REWIND: Good points aplenty ... "The big urban mistake: Building for tourism vs. livability."

Social media at Strong Towns reposted this link today. It appeared previously in this space in May 26, 2017. It has long been my viewpoint that grassroots "economic development" officials (municipal officials, non-profit organizations, business owners and other stakeholders) should use points like these as the basis for their discussions. Do they? Beats me, but I think we can all see how much Greg Fischer's "Bourbonism" has been worth in the year 2020. 

THE BIG URBAN MISTAKE: BUILDING FOR TOURISM VS. LIVABILITY, by Arian Horbovetz (The Urban Phoenix)

... I’m painting with a bit of a broad brush, but essentially what so many cities are currently experiencing is the dilemma of whether to invest in large urban draws that will bring outside money in, or invest in a growing and changing downtown residential population that yearns for investments in keeping them there. To put it simply, do cities invest in big projects that create an entertaining space that grows tourism, or do they invest in the people that have already taken a risk by moving back into their long-dormant downtowns?

LEAP

City leaders, this one’s for you. You can either cater to your new residents by going into the downtown apartment buildings and listening to real people, or you can hop on the big ticket project train en route to a revolving door downtown. You can either build for livability or build for fleeting, often overrated promises of tourism revenue. You can facilitate local small business and community development, or you can create a short-lived wow-factor by opening the floodgates to developers and business interests who take money out of our communities. You can empower and invest in your new downtown residents and let THEM be the ambassadors for our growing urban paradises, or you can ignore them and build casinos and other flashy complexes that cater to the outsider and likely line the pockets of someone beyond the boundaries of the community.

The choice, as always, is yours to make. Choose to invest in your residents and local business owners… the people that invested first… tourism, development and financial success will likely follow. Empower your people, honor the risk they took by taking one yourself, and like happy employees of a strong company, they will take care of everything else.

Your Sunday MUST READ: "My city is unlike any other. My city is not a thru street."

If Deaf Gahan would have paid attention the first time ... thick, ain't he? Our campaign finance aggregator-in-chief will read this sentence and ask, "but isn't pass-through logic why I'm here?"

"We let the idea of high volumes of through traffic become our identity."

In terms of specific circumstances, Lebanon, Ohio is not the same as New Albany, Indiana. But shared universals are another matter entirely. Go to Strong Towns and read the entire essay, excerpted below.

The member who sent us the following essay about their hometown of Lebanon, Ohio, wished to remain anonymous, but is hopeful that it will spark discussion in Lebanon about how the city sees itself and its future. We hope so too. The history of Lebanon related here is familiar: it echoes those of hundreds of other American towns and cities that have mortgaged their futures on unproductive patterns of growth... but that have a history and identity to be proud of, if they can embrace it anew. Is yours one of them?

Are you paying attention, Deaf Gahan?

Are you paying attention, 3rd council district?

My City is Not a Through Street (Strong Towns)

... Lebanon is a strong and beautiful city. We hold an identity wholly apart from either nearby metro. This isn’t the kind of place where you travel between indistinguishable suburbs and forget what city you’re in. This place shows that it is different, from the unique Broadway streetscape to the fast pace of business on Mulberry, and from the vast attendance of the Carriage Parade to the humble but everlasting presence of our farmers' market. Lebanon was once a place, a destination for all kinds of people, and it can be so again.

Lebanon doesn’t need the through traffic. Lebanon doesn’t need the "through" mindset. We don’t need more bedrooms for commuters to spend ten hours of their days. We don’t need to draw tourists from Cincinnati and Dayton. We don’t need huge, silver-bullet developments like Union Village to increase downtown patronage. We already have the bones of a great downtown; we have since our forefathers started building it in 1803. What we need is bottom-up growth; more businesses that are uniquely Lebanon; more reasons to work here and spend our free time (and dollars) here. Fears of the loss of "small town feel" are misguided. Our downtown is an authentic expression of who we are.

We don’t need more endless bedrooms communities and chain retail to steamroll through our beautiful countryside. And we do not need one more development of detached single-family housing.

We need to be a city growing from the center outward, unafraid to grow taller and busier—busy with people going about their lives here, not passing through in their cars to somewhere else. We need more residents who are invested in the community and want to live and work in the heart of Lebanon.

My city is unlike any other. My city is not a thru street.

Here's Jeff Speck, explaining how slower downtown speeds have only a minimal impact on typical commute times -- and there's Team Gahan, ignoring him.

Jeff Speck was on Twitter. Here's what he had to say about commuting times in the context of lower speed limits. 

Here's Jeff Speck to explain how speed kills -- and there's Team Gahan, ignoring him.

---

Concerns about lengthened commute times should not be dismissed out of hand. There are many people who commute in and out of downtown each day who have no other use for downtown—at least, not in its current state. (1/6)

They brown-bag their lunches and don't linger after work for cocktails. Most are constrained in both money and time. (2/6)

Some of these people will never have interest in a safer, more vital downtown. Even if it becomes remarkably more appealing, with new public spaces and activities springing up, they will not make use of it. But these people are the exception. (3/6)

Almost everybody, at the very least, wants a downtown they can be proud of. And most suburbanites, when a downtown becomes a destination, will want to visit it on occasion. (4/6)

Moreover, these people’s desires need to be weighed against the desires of all downtown stakeholders. In most places, the majority of downtown workers care a lot about its safety and quality. All downtown residents certainly care. (5/6)

The same goes for merchants, property owners & other investors. It is in this context that the tradeoffs between commute time & safety need to be made clear, & the key question asked: would you rather have a downtown that is quick to drive through, or one worth arriving at? (6/6)

And this.

