Yet Another Example of Terrific City Planning

July 23, 2008

Yet Another Example of Terrific City Planning

The Kansas City Star has a story on the failures of the planning process in Kansas City’s Beacon Hill neighborhood. I encourage you to read it carefully. Now, I have never, to my knowledge, been to Beacon Hill. But this entire story is a perfect example of the failures that come when the government steps in to plan things that should be left to the free market and individual choice.

The historically revitalized neighborhoods in Saint Louis, such as Soulard and Lafayette Square, did not come about because of a government plan. They happened because free people made choices and put time, money, and effort into their neighborhoods. The government did not “plan” for Lafayette Square becoming what it has become, and it certainly did not mandate its development with legal contracts, etc. (I am certain that there are similar neighborhoods in Kansas City that have been revitalized in the same way as Soulard.) I will admit that the government does provide historic tax credits that encourage much of the revitalization, and they should continue to do that in historic parts of Missouri.

But the city should not get to “choose” who is allowed to buy property. From the Star article:

He and two other buyers were chosen to purchase and fix up the homes.

Even if the city had owned the homes by then, they should have taken the best offer. Somebody who wants to “mothball and flip it” might be doing just as much for the economy as someone who gets a lot of government tax money to subsidize revitalization. The Kansas City planners have no way of knowing what the best long-term plan is, and they have apparently not been making cost-effective decisions (emphasis added):

Beacon Hill so far is known mostly for exorbitant spending of federal dollars on two bungalows in the 2500 block of Tracy Avenue.

Government should stick to governing, rather than trying to predict the future and take risks with public money. That should be left to the private sector.

« Read Previous Entry Read Next Entry »

5 Comments »

What about government mandated design review guidelines? Those are part of the planning process and are in effect in the St. Louis City neighborhoods you mentioned. They are planning tools used to determine what fits and does not fit the historic context, and are one of the reasons Soulard and Lafayette Square are so intact. The Loop has planning guidelines that determine retail must be on the street level, building design must be street front, no drive thrus, etc.

Obviously, there are planning disasters, such as most state highways surrounded by strip malls and most suburbs using outdated Euclidean codes.

Comment by planner — July 24, 2008 @ 9:46 a.m.
That’s an attractive simplistic point of view, but it’s off the mark.

There’s a difference between planning and execution, and also between good planning and bad planning. All cities plan, whether you acknowledge it or not. There are absolutely plans in place at the city of St Louis for those neighborhoods you mention.

The question is usually one of implementation – is the plan realistic, and who is going to build it? In the case of Beacon Hill, there were problems w/ both. The plan was probably not very realistic, and the selected developers had experience in big commercial projects, but not in building production residential.

The government is “us”, not some shady, mysterious entity. City planners are some of the most inclusive folks you’ll find at any city hall, and want the public to shape master plans. But they are often hampered by lack of participation, and political decisions that go against their recommendations.

Finally, want to just eliminate planning somehow? (don’t know how that’d even be done). Even if you did, all you’ve done is make a whole lot of attorneys rich, as people sue each other ad nauseum.

Comment by Kevin — July 24, 2008 @ 10:18 a.m.
I thank both commenters for their thoughts. This is a brief, combined response to some of their points.

1) Yes, it’s simplistic, it’s a blog post. I also do 40-page policy papers, but there is a time and place for everything.

2) If the people of a historic area choose to enact design review standards, that is entirely up to them. I am fully aware of the value those standards can have in historic neighborhoods, such as Parkview in University City.

3) I don’t want to eliminate planning and zoning. There are people here at SMI who argue very well in favor of eliminating zoning, but I am not one of them. (See one of our latest op-eds by Dave Roland on the main site.) I want planners to stop grandiose plans and interfering in the role of the market, like what I have read about Beacon Hill. Soulard and Lafayette Square have community plans, but don’t tell me those areas succeeded because the government wanted them to and planned it to be so. They succeeded because of risk takers. Same goes for Washington Avenue and lofts in St. Louis (and now KC), and that is one place I can fairly claim to have been there at the beginning.

4)At a debate over TIF a few months ago, I heard a developer defend government support and participation by saying that private developments and projects fail, too, but we don’t want to end them. Yes, but one fails with the public money and one fails (or at least should fail) with private money. There is an enormous difference.

Thanks again for participating and sharing your ideas.

Comment by David Stokes — July 24, 2008 @ 12:09 p.m.
Your post is overly simplistic. Not because of your conclusion, which I disagree with, but because there is a whole lot more to the Beacon Hill story, just as I suspect there is a whole lot more to the Soulard story. I visit Soulard every time I go to St. Louis.

The city has screwed up several times with Beacon Hill, because the city acted incompetently, and because there are people in the city planning group that simply don’t care, and don’t really want to develop a well-thought out housing approach. *hint* the problem starts at the top.

So we have the city trying to incompetently run a flawed housing strategy. This would seemingly serve to bolster your point perfectly.

I disagree.

A flawed implementation of a flawed strategy does not mean cities should abandon the development and management of housing and associated development policies.

Now — the reasons for this would make this comment overly long — but we should get down to brass tacks here. :o) Just about all of my reasoning is based around one simple assumption: just because you own property doesn’t mean you can do anything you want with it. That’s the key issue that separates most people on all of these zoning & neighborhood development issues. The community guides development, to one degree or another, or it should not and we should “let the market” decide.

Some may say, “the market is the community” so the market provides all the guidance we would ever want. No. The “market” is not the community, the market is a willing buyer and a willing seller; and often times, especially in distressed communities, both parties don’t live in the neighborhood and often don’t even live in the city where the transaction takes place.

These are two very different arguments: an argument about the level of community control is far different from an argument about the presence or absence of community control.

