The Downtown Plan: Flynn's Call to Action

Richmond's Director of Community Development, Rachel Flynn, issued a call to Richmond's residents to fall in love with a vision for a future downtown in an Op-Ed in the Times-Dispatch on February 14. (I'm still trying to catch up with my hiatus!) Flynn has been the driving force behind launching an inclusive, public process to develop a new Downtown Plan for the city, and continues to call for public involvement as the draft moves its way through the Richmond Planning Commission  to City Council.

During the two public hearings, most expressed strong support for the plan -- its vision, comprehensiveness, and implementation steps. Some, however, expressed concern. They have said that the plan is unrealistic, too detailed, too critical of VCU and the state, too expensive to implement, and too controlling of private property rights. I have been asked if I was surprised by the criticism and my response was and remains, no.

Whenever a city sets up a process that is open to all citizens -- indeed, promotes the attendance of all citizens -- it is setting itself up for agreement and disagreement, for public deliberation of ideas, for a democratic process. The "charrette" process we chose did not edit out controversial ideas, because these are what prompt public engagement. As Mayor Wilder says, this is the people's plan. It is a sharing of the values that each of us hold as Richmonders, as Virginians, as keepers of the Capital City.

Some say that if the plan proposes a park or a building on land the city does not own, then it should not be mentioned in the plan. Some say that if a proposal lacks funding, then it should not be mentioned either. I could not disagree more. The vision and ideas must be expressed, as well as details on how they would be implemented.

Comments

[JJ]

One thing that a lot of the debate about the street conversions seem to neglect is that one of the primary goals is to have _fewer cars_ downtown over the long term by virtue of increasing pedestrian and bike-friendliness as well as more mass transit. I'm no traffic engineer, but I also wonder if the safety and other issues about 1 vs. 2 way change if you look at the larger picture in the downtown area and not just individual streets or intersections. On another note, I think the leadership coming from Flynn is just what is needed. The fact that she has not bent over backwards to accommodate those who usually drive these decisions (as some on the planning commission do) is vital if the plan is going to reflect the needs and desires of a broad section of Richmonders. I'm baffled by those who say there has been no dissent in the process. I'd say there has been a much more open discussion in this case than in the past. At the two planning commission hearings there were plenty of critical comments, especially from developers who might have to change their plans!

[steve]

Bear thank you for link. That was very helpful. I thought I was doing bad researching in my inability to get significant real data regarding one way/two way conversions. This info was helpful.

[Bear]

Over on Urban Richmond, Michael J. Cunneen, from the progressive state of Washington, has commented on the overrated street conversion. He holds a Masters of Science Degree in Transportation Planning and Engineering, has been a Transportation Planner and Traffic Engineer for over twenty years in government and private consultant practice. http://richmondva.wordpress.com/2007/07/29/one-way-vs-two-way-streets-let-the-debate-begin/#comment-1708

[Paul Hammond]

Welcome to the neighborhood. What part of downtown did you move to?

[another downtowner]

As a new resident of Richmond, I've noticed the problems downtown. The features of the master plan are what Richmond lacks compared to other cities with successful, pedestrianized, urban areas. The fear of congestion is the fear of the commuter who is not spending any time downtown. What is happening is that restaurants, entertainment and galleries are opening downtown, that people will have plenty of reasons to hang out and enjoy themselves outside of the workplace. It doesn't make any sense to mis-characterize a useful planning process as a "personal agenda".

[steve]

"What is missing from the director's office is sound leadership, compromise, and consensus-building among all stakeholders. Instead, fringe interest groups are pushing their "take no prisoners" biases onto the plan." This is what I am saying. There is no leadership. A pep rally is not leadership. The charrettes were a wonderful tool but it is naive to say "this is the people's plan" when it is clearly "the people who agree with Rachel Flynn's" plan. There really has been no true dissent in this process. To buy into the premise that Rachel Flynn has ridden into town to save Richmond from itself is incredibly insulting to all of those who have poured their hearts and souls (and frankly their money) into revitalizing this city. Richmond is a better city than it was 20 years ago, better than it was 10 years ago and it will be better than it is now in 10 years from now. What we need at this time of growth and change is a planning department that can facilitate the process - not a zealot who has a personal agenda.