Citizens and city leaders should be presented with an honest choice. Where commutes will take a bit longer, we should to say so. But, given the whole story, most people have shown themselves willing to spare a minute or two for the good of their city and fellow citizens. (1/3)

This graphic by the transportation planning firm Nelson\Nygaard shows how slower downtown speeds have only a minimal impact on typical commute times. (2/3)

RULE 32: Discuss tradeoffs between speed and safety honestly, with an eye to downtown vitality, civic pride, and lives saved. (3/3) From #WalkableCityRules

Good points aplenty: "The big urban mistake: Building for tourism vs. livability."

Team Gahan and Develop New Albany should be locked into a room together.

That'd be enough in itself, but they shouldn't be allowed to come out.

Okay, at least not until each one of them has read this article and are compelled to comment publicly.

As we know, they're unlikely to read this or any other essay, so sound off, fellow dissidents. How is Dear Leader doing according to the criteria herein? I'm sure the upper echelons at Flaherty and Collins have a point of view.

Public housing residents likely do, too. Thanks for the link, MW.

THE BIG URBAN MISTAKE: BUILDING FOR TOURISM VS. LIVABILITY, by Arian Horbovetz (The Urban Phoenix)

... I’m painting with a bit of a broad brush, but essentially what so many cities are currently experiencing is the dilemma of whether to invest in large urban draws that will bring outside money in, or invest in a growing and changing downtown residential population that yearns for investments in keeping them there. To put it simply, do cities invest in big projects that create an entertaining space that grows tourism, or do they invest in the people that have already taken a risk by moving back into their long-dormant downtowns?

LEAP

City leaders, this one’s for you. You can either cater to your new residents by going into the downtown apartment buildings and listening to real people, or you can hop on the big ticket project train en route to a revolving door downtown. You can either build for livability or build for fleeting, often overrated promises of tourism revenue. You can facilitate local small business and community development, or you can create a short-lived wow-factor by opening the floodgates to developers and business interests who take money out of our communities. You can empower and invest in your new downtown residents and let THEM be the ambassadors for our growing urban paradises, or you can ignore them and build casinos and other flashy complexes that cater to the outsider and likely line the pockets of someone beyond the boundaries of the community.

The choice, as always, is yours to make. Choose to invest in your residents and local business owners… the people that invested first… tourism, development and financial success will likely follow. Empower your people, honor the risk they took by taking one yourself, and like happy employees of a strong company, they will take care of everything else.

About this new Downtown Facade Improvement program ... our interest in the topic goes all the way back to 2004.

Scroll down for the reprint of an article I penned in 2004, shortly after this blog's inception. Things have changed ... and they've stayed the same.

First, here is the city's description of the rationale for new downtown facade improvements, as revealed for the first time last Tuesday.

horseshoe-foundation-gives-5-million-gift-to-city">Downtown Facade Improvements

New Albany has a plethora of beautiful, historic buildings in its downtown. Unfortunately, over the years, some of these buildings have had windows shuttered and closed off, original brick walls painted over, and historic character lost. Some buildings have even been painted together to appear as one structure. This project will seek to revitalize, refurbish, and redevelop buildings and facades in the downtown area, reinvigorating these historic strcutures to their original historic look, including improved windows and uncovered original brickwork.

It should be noted that for a very long time, the Urban Enterprise Association has had a successful facade improvement matching grant program. The announcement on Tuesday seems to hint at an expansion of it, and yet obviously the paragraph above seems written to describe Schmitt Furniture, above all others.

The devil's always in the details, and this new program will be no exception. It doesn't mean I oppose it. Rather, I need to see the fine print. We all do.

There are other examples, of course.

Then there are these piles.

Prescient readers will note that on Tuesday, the city of New Albany accepted $5 million dollars of seed money from the Horseshoe Foundation and tied the grant to projects advocated by this blog for a number of years.

We're delighted to have been so far ahead of the curve in a conceptual sense, though it remains to be seen what percentage of the total required for these projects that $5 million proves to be -- most or only some?

It remains that we've supported the Greenway, the use of Loop Island Wetlands, and the clean -up of QRS (Riverside) Recycling.

We've praised the potential of the under-utilized amphitheater, and wondered why something couldn't be done about the horrendously neglected overlook structure.

We've pushed the idea of narrowed, two-way streets and enhanced walkability, as on the two blocks of Market from State to Pearl.

And, since the beginning, we've sought adaptive reuse. These past 12 years, many windows (and their buildings) have benefited from restoration as entrepreneurs put their money where their aspirations are, and downtown has come a long way as a result.

This is a very important point.

TIF bonds and similar corporate welfare subsidies have been largely absent from these privately impelled improvements. On Tuesday, the mayor had not one word to say about private investment, only the many ways the city itself takes credit for what has happened.

