Sprawled Out: The Search for Community in the American Suburb

Baby steps: Request for Council Action

 
ABOVE: A rather ambitious vision of co-working space

To move mountains, start with a scoopful of sand.

Here is the admittedly low-ball request for council action (hard to say "no" to something that costs nothing and obligates no one) related to my community co-venture coffee shop/co-working space scheme:

_______

At their regular meeting on 4/26/09, the Economic Development Commission discussed an item that proposes the City encourage a community-based development on the site of the former Schleutter residence adjacent to Fire Station 1, the Library and Lions Legend Park. The discussion centered around development of a coffee shop with facilities for “co-working” space, with a patio area. The presentation suggested that the development act as a community incubator and involve various educational and private commercial entities—including possible philanthropic grants—to co-fund and operate the facilities; thus, it is an economic development project with educational and community-building elements.
 
The Commission now requests that the Common Council permit members of the EDC to enter into discussions with numerous groups regarding the concept and development of such a project, and hold these discussions as representatives of the city.
 
It is important to remember that the idea is at the conceptual level and many issues must be dealt with prior to returning to the Common Council for formal approval of a plan and commitments being made.
 
 
Council Action:
 
Motion to authorize various members of the Economic Development Commission to discuss the possibility of a mixed-use community-based “coffee shop/co-working space” with interested parties and develop a plan for possible implementations.

Franklin EDC meeting notes, Part 3: Get creative

I promised part 3 would end my report on Monday night’s Economic Development meeting on a high note. Frankly, I had no where to go but up (see part 1 and part 2).

My last item on the agenda was titled simply: “Discussion Relating to City-Owned Land Between Fire Station and Public Library - Member Michlig.”

Call it a challenge. Call it a symbol. Call it tilting at windmills.

Some background:

Franklin has never had any sort of “downtown”; in fact, city leaders have long disagreed on where the “city center” is. The strip mall intersection at Rawson and 76th? The new Shoppes at Wyndham Village? Sendik’s and long-languishing Fountains of Franklin at Rawson and 51st?

In truth, the only real -- and well-used, by the way -- public space in Franklin is the Public Library. It’s next to a public park, which in turn is next to a subdivision that has paths connecting it to the large play areas, tennis courts and shelters. Rental housing and apartment buildings stand on the other park border, and City Hall is in the same area. Senior apartments are only a few yards south. It’s a unique multi-purpose area in town. I’ve blogged before about the incredible amount of available space in this area -- the library is surrounded by a huge lawn, for instance.

So what’s missing? Despite the presence of residential (owners and renters, young and old), municipal (library, city hall, police station) and park zones, a piece is badly needed.

As it happens, the city recently bought a house that sits between the library and the firehouse. The property is on a corner, separated from the library by a street and the residential areas by the park. Because of asbestos contamination, the whole structure will be removed, leaving an empty parcel of land.

Click to embiggen

Here is a short sketch of the proposal/challenge/Quixotic quest I described to the EDC:

The city of Franklin, along with partners that will become apparent, builds on the site where the residence once was a COFFEE SHOP and CO-WORKING SPACE. Two stories, built right up to the sidewalk (no setback) on two sides (no drive-thru), with a courtyard in back that segues into the park - a beautiful public space that sits at the intersection of the library and the park that residential neighborhoods can easily access on foot.

The missing piece!

Following a model established at the Blatz building in Milwaukee, where Milwaukee School of Engineering students run the building’s cafe, the city partners with Milwaukee Area Technical College; the students, as part of MATC curriculum, run the coffee shop, handling everything from accounting to grinding beans. Franklin High School can also be involved, as students can work there for credit.

Want to learn business? Run a business!

Want to encourage wonderful public space around a commercial amenity? Build an example for others to follow!

Corporate sponsorship is not at all out of the question: OfficeMax, FedEx/Kinkos, Starbucks, Dunn Bros., Starbucks, Northwestern Mutual Foundation, etc. A community/educational/economic development effort like this is something great to be associated with.

