Bourbon Street: True Identity Hidden in Itself

Is Bourbon Street authentic? New Orleans scholar makes case in grand, new history

I have always found it interesting that people are quick to judge Bourbon Street at a "tourist" destination, or a poor reflection on the city. When in fact, it's just the opposite. The compromise of Bourbon is all New Orleans - random, interesting, a little dangerous, edgy, sometimes questionable, and yet fun. Every single person who speaks poorly of Bourbon Street, are the same people who find themselves there at 3:00 AM when all the other bars in the city have calmed down and they're still up for more fun. That's the point of the Bourbon, and that's the philosophy of New Orleans and South Louisiana in general. So my thoughts (as an outsider, that have now spent a good fair share "down the bayou"). 

Most people who label Bourbon Street as touristy are locals (city and DDB). Why is it funny, and even more, ironic? This is where almost every single person began their New Orleans nightlife experience. Going to New Orleans is a "trip", even though it's less than an hour away. It's an escape from reality. When people first go to New Orleans it's in the Quarter. They had fun. They broke loose and lived their young lives. However, as in all people, it becomes old and we become more "sophisticated". So we move our lives to more "mature" places. Thus, Bourbon Street (and the Quarter in general) is labeled by the locals as the "tourist area". Yet, it's the people who live there that made the place, then label it as "uncool". Then newcomers (myself) get the idea that it is actually a tourist area because South LA has labeled it as such. Yet it's completely New Orleans. Yes, it's where tourist go... but seriously, would any Tourist Commission - anywhere - look at Bourbon and say "this is how we want people to see or city". No. They create nice places (downtown redevelopment, museums, parks, etc), and then send visitors there. New Orleans on the other hand doesn't mind this representing the city, because the essence of the place is the essence of the city (random, interesting, dangerous, and fun). 

What makes Bourbon even more unique is the street is the country's only entertainment area (that I can think of) that happened organically and has thrived in it's current condition, even with it's, um, questionable activities. That combined with it's fascinating history makes it both underrated and overrated.

Now I just have to read it. 

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.

My recent trip home gave me a chance to evaluate (again) the state of our cities. It's always interesting because cities provide a similar function across the country, yet develop extremely differently from place to place. I use to compare cities by countries because the realm of development seemed to be more influenced on a country by country standard. Historical ramifications and their thoughts about the free market seemed to have the most influence. Yet I've discovered that there is a cultural/social fabric entangled deeply within all USA cities.

Let me step back a bit.

I view all current city development as a renaissance than a new creation (even working in the suburbs). All new development patterns can be directly linked to historical patterns. In the United States, cities are defined by the capitalistic nature of the country. Uses were closely linked, if not mixed. Neighborhoods tie directly into the adjacent commercial areas. Roads right of ways were defined by automobiles, pedestrians, public spaces, semi-public spaces, and private spaces. In my mind, this created functional cities that formed in the industrial eras on the eastern coast and Midwest. While functional, a sense of place was created at the street level. Specific duties are assigned to the urban form, and those duties play out within day to day development of the cities.

Indianapolis is one of those cities. Sure, I grew up with the (extremely) urban Chicago at my backdoor; and watching industrial cities like Detroit, Cincinnati, and St. Louis go through extreme, post-industrial transitions. But in a sense, Indianapolis is the (may I say) reject of the Great Lakes. It's seen as secondary every city in the Great Lake area. The city itself doesn't have a profound industrial base, and never experienced a huge expansion (or collapse). The state itself is a foundation of good 'ol boys Democrats, but considered a red state. Our background is mainly humble protestant upbringing. We don't drink on Sunday's and holidays; and follow rules like you wouldn't believe.

The City of Indianapolis earned it's mid-1900's nickname of Naptown.

So imagine my surprise when downtown Indianapolis started showing up on the (ever more famous) list of great downtown's. Ranking above the notorious 'awesome' cities of Portland, Boulder, Austin, etc.

While 'we' (Hoosiers) may have our "boring" ideals of the past, we've learned lessons throughout and have created a steady rise in our sense of understanding - that translates directly to a sense of place. Things are done for a reason; rules are considered necessary; and  the general good is always evaluated. Thus creating an urban environment that not only benefits everyone, but gives a clear direction of where the culture is going.

This became evermore apparent during Christmas when I saw preparations for the Super Bowl. Many cities host the Super Bowl, yet Indianapolis sees it as a huge win for their downtown. Which is strange because Indianapolis hosts lots of major events; and they always throw a good party. However they use any event to leverage themselves as a city. Downtown Indianapolis has a defined vision shared by everyone, and this common understanding is usually upheld by everyone. It's not fake. It's not perfect. But it has an amazing sense of understanding that cannot be replicated.

