Now and then I get an email from someone who’s read a SPRAWLED OUT entry and they ask, “Exactly who are you trying to convince? It seems like the things you advocate are what most people are interested in nowadays.” They cite the huge popularity of the Bayshore town center or the Middleton Hills village near Madison, or how expensive it is to string utilities out to far-flung subdivisions that are built without regard to need or plan.
“Who could possibly disagree with better planning concepts? They work in the real world and make real money for the communities that institute them!”
Well, Republican staffer and WISN fill-in Kevin Fischer for one. Unless I’m missing the point of his blog entry, ironically titled “Let's not lose perspective on Franklin developments” - - - was it was intended as parody? - - - it appears as though he just doesn’t get it.
Fischer writes:
One idea that’s been suggested is to allow parking on Drexel Avenue to alleviate the dreaded parking inside the Shoppes at Wyndham Village. How absurd! How are shoppers supposed to get to the shops? Walk a great distance? Pull a bike out of the trunk? Levitate?
That’s actually what he wrote. Go look.
An aside to Mr. Fischer: If you want to refer to someone’s opinion as "absurd," it would demonstrate partial revival of the near-lost art of debate and discourse if you were to actually link to the text of the “absurd” opinion so your readers can read and judge for themselves. (I have no qualms about linking to specific posts of yours that seem particularly absurd to me.) Trust the reader to draw his or her own conclusions by viewing an entire post in context.
Also: You badly need to re-evaluate your conception of a "great distance"!
Mr. Fischer also wrote this:
Regarding the Shoppes at Wyndham Village, some have expressed consternation about asphalt being poured. The same anxiety wasn’t expressed about asphalt being poured for a possible new high school’s parking lot.
Where are cars supposed to park at the Shoppes at Wyndham Village, on gravel?
Amusing. Again, the art of conversation and discourse seems to be on its last legs and the feeble straw man argument strategy rears its head. I'll make this point again for Mr. Fischer's benefit: It's not a matter of "no asphalt." It's a matter of making our public spaces more usable, pleasant and profitable by eliminating vast, unbroken stretches of parking and instead using the space in a more creative manner. Virtually the same amount of close-up parking can be made available for single-destination shoppers, which seem to be the only people Mr. Fischer can envision in our fair city.
But, once again, we have to look beyond the tip of our own noses. Mr. Fischer is evidently satisfied with and well-served by the status quo. However, for the parent with kids who would like to make a day of it, parking the minivan on Drexel - - - a road which would be reconfigured, of course, to accommodate a parking and bike lane - - - means they can park once and move between Lions Legend Park, the Library, and the Shoppes without having to get back in the van for each leg of the trip. The work-at-home professional could leave his basement and set up shop at shared office space in the "Shoppes," enjoying a coffee at the local cafe and lunch in the park without having to drive anywhere. A teenager could bike to the area to a job or to enjoy the park, library, and the businesses at "Shoppes" without bothering mom and dad for a ride. The newly-licensed sixteen year-old, statistically highly prone to serious accidents, has an option beyond driving. Elderly residents of nearby independent care apartments are a single daily scheduled bus or van ride from myriad amenities currently unavailable to them as non-drivers.
Furthermore, all of these people would be able to move among their fellow Franklinites in a public setting: a chance for the passing "hello"; a bit of conversation with someone who may not live in their neighborhood or attend the same cocktail parties; even a quick bench-side political debate that ends with a hearty slap on the back and a handshake. In other words, a social landscape that can only enliven and invigorate the community. And, importantly, one that can be ignored without penalty by those who prefer to avoid such 'entanglement.' There is no personal or economic cost to people who enjoy the status quo. For those who prefer door-to-door vehicle access, that option remains available via on-site parking (including the possibility of multi-story parking structures). Their needs should and will be served with creative thinking that goes beyond the perfunctory "Shoppes" plan as currently envisioned.
Creating a true city center that is a vibrant and profitable location 365 days of the year will attract and build the sort of tax base Franklin badly needs. Young, creative professionals with money to spend are not interested in a city full of strip malls and parking lots. The trend today is "community shopping"; home-seekers are looking at the amenities of the city they are considering, not just the size of their potential house's backyard.
And how about getting the attention of attractive commercial tenants? If Mr. Carstensen has any additional tenants lined up beyond Target and Sendik's, he's keeping them secret. However, the sorts of businesses from whom Mr. Carstensen would like to collect rent - - - and the kinds of retailers to which citizens of Franklin would like ready access - - - are moving out of conventional strip- and covered malls and moving to configurations that encourage public space and pedestrian/bike access. IMPORTANT: once again, this is not at the exclusion of persons who would prefer to drive and park right in front of their destination.
The creative reconstruction of Drexel to incorporate Franklin's City Civic Center zoning principles - - - which Mark Carstensen cited repeatedly when petitioning to re-zone the land - - - also offers opportunities for matching grants and subsidies that will relieve some of the city's funding burden. To review: Franklin's Civic Center zoning allows for everything from government facilities (fire stations, etc.) to commercial buildings. It is meant to be pedestrian-friendly, "slightly more urban" than the surrounding suburb in terms of buildings allowed to be closer together, etc. To be consistent with City Civic Center zoning, this stretch of Drexel has to be made pedestrian-friendly.
Franklin's well-traveled Oak Leaf Trail has benefited enormously from grants, and a $170,000 grant was recently awarded by the DNR to develop the St. Martins Bike Trail. These are wonderful trails that I personally treasure, but are not destination-based and of little use to those who do not jog, bike or walk for the simple joy of jogging, biking or walking. Now comes the opportunity to apply grant funding to destination-based trails and lanes that serve anyone and everyone who wants to spend money in our city. This is not to mention the regular users of the current Oak Leaf Trail from Oak Creek and beyond who would now have a desirable destination and reason to bring their wallets.
Looking down the road, creating a "Shoppes" site guided by careful planning measures that integrate and strengthen the community while taking into account future needs - - - which is planning, after all - - - will result in further useful and exciting development in the City Civic Center area. And we want that.
Should Franklin simply adhere to the status quo? Well, the developers are certainly making money, but at the same time we live in a city where children cannot walk or ride their bike to a school they can see from their backyards. Taxes are high. Connector roads are getting busier and busier and more dangerous. Subdivisions are built without including relief grid roads or parks and public areas. The elderly and other persons without access to cars are home-bound. I haven't even gotten into the fact that "Shoppes" is being planned without regard to an apartment complex proposed directly to its south.
The old way doesn't work so great. So, by all means, let's definitely lose the old perspective when it comes to Franklin's future developments and learn to expect more.
After all, we shape our cities, and then our cities shape us.
Comments