A plan you say? Preposterous!

I'm incredibly syndical about the Baton Rouge "loop" project which emerged a few years ago. No American city builds loops anymore (bypasses, beltways, etc); and when they are discussed they get rejected by the community fast. Most are shot down because of NIMY’ism. Heck, one could say that Jane Jacobs was a NIMBY at the time.

But the difference between Jane Jacobs and NIMBY's are solution based. Just opposing something gets a city nowhere. Obviously Baton Rouge has a traffic problem. We lack citywide connectivity with little to no interstate alternatives through town. Solutions are needed (plural "solutions"). We need interstate improvements; we need surface street improvements; we need transit improvements. We need an overall plan.

(Caution: sarcasm ahead.)

Baton Rouge insist on paying more than less, and mostly because of an “us” vs. “them”. Transit users are either poor, can’t drive, or get some kind of high using “free services from the government”. Obviously these are the only reasons anyone would use transit. Thus "transportation planners" (um, engineers) argue for a one solution (a loop), instead of a comprehensive fix to the Baton Rouge traffic.

The funny thing is, transit is cheaper, fee based, and can transport more people. So I cringe when newspaper comment sections blow up when the transit system wants $18 million dollars, yet no one opposes an additional three mile lane on the interstate for the same amount (see the above articles). Because of course, one solution is the best. We continue to throw millions and millions of dollars at one solution without any results being produced. A city the size of Baton Rouge needs a plan with options. When I fly home I have several options (my parents live in the middle of nowhere, btw). I could take the commuter rail, Amtrak, MegaBus, or Greyhound… or my family could come pick me up and take interstates, toll roads, highways, etc. I’m not stuck. When I fly into New Orleans I have two options to get home. I park, or someone picks me up. Both options are not ideal. The sad thing is, New Orleans was once on a tier of Chicago or New York... and their infrastructure still reflects that tier to an extent.

So the Baton Rouge's transit system sucks. But our traffic infrastructure is almost worse. Heck, I-10 goes to one lane after exiting the Mississippi River Bridge. Then the interstate expands to three lanes, and finally five lanes in the suburbs. Since Baton Rouge already has a dysfunctional urban interstate, I don't even know why we are arguing a new bypass. We need to improve existing conditions. So when the state proposes an upgrade, we shouldn't just shoot down the idea. This is the time to fix and improve what's wrong. Millions of dollars will be thrown at an interstate project (because a highway will never be rejected by the 'fiscally responsible'), so take a bad situation and make it better for the surrounding communities. I find it funny when people say a wider interstate will “ruin” an area that initially gained its character because it’s under an interstate (Perkins Road underpass). 

Of course, other arguments need to be made. Many cities are tearing down urban highway. Baton Rouge's "plan" should have this scenario. Rerouting I-10 around Airline Highway might be feasible; or around Baton Rouge all together. Even if a complete reroute of I-10 wasn't feasible, upgrading Airline Highway and Florida Boulevard would be much smarter than building an entirely new loop. Airline Highway was "the loop". Why can't it still be the loop? I would assume the cost of upgrading the Airline Highway would be far less than a loop. (But I have to assume because not one study was done).

When someone wakes up one day and decides a loop will fix all the traffic problems, it doesn't make sense. I don't consider myself a genius, but I can come up with all sorts of scenarios that should be studied before dumping hundreds of millions of dollars into just one project. But I guess that's the "planner" coming out in me.

The core to education is the community

While not directly related to urban development, the recent plans for education in Louisiana have many ramifications to development both local and statewide. I guess I didn't truly understand the importance between education and community development until I moved to Louisiana. I may have grown up in a rural, poverty setting. But public education was very important. I now live in the inner part of Baton Rouge, and would hesitate sending my children to private schools (or risking a lottery for a charter school). Thus my suburban job makes me realize why people still move to the suburbs with children.

My overall thoughts about the governor's proposal would create a huge education gap between haves and have nots; all while getting rid of public education in general. But that’s more my political view coming from a family of public school teachers. From an urban development view, education needs to be tackled at the core. Louisiana has a huge income, poverty, and racial divide. These factors run deep in Louisiana and create unstable communities, and thus unstable families. The failing points in our schools aren’t generally teachers, it’s the overall situation. A child's environment is directly related to their performance. The blame can be thrown back on the parents that they “aren’t working hard enough”, or “just want hand outs”, etc, etc, etc… but even in the rare case this is true, why is that the child’s fault. 