This was shortsighted. It's inaccurate. Still, in spite of Gahan's ineptitude, this new facade grant program, whatever its shape, might prove to be a good thing. However, it also has the potential to be controversial, especially if there is any hint of favoritism.

Consequently, I'd suggest that Team Gahan spend more time than it usually does making sure that downtown's stakeholders understand what's happening and why.
 
Is that too much to ask? Now it's back to November 22, 2004.

---

Windowless views of Scribner Place

As previously noted, I attended the outdoor press conference in early October during which New Albany Mayor James Garner unveiled plans for Phase I of the Scribner Place downtown redevelopment project.

Envisioned by Garner’s predecessor as a bold stroke on a grand scale, the Scribner Place project has been subjected by the incoming regime to a stringent editing process that has left much of the original proposal on the cutting room floor.

All portions of the Scribner Place plan that might require heavy lifting (i.e., hotel, retail, condominiums) have been discarded or deferred, rendering it fiscally responsible and far better suited to the current administration’s signature lack of imagination.

The YMCA, swimming center and parking garage slated for the first phase can be financed in large measure by annually mandated guilt abatement kickbacks from Caesar’s Indiana, whose million-a-day gross continually reminds us (a) that we’re all in the wrong business, and (b) that ordinary people are incredibly stupid.

In a press conference replete with unintentional humor, one of the funniest moments came when a representative of the Louisville media grew tired of waiting for the New Albany Tribune’s Amany Ali to ask a significant question and quizzed Mayor Garner as to his comments to the effect that that Scribner Place would bring people to live downtown.

With no housing plan in sight, where will these new residents live?

A confused Garner could do no more than mumble and point to the perennially unoccupied second and third floors of nearby buildings as if to suggest that their owners would miraculously see the light after decades of willful negligence and begin creating condos overnight.

It so happens that one of the structures standing behind Garner was the majestic Schmitt Furniture building, which hasn’t had windows above the ground floor since some time during the Johnson administration. In fact, on the entire length of the Schmitt Furniture block running along Main Street, there are no windows above the ground floor on any of the buildings.

If anyone is to live there, they’ll not be enjoying a very good view of Scriber Place.

During his speech, Garner insisted that the citizens pf New Albany should be thankful for certain “families” (among them the owners of Schmitt Furniture) who agreed to sell their properties to make space for the Scribner Place project.

These properties, located between Main Street and the flood wall, contain warehouses of no architectural value built atop brownfield areas where forges and other 19th-century industrial enterprises once operated.

So, if we are to believe Garner, families running businesses in buildings without windows, and who sell virtually worthless properties in need of some measure of toxic clean-up to the city at somewhere close to market value are patriotic.

Opportunistic businessmen, perhaps. Patriots? Name a street after them, and get on with it.

You have to wonder how things like this affect the bar business downtown.

Jane Jacobs, 1958: "Downtown is for People."

Photo credit

It's an essay by Jane Jacobs written in 1958, and worth revisiting at regular intervals. First, for those just tuning in

Jacobs is credited, along with Lewis Mumford, with inspiring the New Urbanist movement. She has been characterized as a major influence on decentralist and radical centrist thought.

Jacobs wrote a seminal book.

The Death and Life of Great American Cities is a 1961 book by writer and activist Jane Jacobs. The book is a critique of 1950s urban planning policy, which it holds responsible for the decline of many city neighborhoods in the United States. Going against the modernist planning dogma of the era, it proposes a newfound appreciation for organic urban vibrancy in the United States.

Here's the magazine article preceding the book.

Downtown is for People (Fortune Classic, 1958), by Nin-Hai Tseng (Fortune)

... There are, certainly, ample reasons for redoing downtown–falling retail sales, tax bases in jeopardy, stagnant real-estate values, impossible traffic and parking conditions, failing mass transit, encirclement by slums. But with no intent to minimize these serious matters, it is more to the point to consider what makes a city center magnetic, what can inject the gaiety, the wonder, the cheerful hurly-burly that make people want to come into the city and to linger there. For magnetism is the crux of the problem. All downtown’s values are its byproducts. To create in it an atmosphere of urbanity and exuberance is not a frivolous aim.

Service amenities: "The Real Source of America's Urban Revival"?

But they'd still have to drive to the water slide.

The Real Source of America's Urban Revival, by Eric Jaffe (City Lab)

Millennials, housing costs, and shorter commutes are the usual explanations. But a careful new study points to another reason young college grads returned downtown in the 2000s.

 ... New living habits of Millennials and Baby Boomers, delays in starting a family, a tougher home-buying market, a hatred of long commutes—those social factors have all altered cities in recent years. But Couture and Handbury pin the return of downtown on a new fondness for service amenities: music venues, theaters, bars, gyms, and the like. Not the growth of these things but a fresh taste for living near them, a broad cultural shift that could make urban revival more durable.

“If this revival comes from a change in preference, then it could be a long-lasting phenomenon,” says Couture. “We have ruled out various explanations based on temporary trends.”

"Asheville's de facto motto was: 'That will never work here - don't even try.'"

Where have I heard that one before?

Asheville Just 'Happened' to Develop a Nice Downtown—Or Did It?, by James Fallows (The Atlantic)

In the immortal words from Liberty Valance, "when the legend becomes fact, print the legend." Herewith the legend and reality of Asheville.