• The project acts as a "development laboratory," wherein the city can show by example what sort of development we'd like to see. Along the way, we'll also learn a lot about flaws in the developer-city process and relationship that we can address as they appear.
• In tough economic times, planning and building a community asset like this acts as a potent symbol of our confidence in Franklin. Why should we expect business to take root here if we're not willing to do it ourselves as well?
• At long last, a vibrant,  multi-use city center will begin to emerge.
• The facility is an educational asset to MATC and Franklin High School.
• The project will bring together the talents and passions of the community: local craftsmen and contractors pitching in; creative minds devising site plans and architecture; business leaders donating assets and money; etc.
• Open space adjacent to the cafe can be used for, among other events, monthly or bi-monthly Farmers' Markets coordinated with market events held in St. Martins.
• Franklin will at last have a "third place" for people to lounge, work, surf the net, read and meet. No more driving to Borders and Barnes & Noble in Greenfield.
• The co-working facilities -- both paid-by-the-month space and free work areas -- will be desirable to the growing corps of "free agents," newly freelance, and mobile workers.
• It'll be a great stop for residents of Waterford and Burlington on their way to and from the freeway.

As they advise in vaudeville, go out on a high note.

After facing blank stares (and worse) earlier in meeting while talking about complete streets, smart growth, and preparing for transit (see part 1 and part 2), this idea seemed to resonate with everyone in the room.

So it's off to the Common Council to get authorization for a subcommittee to pursue the idea.

I'll call it a happy ending. For now.

Franklin EDC not ready or willing to leverage smart growth and impending transit options, Part 2

So, my portions of the agenda come up - discussion items with no vote or motion attached, as I said in part 1, to get a read on A) where this commission stands on issues of smart growth and transit, and B) what this commission knows about issues of smart growth and transit.

My feeling - if this hasn't been made clear already - is that Franklin needs to embrace smart growth principles and prepare for upcoming transit improvements, including rail in nearby Oak Creek, in order to remain relevant economically and as a community.

In a postindustrial society, people need not go where the "factory" is; they choose communities based on desires such as: good parks, walkable neighborhoods, access to transit, vibrant public spaces, etc. That's what modern opinion polls clearly reveal.

Now that the federal government has made transit and smart growth high priorities, companies will look to locate in areas where these factors have been addressed; there will surely be tax breaks and other incentives to encourage use of transit for their workforce.

If you read part 1, you get an idea of the reaction I got to the notion of walkable neighborhoods, schools that can be walked to by kids who live mere blocks away, connected street systems, and the end of built-for-speed subdivision roads. There were sighs. Eyes rolled. Now, that's not to say that each and every member of the commission expressed annoyance. However, the ones who may have agreed kept quiet.

On my tape, I can hear a commission member audibly scoff and chuckle as I describe the fact that teens have to get vehicles of their own simply to get to work and school - and teens are by far the most dangerous driving population.

So, walkable communities and smart growth went down like a lead balloon.

The transit conversation was constantly steered to remind me that "people don't want to ride buses." Or I was told about the time Franklin tried bus service to the industrial park, but only eight people rode the route and it was discontinued.

Chairman Skowronski cited a survey from 1998 that clearly indicated to him that people in Franklin like their cars. 'Nuf said. (Fortunately, Skowronski expressed a desire to re-do the survey, which I am 100% in support of - - with better methodology.)

But, I reminded him, I'm talking about preparing for the Madison-Milwaukee-Chicago rail line that will go right through our neighbor, Oak Creek. That means making business aware that we are aware of what's coming and that we'll be ready.

A commission member mistakenly believed that I was hoping to bring rail directly to Franklin. "It seems improbable that Franklin, that's off the corridor between Chicago and Milwaukee, that straight line up, is going to be a 'sweet pick' for the federal government to spend money on, it just seems improbable. It's much more likely that they would choose a community like Oak Creek, through which tracks are already planned."

Which is what I'd said earlier. So, we can't solve the classic "last mile" problem with a park-and-ride? Northwestern Mutual doesn't want ready access to Chicago and Madison?

Furthermore, the commission member said: "I'm not going to go and try to change the behavioral habits of 1.5 million people in the Metro Milwaukee area. They are gonna do what they are gonna do. They like to drive. They're gonna drive."

And yet that's exactly what has occurred in Minneapolis, to name just one metro area now served by rail. People changed their behavioral habits and made the MetroTransit Hiawatha train line part of their daily lives.

But, alas, the message I got was this: the status quo is excellent here in Franklin - no need to look ahead or change our approach to match the new reality. Steady as she goes. Ignore that economic firestorm behind the curtain ...

Fortunately, the meeting ended on a high note, which I'll discuss in part 3.

Franklin EDC not ready or willing to leverage smart growth and impending transit options, Part 1

Another multi-part post.

While the federal and state government declares smart growth mandates, regional rail, as well as grant and other funding opportunities for forward-looking transit-oriented development features, know this: The Franklin Economic Development Commission remains snuggled in 1996, ambivalent to the ground shifting beneath our feet.

