Downtown-centric vs. neighborhood-centric growth?
My city of Santa Rosa, CA is going through a big planning process to help determine future growth. Right now the city is seeking public input on three potential development scenarios, based on zoning, equity, vision statement, etc.
I'm writing because after looking at the options, I was uncertain. I'm an advocate for all the core Strong Towns values and here locally have been pushing for less of the sprawl we've seen the past 50 years, more city-centered growth (given our lackluster downtown) and more real neighborhood investment, as we've got a painful housing shortage here.
Of the 3 options, we can throw out the 3rd, which is business-as-usual, more or less. But what I'm writing to ask is how option 1 vs 2 might be viewed through the Strong Towns lens? Essentially: #1 focuses future commercial and residential growth near downtown and along central thoroughfares in a compact, transit-oriented form of development vs. #2 concentrating development on multiple "Neighborhood Main Streets" with less focus on downtown. We're not a huge city (population 170K) but given we're the biggest city between SF and Portland, our downtown sure doesn't feel like the regional seat that it ought to be.
Thoughts?
Comments
1 comment
Here's how I'd approach this question: Which option will enable more people to live without needing to drive a car as part of their daily needs? Which will enable a broader spectrum of the population to be freed from a dependency on driving?
Based on that thinking (but acknowledging I'm not familiar with the Santa Rosa community), I'd lean toward option #2. It sounds like it would build a constellation of 15-minute neighborhoods where people could meet their routine needs. And then public transit can become more effective, providing easy/fast access to amenities in other neighborhoods...especially if the city is willing to give transit some priority on the surface streets.
Please sign in to leave a comment.