B.K. Loren's "Got Tape" (pages 43-52) is the personal story of one community standing together as one to stop a SuperTarget from destroying undeveloped land.
Question: why does it take a crisis for people to act? Loren notes that during the process, they learned that to keep the people working together, they had to "quit fighting against something, and begin fighting for something" (49). Fine, but why did it take the threat of SuperTarget for them to learn this lesson? Here's some undeveloped land: of course someone is going to want to do something with it. Why not act before that "evil" someone steps forward?
Question: why couldn't a shopping center be a part of a nature setting? Does it have to be one or the other? I've visited a lot of places that have strict zoning standards -- how big the signs are in front of stores, what the building are made out of, etc.
I hate sprawl as much as anyone, and I hate bulldozing down all the trees to put in parking lots, but perhaps there's a third way? After all, people have to shop. Maybe instead of "protecting" 100 acres of undeveloped land, we should "protect" all land and the way that it's developed. Just a thought.
Question: why does it take a crisis for people to act? Loren notes that during the process, they learned that to keep the people working together, they had to "quit fighting against something, and begin fighting for something" (49). Fine, but why did it take the threat of SuperTarget for them to learn this lesson? Here's some undeveloped land: of course someone is going to want to do something with it. Why not act before that "evil" someone steps forward?
Question: why couldn't a shopping center be a part of a nature setting? Does it have to be one or the other? I've visited a lot of places that have strict zoning standards -- how big the signs are in front of stores, what the building are made out of, etc.
I hate sprawl as much as anyone, and I hate bulldozing down all the trees to put in parking lots, but perhaps there's a third way? After all, people have to shop. Maybe instead of "protecting" 100 acres of undeveloped land, we should "protect" all land and the way that it's developed. Just a thought.
1 comment:
Hi,
Loved your post and your questions. Thanks for both of them. Since I wrote "Got Tape" I thought I'd address your questions. I worked for many years to urge the city to develop land in a balanced way, not just on this one project. My father before me did the same thing. The reason other projects are not mentioned is because this article is about one particular development.
I think it takes "something like this" to bring people together for the simple fact that people have jobs and our daily lives often take over our passions. Sad, but a fact of life. We all strive to walk a line.
As for the "all or none question": I hope the article points out that the city had plenty of retail prior to this proposed development. It has far more than the national average, and far, far more retail than cities in the same area. The Target was due to be built directly next to a Walmart (less than 0.3 miles). The two would then cannibalize one another, and one would be left empty--another eyesore in a town full of failed retail. The average life of a box store is less than 10 years. Also, as the article states, the site was not zoned retail by the city nor by the citizens. The builders were petitioning to have the residential zoning overridden so they could change it to retail. Since the Land Use Plan was the single document created by citizens and officials in concert, we thought it was a grand example of citizens and cities working together. We did not want it doused by a contractor who did not even live in our city. It exemplified what you are talking about: citizens being proactive and not reactive. So we stood up for it. It had been created years before the contractor arrived, and it was still valid. We worked together at that time to balance our city.
In the interest of balance, the city is now building in that very spot. However, the building honors the Land Use Plan. It also incorporates trails that link to existing trails that lend to making our city a pedestrian-friendly town. This is important, as the road that this development is on currently ranks as D (on an A,B,C,D,F grading scale) and F on weekends and holidays. This means that the road is a danger to life: if an ambulance /police vehicle wants to get through, for instance, on a weekend, it can't. There's simply no way the traffic gridlock will allow. So to add another 4500 cars, which the current building will do, seems ludicrous already. But to add another 10,000 cars daily, which the retail would have done, is even more ludicrous. And so...we fought the good fight as far as possible. And we came together. And we sought balance ultimately. And there is very little room for balance in this world today. Still, we fought as much as we could for more balance. It was definitely not an "All or none" proposal. There was and is an overabundance of retail in our city.
Thanks for the great dialogue, and thanks for being engaged and involved enough to read The Future of Nature and to take the time to comment on it. It's a good thing you're doing here, and I, and many others, no doubt appreciate it.
Post a Comment