... Now the expected further shoe has dropped, with readers from Asheville writing in to say: We drifted our way into success? Hah! Some "drift!"

Here is a sample, from J. Patrick Whalen, who has lived in Asheville since the mid-1970s. I'm quoting him at length because the issues he mentions connect the stories we've heard in every corner of the country. I'm also including some of the photos Mr. Whalen sent, of Asheville before-and-after its recent renaissance.

Out with the down-low: "We don’t ban the car. We just prioritize it."

There is no conceivable gain from timidity. If the point is for the city to do something to assist core revitalization, rather than to make excuses and blame businesses, then the answer is obvious, and must be implemented with boldness.

Damn it, John Gonder: Help revitalization and small business prospects downtown with two-way streets!

In Beane We Trust: "Getting better every day" is for New Albany, too.

Following up: Progressive embarrassment, political cowardice and NA falling behind Jeffersonville.

As indicated somewhat openly by the recent helter-skelter proclamations of New Albany's presumed economic "development" director, City Hall's flailings are beginning to become embarrassing, and frankly injurious to the business at hand. Not knowing something is one thing, and can be cured through learning and instruction -- if the student cares to learn.

On the other hand, being a bad actor plainly spoils the broth.

Open Letter to a Car-Addicted City, by Brent Toderian (Planetizen)

... We’ve been transforming more and more of the road space we had into wider sidewalks, bus-only lanes, separated bike-lanes and other space for active, healthy, space-saving transport. And our commute times and vehicle km’s travelled, two of the biggest definitions of success for traffic engineers, have both been going down. In other words, it’s easier to get around the city, and a lot more people are making "trips." Just with fewer cars.

We don’t ban the car. We just prioritize it last. And that works better for everyone because moving more people takes less money and less space.

Drinking Progressively: Let's make it Tuesday evenings, beginning on November 25.

Learning is good: "Differences Between Distributive Bargaining & Integrative Bargaining."

I've always liked the idea of beginning the negotiation with my most extreme position, and being prepared to give as we move toward the center. Frankly, I was unaware that distributive strategies begin from the perspective that the size of the pie is fixed.

It seems, then, that integrative negotiation is a better term for what's required to rectify the invasive nature of Harvest Homecoming amid a rejuvenating downtown business district: "An integrative bargaining situation occurs when it's possible to produce a greater outcome together than either could reach on his own."

Of course, there cannot be negotiation of any sort without all parties being seated at the table. For this to happen, the city simply must be involved.

Differences Between Distributive Bargaining & Integrative Bargaining, by Evangeline Marzec (Houston Chronicle)

There are two main approaches to any negotiation situation: distributive and integrative strategies. Each are useful in specific contexts, and the same negotiator may use either strategy depending upon their goal. We encounter distributive negotiation every time we buy a car or ask for a discount on an as-is item. Integrative negotiations happen on an ongoing basis, such as agreeing to let our children go to bed an hour later in exchange for mowing the lawn.

4. With downtown normality almost restored, there's hope: Here's a three-point economic development plan for downtown. The ball's in your court, City Hall.

By the time Harvest Homecoming descends on downtown New Albany in 2015, there'll be even more businesses located there, and if current trends continue, we'll also see a new generation of downtown apartment and condo residents, a population sure to increase in coming years.

Currently, the city of New Albany has no concrete, delineated economic development plan to assist these downtown efforts, only a scattershot and reactive system of ad hoc. However, there are at least three ways for the city to help. Here's the outline.

1. Complete, calmed streets with two-way traffic, transforming the street grid into a supportive, not self-defeating, daily mechanism. This is the ultimate goal of daily infrastructure management, isn't it?

2. Focus on the riverfront and amphitheater, with comparatively inexpensive infrastructure improvements to make the area usable, so that is can be used as a permanent specials events area complementary with downtown. History clearly shows that if the amphitheater is used correctly, and quality events staged there, the people will come.

3. Bring Harvest Homecoming's unrestrained 800-lb gorilla to heel by leading an effort to reformat the annual celebration for the future. Each year that passes with downtown becoming more productive, while Harvest Homecoming continues to eschew change, is a year lost. We can't afford to keep losing these years.

The preceding constitute positive suggestions for better results, contrary to the criticism of those who insist that nothing can be done -- although customarily the real problem isn't an absence of suggestions, but a reluctance to listen to them.

The downtown Harvest Homecoming shutdown begins tonight. Are we having fun yet?

The dialogue continued yesterday, with a few informative twists. Longtime downtowner PL wrote:

You're right on the money. Most of the people who don't understand what the fuss is all about only are here for booth days and have no idea the economic toll it takes on downtown businesses, and how the Orange Shirt Nazis treat business investors like crap. I'm waiting on an answer for what city ordinance allows for a 501c to take control of public streets. The city pays thousands for security and additional clean up while HH takes in over a $250,000 a year and claims they don't have any money. According to the form 990 they file, all but $25,000 is disbursed as "expenses". Downtown has changed, and it's time HH makes some changes as well. All the business owners just get lip service every year and nothing happens.

Remember Jeff Cummins? He's the "head honcho" of Harvest Homecoming, who recently took to the non-local newspaper to offer his own top-down reform plan: "I want to try and get downtown merchants to understand what the festival is all about."