Nor is the problem embedded in the school buildings and teachers performance. Blaming teachers is the last thing we want to do.  That will just encourage the good ones to leave the state. All while allowing private schools to pick and choose which students they can accept; leaving behind a massive group. In the last fifty years Louisiana went from a strong state social system, to a very weak social system. State run colleges are so underfunded that we have no prestigious state school. Our healthcare system is dumping the uninsured. Our infrastructure is failing badly. Yet we have this new culture of “no government is good government”. Thus the state government has underfunded all these programs which is the foundation to our state’s economy. Education already has a history of non-importance in the state. All while the school’s are still recovering from segregation of less than fifty years ago. That problem in itself doesn't go away overnight (although a good portion of society seems to think it did).

Thus there is a huge list of problems that need to be tackled. It’s complicated. If it was easy, previous governors would have done it a long time ago. Heck, the solutions in the plan aren’t even revolutionary. The action steps are the same ones conservatives have been touting for years (where are the results?).  Our governor is just getting on board? In his second term? The plan needs to be revolutionary, not the same. There needs to be community based plans in place like Detroit. Plans at the community and family level within the school areas. Instead, the government is just saying “we failed”, and now if your special enough we will try and fix the problem. Assuming all the pieces fall into place – like, is there room at the school you want to attend? Can you provide transportation to that school? Are your parents willing to partake in your life? There are so many unknowns. Yet the governor says that his solution is “easy” and “cheaper”?

Meanwhile, our inner cities continue to drain like it's the 1980's. Leaving behind neighborhoods segregated-era created neighborhoods. Our past history requires the state to focus on the many social aspects of education. Not just the infrastructure within the school.

Coordinated Efforts

I’m not a huge sports fan, so I never really follow the process of the host city for the Super Bowl. So when Indianapolis was selected, it was my first opportunity to watch the events unfold. I haven’t lived in Indiana for over five years. But during my last year at home I worked in our university’s planning office in downtown Indianapolis, which is when we began working on things related to the stadium. Now that the Super Bowl has passed, I’m beginning to read articles about the public investment of a stadium; basically boiling down the pros and cons to spending a lot of money for little return. Typically I agree on these sort of things. But the way Indianapolis handled the event was completely different. While the city may have used the Super Bowl to sell the idea to the public, they were thinking long term when implementing all the projects.

When the City first announced the new Colts stadium it wasn’t all about “the stadium”. Sure they used the Super Bowl for the publicity side of getting the actual stadium approved. But several things were unfolding at the time. Most notably the site of the stadium would initially expand the urban area of downtown south of the railroad tracks (which made a physical barrier). The downtown Indianapolis plan breaks the city into the four quadrants originally planned back in the 1800’s. The new Colts stadium is located within the southwest quadrant, and has a focus for the tourist portion of downtown. This quadrant includes four sports stadiums, the convention center, the museum district, and the transportation hub; with a residential population being supported by the adjacent university. Thus the new stadium would only strengthen the areas intent, and the new design guidelines being implemented during this time would ensure everything else would fall into place.

In addition to building the stadium, the city created some robust infrastructure plans both citywide and downtown. This included a brand new terminal at the Indianapolis airport, expansion of interstate capacity, and the Indy Connect transit plan. Unfortunately, the Indy Connect was the only plan not pushed through. But, as a side note, it is still being worked and will probably succeed.

Downtown, the city expanded their bike and pedestrian lanes, and interconnected them with the vast system citywide system. Anchoring pedestrian activity downtown, and coinciding with the recent expansion to MegaBus, Greyhound, and Amtrak services to Chicago/Cincinnati/Louisville/Nashville.

So when the Super Bowl was announced, the city went into full swing to continue the urbanization of downtown. One has to remember that ten years ago downtown Indianapolis was considered a small mid-western town, with the notorious nickname of Naptown. Once the Super Bowl was announced, the city had three years to ensure the nickname would not reemergence.  And it did't. 

