How can cities constructively guide "cataclysmic money"?

Rodney Rutherford
I know that Strong Towns generally supports the concept of incremental development as a key strategy to achieve economic resiliency. However, when cataclysmic money arrives, how can cities most effectively guide it? I’ve been following Strong Towns for many years (and founded StrongWA.org last year), and I've somehow found myself at the nexus of this challenge. I live two blocks from a planned $300 million BRT station (including a freeway interchange rebuild with HOV direct access ramps) that will connect our city to the region’s rapid transit network. A large company is purportedly preparing to purchase 10 acres adjacent to the planned BRT station to build its third campus in our city of 90k people, after having opened the second campus in town earlier this year. (I’ve been working there for over 14 years, but I’m not connected to their real estate team at all.) Housing prices are continuing to rocket upward, even since the city further refined its rules to make it easier to build duplex, triplex, cottage, and ADU homes in virtually every residential zone in the city in early 2020. And I serve on the city’s planning commission. I realize we’re not fitting the usual Strong Towns mold of ‘next smallest increment of growth.’ However, in order to constructively steer the growth, the city is preparing to draft a form-based code to shape the area around the station and make it more accessible for more people...but it’s admittedly going to be a big change. I’m hopeful that the form-based code will enable the change to occur incrementally, even if the increments come in quick succession. In the midst of all this, I’ve been invited to speak at a meeting of one of the adjacent neighborhoods in a few weeks. I've been told, “people would like to understand how the (BRT) Station Area Plan fits into the idea of Strong Towns. Some folks are resistant to this plan so it might be good to hear how it can really benefit the area. Others have expressed interest in how Kirkland can create/support more affordable housing.” I have lots of ideas on this, but would like to invite others to share their perspective on how to achieve economic resiliency in the midst of cataclysmic money.

Comments

4 comments

  • Comment author
    Charles Marohn

    Rodney, what part of this is still up for debate? Are you just asking how to react to the BRT investment? The people who are "resistant" -- is it just discontent or is there something they can intervene in?

    One of the challenges is that a $300 million investment -- regardless of what it is in -- sounds out of scale to the location. It will be really difficult to work incrementally when you have that kind of money pouring into the site, especially if you have a major corporation looking to purchase 10 acres and build it in their vision. It's also tough to build a lot of resiliency when one corporation is developing the site for themselves. In a macro sense, that is exactly what the legislators are seeking to have happen when they fund this kind of investment.

    0
  • Comment author
    Rodney Rutherford
    • Edited

    The part now up for debate is the zoning around the station area, balancing opportunity to enable and focus sustainable growth (to reduce the aggregate burden across the region) vs. the risk of allowing too much growth (such that it becomes too much of a localized burden). Either way, I'm more concerned with ensuring that the form of growth best supports the resiliency, vibrancy, and liveability of the area.

    0
  • Comment author
    Rodney Rutherford

    Searching around a bit, I found some guidance in this article, which I also recall reading in the Strong Towns book. In short, it highlights the importance of considering the ratio of public/infrastructure investment vs. private investment. If we exclude the cost of regional infrastructure (such as a BRT/interchange rebuild), I anticipate that it shouldn't be too difficult to achieve a reasonable private/public investment ratio (roughly between 20:1 and 40:1) in the area that is planned by the city, especially if the city is intentional about managing that ratio.

    I'm curious to hear if anyone finds other useful guidance that cities in similar circumstances should consider.

    0
  • Comment author
    Rodney Rutherford

    Continuing to answer my own question with resources from Strong Towns, I see more useful guidance in 'Confessions' chapter 9: "Transit is a wealth accelerator when it is used in support of productive development patterns.  ... You must focus on building a productive place, somewhere where people want to be outside of an automobile." The story of Sprinfield's Union Station--and its lack of having a place beyond itself--is especially relevant.

    0

Please sign in to leave a comment.