As yesterday's discussion began unfolding at Facebook, Cummins abruptly appeared.

Do not speak about what you do not know as being fact. Speculation makes one a fool.

The back and forth on social media, 3rd party conversations and assumptions accomplish nothing. Go direct to whom you have the issue and discuss it face to face.

Don't play games, it's wasted unproductive time spent. Ask the question.

And so I asked it.

I have a serious question, which I meant to ask at the Board of Works earlier today (in the end, I couldn't make it to the meeting). In the past, I've observed HH officials telling people that they could not distribute handbills amid the booth area. Now, it seems to me that this is perfectly legal -- freedom of expression, if you will. Does anyone (Jeff Cummins or otherwise) know if HH can do this?

In effect, Cummins answered my question by refusing to answer such questions from upstarts like me.

Not going to debate on here. You have a large tendency to misconstrue what is said to suit your needs.

Hmm.

While HH may not be the Illuminati, attitudes like these expressed by the "head honcho" himself hardly bode well when it comes to dissidents being invited to come share new ideas with the management.

It's as Jeff Gillenwater subsequently explained:

HH is well aware of what the concerns are. They've been taken to HH and City leadership many times over. Why would Cummins have specifically mentioned the need to straighten out downtown business perceptions in the article were he not aware of their oft communicated concerns? Rather than address those concerns in any sort of meaningful way, though, HH officials simply insist that they must be restated anew or presented in some different way or place or some other such demand. It's an exercise of power in a poor attempt to prove they don't have any. They have no fear of ever being pressed to answer questions and concerns because City officials have continually reinforced the notion that they don't have to. Thus, we get the passive-aggressive, presidential display here.

Another regular reader chose to strike at the probable heart of the HH matter in an e-mail.

Why not begin agitating for a class-action-style lawsuit amongst the downtown merchants against HH, based on their charging local businesses access to their store fronts during the party? That cannot possibly be legal and if enough merchants put in a hundred or a couple hundred, you could get a good attorney (obviously someone from out of town) to take them to court and at least get the community talking.

Obviously there are other concerns: public safety, local restaurants cannot distribute their menus to the general public, access issues, etc.

Just a thought. At least, in court, you'd get answers.

That's what I'm thinking, too.

And I bet we wouldn't even have to go out of town for a good attorney.

Reisz Furniture Building: Cautious optimism?

A part of this story seems to be missing.

Aren't we supposed to be providing potential developers with a tailor-made $12-15 million parking garage before they spend a dime of their own? Or was that just Doug England and Jack Bobo's backroom deal?

Meanwhile, does anyone recall the Historic District Building Tour way back in 2005?

The Reisz was included.

Remember how Bob Caesar, the human progress retardant, helped keep the Reisz building dilapidated?

We were there for that one, too.

Let's get real, shall we?

Given that the city of New Albany has done almost nothing to spur the first entrepreneurial round of downtown food, drink and retail upgrades, which now seem to be leading to a second ground of entrepreneurial housing additions sans substantive city assistance of any sort, there are two clear verdicts.

First, that the city best not take credit for matters with which it played no role.

Second, if the city DOES wish to (a) ever do something, and (b) take ever credit for doing something, that certain something should be two-way "completed" streets downtown, as soon as possible, over Caesar's sedated, bound and gagged body if necessary, because a modernized street grid for all users is the one way that the the city can help ALL the downtown stakeholders, and not merely some of them.

Do we need Democratic Party clearance for that one?

Offices, apartments planned for Reisz building in downtown New Albany; Contractor razed portion of structure Tuesday, by Daniel Suddeath (N and T)

NEW ALBANY — Five buildings consisting of office, retail and residential space overlooking a courtyard is what developer Ron Carter envisions for a portion of the former Reisz Furniture building along East Main Street.

Having received permission from the New Albany Preservation Commission and Board of Public Works and Safety, Carter had a portion of the rear of the building at 154 E. Main St. demolished Tuesday.

Let's have a farmers market expansion moratorium, at least until we get a good look at the Speck Report.

I haven't the time to fully document this morning's meeting at The Exchange, which was intended as the much belated follow-up to a similar gathering 10 months ago. Like the one last year, it was offered as a way to bring representatives of various organizations into a room, and in some as yet to be determined fashion, plot ways for information to be better distributed and rowing directions better coordinated.

It was a very long meeting. Items discussed included downtown parking, Jeff Speck's forthcoming study of the traffic grid, an untolled Sherman Minton, Boomtown Ball, and of course, the farmers market.

Much to my surprise, DNA did not come to the meeting prepared to defend the current farmers location to the death, and in fact, members present displayed surprising contrition over the botched poll question.

Pretty much all the sides of this issue, including those presented here over the past few days, were aired. The collective attitude among those present: The farmers market is good; its placement is negotiable in the context of other factors (i.e., potential value of the current location); and there needs to be further open, give and take with public input.

More than anything, there seemed to be shared confusion as to why the farmers market issue had come back when it did, the way it did. Even among the DNA members, the vibe was: Why must it happen now, and why so quickly ... even we don't see it as a black and white issue.

Very good questions. Well, someone's doing the pushing.

Wonder who?

