“The objective of Springfield’s SDAT project is to create a repopulation plan for a more sustainable downtown that maintains the area’s historic and cultural viability and increases its economic vitality.”
One idea is a call for more public art, which I've been advocating for a while. Interesting fact: not all public art is required to be statuary of historic political figures. There's no law against doing something more creative. No joke.
Thankfully, they didn't engage in the fantasy of some local leaders that consolidating rail will significantly transform downtown. Their only comment on rail is that combining public transit into a single multimodal facility "makes a great deal of sense." Of course, that could be done on either the 10th or 3rd street corridors. In fact, helping people drive away from downtown faster doesn't help it grow.
One of my concerns about the Springfield rail corridor study is that it focused on the problem of rail slowing down cars to the exclusion of considering where the best location is for passenger rail. The SDAT study is full of suggestions for planning more holistically to accommodate all forms of downtown transportation, including bicycles and pedestrians. The report even points out that Springfield's conservative, play-it-slow attitude about bike lanes is causing the city to miss out on federal funds that could be used to improve downtown infrastructure. Auto-centric planning of the past is no longer adequate.
The summary addressed a barrier to change that caught my attention.
Overcoming CynicismOne of the biggest barriers to Springfield's creative growth is the attitude of many Springfield residents. Part of that is a cynical pessimism about downtown's potential. Another part is a conservative political culture that refuses to place limits on sprawl developers.
During the SDAT process, there was a lot of talk. While the quality of the dialogue was quite high, the team also heard a lot of cynicism. Overall, community participation in the SDAT process involved hundreds of residents and stakeholders, and enthusiasm for the downtown was well demonstrated, so the city should be positioned to leverage the dialogue that occurred into real action. However, the team also realized that any effort to improve downtown will need to overcome existing cynicism about Springfield. This challenge is by no means unique. In fact, one of the common refrains AIA teams have heard in many communities we work in demonstrates the challenge:
“Things are different here. What works in other places won’t necessarily work here. Things are difficult here. We have some unique challenges.”
There are a number of SDAT policy recommendations that would provide incentives to develop downtown and disincentives to develop cornfields. Few local politicians have shown the courage to even talk about such ideas. The SDAT report reaffirms that we have to make tough choices, rather than continuing the politically convenient fantasy that we can have unlimited sprawl and still significantly grow downtown. I'm not sure how things will change if we continue to have a Chamber of Commerce, daily newspaper, and mayor who all push the fantasy about unlimited sprawl.
The city council recently continued the fantasy by adopting a procedure that requires a city council vote early in the process for zoning changes, long before most residents will hear about controversial proposals and have the chance to weigh in. This anti-democratic change will anger more residents as they discover the procedure for zoning changes is designed to advantage developers over interested citizens. Those opposed to bulldozing Griffin woods already feel disenfranchised by the new rules.
Springfield leaders and voters have frequently shown they prefer the familiar over new ideas. SDAT suggests a number of ways to approach change that will hopefully overcome the self-defeating habits of our local political establishment. I'll cross my fingers, suppress my inner cynic, and keep a positive attitude about those ideas working.