I have to credit Chairman Skowronski for getting all of my discussion items on the agenda; he knew they would be unpopular but gave them an airing nonetheless.

The gist of what I wanted to do - besides ensure that we have a meeting longer than nine minutes - was take the temperature of the commission members regarding the economic benefits of smart growth policies and transit-ready development. The simple fact is this: The businesses - and families - of the near-future will be looking to locate in communities that are connected and committed to the new transit ideal; in the case of businesses, they will be rewarded by state and federal incentives to do so. That means planning NOW for the approaching shift.

In Franklin's case, that basically means ensuring that we plan for "the last mile" connection between an Oak Creek transit station and us, as well as create better connectivity in new developments.

We met in the Common Council chamber rather than the more discussion-friendly room we generally use so Alderman Steve Olson could use the projector to update the commission on 27th street.

I got my first hint which way the wind was blowing when Olson showed a slide of a roundabout configuration (see above). Alderman Steve Taylor was in attendance and characterized their potential presence as "shoved down our throat by the DOT." Lots of affirmative grunts in the room.

I asked for discussion; Why do we hate roundabouts?

After all,

• If we forgo standard intersections, the 27th Street Commission has estimated a $10 million savings in signage costs.
• Ted Grintjes pointed out that asphalt costs go waaay down because turn lanes are eliminated.
• Economic impact of roundabouts on local business is generally good. For instance, they allow for a direct left turn into a business that would otherwise be accessible only by a "Texas U-Turn" or "Texas Turnaround" (driver bypasses intersection for a left U-turn back to the destination; this is a legal and designed turn configuration that doesn't bode well for businesses nearby).
• The superior safety and lower congestion of roundabouts has long ago passed "theory" into FACT.

- 40% Reduction in All Crash Types Combined
- 80% Reduction in Injury Accidents
- 90% Reduction in Fatalities
- 30% Reduction for Pedestrian and Bicycles
- Up to a 75% Reduction in Delay

Chairman Skowronski, once again, indulged my request. He commented that in his experience "roundabouts are a disaster," citing some specific roundabouts that he'd driven through. However, the gist of what he had to say contradicted the known data (upon which the federal and state DOT's have placed enough confidence that they strongly encourage roundabouts whenever possible): he cited "confusion," "slow-downs," "congestion," etc.

Commission members wondered how pedestrians would know how to cross without a forest of signs; once again, Ted Grintjes brought to bear his experience in Europe (where roundabouts are already common) as he sought to explain an admittedly nonintutive concept: Street architecture such as roundabouts create a safer environment for pedestrians through curb extensions and easy-to-reach crossing islands as well as a design-enforced vigilance on the part of vehicle drivers toward pedestrians that does NOT exist in traditional intersections. A sign can't do that.

As I picked up the thread and explained further, eyes rolled and tongues clucked (one member seemed to be laughing at me).

Silly man: We just want to drive fast and unimpeded.

But no one could explain to me how speeding cars through Franklin at ever faster velocities would help local businesses and attract economic development. They just seemed irritated at roundabouts and how they may slow your progress.

It only gets dicier in part 2 (later today), but ends on a good note in part 3 (tomorrow).

Economic Development Commission tonight: Longer than nine minutes

Economic Development Meeting tonight at 6pm. After the last meeting lasted a mere 9 minutes, I decided it was time to get a bit more proactive.

Well, actually a lot more proactive; I have seven items on the agenda (you can download the EDC agenda and meeting packet here: Download EDC_Meeting_Packet_4-27-09.)

One item in particular will be discussed in much greater detail as the ball gets rolling:

G. Discussion Relating to City-Owned Land Between Fire Station and Public Library - Member Michlig

Saving the suburbs: Interview with the authors of Retrofitting Suburbia: Urban Design Solutions for Redesigning Suburbs

Architects Ellen Dunham-Jones and June Williamson explain how existing suburbs can be redesigned and redeveloped in their book RETROFITTING SUBURBIA.

Franklin, Wisconsin crowns Miss USA

Not only was I unaware of the fact that a new Miss USA was crowned on Saturday night, but there was a Franklin, Wisconsin connection as well:

Organizers said Sunday's show kicks off "Green Week" at NBC. As part of the environmental awareness campaign, the Miss USA crown was designed by a jeweler that specializes in conflict-free and eco-friendly jewels. The crown from Diamond Nexus Labs of Franklin, Wis., is worth $202,000.

