors not just 65% of some unique group that might be interested by a particular scenario for a short period of their life. That's just a gimmick. We need a city where all people feel comfortable to live the whole of their lives and fully enjoy the results of their education and labor in an urban area. Detroit doesn't do that for a lot of people according to the people that have left.

Well stated. Detroit's largest economic product--suburban sprawl--has proven to be well-suited for middle-aged folks of reasonable means, and not much of anyone else.

Placemaking sounds like BS from the mind of a space cadet.

Funny you should say that. "Placemaking" was the way cities were constructed for thousands of years, from Ancient Babylon to 1945. It's the current paradigm that is the aberration.

[townonenorth]

I like public places, it's just that sometimes the public that is in the place is just not what one may want in your "private" space.

Lemme get some popcorn. I'll be right back. This thread promises to be a hoot.

TSDR

[Ravine]

i like public places, it's just that sometimes the public that is in the place is just not what one may want in your "private" space.




Tsdr

Har!!..........

[fryar]

This idea sounds just as stupid as building those fake ass downtowns around strip malls. Yet suburbia thinks building light rail that will actually help them out in the long run is a colossal waste of money?!

I think *they* basically have the same point of view as you do, actually. They're just being clumsy with expressing the idea. It's hard to do, it basically implies a paradigm shift for SE Michigan in particular.

Cities? Bah humbug! Now get off my lawn! Stupid kids and their effete, unrelatable desire for walkability and amenities. I say, if a strip mall's good enough for me... why, I see no reason to change anything. Huzzah to the mall, say I. Those kids'll learn soon enough what's truly important in life: driving, preferably in solitude.

[Detroitnerd]

Funny you should say that. "Placemaking" was the way cities were constructed for thousands of years, from Ancient Babylon to 1945. It's the current paradigm that is the aberration.

I think you could fix that date earlier. Joel Garreau said that no cities of the old style were built after 1914, the year the millionth Ford rolled off the line. He actually seemed PROUD of it, though.

[Bham1982]

The whole "Cool Cities" and "urban placemaking" stuff is mostly garbage to keep consultants employed. There's a grain of truth, but it seems to be extrapolated to be the "next big urban thing", replacing festival marketplaces, convention centers, sports arenas and the like.

If "sense of place" drove economies, than New Orleans, Detroit and Cleveland would be America's boomtowns, and Houston, Dallas, and Atlanta would be America's dying cities. Of course, the opposite is true.

Why would you plan your city around the interests of 23-year-old artisanal chocolate makers? How about providing a job-friendly environment and good services?

[Detroitnerd]

I wish I could be a transparent shill for the status quo. Is there a school you go to to learn that?

[fryar]

The whole "Cool Cities" and "urban placemaking" stuff is mostly garbage to keep consultants employed. There's a grain of truth, but it seems to be extrapolated to be the "next big urban thing", replacing festival marketplaces, convention centers, sports arenas and the like.

Yay and nay, from my perspective. I share some of the cynicism around this being a potentially empty buzzword for consultants eager to market their skills. That said, however, there is truth to what it addresses that is not the "next big urban thing" but far more fundamental to a location's desirability. I certainly do think it's great whenever leadership tries to have a conversation about the dead-end sprawl in Southeast Michigan.

If "sense of place" drove economies, than New Orleans, Detroit and Cleveland would be America's boomtowns, and Houston, Dallas, and Atlanta would be America's dying cities. Of course, the opposite is true.

There's lots of other factors at work here. No disrespect intended to Houston et al, but India is also booming. In between unshackling their economy and the internet, India has been able to not only tread a well-trodden path by simply following the example of existing dynamic and wealthy countries, but could also leapfrog those countries' costly mistakes and some other legacy issues [[landlines, say). Just substitute Air Conditioning for the internet, and a picture begins to emerge of why these cities now suck less.

Speaking of Houston, I did read that they did not have the "home rule" issues that Detroit has, that Houston simply incorporates its suburbs.

Why would you plan your city around the interests of 23-year-old artisanal chocolate makers?

This is way bigger than the 23-year-old artisanal chocolate maker. I don't know who out there is pulling these kinds of rabbits out of their hat to give you or anyone else the impression that this is about attracting some sort of elusive fringe. Perhaps it is someone trying to describe "creative types" to the auto workers from some kind of elitist perch?

How about providing a job-friendly environment and good services?

A job-friendly environment and good services do not stand at odds with having some towns and cities that make sense and are not depopulated and abandoned. While Michigan cannot change the climate, it is unnecessarily shooting itself in the foot by insisting on making pleasant town centers and vibrant neighborhoods the exception and an endless sea of indistinct strip malls, corporate office parks and cul-de-sacs-if-you're-lucky the rule.

They're two different conversations.

[skyl4rk]

So in order to implement this plan, the state is reviewing grant applications and giving higher scores to projects which are walkable and downtown. MDOT is considering all forms of transportation [[walking, biking, vehicles) when it is preparing construction plans for streets. Cities are being encouraged to use form based zoning which is more likely to allow small business to operate in residential areas so there can be a mix of uses within walking distance. Higher density residential housing is encouraged near transit stops. [[OK, the last one was just a dream.)

