South Willamette Concept Plan public workshop at the Hilyard Center in Eugene, 6/27/12. That's Robin Hostick, City of Eugene Senior Urban Design Planner, at the lower right of the photo.
.
I attended last
Wednesday’s public workshop concerning a draft of the City of Eugene’s South Willamette Concept Plan. I haven’t
participated in many such meetings in the past (shame on me) with the exception
of those associated with land-use projects I’ve been involved with either professionally
or as a representative for AIA-Southwestern Oregon. I was reminded of the
extent to which the public involvement processes are at once both vital and
problematic.
The City’s best means to ensure
inclusion of all relevant perspectives and mitigation of negative impacts is
undoubtedly the direct engagement of citizenry in the planning of its shared
future. Those
affected by the City’s plans for the South Willamette study area have a right
to be involved in the decision-making process. That being said, the meeting underscored
one of the primary shortcomings of public involvement, which is that large
community meetings are frequently hamstrung by the need to present too many complex
issues in too little time.
In the case of Wednesday’s meeting, the
decision by the South Willamette Concept
Plan team (led by City of Eugene senior urban design planners Robin Hostick and Trish Thomas) to focus the discussion upon the possible forms of
future buildings in the plan study area meant that other important
considerations (such as enhanced provisions for cyclists) were necessarily
tabled for future meetings. This was perhaps the only practical option; the South Willamette Concept Plan will be
nothing if not overwhelmingly complex and multifaceted.
It is precisely this complexity which makes it
difficult for stakeholders to adequately comprehend the virtues underlying the
concept plan and its ties to the broader Envision Eugene strategies for accommodating up to 34,000 additional city residents
twenty years from now. I suspect many if not most Eugeneans support in
principle the efficient utilization of land within the urban growth boundary,
the need to manage future growth, and the protection of natural resources. The challenge
for the planners is to translate abstract concepts for compact urban
development into the reality of a prescriptive plan and potentially a form-based
code that would similarly enjoy widespread support.
What I heard at the workshop suggests that,
while people want to espouse support for broadly backed community goals, each individual
also tends to default to more focused, personal concerns. How will implementing the South Willamette Concept Plan impact my daily
commute? What effect will it have upon the value of my property? Will the plan
result in the construction of a looming structure that will leave my home in
perpetual shade? I witnessed a tendency by participants to compartmentalize
issues, to mentally manage the concept plan by isolating their specific interests
to the exclusion of other equally valid considerations.
For example, one attendee expressed affection
for her neighborhood’s current morphology of small, single-story, single-family
homes on individual lots. She believes this character is worthy of preservation
rather than replacement with higher density development because it is what she
knows and is comfortable with. Conversely, she supported Envision Eugene’s promotion of dense urban development. Either she failed
to reconcile how it would be possible to make room for tens of thousands more
people within Eugene’s boundaries without densification or she did not believe
it should be her worry. Giving her the benefit of the doubt, she had at minimum
unwittingly isolated her preference for the status quo apart from her advocacy for
compact growth.
Another participant articulated her disdain
for “ugly boxes” when citing the downside of denser, multistory development.
Unfortunately, her measuring stick is most likely the past examples of poor
building design that are all too numerous in cities across the country. It’s difficult to
convince folks like her that the same may not be the result if the general
outline of the South Willamette Area concept plan moves forward. Obviously, the
onus is upon the architectural profession—not the City of Eugene—to design
projects she would find attractive regardless of their size. The City needs to help
stakeholders distinguish between the good bones of the concept plan and its
implementation on a project-by-project basis.
People fear what they cannot visualize or
understand. They fear change. In their most virulent form, these fears are
manifested as intractable NIMBYism. The complexity of the innumerable,
endlessly interrelated factors involved intensifies uncertainty. There are
risks inherent in both disseminating too little and too much information. With
too little, organizers risk criticism for withholding knowledge essential to
understanding the issues at hand. If they provide too much they hazard charges
of obfuscation through inundation.
Is the development of far-reaching studies
like the South Willamette Concept Plan too ambitious? Are such plans less-than-useful
tools for achieving desired outcomes? Is their fate to be so watered down the
principles upon which they were founded become compromised? The answers to
these questions may be “yes.” Because the public does not always respond as
intended, the plans will most certainly vary from what their authors originally
envisioned. Whether the number of concessions granted render these plans
ineffective isn’t always predictable.
For the city's staff, the measure of
the success of the public planning process may ultimately be a modest one. Achieving
the goal of engaging as many constituents as possible may be enough. Anything
more would be icing on the cake. Examples might include the ability to
anticipate and answer more questions than not about the plan. Or it could mean alleviating the
frustrations of those who have difficulty expressing their concerns.
I empathize with Robin
and Trish as they must confront the challenges of guiding the public process
for the South Willamette Area Concept
Plan. Their task is clearly not an easy one. Big public meetings are not always
the most useful means to reduce opposition arising from misunderstanding or
disinformation. As I argued above, there’s simply too much for casual
participants to learn and a scarcity of time within which to absorb it. Discussions
about land use projects also too often pit disparate interests against one
another. It’s easier for opponents to muster troops than it is to marshal
supporters.
I don’t profess to have a magic bullet when
it comes to utilizing public processes to envision a desirable future. I do
believe the success of our urban environment is contingent upon incremental, adaptive moves that build upon the triumphs and failures (large and small) of all
preceding actions. I prefer to consider any current urban design vision as
merely a snapshot of what we think the future could be. It is what we want for
tomorrow from today’s perspective. The view from tomorrow might be very
different and that would be okay. After all, the proverbial flutter of a butterfly’s wings may well set into motion an alternative future the best-laid
plans cannot foretell.