11th hour is too late for getting real public input on Franklin's vision

I'm going to call this a distinctly half-hearted effort at public input by Franklin city administration.

Will members of the public be allowed to speak? Can the public respond to council members during their discussions?

From FranklinNow:

Council sets special meeting for Saturday

By JOHN NEVILLE

Posted: Apr. 14, 2009

The Franklin Common Council will hold a special public meeting at noon Saturday at City Hall, 9229 W. Loomis Road.

The meeting will address topics such as the mission and vision statements of the city, the roles of the mayor and Common Council, the structure of the 27th Street Committee and a possible replacement body.

The Vision Thing in Franklin: Beware the Strange Protein (Part 2)

The human mind treats a new idea the same way the body treats a strange protein: It rejects it.
- Immunologist P.B. Medawar

Recapping PART 1: On the agenda for Monday's Council of the Whole meeting and last night's Common Council meeting were two intriguing items placed there by Mayor Taylor:

1. Current Mission Statement of the City of Franklin.
2. Vision Statement for a long-term vision of the City of Franklin as prepared by MSA Professional Services, Inc., December 2004 (unadopted as of April, 2009).

So, after much, much deliberation over schedules and possible conflicts, the members of the common council agreed to meet on a Saturday to discuss an “updated vision” for the city of Franklin.

Terrible idea.

Most of the work I do is as a consultant, so I’m very aware of a phenomena called “inside the bottle thinking.” Part of the reason it’s wise for organizations to bring in outside consultants - - other than to help me pay my mortgage - -  is the fact that persons inside a company or department become expert at the myriad reasons why you cannot accomplish something in relationship to their idea, product or brand.

It’s just a fact of life I’ve seen played out over and over again. New or big ideas are strange proteins; the host will immunize first, ask questions later.

And, if you’ve ever attended a common council meeting, you’ve been treated to long discourses by various members of the common council as to why we can’t possibly do this, or change that, or create this other thing. The veteran members of the common council are virtuoso at explaining to us “why we can’t.”

They inoculate us against change.

“We’ve tried that before; it didn’t work.”

"We've been down this road before."

“Who will pay for that?”

“But what about the UDO?”

“Too complicated.”

“Let’s create a subcommittee.”

(The preceding are mercifully short condensations of loooong, sometimes folksy discourses.)

The fact is this: NOTHING worthwhile, useful, or stupendous in this world has ever been created without first ignoring a long list of reasons “why we can’t.”

And, further, an entrenched body like the common council seems incapable of ignoring the reasons "why we can't." They are "inside the bottle"; their world consists of endless permutations of red tape, regulations and ordinances, not to mention political realities that must be observed. 

Are these the folks you want defining Franklin's vision? Will these people bring audacious proposals to the table?

No. That's why their role, I believe, is to MAKE IT SO - - after the people make clear their viewpoints.

Too hard? Well, that will have to be brought up when election time comes around. With digital recordings, it's not hard to index and post an audio litany of a specific alderman's admonitions as to how impossible it is to accomplish this, that, and the other thing. (You see, even though the city's Technology Commission repeatedly reminds us Why We Can't digitally record meetings, certain citizens do so anyway.) 

So, how about this: Bring in the stakeholders (citizens!) and, armed with no conception of "why we can't," have them tell us their vision of Franklin.

Most importantly, provide advance information for these citizens in the form of visiting speakers and experts with presentations on various community-building, economy-stimulating innovations. Provide a vocabulary and context that the citizenry can use in describing their vision and goals. Widen their scope to beyond their driveways.

Let them know the choices out there beyond Franklin; do businesses have to be placed behind an acre of asphalt? Why a strip mall? How come roads in residential subdivisions are so wide and fast? What's the alternative? Can we really save money on emergency services with a better street grid? Are traffic counts accurate? Isn't it time to think about the mobility rights of kids and seniors?

Shouldn't my child be able to walk or ride a bike to a school that we can see from our house? Why not a public gathering place near the library anchored by a cafe and the library? Couldn't we attract more commercial business with slower traffic and a concentrated public square? How about a focus on one-stop, multiple utility zones? What can we do to encourage less traffic?

Why is the high school inaccessible except by car? Couldn't the Oak Leaf Trail be modified to actually lead somewhere useful? How can my child get to an ice cream shop at Andy's safely? Why no locally-owned coffee shops near the library and park?