So the article that relates the stadium building to just one event is way off (in my very humble opinion), because so much more happened; and those investments will continue past the Super Bowl. I’m sure if Indianapolis “made money” from the Super Bowl. However, they made great strides as a city, and were able to showcase it to the world.

Then. I read this article. Oh New Orleans, why… I realize they have upgraded stadium, and have added Champion Square nearby, but otherwise there seems to never be a coordinated effort for major events. Are they planning on having the street cars installed prior to the event? What about projects from the Master Plan which can be expedited – infrastructure, art, programs?  Instead of taking the city’s status of a tourist city for granted, the city needs to start elevating themselves when they get the chance.

After watching the coordinated approach in Indianapolis, it’s disheartening to watch New Orleans keep taking things for granted.

Houston: Renewal

I was in Houston this weekend and talked to a few Planners that worked for the City. Houston gets this rep (usually bad) because it doesn’t have zoning. That combined with the fact it gets wrapped up with the Texan stereotype, people are usually fairly negative concerning it’s stance in the American urban city. The city itself just barley missed becoming the third largest city in the USA (surpassing Chicago), yet the city’s landmass is three times as large as Chicago and density a third that of Chicago. So upon arrival in Houston I feel like I’m visiting Indianapolis; and that’s an understatement. Indianapolis feels more urban in many more ways than Houston . Yet at the same time, Houston has made some steady steps forward. Even given the fact that it has no zoning.

First, it’s emerged as a multi-cultural city. Forty percent of the residents identify themselves at Latino; and only half the population is white. Thus Spanish is widely spoken throughout the region. In addition their mayor is not only a female, but an openly gay female. Both statistics can catch a non Houstonian off guard if they want to slip Houston into the typical Texan stereotype. The City can be portrayed as conservative, especially with the influx of oil and gas. Yet the population is fairly young and mobile, and have some mindsets that can counter the typical conservative nature of our country. Thus, there are pushes to urbanize Houston.

Even in the last few years downtown is finally moving away from ‘just’ the Central Business District. Many of the adjacent urban neighborhoods have seen an influx of young professionals in the last few years, and the trend is finally working its way into downtown. This coincides with the Light Rail system as it expands from the one line to many.

But judging a book by the cover isn't exactly the best way to occupy yourself for hours. Starting with downtown. It’s well kept, has a strong business center, light rail, shopping, bars, restaurants, and entertainment venues. The key uses are there, but it is still falling short in streetlife and after hours activity. Take for instance the indoor/outdoor mall across the street from the hotel. The mall is obviously a new build, but I felt like I was walking through a downtown in the 1970’s after everything had closed up shop. The few stores in existence were typical urban stores. The rest was vacant - with a slight music track playing off in the distance. It was somewhat surreal. But it kind of fit in with the 1970 building style Macy’s across the street, which is probably the only downtown department store within a five hundred mile radius. While the essence of the downtown department store died in the 1990's, it's reemerging. Macy’s is (hopefully) holding on to Houston’s when it can sustain the downtown department store (hopefully soon). Further up the street (on the rail line) is a cluster of after hour restaurant and bars. It begins to establish an after hour vibe, and (somewhere) there has to be residential around. It has easy access to the sport venues, and students from Rice can easily come up from campus. Mind you, this not even close to what a city the size of Houston needs (or sustain a downtown residential population). But it’s there nonetheless. 

Then for the first time I ventured on the light rail's Rail Line down to the Medical District and Rice University. In addition to the Red Line, they are currently constructing several rail lines, but this rail line is the only link thus far. It goes from downtown to the baseball stadium, hospital district, university, and further south to housing. Seems to capture a good population. Plus it's functionally nice. We got off at Rice University and walked to their commercial area for lunch. Not bad for two bucks.

The inner-city neighborhoods themselves are the defining moment of Houston. Usually the neighborhoods are the first to revitalize - followed by the central business district. I of course spend my time to the west inside the Heights area and Montrose. Like a lot of cities, the gay neighborhood was the first to take hold; and the rest of the young professionals followed. The infrastructure itself isn't there (nothing compared to Dallas), but the stores, restaurants, and bars are all present. There is definitely a huge influx of young professional. Which is good for a city like Houston, because it is attracting high paying jobs (mostly related to gas).

Houston has a lot going for itself. But it needs to step up its game to attract the quality of life young people want now-a-days.