Comment by David — July 24, 2008 @ 3:32 p.m.
There was no market in Beacon Hill – the area was almost entirely abandoned before the planning effort started. And, the planning effort was done at the behest of the public, including elected officials. This is not like Soulard or Lafayette Square where the neighborhood fabric (of excellent quality) remained largely intact and it just needed investors to re-occupy the place. Beacon Hill required a dramatic intervention by government and private sector to change its course.
That all said, i think it’s exceptionally fair to question the execution of the plan, and how it could have been done better. I certainly have much to quibble with in that arena. However, it’s not fair to compare this case to the redevelopment of neighborhoods that simply needed bodies. There simply was no market solution in this area at that level – investors of virtually any kind would never have gotten financing on their own, let alone appraisals or find buyers.

Comment by Kevin — July 25, 2008 @ 2:00 p.m.

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL

Categories

What about government mandated design review guidelines? Those are part of the planning process and are in effect in the St. Louis City neighborhoods you mentioned. They are planning tools used to determine what fits and does not fit the historic context, and are one of the reasons Soulard and Lafayette Square are so intact. The Loop has planning guidelines that determine retail must be on the street level, building design must be street front, no drive thrus, etc.

Obviously, there are planning disasters, such as most state highways surrounded by strip malls and most suburbs using outdated Euclidean codes.

Comment by planner — July 24, 2008 @ 9:46 a.m.

That’s an attractive simplistic point of view, but it’s off the mark.

There’s a difference between planning and execution, and also between good planning and bad planning. All cities plan, whether you acknowledge it or not. There are absolutely plans in place at the city of St Louis for those neighborhoods you mention.

The question is usually one of implementation – is the plan realistic, and who is going to build it? In the case of Beacon Hill, there were problems w/ both. The plan was probably not very realistic, and the selected developers had experience in big commercial projects, but not in building production residential.

The government is “us”, not some shady, mysterious entity. City planners are some of the most inclusive folks you’ll find at any city hall, and want the public to shape master plans. But they are often hampered by lack of participation, and political decisions that go against their recommendations.

Finally, want to just eliminate planning somehow? (don’t know how that’d even be done). Even if you did, all you’ve done is make a whole lot of attorneys rich, as people sue each other ad nauseum.

Comment by Kevin — July 24, 2008 @ 10:18 a.m.

I thank both commenters for their thoughts. This is a brief, combined response to some of their points.

1) Yes, it’s simplistic, it’s a blog post. I also do 40-page policy papers, but there is a time and place for everything.

2) If the people of a historic area choose to enact design review standards, that is entirely up to them. I am fully aware of the value those standards can have in historic neighborhoods, such as Parkview in University City.

3) I don’t want to eliminate planning and zoning. There are people here at SMI who argue very well in favor of eliminating zoning, but I am not one of them. (See one of our latest op-eds by Dave Roland on the main site.) I want planners to stop grandiose plans and interfering in the role of the market, like what I have read about Beacon Hill. Soulard and Lafayette Square have community plans, but don’t tell me those areas succeeded because the government wanted them to and planned it to be so. They succeeded because of risk takers. Same goes for Washington Avenue and lofts in St. Louis (and now KC), and that is one place I can fairly claim to have been there at the beginning.

4)At a debate over TIF a few months ago, I heard a developer defend government support and participation by saying that private developments and projects fail, too, but we don’t want to end them. Yes, but one fails with the public money and one fails (or at least should fail) with private money. There is an enormous difference.

Thanks again for participating and sharing your ideas.

Comment by David Stokes — July 24, 2008 @ 12:09 p.m.

Your post is overly simplistic. Not because of your conclusion, which I disagree with, but because there is a whole lot more to the Beacon Hill story, just as I suspect there is a whole lot more to the Soulard story. I visit Soulard every time I go to St. Louis.

The city has screwed up several times with Beacon Hill, because the city acted incompetently, and because there are people in the city planning group that simply don’t care, and don’t really want to develop a well-thought out housing approach. *hint* the problem starts at the top.

So we have the city trying to incompetently run a flawed housing strategy. This would seemingly serve to bolster your point perfectly.

I disagree.

A flawed implementation of a flawed strategy does not mean cities should abandon the development and management of housing and associated development policies.

Now — the reasons for this would make this comment overly long — but we should get down to brass tacks here. :o) Just about all of my reasoning is based around one simple assumption: just because you own property doesn’t mean you can do anything you want with it. That’s the key issue that separates most people on all of these zoning & neighborhood development issues. The community guides development, to one degree or another, or it should not and we should “let the market” decide.

Some may say, “the market is the community” so the market provides all the guidance we would ever want. No. The “market” is not the community, the market is a willing buyer and a willing seller; and often times, especially in distressed communities, both parties don’t live in the neighborhood and often don’t even live in the city where the transaction takes place.

These are two very different arguments: an argument about the level of community control is far different from an argument about the presence or absence of community control.

Comment by David — July 24, 2008 @ 3:32 p.m.

There was no market in Beacon Hill – the area was almost entirely abandoned before the planning effort started. And, the planning effort was done at the behest of the public, including elected officials. This is not like Soulard or Lafayette Square where the neighborhood fabric (of excellent quality) remained largely intact and it just needed investors to re-occupy the place. Beacon Hill required a dramatic intervention by government and private sector to change its course.
That all said, i think it’s exceptionally fair to question the execution of the plan, and how it could have been done better. I certainly have much to quibble with in that arena. However, it’s not fair to compare this case to the redevelopment of neighborhoods that simply needed bodies. There simply was no market solution in this area at that level – investors of virtually any kind would never have gotten financing on their own, let alone appraisals or find buyers.

Comment by Kevin — July 25, 2008 @ 2:00 p.m.

July 23, 2008