The curious aspect to me remains City Hall's strange, passive detachment. I'll summarize it by paraphrasing: "It's something city council appropriated, and the council has been friendly to our agenda, and so our job is to implement it." Mind you, implement it on the the city's property, which nary a soul at this late date would seem to have researched in any way as to value or future usage.

It's just plain weird. Furthermore, I was told that the farmers market has generated far more phone calls ("many", evidently a scientific barometer of opinion, given that the city's own web site and Fb page cannot really be said to be interactive) than the $19 million parks buildout ("none").

All of which would seem to suggest a more activist role on the part of City Hall, not merely a "we'll come and listen and answer questions if asked" part.

My major point is this: For the sake of the argument, I'll accept at face value the city's sincerity in engaging Speck's services, and believe the city when it says it expects to implement these suggestions. As such, how can the city rationalize standing passively by while a massive expenditure ties the farmers market to its current location, when Speck's study and the street grid rethink it inspires will make obsolete numerous present assumptions -- and perhaps this one about the farmers market, too?

If it does not render various assumptions obsolete, then why undertake it?

Speck's study will be complete by the end of July. Why not wait until then, at the earliest, to pour cement into a spot that may appear very different in a few short months?

There'll be a farmers market discussion of some sort tonight, and unless the council changes its rules for the occasion, speakers referencing the farmers market will have to wait until non-agenda time at the end of the session.

What really needs to happen here is for everyone involved to take a step back, refamiliarize the background of this ancient appropriation, consider the Speck study's ramifications -- even speculate on how the Speck study and the farmers market itself might fit into an overall downtown economic development plan to emerge alongside the street grid's renovation -- and CHILL.

There is no reason why the farmers market cannot operate as it does now, for at least another season, while allowing us (all of us) time to get it right.

ON THE AVENUES: I’ll take “Farmers Market” for $108K, Alex ... or maybe I won't.

ON THE AVENUES: I’ll take “Farmers Market” for $108K, Alex ... or maybe I won't.

A weekly web column by Roger A. Baylor.

Resolved: 

The New Albany Farmers Market is a significant, vital part of our downtown experience, and of course we support it, although we do so with appropriate qualification, namely, that the market’s permanent location should be the subject of due diligence, further study and public participation into the process.

We feel it would be mistaken to permanently anchor the market to its current location at the corner of Market and Bank, or to spend additional monies to improve it, at least until further research is conducted as to the full range of options, and more importantly, as to the future (and value) of the present street corner for infill construction.

Tails should not wag dogs. Thank you.

---

Earlier this week, the News and Tribune’s Daniel Suddeath reported that the downtown farmers market’s direct overlord, Develop New Albany, is demanding its $300,000 cut for a build-out and permanent improvements, and by God, DNA wants it all, and wants it right now.

The property is owned by the city, but the farmers market is operated by Develop New Albany, and the lead organizer is Susan Kaempfer. “It’s our preference that we move forward with the improvements to the existing farmers market and get that done as quickly as possible so we can utilize it,” she said Tuesday.

Toward this end, Kaempfer raised the ante by threatening – gasp – to instigate political participation.

Kaempfer said the farmers market has dramatically helped downtown businesses, and added that some vendors and local business owners likely will attend next week’s council meeting to voice their support for it.

DNA and politics? That’s a can of worms seldom spotted for sale at the downtown farmers market, but of course the farmers market is all about politics, especially money, and as such, what are the limits to DNA’s role in lobbying for additional lucre to fund it?

Bear in mind that what’s at stake is DNA’s own organizational fixation with supposed limits on political participation, as defined thusly: “We can’t get involved with politics, unless we do … and then we get to decide what this means, and when, and how.”

You’ll sooner see city ordinances written in Sanskrit than glimpse any pattern to DNA’s purportedly apolitical mandate.

Anyone got a Ouija board?

Once upon a time, we begged DNA – after all, it’s our Main Street organization – to take a position on the Ohio River Bridges Project, but it begged off amid a blizzard of bureaucratese, pointing to its non-profit status as absolutely precluding political involvement of any sort.

Now we’re rightly examining options for coping with what DNA said it couldn’t be bothered to consider.

How very civic of it.

No politics for DNA … okay, except when it came to the $15 million parking garage sought by Mainland Properties as collateral to borrow money it didn’t have to build condos it couldn’t build, the entirety of a “plan” comprising an epic real estate pyramid scheme that fortunately collapsed long before the city lost its financing shirt, and all the while, DNA was openly and enthusiastically involved in the political process, in favor.

What about street grid changes as they pertain to two-way streets?

DNA quickly retreated to its non-profit institutional exclusion, and apart from polls and personal cheerleading, mostly has managed to keep its distance. However, DNA lobbied incessantly on behalf of the controversial East Main Street Improvement Project with no such qualms, perhaps owing to a far too literal interpretation of “Main Street” organization, and the fact that it was someone else’s money, anyway.

Hmm. Maybe there is a pattern, after all. If you can spot any semblance of consistency to these positions, climb atop one of the many Main Street tree stumps and scream in the general direction of Pinocchio.

On and on it goes, and where it stops … actually, where it stops should be right now, and who should stop it is Mayor Jeff Gahan and his City Hall team. It turns out that Thursday, March 20, is important for two reasons.

