Jack May
2007-10-09 19:40:14 UTC
Six people debate if California is prepared to change the way it grows. 150
planners were there and don't think California will change. Following are
some comments from a reporter that was the moderator of the debate.
--------------
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/10/09/DDJDSJVUJ.DTL
--Bad news: Unless the experts are wrong, California suburbs will continue
to sprawl beyond the horizon.
The threat of global warming pales next to the allure of a backyard sliver
of green. Two-hour commutes are tough, but it's even tougher to persuade an
older suburb to allow dense new housing downtown.
Am I being cynical? No. I'm passing along the verdict of 150 professional
planners after they watched six of their peers debate whether or not our
state is prepared to change the way it grows.
"California was built for the car," jousted Marjorie Macris, one of the
three skeptics on the panel. "Retrofitting it to look like Switzerland will
be extremely difficult."
The debate occurred last week in San Jose during the annual conference of
the California chapter of the American Planning Association. And it truly
was a debate; the two teams jabbed within a tight time frame over the topic:
"Resolved, that California is ready for complex urban development."
--This isn't an arcane topic: California's population is now 36 million, and
demographers expect us to hit 59 million by 2032. If we follow the mold of
the past 50 years, most of those folks will be housed in single-family homes
in suburban tracts, more and more of them tucked behind sound walls or
gates.
--"We have no other choice, and we are ready," argued Al Zelinka of RBF
Consulting in Irvine. He talked of how Orange County has downtown housing
and condo towers taking root. "Green" buildings now are touted by developers
and demanded by governments. "We're at the tipping point. ...
Suburbanization will continue, but the wave will be in urbanization."
One of Zelinka's allies touted regulations that would use such lures as cash
bonuses for transit-friendly housing to move development in a more compact
direction.
"The limits of suburban development have been reached," argued Steve Lawton,
community development director for Hercules and the organizer of the debate.
"This state can turn on a dime when it has the will and policy inclination
to do so."
--The con side nodded politely and then bore in. Its argument: Get real!
California is too large and contentious for plannerly visions to make much
of a mark.
"It's spectacular delusional hubris to think that good sense will prevail,"
proclaimed developer John Anderson of Chico. "People feel entitled to their
fantasy."
--"I've seen the problems. I just don't think we're ready to solve them,"
argued David Sargent of the Pasadena design firm Moule + Polyzoides. He
emphasized the lack of strong regional governments. Another problem: an
environmental process that can be used to kill projects that neighbors don't
want, even though banning growth in an established community can cause it to
move to farmland or hillsides on the outskirts instead.
--At the end, I asked the crowd to vote one way or the other. The cons had
it - by a landslide. In a logical world shaped by what the mass of people
want, we'd have communities with more housing options and a convenient range
of transportation alternatives. Many young adults today aren't in a hurry to
settle down in a cul-de-sac - and many of their parents would love to sell
their home on the cul-de-sac but still live in the suburbs close to their
friends.
But the real world is a local political stew where the loudest voices are
the ones who want the status quo preserved at all cost. Statewide planning
regulations, meanwhile, look great in press releases but often are
disconnected from daily life.
planners were there and don't think California will change. Following are
some comments from a reporter that was the moderator of the debate.
--------------
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/10/09/DDJDSJVUJ.DTL
--Bad news: Unless the experts are wrong, California suburbs will continue
to sprawl beyond the horizon.
The threat of global warming pales next to the allure of a backyard sliver
of green. Two-hour commutes are tough, but it's even tougher to persuade an
older suburb to allow dense new housing downtown.
Am I being cynical? No. I'm passing along the verdict of 150 professional
planners after they watched six of their peers debate whether or not our
state is prepared to change the way it grows.
"California was built for the car," jousted Marjorie Macris, one of the
three skeptics on the panel. "Retrofitting it to look like Switzerland will
be extremely difficult."
The debate occurred last week in San Jose during the annual conference of
the California chapter of the American Planning Association. And it truly
was a debate; the two teams jabbed within a tight time frame over the topic:
"Resolved, that California is ready for complex urban development."
--This isn't an arcane topic: California's population is now 36 million, and
demographers expect us to hit 59 million by 2032. If we follow the mold of
the past 50 years, most of those folks will be housed in single-family homes
in suburban tracts, more and more of them tucked behind sound walls or
gates.
--"We have no other choice, and we are ready," argued Al Zelinka of RBF
Consulting in Irvine. He talked of how Orange County has downtown housing
and condo towers taking root. "Green" buildings now are touted by developers
and demanded by governments. "We're at the tipping point. ...
Suburbanization will continue, but the wave will be in urbanization."
One of Zelinka's allies touted regulations that would use such lures as cash
bonuses for transit-friendly housing to move development in a more compact
direction.
"The limits of suburban development have been reached," argued Steve Lawton,
community development director for Hercules and the organizer of the debate.
"This state can turn on a dime when it has the will and policy inclination
to do so."
--The con side nodded politely and then bore in. Its argument: Get real!
California is too large and contentious for plannerly visions to make much
of a mark.
"It's spectacular delusional hubris to think that good sense will prevail,"
proclaimed developer John Anderson of Chico. "People feel entitled to their
fantasy."
--"I've seen the problems. I just don't think we're ready to solve them,"
argued David Sargent of the Pasadena design firm Moule + Polyzoides. He
emphasized the lack of strong regional governments. Another problem: an
environmental process that can be used to kill projects that neighbors don't
want, even though banning growth in an established community can cause it to
move to farmland or hillsides on the outskirts instead.
--At the end, I asked the crowd to vote one way or the other. The cons had
it - by a landslide. In a logical world shaped by what the mass of people
want, we'd have communities with more housing options and a convenient range
of transportation alternatives. Many young adults today aren't in a hurry to
settle down in a cul-de-sac - and many of their parents would love to sell
their home on the cul-de-sac but still live in the suburbs close to their
friends.
But the real world is a local political stew where the loudest voices are
the ones who want the status quo preserved at all cost. Statewide planning
regulations, meanwhile, look great in press releases but often are
disconnected from daily life.