I had intended to say a few words about ArtsPlan06 to follow up on this week’s podcast; instead I’d like to respond to Ross Currier’s blog post in which he criticized my aversion to mediocrity, because it’s relevant to the implications of the Arts Plan.

I maintain that there IS a difference between fostering “an environment that gives emerging talent an opportunity to perform”, and a community that achieves the distinction of being recognized as an Arts Town. It is to be hoped that Northfield can do both. But to accomplish that, we need to recognize the difference. My point is that if we want to be seen as an arts town, we need to foster a standard of excellence, and not confuse it with our egalitarian desire to boost everyone’s self-esteem.

My daughter’s performance in the high school play was brilliant, but it’s NOT the Guthrie, and no one would confuse the two. That’s okay. I would suggest that emerging talent and demonstrated talent might best be served by different venues, rather than jumbling them together and making Northfield look like it can’t distinguish its ass from its elbow (or critically recognized art/artists/artisans over hobbyists who paint ersatz-impressionist landscapes for hotel lobbies, or make sock dolls with button eyes to sell on eBay.)

Having a community that provides opportunity for residents to perform or exhibit can contribute to our community vitality and quality of life. The NAG is an excellent example. On the other hand, we’re not likely to generate much of interest to the “creative class” you’re so fond of, Ross, unless we also have artists and performers who rank on at least a regional scale, if not nationally or internationally. (Spider John Koerner, anyone?)

Again, I don’t think this is an either-or situation (either we foster an environment for emerging talent, or we promote excellence); ideally it would be both-and. But in order to do that, I believe we need to distinguish which is which, and not confuse the two. My concern is that too many people in Northfield won’t know the difference, or won’t care; my fear is that, in our desire to gain “Arts Town” status, we’d instead end up looking like the cast of “Waiting for Guffman”.

By the bye… the local rug merchant might supply examples of material culture that are more ethnographically significant, or contemporary carpets designed with a higher level of artistry, than the child-labor-factory stuff sold by the bale at RugMart. But in Northfield, we lack a critical mass of people who can tell the difference.

Posted by the Webmaster on November 16, 2006 10:01 PM | Permalink | Comments (5)

Northfield.org editor Anne Bretts confronted me on the ISSUES list regarding my extremely undiplomatic comment about certain new residential developments around town. Someday I’ll have to demonstrate that I can actually be tactful, but that doesn’t make for very interesting reading, and if we didn’t have interesting reading, readership would fall off, sponsors would lose interest, and we couldn’t continue to build Northfield.org into the terrific resource it’s become. So really, Anne, I’m helping! And I welcome the opportunity to clarify my position.

Most of the examples in your post have to do with architectural design features, and that’s not really a big concern of mine (except in the historic district). I personally don’t like the building trend for big-ass garages right in front of the house, but as you say, that’s personal taste. My real concern is with urban design and urban planning, which have to do with how buildings relate to each other and how they relate to the street, how they fit in with existing buildings, and most importantly, how they relate to the people who live there.

Northfield simply has not done a very good job of self-determination when it comes to directing or shaping (a/k/a planning) the growth of the community. Growth is a good thing, and I’m in no way opposed to it. I also don’t object to new construction. But as you’ve probably noticed, I have a big issue with what many of the developers are building in Northfield. As a group they are, shall we say, not the most creative and imaginative bunch, and contrary to their claims, they really aren’t interested in providing choice, either residential or commercial. They predetermine the choices available based on their understanding of what “the market” wants, which basically means, whatever they were able to sell on their last project up in Maplewood or wherever. There are developers and builders who are exceptions, but unfortunately there aren’t enough of them around here. (As an aside - one of my suggestions to the EDA is to look regionally and nationally for cutting-edge creative developers as a target industry for Northfield.)

This is where planning comes in. Some people think that planning itself is bad, because it’s “the government” telling people what they can or can’t do with their own property. But when it comes down to a local level, where the idea of government by the people for the people actually has a chance to work, planning is more akin to organization, like arranging your furniture or landscaping your yard – just on a slightly larger scale.

So the questions being asked shouldn’t be simplistic ones like “Should we build new houses?” or “Do we want a multiplex movie theater?” The real questions are along the lines of,

How much land do we have available for new development? Where is it?

What is the ideal balance between residential and non-residential development, what are the tax and cost implications of each, and how should that impact land use planning?

Where is the best place for new developments of varying types?

How should these things relate to and connect with the existing community?

To sum up, I’m not anti-growth. Growth, like change, is inevitable. Nor am I trying to keep Northfield in some idealized time in the past. But how things grow is a concern to me, and I’d much prefer the measured, incremental growth exhibited by a child than the growth demonstrated by a cancer cell. Which is part of the reason why I’d like to see our ordinances dictate a little more about how things are done here, so that we can plan and grow in healthy, effective, efficient and sustainable ways for the benefit of both current and future residents.