---

There is a city council meeting, and as we’ve seen, Kaempfer and DNA propose to erect an Elsby-sized straw man to frighten shoppers, mobilize market vendors and supporters, and emotionally insinuate that the market’s very existence is threatened by contentious intellectuals with the temerity to suggest that the market should fit in the context of an overall downtown development plan, and not the other way around.

But earlier next Thursday morning, there is a scheduled meeting of downtown stakeholders, to include DNA, NA 1st, the embryonic food and drink association, and Clean and Green (among others). The meeting has been called by the city, and it is intended as another step toward organization and unification.

That’s wonderful. I’m for it. I fully believe city office holders when they talk of their interest in rowing uniformly in a particular direction. It’s what I want, too.

But if DNA continues to insist that it occupies a special position, inside and outside simultaneously, spinning its wheel on whim, playing the role of 800-lb gorilla, picking and choosing when it deigns to be political and when it doesn’t, and as yet displaying not a jot of past organizational performance suggesting the acumen to play a leading role – enough is enough.

DNA needs clarification. Immediately. Why is it, what is it, and do we have a choice in the matter? It’s far past time for city government to function as city government should, to refrain from the good-cop, bad-cop, passive refereeing between factions, and decide once and for all what role DNA is to play, if any.

I fail to understand why Susan Kaempfer and DNA should be the ones to decide when it comes to the city mortgaging its future prospects at the corner of Bank and Market, without first exploring all the redevelopment options. The farmers market is important, but temporary by its very nature, functioning only at certain times. Meanwhile, downtown is filled with daily bricks and mortar, year-round.

To me, the latter trumps the former ... every day.

I fail to see any transparency behind the council’s appropriation of monies for the farmers market build-out, and I fail to grasp why the money must be spent immediately. Stick it in savings, and draw some interest. If the market is jam-packed in summer in its current configuration, it is successful. If a vendor leaves, won’t another come to replace it? What’s the imperative, and why the hurry? As I stated yesterday, the farmers market is city property, and it consequently "belongs" to us all. Let’s take our time, and get it right.

And, remember: Paybacks can be Hell. They need to stop. Mr. Gahan, please lance this boil.

Immediately.

ON THE AVENUES: BSB’s second five-year plan begins now.

ON THE AVENUES: BSB’s second five-year plan begins now.

A weekly web column by Roger A. Baylor.

I’m the first to admit that Thursday’s ON THE AVENUES column (“I thought I heard Buddy Bolden say”) was consciously offered as a primal scream of artsy-fartsy annoyance with persistent municipal tone deafness. In it, the same phrase was repeated thirty-odd times, with a purely intentional poison-pen coda.

Venting is good for the soul. However, the column was neither “Revolution 9” nor Andy Warhol’s soup cans, and perhaps I shortchanged loyal readers, so please accept my apologies. Today I’ll make it up to you by abruptly changing the subject.

---

Tomorrow (Sunday, March 9) is the 5th anniversary of Bank Street Brewhouse’s soft opening, with the first official day of business coming on March 10, 2009.

NABC’s high command decided quite some time ago not to do anything special to mark these anniversaries; after all, lives and businesses go on, at least until they don’t, and we’ll use the time saved to prepare for marking our decade of longevity in 2019.

By the way, did you know that anniversary number ten is to be celebrated by the gift of tin?

As we’ve approached the end of the first five-year plan, I’ve been reaching back into 20th-century history for analogies. Since last September, and with enhanced intensity the past two months, you might say that we’ve undertaken a round of perestroika at the expense of glasnost, which is to say that economic restructuring (perestroika) has been occurring at Bank Street Brewhouse without concurrent openness (glasnost).

Translation: We’ve been making changes, and not talking very much about them. Back in those USSR days, there was plenty of talk, but not enough reform. These days at BSB, we’re hoping it’s the other way around.

My personal position since January 1 has remained unchanged: We'd begin to make these necessary structural changes, and as soon as someone asked me, I'd be my usual truthful self and tell all. As I imagined all along, free-lancer Steve Coomes was the first to notice, and to ask. Here are the answers, and as usual, Steve gets it right.

Restaurant Roundup: Bank Street downscales, TPD upscales, chef Schwartz to Doc Crow’s, Doc Crow’s to Cincy, by Steve Coomes (Insider Louisville)

The partners behind Bank Street Brewhouse have scaled back its gastropub menu in an effort to control costs and better position the operation in the casual marketplace of downtown New Albany.

That’s the official way of saying, “Oh, the menu it is a changin’.”

The new BSB menu?

It’s different, but not radically so. We simply looked at what was selling and what wasn’t; we kept the former and did away with the latter. The second most difficult decision was to let go of the pork chops, but only after we learned that those few servings being sold in an average month generally were being purchased exclusively by our landlord and his family.

(Note to self: Who needs rent parties when we might have periodic Pork Pitch-Ins?)

By far the hardest part was relieving Chef Matt Weirich of his position of almost three years, but Matt’s a class act from start to finish, and we all love him dearly. He’s a talented young man, and has landed on his feet. I suspect you’ll be seeing a lot more of him, and locally, too.

BSB’s current General Manager, Kimberly Durham, is managing the kitchen, where staff remains in place. She’s crunching numbers and making improvements designed to set a banker’s heart racing … and even make a few bucks for the company.