At least they are trying to fix some of the major problems that were created in the past, such as streets and street crossings which were unsafe for pedestrians and bicyclists.

The reality is that it is the consumer who decides what its preference is for housing, and consumer preference will push development patterns to make urban living viable from a real estate investment point of view. At least government is trying to get out of the way of current consumer preference, because in the past, zoning rules prohibited a lot of things that are now considered desirable.

[DetroitPlanner]

So in order to implement this plan, the state is reviewing grant applications and giving higher scores to projects which are walkable and downtown. MDOT is considering all forms of transportation [[walking, biking, vehicles) when it is preparing construction plans for streets.

This will be a game changer, I am not sure I totally agree with. The Enhancement Program can be used on landscaping, rails-to-trails, mitigation of highway runoff [[to clean streams), and historic preservation. How will these fit into the new adapations for Complete Streets planning and ordinances? IMO too much money is going towards streetscapes. A streetscape alone [[without a business plan) won't do much to spur economic development. This has been proven time and time again. Why kill fishies and allow historic transportation structures to rot because another project gets extra points for a streetscape in a complete streets city? I would want to see more weight given to a business plan, as the streetscape does already adress the need to improve and make a street more complete.

[ghettopalmetto]

If "sense of place" drove economies, than New Orleans, Detroit and Cleveland would be America's boomtowns, and Houston, Dallas, and Atlanta would be America's dying cities. Of course, the opposite is true.

Well, I know you'll find some way to casually dismiss this, but...

Last week, when I was in Cleveland, it was incredibly difficult to miss the restored Victorian homes and top-notch restaurants in Tremont, the throngs of young professionals enjoying nightlife in Ohio City, and the plethora of apartments and condos under construction on Euclid Avenue.

But I guess people are just wasting their time and money. We all know everyone REALLY wants to live in Strongsville, so why bother with options?

[DetroitPlanner]

It should be noted that MDOT provided a nice chunk of the funding for many of the physical infastructure projects that have made places better in Detroit recently. These include Campus Martius, the Midtown Loop, the Dequindre Cut, the Riverfront pathway. All too many times this board sees MDOT as a villian for things that were done 30 plus years ago and paid for through the Eisenhower Highway Act of 1956.

[Bham1982]

Last week, when I was in Cleveland, it was incredibly difficult to miss the restored Victorian homes and top-notch restaurants in Tremont, the throngs of young professionals enjoying nightlife in Ohio City, and the plethora of apartments and condos under construction on Euclid Avenue.

Not to single out your thoughts, but for some reason, many folks on DYes always conflate downtown vibrancy with overall city health.

Cleveland is a dying city. It has suffered about the same percentage loss as Detroit. From 2000 to 2010, Cleveland lost nearly 20% of its population.

I don't see how anyone can argue that Cleveland is a success story when its on track to be totally depopulated within 50 years.

[canuck]

Not to single out your thoughts, but for some reason, many folks on DYes always conflate downtown vibrancy with overall city health.

Cleveland is a dying city. It has suffered about the same percentage loss as Detroit. From 2000 to 2010, Cleveland lost nearly 20% of its population.

I don't see how anyone can argue that Cleveland is a success story when its on track to be totally depopulated within 50 years.

You are of course right again Bham. The attempt at restoring older downtowns and revitalizing cities is doomed to failure. We should however try in every way possible to multiply the newer exurban developments. Anything else is doomed to failure.

If we do multiply suburbs to infinity, we then recognize the uselessness of mass transit and rush headfirst in the direction of personal vehicle use and abandon all the connective features of a large city. That seems about the best thing to do. The only thing left for us to do. Anything else is doomed to failure.

[Bham1982]

You are of course right again Bham. The attempt at restoring older downtowns and revitalizing cities is doomed to failure. We should however try in every way possible to multiply the newer exurban developments. Anything else is doomed to failure.

I obviously support downtown revitalization efforts.

But I'm not prepared to say that a city is revitalized just because the downtown is supposedly full of life.

How can Cleveland be viewed as a success when it's emptying out at a frightening level?

I'm not even sure that downtown Cleveland is particularly vibrant. No department stores, failed mall, almost no shopping, lots of empty and half-empty buildings. Yes, there's lots of restaurants and nightlife, but that, by itself, isn't going to fix a city.

[DTFellow]

Bham, I think that's where the fundamental difference lies, just because the city as a whole might not be doing so well, it doesn't mean that the entirety of the city will be doomed to fail. You may be right that Cleveland will be largely left underpopulated if current trends hold, BUT I'd like to see where individual neighborhood losses are coming from.

My hunch is that the areas that ghettopalmetto is talking about are doing fine or even growing, while other areas fall by the wayside. While ultimately Cleveland [[and other rust belt cities) appear to be shrinking in population rapidly, this idea of "placemaking" and growth in urban centers would lead me to believe that the decline will only go so far.

Downtown vibrancy when its combined with strong sense of place and community will expand into the surrounding neighborhoods. That is, if the trend of young, entrepreneurial people moving back to cities continues. They have to live somewhere, and eventually downtown and midtown will not be able to add more residential. [[long ways off. . . )