I had the pleasure of presenting at the New Partners for Smart Growth conference last week in Kansas City, Missouri with Nathan Norris, Chad Emerson and Eliza Harris. Nathan assembled an entertaining panel (100 points to anyone who can identify the former Broadway star) to present the top 20 municipal placemaking mistakes. As we debated exactly what those top 20 were going to be, a lot of the usual suspects emerged — giving away connectivity, failure to provide resources for implementation, lack of a meaningful vision, ill-suited codes, and a host of others — all pointing to ill-advised actions or techniques. But what the discussion danced around was the software of the process: the personal leadership role of staff, advocates and elected officials.
In short, all the placemaking techniques in the world will fail if you embrace the tools but discount the skills of the person wielding them.
In Decatur, Georgia, where I serve as planning director, a big part of our successful redevelopment has been the elected officials and staff. They’re great listeners, willing to modify their plans to incorporate others’ ideas, and they avoid technical, wonky language when presenting or referencing our vision.
They have a well known philosophy of “Yes, if…” rather than “No, because…” when it comes to working with the development community. They show their belief in residents through small actions such as allowing unlimited time for public comments at commission meetings and large actions like convening a resident task force to update our zoning ordinance.
They make placemaking fun through entertaining planning processes, engaging communications materials, and plenty of special events (a.k.a parties).
Such actions are explicitly inclusive, encouraging those at all levels — elected leadership, city hall, advocates or just engaged residents — to personally invest, claiming a sense of ownership in the process and responsibility for the outcomes. And that’s the key. Community is a product of both people and place, so nothing sucks the fun out of placemaking more than removing yourselves from the process and leaving it all to the “experts.”
Speaking of fun, I presented my best practice recommendations in Kansas City in the form of a dance film. Dance is a lovely way to illustrate relationships and ideas. We are all in the process of shaping space, tangibly and intangibly. Here’s to doing it more consciously.
Happy Placemaking!
P.S. Speaking of dance, the Zoetic Dance Ensemble, a non-profit organization of which I’m a member, has until February 18th to raise $5,000. Click here to donate and the City of Atlanta will match your donation dollar for dollar.
P.S.S. I bet Nathan Norris that I would beat his record for most blog post views. Please forward incessantly. If I win, Nathan will dance in public at the next New Partners for Smart Growth conference.
Amanda, have you organized any local Dance Walking a la Ben Aaron? If not, check out http://youtu.be/Ib3Duz_6a9M and http://youtu.be/x9cwBK6Ijxw and http://youtu.be/HSy7h3TPB-M. Fun way to get people on Main Street!
Thanks Hazel! I shared these with my co-workers and yesterday afternoon was a lot more fun around the office. I’m sure we will take it to the streets soon!
Well said, Amanda. It’s dedicated people that ultimately make the difference. Those people will be the ones who care to undertake good planning, write good codes, and watch out for all the important details.
Thanks for the new-to-me concept of ‘yes, if…’
to switch the conversation from ‘no, because…’
I wish I could say I invented it, but I didn’t. I’m happy to spread the word though. This philosophy is an important part of the City of Decatur’s employee training.
Great article. I would like to see the idea evolve to a Primer for Process, in which the necessity of these points are presented succinctly, but in greater detail. I have had the frustration of helping a community do all of the steps correctly in the effort to develop new land use regulations, only to have the approving Village Board allow it to become concealed by technical, wonkiness at the insistence of the Village Attorney, who got paid a lot of money to help transform what the consultants, local Land Use Committee, and more than 500 residents had created in a final form into something that’ “could look more like and ordinance”, in his opinion. “Shall” found their way into the text and paragraphs were rewritten to reverse “yes, if’s” into “No’s”, often without the “because’s.”
I am now representing clients in that municipality, who were attracted by the new Code to take on adaptive/reuse and infill projects, and suffering the uphill effort to convince the Boards what the Code is really trying to say. Having to revert to “but I do know what that is supposed to mean because I wrote the original provisions in the ordinance” is a bit awkward.
We need more municipal attorneys to understand that Euclid has evolved. Or maybe find the way that the the attorneys already engage can still “wet their beak, while supporting a process “encouraging those at all levels — elected leadership, city hall, advocates or just engaged residents — to personally invest, claiming a sense of ownership in the process and responsibility for the outcomes.” I don’t know if I could get this community to go through the effort of creating a community based ordinance again, simply because what happened at the end was both insulting and discouraging.
I won’t embarrass “Cosette” by calling her out, but your comment about Nathan is a bit confusing. If he loses he has to dance in public? The only thing required to get Nathan to dance in public is to start the music playing.
Paddy,
Thanks for your comments. I think you perfectly illustrated the “desire to be right” portion of the film with the story of the Village Attorney (cue Villain music here). Processes are just the way people decide to work together and if someone does not feel engaged or prefers a different process then they can definitely derail a project. In our recent zoning update, I invited the City Attorney to participate from Day 1. He was at every meeting with our resident task force and was able to contribute his opinion throughout the process. In the end, he ended up modifying the recommendations slightly, but still felt like he had significant input. Granted, he is a normal, helpful person. It’s hard to manage crazy people. I think it is easy to turn those who disagree with us into villains. I really try to challenge myself to include them in the process in a way that is meaningful to them. This is very hard to do in a short amount of time. However, we are usually faced with two options – we can change or we can expect others to change. So do we need more municipal attorneys who understand that Euclid has evolved or do we need more planners that know how to persuade municipal attorneys? or both?
As far as Nathan dancing – we are going for a full on choreographed dance number. Our panel would like him to give his best 😉