The aldermen are not anxious to ask themselves these questions, because chasing the solutions simply creates more problems to wrestle with. Who can blame them? Aldermen have to work full-time on top of doing common council work; they are not getting rich in public service. Voices and mandates have to come from outside the cynical bubble that city officials often inhabit.

Again, I empathize with the position of an alderman. How can you get a good 100,000 ft. level look at the macro problems and issues of the city - - the long-term "vision" stuff - -  when you're dealing daily with constant constituent complaints about snow plows hitting mailboxes, garbage collection times, tax rates, noise problems, etc.? Frankly, the majority of contacts an alderman has with the public consists of a series of little, individual-oriented problems and negatives.

"Re-assess the city's philosophy regarding right-angle turns in new subdivisions? My goodness, I'm up to my elbows in trying to get a variance for a constituent's backyard shed!"

You cannot blame that body for being inoculated against change.

I believe a bunch of aldermen sitting around a table on a weekend afternoon in search of a "vision" is just pasting feathers together and hoping for a duck. The ground is shifting beneath our feet; it's time to flex the collaborative muscle of this community.

Too hard? Too many obstacles? Logistically overwhelming?

Maybe.

But nothing worthwhile was ever constructed without first resolving to ignore the eye-rolls, world-weary sighs and lectures of those who would constantly remind you "why we can't."

Want to establish Franklin's vision in light of new and emerging realities? Look outside of City Hall.

The Vision Thing in Franklin: Aldermen know best? Part 1

On the agenda for Monday's Council of the Whole meeting and last night's Common Council meeting were two intriguing items placed there by Mayor Taylor:

1. Current Mission Statement of the City of Franklin.
2. Vision Statement for a long-term vision of the City of Franklin as prepared by MSA Professional Services, Inc., December 2004 (unadopted as of April, 2009).

I had a fairly long conversation with the mayor a few weeks back wherein I stressed the need to access just exactly what and who Franklin is, as well as what and who we would eventually like to become. He said he'd been thinking the same thing, and the agenda items above make that plain.

Here, by the way, is the current unadopted Franklin Vision Statement, crafted in 2004:

The City of Franklin's vision is to enhance the quality of life for present and future generations by providing economic growth through the highest quality of residential, recreational and business development in Southeastern Wisconsin.

Franklin's unadopted Mission Statement, also from 2004:

The City of Franklin's mission is to be a well-planned model community providing for a high quality of life for residents of all ages. The future of Franklin is founded on quality development that includes smaller and mixed-use commercial centers and corridors, that provides for new office parks that attract knowledge-workers and information industries to the community, while continuing to develop and maintain quality residential areas that provide a wide range of housing opportunities to support the needs of working professionals, seniors, and families. The residents of Franklin will have access to parks, open space, and a wide range of recreational programs and facilities that help to promote an active and healthy lifestyle. Franklin will be a community where modern conveniences, friendly people, and a small town atmosphere combine with low crime, a clean environment, and quality educational opportunities to make Franklin the primary destination to live and learn, work and play, and to do business.

If it sounds like language created by bureaucrats, that's because it was (to whom - other than a bureaucrat - would the notion of "office parks" seem inspirational?).

A look at the background documentation for the 2004 "Long Term Vision for the City of Franklin" report prepared by consultant MSA Professional Services (PDF here) reveals that the "visioning" done to come up with a portrait of Franklin and its potential was relegated to members of the Common Council and seven members of the city's senior staff.

Citizen input in the "Long Term Vision for the City of Franklin"?

Zero. Nada. Zilch.

So when you see "Valet Parking at City Hall and Library" as one of the answers to the question "What will Franklin be like fifty years from now," (page 13) you have an elected official to thank for that burst of hilarity.

So, what's wrong with letting aldermen decide what our city should aspire to? After all, they were/are elected by the citizens, right?

And let's not forget the propensity of the public to think no further than the edge of their driveway. Not too long ago, if you walked up to the average suburban homeowner - - me included - - and asked what he or she finds important in terms of their city, you'd likely hear about their property tax bill, desire for nearby shopping, good schools, and maybe something vague about "green space." 

(Why do I live on a disconnected cul-de-sac? Because ten years ago when I bought this, my first house, my priorities were: good school district; good physical structure; safe area; and a yard with room to play ball. That's it. I was blissfully unaware of any other factors.)

So we should leave it to our elected officials to hash this out, then, right?

Nothing could be more wrong - - as I'll discuss (along with some much better solutions) in Part 2 of this post.