[Bear]

From a respected architect in today's editoral section... http://www.inrich.com/cva/ric/opinion/letters.apx.-content-articles-RTD-2008-03-01-0016.html "What is missing from the director's office is sound leadership, compromise, and consensus-building among all stakeholders. Instead, fringe interest groups are pushing their "take no prisoners" biases onto the plan." Amen... You can add pedestrian safety, transportation management, and that fringe traffic consultant to the list. Here comes the chorus of poor director Flynn... "she's only trying to change Richmond"... let's hear it for the girl... remember she's the best... Go team!

[Bear]

Here's a clip from the Roanoke Times... They are already implementing their savior... It's the second letter to the editor... The first will alert you to their current status of downtown where it is all two way... Have fun! http://www.roanoke.com/editorials/letters/wb/152579 Wrong-way thinking downtown Now I understand the city of Roanoke's logic. I have been mystified by the changing of one-way streets to two-way, the obstacle course on Jamison and Bullitt avenues, the trees in the middle of Williamson Road and other such projects. Bill Carder, with Downtown Roanoke Inc., made it clear with his explanation for wanting to change Church Avenue to a two-way street. The WDBJ Web site quotes him saying, "It's great for storefronts because it slows traffic down, biggest thing is it makes your city more accessible to people, especially coming in from outside." So, we increase traffic congestion (and reduce parking) and more people will want to come to the downtown area. For years I have thought that stores moved out to malls and other areas to make it easier for their customers to get to them (and to provide free parking). After seeing some of the other decisions made by the city council, I'm sure it will agree with the logic of increasing business downtown by increasing traffic congestion. ROGER DUNAGAN VINTON

[Bear]

"The plan actually did not edit out controversial items." Um... yes it did. It has no balanced view on the one-way vs two way perspective. It does not present the alternate model for pedestrian friendly street design that follows a 5th & Grace model. The only pattern presented was the traffic consultants; despite direct conversations with them to encourage an alternate viewpoint. "Flynn didn't say anything about not inserting controversial items." A double negative... so what did she say about inserting conversial items... please clarify... Peace love and soul...

[steve]

Rachel Flynn for Mayor? In my opinion she is too inexperienced for the job she has now. I support the DMP but it frankly it is in spite of her. Too much fluff, not enough substance.

[John]

The plan actually did not edit out controversial items. Flynn didn't say anything about not inserting controversial items. No one has ever suggested that the plan doesn't include input and recommendations that emerged from places other than the public charrette process -- including from existing plans (i.e. VCU's master plan), from the consultants (on parks and traffic) brought in by Dover Kohl, from the city itself. I'm not sold on the whole one-way vs. two-way debate from either perspective, but that issue aside, the plan is about 300% better than any plan ever brought forward by the city.

[Jennifer Young]

It was my understanding that proposal to convert one way to two-way did not include "ALL" the streets downtown. Main, for one, was to remain one-way if I remember correctly. Maybe the plan has since changed or I misunderstood but it's not the way I remember it. I'll have to go back to the plan and re-read this part.

[Bear]

"The "charrette" process we chose did not edit out controversial ideas, because these are what prompt public engagement." Those wacky silly planners had their minds made up about converting all those streets to two way under the guise of pedestrian safety... the public loves pedestrians and ped-friendly environments so they would love two way... Although many references cite the dangers to pedestrians, the DMP proceeded to convert all of the streets to two way... Not one peep from the public (remember they believe it is safer for pedestrians) about how a blanket recommendation for converting ALL the streets... seems like a zealot on a mission rather than a prudent thought tailored to Richmond... ALL of the streets? Really! What a thoughtful idea...

[Parker]

Rachael Flynn for Mayor! She "gets it" on multiple levels, unlike most of the people that "run" this city and hold it back from what it could be.