Everything I described in the last paragraph is the complete opposite of Southern Louisiana, except the last sentence.

So how can two entirely different places come to the same conclusion? The State of Louisiana doesn't have a common centralized approach, and cities battle other cities; while regions battle other regions. The City of New Orleans itself has no historical consistency in it's development. There are no common understanding of base rules for development patterns, and that ideal can be seen across southern Louisiana. In fact, most cities in southern Louisiana lack that sense of place you can find in New York, Chicago, or numerous small towns.

Two completely different functional cities arrive at the same conclusion: which is the physical development reflects directly to the local culture. New Orleans has engraved their-selves in their social base. You want to know and interact with people. It's ingrained in their understanding of life. The development of the city directly relates to this notion. Buildings are compact, street right of ways are narrow, and there are few private spaces. Alleys are none existent, replaced with common areas in the rear. Buildings are set close to the street, with little to no transition to the front door. This is true in the French, English, and Spanish portion of the cities.

I could go more into the interconnections... but I'd rather leave it there. I think it best explains the way city development can vary region by region.

Megabus to launch express bus service in Atlanta | ajc.com

Megabus to launch express bus service in Atlanta | ajc.com:

'via Blog this'

MegaBus is expanding. Awesome. I haven't ridden MegaBus (even in Europe), but friends on the East Coast and Chicago love the option.

One has to assume that there is a nationwide build-out plan. So either New Orleans itself will become a hub... or (like all other transportation carriers) they will base their hub in Houston (or Dallas). Which is sad.

The lack of a central hub creates a struggle for the whole state. New Orleans lost all of its flight hubs; New Orleans Amtrak trains aren't priority; and Louisiana has built so many interstates just to bypass New Orleans, that we can't keep maintenance.

Now the private sector is choosing Texas and Georgia over New Orleans. Airlines have left; MegaBus has put us on hold; and the Greyhound Express service will seemingly hub in Texas and Atlanta as well.

Our nations infrastructure has natural hubs, and New Orleans is one of those hubs. But unfortunately we live in a bubble and our own state policy doesn't support this hub. We have an internal fight between Baton Rouge and New Orleans. Baton Rouge tries to 'steal' this from New Orleans every chance it gets. We argue about relocating the New Orleans airport closer to Baton Rouge; we built Interstate 12 to completely bypass New Orleans; and we support regional rail through Baton Rouge (even though it involves several new basin crossings and has no realistic connection past Baton Rouge). All of these things makes infrastructure investment more expensive. Thus, nothing gets done.

I'm a Baton Rouge citizen. I support Baton Rouge. Which is exactly why I support New Orleans. Ever since 1718, water, air, and land transportation have centered in New Orleans. Trying to change that will only hurt Southern Louisiana. If we strengthen New Orleans as our regional city, we all benefit. Transportation hubs are one of the main factors this state needs to reevaluate.

The best thing about confusion

On my way back from lunch I had to cross one the many Airline Highway intersections in Ascension Parish. These intersecting roads are only two lane. Meaning people turning right cannot do so on red because they have to wait for people going straight. People going straight have to wait for left hand turners to yield oncoming traffic. Thus a standstill.

I hail from the German-Midwest. I like rules. I was taught that society functions very efficiently when rule following takes place. This is why I hate traffic in Louisiana. No one likes the rules; they don’t follow the rules; and the rules are rarely enforced. This leaves traffic efficiency extremely poor. Well actually non-existent. Merging sucks. Passing lanes sucks. Left turns sucks. Heck, why does Louisiana even have the interstate highways. Rule following is a necessity. High speeds require trust in the other driver. Signalization, consistency, and awareness become a matter of death. Not a matter of rule following.

Honestly, the best traffic situation is the French Quarter. Every intersection functions in its own messed up confusion. Is a car running the stop sign? Are there pedestrians entering the crosswalk? Who has the right of way? Why can’t they replace the street name signs? Has anyone ever considered bending the stop sign back since the hurricane? All the sudden this mass of confusion makes sense. It forces you to pay attention. While you may have the right of way, you can never be too sure that everyone knows. It may take longer to go a mile or two, but everyone feels safer.

So this is also why I love the intersections at Airline Highway in Ascension Parish. If everyone followed the rules, no one would get across. But with strategic maneuvers, we can all transverse the intersection in the short signal duration.

These systems go in the face of my German roots.

But even Europe has begun to recognize why this pattern works. England began removing wayfinding and signage in their central cities, thinking that more confusion for the driver requires attention. A simple concept that no driver wants to face. Yet as a relocatee to Louisiana, I think this concept would function extremely well.  So my idea? Remove all interstate highway, signage, signalization, road lines, etc. I bet our insurance rates drop overnight. (Which, by the way, are coincidently three times higher than my Germany-Midwestern Indiana rates).