In Steve Coomes’s phrasing, we’ve gone from being a gastropub to pub, but semantics aside, items like the burgers, croque, fish, frites and tacos still are being made the same way as before, and by the same folks. Of course, so is the beer, which remains nonpareil.

The as-yet-unanswered question is whether these moves will improve the bottom line, and although early returns are favorable, five years of trench warfare have proven nothing if not the merit of taking an extremely long, patient view.

Bank Street Brewhouse is a warm weather kind of scene, and to have maintained our sales equilibrium these past two months while retooling in mid-air with the engine light flashing during the coldest winter in recent memory strikes me as no mean feat, and a favorable first step. But it’s only a first step, and that rhetorically hackneyed jury remains out.

---

Since the Sherman Minton Bridge reopened in 2012, we’ve been tantalizingly close to aligning Bank Street Brewhouse’s financials and aesthetics. But five-tool players only succeed when they use them all in synchronicity, and close only counts in Horseshoe Casino’s proximity to the Floyd County border. We've never quite gotten there.

I’ve always tried to be honest when asked, “How’s Bank Street Brewhouse doing?” To be sure, in five years of business, enough mistakes have been made to preclude restful sleep for the rest of my life, if I were to opt for self-flagellation – and I don’t, because at the same time, especially in this brutally competitive line of work, keeping doors open for more than a year or two qualifies as an achievement in itself.

Consequently, given the number of eateries and bars debuting in downtown New Albany during this same span of time, most of which still are in business, it makes me feel good to know we made a beachhead and weathered 60 whole months. BSB’s original business plan was entirely obsolete by March 11, 2009, but one plank of the platform always has held true: We promised to be leaders, and not followers.

This we have done. But screw the elegiacs; after all, this isn’t an obituary. We’re still alive and kicking, if evolving into a slightly different sort of food and drink beast than before. The landscape downtown is different, and a career in opportunism beckons.

Lately, I’ve been conceding to close friends that it’s just dandy if other establishments move to the front and guide the peloton, as we’re perfectly content to draft for a while and enjoy the slipstream. Yet even this analogy is imperfect. When it comes to craft beer, there are no holes in NABC’s lineup. We’ll be placing greater focus on the future of the brewery operation in the context of an American brewing scene gone wild. The road ahead is long.

NABC always has been an evolutionary process, and it will continue to be. Thanks to all our friends and customers who’ve supported us along the way.

Without you, there is no us.

Strategies and amenities suitable for Redevelopment to ignore.

At urbanscale.com, two collections of strategies and amenities help make the point that even for a city of New Albany's relatively small size, we can leverage our location in metro Louisville to punch higher than our weight.

Assuming, of course, that we read books and think outside self-imposed boxes.

Coming in at Number One on John Karras' hit parade is the strategy we seem determined to get wrong, and probably will continue to botch for so long as John "My Way Means the Highway" Rosenbarger has influence to peddle about it, even as he blames his sad political predicament for the situation. Sorry, John; we're not buying the BS any longer.

Vibrant Downtown Strategy #1

Turn one-way streets into two-way streets.

Why?

One-way streets are great if your only goal is to channel traffic through your downtown, but they are bad for pedestrian activity and retail opportunities. Two-way streets create a more comfortable pedestrian environment and have been shown to increase property values.

There is a good reason that the Main Streets that sit at the urban core of small towns and cities across the U.S. are almost always two-way streets. From Wichita, KS to Charleston, SC, cities across the U.S. are realizing the benefits of two-way streets in their urban cores.

12 Strategies That Will Transform Your City’s Downtown

10 Small Cities With Urban Amenities That Most Big Cities Lack

Today's reading for CM Blair: "Wal-Mart: An economic cancer on our cities."

You can lead a banker to information, but you can't always make him read. Let's hope this is an exception. Scott: When you're finished, can you pass on this link to David Duggins? I think he needs to read it, too. Thanks.

Wal-Mart: An economic cancer on our cities, by Charles Montgomery (Salon)

In Asheville, N.C., a dense downtown generated jobs and tax revenue and restored the city's soul

Excerpted from "Happy City: Transforming Our Lives Through Urban Design”

Most of us agree that development that provides employment and tax revenue is good for cities. Some even argue that the need for jobs outweighs aesthetic, lifestyle, or climate concerns—in fact, this argument comes up any time Walmart proposes a new megastore near a small town. But a clear-eyed look at the spatial economics of land, jobs, and tax regimes should cause anyone to reject the anything-and-anywhere-goes development model. To explain, let me offer the story of an obsessive number cruncher who found his own urban laboratory quite by chance.

Downtown, walkability, costs, benefits and not even one mention of aquatics.

Costs and benefits? Follow the money.

How Downtown Can Save America, One Step at a Time, by Isaac Pino, CPA (The Motley Fool)

 ... Jeff Speck, an architect in Washington, D.C., has spent decades analyzing and designing cities, and from his perspective nothing is more important than creating environments conducive to walking. In his new book, Walkable City: How Downtown Can Save America, One Step at a Time, he sums it up as follows: "I have watched my focus narrow to [walkability] as the one issue that seems to both influence and embody most of the others. Get walkability right and so much of the rest will follow."