Posted by the Webmaster on September 1, 2006 01:28 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

As you may or may not be aware, the City Council voted last night to re-zone 22 acres of land from LI ("light industrial") to C-3 ("gateway commercial", a/k/a sprawl). A lot of the hoopla was due to the fact that the current landowner is negotiating with a developer who's interested in putting a multiplex cinema on the site, and the discussion of whether and where to build a theater is obscuring what, to me, is the real issue:

Our zoning ordinances suck.

This is very relevant to the property in question, because while the LI designation is nothing to write home about, C-3 is worse. The land development regulations governing the C-3 designation have precious little in the way of either urban design or architectural design standards, which means that C-3 property owners are pretty much free to build whatever crap they want on the land and cover the rest with impermeable surfaces, regardless of the long-term cost and consequences to the community as a whole.

Try this little exercise. First, close your eyes and picture the ugliest buildings and land use in Northfield. Then locate those areas on our current zoning map. I'll give you a hint: They're in the red areas, designated "C-1 gateway commercial". Coincidence?

Northfield is incredibly passive about this kind of thing. For a community that prides itself on creativity and intellect, it's ridiculous that we ask nothing of developers beyond money and a willingness to build stuff. Somehow we think that theater complexes and shopping malls are "economic development". No, they're a consumer convenience, but that's not the same thing.

I'd like to take a page from the books of more progressive areas of the country that have adopted and implemented strategies of "Community Preservation", which Northfield desperately needs. Massachusetts describes this approach in part by saying,

"Most communities often find themselves in a corner; they desire economic development, but are also concerned that the financial, environmental and social costs of sprawl will outweigh the benefits of that growth. With careful planning, however, economic growth can flourish while preserving the character of our communities. Community Preservation is not a "no growth" policy. Instead, Community Preservation promotes pro-active and careful decision-making to direct future development to the most suitable locations. The goal of Community Preservation is to empower communities to develop a unique vision and plan for a future that compliments rather than conflicts with their environment, history culture and quality of life."

The whole point of PLANNING recognizes that self-interest and market incentives alone do not a good community make. We have a good Comprehensive Plan for Northfield; what we don't have is land use regulations that support it. And until we do, we're going to keep getting proposals for generic development by people who simply don't know how to do anything else. Needless to say, I'm disappointed that the Council ignored the recommendation of the City's own Planning Commission and City staff in proceeding with this rezoning. But even more, I'm dismayed that this community apparently just doesn't have the balls to articulate a vision--and stick to it. If that continues to be the case, then the future will probably look a lot like the photo above, because it's the path of least resistance.

Doesn't that just make you proud to be a Northfielder?

Posted by the Webmaster on June 6, 2006 07:12 PM | Permalink | Comments (3)

The Northfield Planning Commission is undertaking a monumental task: we’re FINALLY moving ahead with revising Northfield’s antiquated Land Development Regulations (zoning ordinances).

Northfield likes to think of itself as a progressive community, but its zoning ordinances are stuck in the 1960s. In addition to just being bad, they aren’t congruent with the city’s
Comprehensive Plan (an overly wordy and pedantic document which contains some really, really good ideas).

The Planning Commission and the City Council have had their hands tied on land use for a very long time. Case in point – when we have to review a “preliminary plat” for proposed division and use of a land parcel for residential development, it’s generally something that will end up looking like a bunch of beige and taupe "snout houses" (thanks to Chip Cuccio on the “Development in Northfield” discussion on the Issues list). Then the Planning Commission gets the blame, which, I suppose, is fair. BUT… the fault is really in the zoning ordinances, because that’s exactly the kind of development the ordinances don’t simply allow, they foster. How this happens, and the importance of urban design, is a whole ‘nother thing and I won’t tackle it now. Suffice it to say that we may not like or want another faux-chateau beige subdivision, but if the laws on the books say “yes, you can,” then we aren’t in a position to legally say “no, you can’t.”

Continue reading "Hell is Zoned R-1" »

Posted by the Webmaster on May 11, 2006 08:19 AM | Permalink | Comments (3)

Posted by the Webmaster on February 10, 2006 04:27 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has a new report outlining strategies for balancing a community's need for parking while protecting environmental quality. From the report:

“. . . The way we develop our communities has a major impact on the quality of the natural environment. Regions with walkable, mixed use, compact neighborhoods, towns, and cities, knit together by a robust network of transportation and environmental corridors, protect human health and the natural environment.”

What a concept.

Posted by the Webmaster on February 10, 2006 02:03 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)